What should a liberal do if someone was judged by one of those things?

Start with leading by example, and not doing it. Then convince others to do the same. Simple and elegant, almost like we had this figure out already.

There are a lot less deletions now (mod thread excluded though even that's changing) and when it does happen it always get a comment. I'm also very reluctant now to delete posts just because they respond to deleted posts - not least because I recognised your very valid objections. If someone quotes something extremely objectionable to criticise it then the objectionable content may have to be edited out with a mod comment to make clear what happened.

How are you giving advice about humans when you don't appear to understand how humans actually work? You give bigots a scapegoat in the form of anyone who confronts them. They feed themselves, they do it themselves. Your blame been called like the bluff it is. You are challenged. You gonna blame me when you do something or nothing about it?

With the lgbt community i cant really lead by example other then saying they should have the right to get married and use the bathroom they want and get that equality you were talking about. Convincing people on those issues is what is causing the other side issues.

Alright fair enough. You can feel free to delete the non mod stuff above...

Was Tilted Donkey banned for his discusting comments regarding going back in time and assaulting my mother? I won't repeat this filth here.

The person who made that discusting post was not the person you named above. In any case, the poster in question received a one-day timeout from the forum.

Nah that was me. Sick reading comprehension.

FWIW I wouldn't actually kick her in the stomach. I'd drive her to the abortion clinic, pay for it, then treat her to a nice spa day.

Also, is this the time to point out how monistat has dozens of posts talking about deriding so-called snowflakes being offended by things people say, or no?

Seriously, if you can't take someone saying they would travel back in time to facilitate your retroactive abortion I'm not sure you have any business calling someone a "snowflake"...

I don't remember blaming you for anything, spank. Have you dismissed valid opinions as "whitesplaining" or "mansplaining", have you sidestepped difficult arguments summoning the "victim blaming" defense, supported bigoted thought processes under the guise of fighting bigotry? These aren't patterns I've noticed of you. As you know, it's certainly possible to advocate for civil rights without resorting to such empty and counterproductive tactics. Keep it up.

You STILL don't know what's going on. People who post racist memes on the internet have bad character. You are whining that people are getting judged for their racist actions and you defend those racist actions. Then you accuse me of judging people by their race? This is an amazingly stupid post.

Your posting makes me want to call out racists even more. When you talk dismissively about the "oppression rainbow," I typically react by mocking white nationalists and holocaust deniers and people who spread racist memes. And by your own logic, my actions create more racists. You can't tell me not to do something--that just encourages and validates my world view. Maybe if you just led by example then I would stop posting about how mean racists are, then racists would stop posting racist things, then racism would end.

But, no. You can't help yourself. It's your fault.

So did I 'make' you post this or did you do it all by yourself?

Those patterns don't exist in a politically organized sense beyond the narratives which claim they do.

LMAO, you think "victim blaming" is identity politics. SMP logic!

wil: "I will murder you and all who share your political views."

me: "Your child is weird looking."

conservatives / mods: "Woah TiltedDonkey you've gone a bit too far there!"

--------------------------------------------------------------

ACCEPTABLE POSTING

UNACCEPTABLE POSTING

One is attacking an ideology, the other is attacking an individual. Also, one is hyperbole, while the other is mean and personal.

Saying I wish bad things would happen to the President is different from saying "I'm going to cause bad things to happen to the President". I know the difference is difficult for you to detect.

I think it's a fair point that Wil's talk is a little close to suggesting violence, but I disagree that he actually said that everyone on the left should be murdered. As it turns out, I skimmed over a few of those and didn't really see them the first time.

I am pretty tolerant of people making the usual statements about liberals/conservatives/Republicans/Democrats. I don't want to mod someone saying Republicans are racists, or liberals are scum, or the usual stuff. It's also fair to say that very recently, because of the discussion about personal attacks, we've been more lenient while that debate is happening. But please avoid using language that is suggestive of actual violence ("annihilation", "destruction", "six feet under"). There's room to be insulting but there's a limit. Suggests of violence are unacceptable and I'm sure they will remain unacceptable regardless of future changes to the rules.

I got a temp ban (which you supported) in P for suggesting that the US might benefit from Trump being assassinated. How is that different to being told that "Things would be a lot better when Jalfrezi and Tilted Donkey go six feet under."?

I don't think it's very different. P and P7 have different rules and enforcement though. You wouldn't have been given a temp ban for that post in this forum. You probably would have received a warning, just like the one above.

My comment wasn't acceptable for this forum IMO. I was surprised that I didn't receive an infraction. But its good to know who the child abusers are and the fact that you two seem to spend most of your time indoors.

Well Named, feel free to ban me for any length of time. and I will not mention anything about this again.

So is it OK now to say if I had a time machine I'd use it to go back to abort the wilfoetus (then take a photo of it for use as my avatar of course)?

No. I'm pretty sure 5ive has had similar posts subject to moderation very recently.

Something to think about: There is a thread with a poll where ~75% of you agreed with the statement that this forum is intended for "vitriol, incoherent anger and childish insults." Given that a lot of the complaints are about excessive modding, I've tried to err on the side of modding less. But the ones complaining about these attacks being over the line are the same ones voting for relaxed enforcement of the rules. I think there's an open question about where the lines should be. On stuff like this, I'm trying to calibrate to some reading of the site terms and conditions.

I agree that it's not perfectly consistent right now, but that's because there's a lot of debate going on about what this forum is and should be. The other thing that happened here is one post got reported, and others didn't. The one that got reported got acted on, and I overlooked the rest because I skimmed too quickly. So that's also my fault, and I apologize for it.

I think the answer though is that regardless of future changes it will always be unacceptable to suggest that people should die, regardless of how creatively it is done. Going forward, I will stop overlooking those posts.

I think it's all against the site rules under any reasonable interpretation. Not so sure about the assassination post but I still don't think we should allow it.

Warnings/green ink would suffice for all of it. Timeouts if warnings are ignored enough

But wanting to abort a foetus isn't murder, is it, so therefore it's not in the same ballpark as wishing adults to be six feet under.