I deleted those posts with the example from a previous ban, and those that referenced it. If you want me to be aware of something you had deleted or were banned for, don't repeat the offense by posting it again. rather, PM me and I'll take a look at it.

From the lack of feedback as to any sort of conservative definition of racism that somehow differs from the usual definitions found in the dictionaries, it seems to me that there really is no difference in how racism is defined. Rather, the examples given pertained to the what level of racist remarks reached the threshold of deletion or banning by the moderators. going forward, if anyone wants to continue the discussion on what is racism, let's move it over to the new thread rather than this one.
Thanks.

I quoted the post that got me temp-banned many years ago because it was a clear example of a ridiculous ban from a ridiculous moderator who was so unremitting awful that the previous owner of 2+2 literally nuked the entire Politics Forum and started over from scratch.

Is it your opinion that my temp-ban in that instance was appropriate?

If so, then two years from now this Forum will probably have the same half-dozen folks as now.

(Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Even "holding steady" in a near-archaic social media platform like 2+2 would be a noteworthy accomplishment.)

I'm not going to assess a mod decision from years ago. But my point stands. Don't repost previously deleted material without getting mod approval first, or you could be setting yourself up for another ban.

What about the post that he was originally responding to, but was not deleted or banned, someone saying that he hoped the president would die of AIDS? I would imagine that would not be allowed now, but my previous question about that was deleted in the melee.

I will henceforth not post any previously deleted material.

I don't know where Tame might see a post of thanks that won't be buried or if he is done with this forum??? But anyway, I will speak for myself and say thx to Tame for doing a good job moderating this zoo as best as he could, knowing there was no way to please everyone.

I certainly hope we see Tame as a participant in threads especially those with any history/Nation, talk as his insights in those were typically my most valued reads.

The problem was the repeated abuse of the misunderstanding.

Usage doesnt make any difference to anything except when it comes to communication.

Agree w/ QP

good job King Spew.

I agree with all the above.

I'm not sure that there is much for browser to decide re this MikeSmokey guy. MikeSmokey previously disclosed on 2+2 that one of his discord handles was AmrenDotCom. We all know that a Jared Taylor fanboy is going to promote scientific racism until he is permanently banned.

Why are you anti-science, Rococo?

It's kinda amazing that a thread on racism survived over 40 posts before the wheels fell off.

Gentlemen, re:40+ posts

It only went off the rails when a P&S noob posted his "off-color" ideas. I applaud the regs.... so far.

Excellent point.

All six of us regs were behaving ourselves (more or less).

I see our new "friend" created a thread to promote his racism.

I'm glad it survived only about two minutes.

Good work, KS!

taking off my mod hat here.....

bs term is interesting as P&S is moving toward (always was) a more open discussion on many themes. Mike posted (respectfully-ish) his viewpoint. Calling it bs may not be the most productive tact here.

Many regulars shouted him down (escalation). There were a few posts refuting his references that I liked. (He cited, others refute...... good discussion)

But because "it" will ALWAYS be a heated discussion.... there was no denying that the shith was hitting the fan pretty quickly.

I react the same when washoe and other post bs in the Covid thread..... so I am not immune (see what I did there) to the same criticism.

tl;dr snip:

Can we have a complete discussion about racism without allowing a racist into the discussion ? We have proven in the 40+ posts that we can discuss civilly.

I really don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that (i) MikeSmokey should have been allowed to continue posting his views in this forum as long as he didn't escalate his tone; and (ii) other posters should have been expected to engage with his "science" respectfully or simply ignore him.

No offense, but that is exactly how proponents of scientific racism want the world to work. That's the playbook. They want to dress up their views in the language of science, then argue that there is a legitimate scientific debate, and then attract adherents who are put off by cruder forms of racism.

It's also worth remembering that new Politics posters like MikeSmokey and snowman always seem to wander into this forum any time there is a new moderator. That isn't a coincidence. They are testing how far the boundaries can be pushed with the new mod.

By “off-color” I assume you mean “super racist?”

To start with I agree that bs was a poor choice and I have deleted it and replaced with the word racist.

That said, while discussing racism is fine our policies do not allow the posting of racist views. The idea that one race is, for example genetically less intelligent than another is as abhorrent as it is false. But it remains today, as it has for hundreds of years, an insidious premise that feeds peoples hate. So even though the poster may present in a respectable manner with a veneer of science pasted on it at its core it is the same old racist (bs) trope that white supremacists peddle.

Racists are free to believe the most hateful things. But the concept of free speech (which actually pertains to government restrictions) does not mean that a company owned website is obligated to hand a platform to such hate speech. No amount of debate or counter arguments will change the mind of a racist. If we were to allow them to post in our forum we would simply be providing oxygen to them when instead we should be denying it oxygen and the light of day.

All of above is just MHO.

good points, Rococo.

I think having it "both ways" is great in theory. Having a racist post "his" theory is enlightening for some (like in..... allows ME to see viewpoint). I deem myself just above an amoeba in intelligence so stuff gotta be 'splained to me mostly. Most regs are way above my level so... I don't expect any to be "swayed" to the Dark Side.

But the downside is exactly what you mentioned. And ... mostly ... I agree. The challenge is to hear That Guy, refute that guy (nicely),,,, and then that guy realizes he's in the wrong room and leaves. Trouble is, That Guy rarely leaves.

/wishy-washy

I doubt King Spew thought MikeSmokey could be turned around. I understood him to be asking whether the participation of a racist might advance a discussion of racism generally.

But I don't think that works as a general principle either. For example, few people believe that the participation of a Holocaust denier advances a discussion of the Holocaust. Few people believe that flat earth advocates advance a discussion of geology. Some views are so odious, so crackpot, or so odious and and so crackpot that they serve only to derail intelligent discussion.

All good. What you were proposing just felt way too idealistic to me.

And for whatever it is worth, I agree that reading about the methods that have been used throughout history to promote racism, anti-semitism, or whatever is an interesting rabbit hole that I have gone down more than once.

To that end, I always recommend Mr. Death (movie by Errol Morris). It's a fascinating dcumentary about how a weird guy who designed electric chairs for various states got seduced by Holocaust deniers.

I hope that's what he means. There is a literally 0%* chance of that kind of posting not turning into an immediate Titanic-hitting-the-iceberg situation. (i.e. No direction to go but down.)

*Okay, not literally 0%.

Fact check: snowman had a number of recent posts before our new moderator was announced.

I guess that I only noticed him after browser took over. I stand corrected.