Remember we're discussing views which are literally not allowed to be posted in the forum, at all. And should not be allowed, in my view. I'm not sure who the above is arguing with, but it's not me. I'm not suggesting giving the views in question any consideration, validity, or equal standing.

I do not consider myself to have a responsibility to "protect" posters in the way you are describing.

Although bear in mind the above re: not allowing certain views to be expressed. We don't disagree about whether or not certain views are tolerable or should be given a platform or whatever, we only disagree about how far to extend that judgement out towards banning people who hold those views, provided that they are willing and able to participate constructively on other topics.

Grunching this thread, but it's clear (to me) that the reason the forum is going away is due to the conflict between the political views of this site's owners and those of the majority of the posters.

We had to go through the charade of how it's about tone or behavior or whatever, and now we're done. This process itself created anxiety for the ownership due to purportedly believing in the free exchange of ideas and letting superior arguments win, etc.

Frankly, if I put myself in the shoes of the owners, I cannot totally blame them. I can imagine being financially independent due to ownership in an online forum. If the politics wing of it was 90% smart, intellectual Heritage foundation conservative types, just nonstop dunking on people, I'd probably find a way to make that go away too.

Looking forward to a forum based on the principles of well known Conservative/libertarian George Orwell...

As long as the forum is mostly comprised of smart and knowledgeable left-wingers that know how to make an argument, the ownership of this website is always going to be "unhappy with this forum".

I think we've found a solution to that problem :P

Mason,

It's your site, and you obviously are free to do with it as you wish. That said, as someone who has posted on 2+2 regularly for 15 years, I have a few observations.

First, 95% of the problems with tone in this forum could have been solved by more aggressively banning a handful of posters, not for a day or two but for a long time (even permanently). I have no idea why that was not done or why nuking the forum was deemed a better solution.

Second, regardless of the modding, the tone would have improved after Trump left office. Love him or hate him, Trump is surely the most polarizing U.S. president in recent history.

Third, you surely know why a lot of the long-time posters in the forum are skeptical when 2+2 says that it is nuking the forum because it became inhospitable to dissenting views. We remember the years when this forum was dominated by ACists with extraordinarily fringe political views.

Fourth, nuking forums with a lot of traffic seems like a dubious decision for a poker site where no one discusses poker any more, but you surely are in a better position than I am to make that call.

Fifth, I don't know who you will find to mod the forum if you keep it, but if you allow the wrong person to do it, 2+2 soon will be deluged with threads and views that are an embarrassment to the brand.

Just my two cents. As I said, it's your site, so you can do what you want.

--Rococo

Mason,

Is this the kind of civility you are seeking in politics?




It is the moderator of the OOT forum responding to me, a user of the site, who was not violating any rules. He was extremely upset about something he admits did not impact him so I asked him for his opinion on something that could directly impact the forum he moderates. He deleted my post and posted a personal attack.

You post some outdated youtubes and then run for the hills instead of trying to defend your beliefs. Or you make Mustache Pete-ish statements that have been proven invalid over time.

The problem with this forum is you and a lot of others don't keep up with the times and then post **** that affirms your cognitive biases. Instead of picking up modern books on subjects. There's nothing to debate with you. You and conservatives in particular who come here refuse to adapt with the ages and continue learning, or just revert to trolling.

If you're unhappy with politics it's because of that. Science that revolves around economics and politics didn't stop for you. The world keeps turning.

Good God, we appear to have a live one. A Bell Curve enthusiast. Well I never.

I almost feel like this question is a trap and if i answer that it works Jman will try to ban me, but it does work. Not that I think either would happen.

Sounds like an ATF thread is needed.

What? That delusion was exploded in the 1860s. That's like subscribing to the phlogiston theory, or spontaneous generation, or something. Where do these people come from, and what the hell is going on?

hopefully we can make The Politics Forum a much better place for everyone

Mad Mason going to Make Politics Great Again!

I have been in quite a few heated disagreements on this forum and even felt "attacked" at times. I was really given the business on a couple of strat forums when I first started on the site. Don't even get me started on the personal attacks I et al have suffered as part of the SERIOUS BUSINESS of POG werewolf. And I lived to tell about it. It's the Internet. People get pissy, people are mean, it's easy when you're anonymous and there are few if any consequences.

The difference between me and a few others is that I didn't run to Matson Sklansmuth and demand that those subs be shuttered.

Prove that's what they mean or you're just talking out of your imagination and calling people racist without cause.

So if the result happens to skew to one racial group it's racist? Does that extend to other aspects of society like sports so that you think basketball is racist? shm.

Sorry if I'm obtuse but is this saying that because some libertarian views oppose borders, the views expressed in my post will not be well received?

If the result skews racist because the people doing the implementation planned it that way then it is racist. Voter ID laws leap to mind.

Yeah the response you received did not appear to follow your original post at all

Is this true?

Don't start... and don't dare ask what roll he's playing in Orwell's book.

Well, if Mason thinks George Orwell was a 'conservative / libertarian', as American lowbrows often imagine because the CIA sponsored cheap editions of Nineteen-Eighty-Four during the Cold War, that's a bit of a problem.

Orwell, 'Why I Write', 1947. Orwell certainly hated Stalinism and its fellow-travellers in the West, but not because he was a conservative libertarian.

Except when the casualties are women. Then its a pull-rank who-had-the-worst-genocide situation (even though jman's venn diagram said they were the same person). So fun.

Reds = inner party

Greens/rainbow = outer party

Proles = proles

Will there be more women in the new forum, or will it be primarily white men still? White men hubs are known for their greatness, amirite?