Where does he advocate that?

Ohhhh. Love thai, thanks for the suggestion. Looks like a relatively easy drive from where we will be.

Btw we are moving in completely sight unseen. I have been to Seattle once and stayed mostly downtown. Don't know much about the Eastside other than they have kick ass schools (and after school care is expensive as ****, 550 a month? Jfc.)

Did any of you grow up there? What is with the weird half day Wednesday thing for school kids?

Taiwanese, not Thai, but its really good if you are into authentic Asian food.

This Seattle content is super relevant and fascinating to read about. Thanks guys.

I totally knew that Taiwan and Thailand were different countries guys *shifty eyes*

Thanks though, never had taiwanese. Excited to try

Also if you know of any great vietnamese or pho, please let me know I'm originally from San Jose which had amazing vietnamese but have been in Nashville for a decade now and haven't had a good bowl of pho in that time

LOL remember when you pretended you weren't a stupid ****ing hayseed? Born and bred, son, born and bred.

It is correct I did not go on a moral crusade demanding bans and disingenuously criticizing admins to deal with mental health conditions being used as casual insults. Next question.

Perhaps you can elaborate for us on why listening to racist simpletons makes our lives better?

Do you really think I'm arguing that his post were not against the rules? I'm questions the logic and rationale of the rule that banned him.

Your entire argument is predicated on the simple fact that racism is wrong and violates most peoples moral sensibility and should be muted. Which is not terrible but I have to question people who want to mute views they find morally objectionable. I'm not a religious guy but if someone said homosexuality is an abomination on society, it fits right into the same moral imperative you've used to ban a racist. So logically you'd want this person removed as well. Not that I agree with someone who said this but you'd be advocating the removal of someone due to their religious beliefs and all because it offends your sensibilities.

Well, you and others are trying to be the thought police of this corner of it.

I'm not arguing that he did not break a rule. I'm pointing out what I perceive to be a problem with the rule. If the people in power want this rule it does not mean I'm not allowed to voice my objection to it.

Neither are religious beliefs. Should we ban those?

This can be said about a lot of political opinions that's been expressed.

So removing them from the discussion changes this how? I imagine you think you know you are better than those racist and it makes you feel better to not read their garbage. People in power should make sure racist should not be allowed discuss things with you, you and the forum is better than them.

So he has to accept your belief for him to continue posting here, if it were up to you? How many political arguments have to meet this criteria of accepting a premise? Keep in mind I'm not talking about a specific premise but any premise. You've pretty much said he has to accept your premise.

You also do not believe you both should have equal ability to express your opinions.

I'm willing to bet there are more people with plain ol' ignorant views who read the forum and can be educated than pre-natal neo-nazi's.

On this forum, there is pure hatred of conservative and liberals and racist on this forum so...

I agree with you, his opinions are wrong and disgusting but so are some of yours. So we should ban anyone who has a hatred for specific group of people?

The people in power should get rid of the political forum because any time you talk about a controversial issue someone in the target audience of the ad will get offended and the ad buyer will be looking on in horror. Again, I point to people expressing religious beliefs.

Is that the purpose of this forum, to make our lives better or to discuss our opinions?

This is a social forum and a politics forum. Racism is inherently anti- social and it is simply reasonable to limit racist content to create more social ability. We obviously can still discuss racism and that does create social tension, but there is a socially beneficial potential in that kind of tension as the ideas of racism can be illuminated while keeping the disruptive nature of racist content responsibly measured.

I've never understood the logic that says we should not denigrate groups of people but then make list of groups of people who we can denigrate and those we cant.

I would agree there is a responsible way for ignorance to be expressed and if those ways are not met then action should be taken but then we are talking about moderating behavior/methods, not the beliefs themselves.

If you told me the way he expressed his opinions was wrong, I'd have no objection because its rather obvious he is a racist troll.

We should all remember that there will be a few bad folks in any group. Saudi Arabia cuts off apostates' heads in public and last week a Rabbi bumped into me at Starbucks without apologizing. We can't let the violent actions of some folks define all Muslims or all Jews.

Everyone here can agree that the offensive newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad and the Holocaust were both bad things. Muslims and Jews have both experienced tragedy and we should all condemn discrimination. During the 1120s in Timbuktu every1 condemn discrimination and Muslims and Jews lived side by side in harmony. I miss Timbuktu in the 1120s.

Also Pope Francis.

And how someone could say the Nation of Islam (the white man is the devil) is OK. How is NOI any different than the KKK? they both spew hate speech.

False equivalencies, how do they work?

lol pho. You can't get great biscuits and gravy up there, I bet.

Clearly the former. In the process we do discuss opinions, but no one would discuss opinions unless they thought it made their lives better.

Yeah, we know you have a hard time with this logic.

I KNOW, right? How can we, from first principles, possibly differentiate between a group formed by the majority to systematically and violently oppress minorities and a group of minorities voicing their displeasure at the oppression? Both groups say mean things! Can't explain that!

It's important to recognize power differentials, but I never have fully bought into the notion that racism can only be exhibited by the majority culture.

Like, "reverse racism" as a concept doesn't bother me all that much I guess, but in a way it seems to excuse racism when the prejudice comes from a minority population.

I thought of you guys the other day during a coed slow pitch softball game. Rules change depending on the gender of the batter.

Smaller ball used when female is hitting.

Female cannot be thrown out at first base if the hit reaches outfield grass.

Walking a female hitter puts the female in 1st base, but walking a male hitter puts him on 2nd base (punishing intentional walks of men).

There might be a couple other rule differences, but regardless it kinda rubs me the wrong way. Like, I get it, I really do, but I don't like it.

How does this strike you all? Fair handicapping based on a recognition of physical differences, or sexism that isn't excusable?

Nope, but I will gladly trade. At least one of them won't kill me eventually

Dunno the setting of the game (friendly, league, etc), but if the rule came about as a reaction to teams preferring to walk men and pitch to women, then yes, I see no problem with it. It seems aimed at giving everyone a chance to play the game, as opposed to only half the team or whatever.