JV contributes across various threads in this forum. Even if you think he is a giant right wing troll, he is still contributing. Short of the personal attacks (which I assume is what JV was banned for) he doesn't do anything out side the norms of the forum. Whether you think those are acceptable norms is a completely other discussion.

Suzzer for the last few months just comes here and posts extremist material, much of it right wing (and then attributes it to me half the time) in this thread. And that is all he does. This seems far outside the norms for the forum.

I doubt there is a single forum on 2+2 where that would be acceptable. I doubt it would be acceptable on Unstuck. I imagine if he just posted in Unstuck the way he posted here the mods would tell him to stop it.

This thread is about antifa. I would say "extremist right wing material" is relevant to the discussion, given that the clear intention of the posts in question is to contrast antifa's methods and behaviour with those groups they purport to oppose.

Edit - missed WN's post before I posted this, FWIW.

Can there be a little bit more transparency about what led to this?

Probably has something to do with him relentlessly promoting white supermacist bullshit.

The proximate cause was linking a white supremacist twitter account, and after being warned 2 or 3 times to vet his sources more carefully in the past. I am suspicious that he intentionally links ostensibly non-offensive tweets from those accounts hoping people will click through and see the other content, which in this case included retweeted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and complaints about miscegenation causing the extinction of white people, alongside the perhaps more banal litany of anti-immigration and anti-Muslim bigotry.

Regardless of his actual intentions, I don't have time to click through and vet every tweet that gets posted here, and I expect people to do their own due dilligence, especially after being warned several times. I'm not willing to help disseminate white supremacist twitter accounts here.

---

A contributing cause is that I also don't think he adds any value to the forum, since the entirety of his posting is basically just to insult posters and groups of people he dislikes in as nasty of ways as he can get away with. In short, I think he has always run afoul of this line in the guidelines, but has been given a lot of leeway in the name of viewpoint diversity:

Others do as well, to varying degrees, and to varying degrees have been (and will be) moderated for it as well. For example, this is also why FlyWF was exiled. There's a certain level of hostility that I expect in a politics forum, but I fundamentally disagree with kelhus' claim that JV is "contributing" much, as far as actual conversation, beyond the bile. JV was also warned about this more times than anyone else, I believe.

Well it has now come full circle. JV who was - completely correctly - previous banned from politics whined and whined to sympathetic ears about how horrible the old politics was and was definitely a "contributing cause" as well named puts it to the old politics forum being deep-sixed. Now we get this new politics forum, which is basically the old one except that people like JV are allowed to post here once more. But finally he is - again, completely correctly - banned, and undoubtedly will now switch to trying to get this forum closed just as he did the last one.

Who could have known that reintroducing the shittiest posters would end badly?

I saw something recently about Stephan Molyneux tweets being deleted--and if JV was banned for those then that seems a bit harsh. Molyneux is a blue-check marked twitter person. (And admittedly the blue check marked people are the worst)-- but the blue mark is supposed to have some veneer of respectability. I don't know much about Molyneux and was surprised to find out that he is a white supremacist guy. But I do think that if someone is ok enough for twitter to not ban and to actually endorse, then their tweets should be allowed here.

False. It let's people know the account is who it claims to me. https://help.twitter.com/en/managing...ified-accounts

It wasn't JV and it wasn't tweets and it wasn't deleted, but other than that, you're pretty spot on.

This is mistaken in several ways. No Molyneux tweets were ever posted, and none were deleted. What happened instead was that someone (not JV) cited his youtube (without linking it). No posts were deleted. That user received a PM'd warning to choose his sources better, and a similar note was posted in the thread.

Sporting a Pfunk sn no less Good times.

It's all sort of moot as I was mistaken, and perhaps "endorsement" is the wrong word-- but the blue check mark is an official status that is reserved for media figures/politicians and others that twitter deems important enough to give a mark to. And if they are capable of not being banned by twitter and having that blue-check mark status then I don't think they should be treated heavy-handedly here.

Until he got booted, Alex Jones was verified on twitter, because - again - verification on twitter is about someone who is prominent. It's a way to know which Alex Jones account on twitter is THE Alex Jones. Being verified is separate from the decision of whether someone violates twitter's policies which is separate from the decision of whether they should be linked on this forum.

There are a lot of blue checked marked people on twitter that post material that WN would not find acceptable on this forum, including likely the POTUS, and I think he is perfectly ok with that.

So twitter is definitely not a good comp or frame of reference as far as what is acceptable posting material on this site (for good or bad).

Later, hater.

I think it also needs to be pointed out that demanding that twitter accounts are properly vetted sets a pretty dangerous precedent here.
I don't post tweets that much but there have been times that I have and I don't usually give a crap what else is on their accounts. Once I deleted a Cynthia McKinney tweet after discovering she had some stuff that could be considered anti-semitic, but in general if someone posts something, it should be the actual content in what is posted that gets judged, and I haven't seen anything from JV that has ever raised my eyebrows in terms of white supremacy.

I'd take back Fly and Juan and submit a list of about 5 or 6 people who really do contribute nothing. Admittedly I've never been on the receiving side of Juan's hostility but as I'm insulted fairly regularly here from others, I'm a little worried that JV's banning has more to do with your own ideological differences with him than the actual content of his posts.

Who could have guessed unbiased and disinterested no-side onlookers LB and kel would rush to JV's defense.

I've defended Fly too. I would not defend you though fwiw. Standard sanctimonious liberals like yourself make up the 5 or 6 names that I'd trade for those two.

lol, because those are the same, right? Or do you think Fly's tone was an even worse breach than, to name a few, juan's insidious racist, sexist, anti-semitic, homophobic, and transphobic posting?

Yes, let's keep the racist, sexist, anti-semitic, homophobic, and transphobic posting civil please. Have you no decency?

Why did he call himself juan valdez anyway? Surely he is a non-hispanic white guy. I would have thought a nick like "Tyrone Maria Rabinovich" would have served his purposes better.

Could you quote some of those posts? As far as I can tell Juan mostly just wants to make sure that girls wrestle with girls, and he's argued that there are actually differences between men and women. Seems reasonable.

No.

Well I don't think you're the best judge of anyone's posting fwiw.

At best, that **** doesn't bother you, which is why you judge his posting less harshly.