Wookie can't just, like, spell it out so I will.

He bans you people because you're stupid and ignorant, and pretty much revel in said stupidity and ignorance. The 2nd part is way more important than the 1st.

I mean, do you want to discuss why you were exiled? I had forgotten until you weirdly reminded me.

I should add 'stupid' is used there broadly and loosely. For example, Zorkman is not stupid but he's nowhere near smart enough to have that song and dance he just pulled out get past the judges, mainly because it's impossible. You can't square those circles.

+ 1 - Mat please just leave him in charge of the Lounge. Politics doesn't need a moderator that is so biased that he can't see through his own hatred for Trump to be able to impartially adjudicate on pro-Trump posts.

Says the admin who banned someone for posting truthful information about the content being allowed on his forum.

How about we just give Zorkman his own politics subforum and maybe he'll shut up.

Calm down

kerowo should totally be like, "Why can't you refute the arguments inside the article?"

Not all morons are Trump voters, but so far every Trump voter is a moron.

Don't we already have a thread about this?

Is that what Jbrochu is talking about? I would really love to have that conversation. Polite language will be required in order for it to be fruitful, I believe. I'd have another moderator monitor all posts, including mine.

^^

I got banned for posting fake news and I'm still mad.

It's not really about that, except in an ancillary manner. But I would like to ask a polite question. And since you're a site admin I'll even concede that you can go on ahead and zap me into the ether and I promise you'll never hear from me again.

I'm just curious why you're so embarrassed about some of the content you allow on this site that you would ban someone for posting about it elsewhere? I noticed a few others asked a similar question with no response.

WOW. Still not over the meltdown you had after I called you out for your racist posting, eh bro.

Being around trump voters who i would consider ignorant of politics and the ramifications of their vote i would not put you in that category. You and others here get to own their support much more.

Said without a hint of irony.

I'm not embarrassed. Posters are individuals who speak for themselves, not me or the site. If you or anybody thinks an individual poster is saying something objectionable and you feel that we shouldn't allow such posts, that's a legitimate opinion to have and you should talk about it anywhere you like.

And if somebody wants to quote and link to those posts and offer their opinion about them, that's fine too. But just going around stating that we allow and condone hate speech without those references is unacceptable. Actually, within the borders of this site, I don't care either. Fire away.

I'd care a little more if those rumors, without links and quotes , were posted on other sites, but saying those things with the obvious intention of hurting the publishing company and independent authors of Two Plus Two books is completely unacceptable. It's not illegal, but don't think we'll just tolerate it. It goes well beyond my personal ideas of free expression.

The discussion about what we should or shouldn't allow on this site has been going on for years and will continue. We listen to feedback and make our decisions, rightly or wrongly, accordingly.

It's nice to have a polite conversation, sometimes, no? I'll be happy to continue if you have more questions.

Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

So your personal ideas of free expression allows for homophobic, bigoted, racist, and misogynistic opinions to be posted on your own website, but not negative opinions of 2+2 based on that content to be posted on other websites?

It's rather difficult for me to wrap my mind around that, to be honest.

Another thing that bugs me is all this talk about polite conversation. If you ask me, harboring and posting bigoted and racist views by itself is rather impolite. It sort of sets a negative tone before the conversation even starts.

Seriously, how do you have a polite conversation with a racist?

I'd be curious to hear mat's thoughts on this blatantly homophobic thread being left open in SMP over a month before it was locked but not deleted.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...x-gto-1664634/

Note, this has been brought up in ATF before, but none of the reds paid any attention at the time. I think bobo was the only one who noticed.

Are you insinuating that I myself am racist or have made racist posts?

If so, could you please provide evidence?

Mat is well aware of many objectionable posts.

He clearly either believes, 1 - it's important to allow that expression, 2 - disagrees with our characterization of the posts, or 3 - agrees with the sentiment expressed in the posts.

When he starts getting pressed he usually decides he's not going to talk politics on the site anymore.

Clearly if it's 1 you would think as a business they've done some objective analysis of the risk regarding how this could be perceived. And decided it's worth it.

I'm assuming you mean what you say and aren't just screwing with the me. And if so, i appreciate your frustration, given your perception.


Very often, I find others speak on behalf of my position better than myself and that may have to be the case later on, but i'll give it one more try. BTW, others. keep it civil if this happens.

I want to focus on the book review aspect. He posted reviews on amazon saying the books were bad, not because he thought they were bad, but because he objected to things posted on this website. I perceive that as a fake review and Amazon agreed. They removed all of his reviews.


Had he said, "these books are very good, but i cannot support buying them because i don't like what they allow on their website " and then he posted a quote and/or link, that would have been ok with us, or me. Mason might have been annoyed, but he would have carefully examined the posts in question and then who knows what may have changed?

I doubt Amazon would have agreed to remove the reviews if they were similar to my hypothetical example. So that's what makes this different, if you see what i'm saying.

to me and this company, posting those book reviews is not the same as two plus two allowing bigoted speech. i have lots more to say on the whole topic of what we allow, but i don't want to continue if i'm failing to make my first point with you. i take full credit for not communicating well if that's the case.