...I think you're referring to Inso0, who is the furthest thing from "changing his mind."

OP, what do you "learn" from alt right culture when they say that Sandy Hook was a hoax? That climate change isn't real? What are you "learning" from this swath? I'd really love to know.

Notice how the leftists want to censor anything that they disagree with.

It's actually disgusting. While I don't read Breitbart, banning it is laughable. Let's ban Fox news too.

You did not "let them" back in the national discourse. You caused them to be relevant.

Do you think right wing politicians like Le Pen became popular all of a sudden because the newspapers started mentioning her name?


Lol

Personally dismissing an idea or even laughing at a person for harboring an idea is absolutely fine. Banning it is not.

There is no evidence for Bigfoot, aliens, or the existence of God. I dismiss many people who believe in all three. I do not want to ban them being able to speak about it.

While I really dislike conspiracy theories, I am still unsure who killed JFK.

Your argument here is just bad.

aoFrantic speaking about letting people back in the national discourse in the USA as we is funny also because he is Canadian. Another Canadian giving us a lecture on how USA citizens should behave.

My comparison of the two politics forums as they currently exist is that this forum is much better at putting forth the rules and sticking to them. Yeah I think some of the rules are silly but at least I have a clear notion of where the line is regarding what is acceptable. The other forum has devolved into a place rules are enforced hap hazardly and ad hominem attacks occur very frequently especially from a couple of the mods that post there. This politics forums have become very uninteresting to me though I just need to stop pointing out the obvious stunning silliness that is posted. The cheerleading for your favorite political party team in post after post is boring for the most part. Some of the discussions in the forums are really good though. The Democrat Party strategy discussion in the other forum is pretty good. The discussion about women and their gender roles between will, Juan and well named was very good.

If Richard Spencer gets a cabinet position are we linking to his most odious views? Uh, of course? Are you serious?

It's clear that people are supporting censorship with views they disagree with.

It's insane. I think the mods should really rethink this. Banning the opinion pieces from breitbart is fine, I guess, but banning all linking to it, especially the articles that are clearly from the AP feed, is absurd.

Same reason it's not worthy to try to convince Deuces that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

Man, if you want to go on some crusade trying to convince Breitbart readers that Obama isn't a Muslim Kenyan, why don't you go over to the Daily Stormer and log on. We don't need to import more hateful idiots to this site.

That's not clear, that's just your opinion.

I think it is worth it to expose propaganda, but arguing with it is like arguing with prejudice. It's going to repeat itself and maybe even become aggressive.

No one needs to go to the Daily Stormer to do that we have enough here.

Personally I don't think Breitbart readers are going to decide whether or not to post here based on this forum's position regarding linking from their site. What the ban does however is prevent the views of Breitbart being challenged by reference to their own source material. So you can have Marn and wil suggest that Breitbart is a reputable news source and the rest of us unable to demonstrate how it peddles fiction with reference to the **** that they publish.

I don't read Breitbart or go to it's site. I don't care about Breitbart at all. I'm just commenting on how idiotic the rule is.

I can challenge the claim that Obama was born in Kenya without linking to Breitbart.

I'd expect allegations that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim be banned under a more specific implementation politically correct linking.

In any case we have Brietbarters here posting regardless of the ban on linking and I personally don't hold much hope that they'll be convinced it's a disreputable source whether there's a ban on linking or not.

Or maybe they change their minds. Ive seen it first hand, and there are even hard core white supremacists who have changed.

I've seen it myself too. Not just as a result of argument, but more generally the opportunity for connection and exchange is the opportunity for a prejudice to change. However, when it comes to propaganda, awareness is more important than arguing. The real win in that scenario is not the winner of any argument, but the person who succeeds to challenge their own prejudices the propaganda has made an appeal for.

Right, again we just have different goals here. So fine, you think Breitbart readers are hateful idiots and don't want them here. But I'd rather talk with people who have different (and relevant) political views from my own, and right now that includes Breitbart readers. So we should put a question like censoring Breitbart, which is really about the kind of culture P7 should have and not really about how to moderate the forum, to a vote.

So far so good.

This is a pretty dishonest way of framing it, and I think you know it. Me not wanting Neo-Nazis and their fellow travellers posting here doesn't map to me "not wanting to talk to people with different views."

If you like, but this isn't a democracy. The people who run the show allegedly don't want hate speech to be posted here, although this has been proven false many a time.

Reminder to all. This is only being treated as a !!! thread when specifically talking about the moderation of the forum. Anything else is likely to be deleted.

No one knows what the hell you're talking about.

Excuse you. She.

chezlaw, your post is illogical; your conclusion does not logically follow your premise.


Your premise is that the sanctions for violating the PC rule don't include bans, but your conclusion was that I was banned for violating the PC rule. Your conclusion does not logically follow your premise.

You were banned for ignoring the timeout.

What was the timeout for?

The time out was for posting a Breitbart link.

What's the problem with posting a Breitbart link?




It violates the PC rule.

Which PC rule?

The one you said banning wasn't an included sanction for.


Premise

conclusion

no logic

Ignoring timeouts are the only thing you will be banned for (asumign you dont get treated as a new account)

If you want to claim some transitive axiom then play away. Wont alter the fact that all you got for breaking the Breitbart rule was a timeout which you then chose to ignore.