Sure he does sometimes, but not for attacking people personally for being racist, sexist, etc. Instead, he punishes those who fight back. He's explained at length that he does not enforce the personal attack rule in cases of racism on purpose, while banning people for racism. That's purely unequal censorship and he knows it.

Do you remember Duffee? That guy didn't have a racist bone in his body. Disappeared, poof. Tons of other posters who have found themselves on the "wrong" side of arguments have been banned for racism, sexism, you name the -ism. Wookie wants to, as Jonathan Rauch puts it, "fight global warming by breaking all the thermometers." He believes he can fight racism by banning bad ideas. Glenn Greenwald has called this tactic wrongheaded and disturbing. Obama strongly disapproves as well.

Wookie flat lied about not censoring Bruce, and so far has not come back to explain why. Remember? He demanded Bruce was not allowed to post in Politics, or respond to any attacks on him. That's why Bruce left. Bruce tried to get posters punished for calling him racist, not his posts. He wanted to enforce the personal attack rule, including calling posters racist.

It took me awhile to figure out why there was so much denial and cognitive dissonance in here about the safe space philosophy on campus run amok, but it's clear now the reason is that most of the posters in here agree with it. They agree it's productive to attempt to ban ideas, censoring speech and speakers, protecting the world from ideas they disagree with and find offensive. They can't stand criticism of safe spaces because they know it's criticism of their way of thinking, their outlook on life. We're in the belly of the beast.

But Bruce IS racist as evidenced by his posts and behavior. Calling Bruce a racist is like calling you a rapist. It is a description not an attack.

Duffee was a guy who literally linked to data from an outright hate site, spent lots of time explaining why the black people of Ferguson weren't actually getting ****ed over by racism, and then asked to be banned. Pretty bold statement proclaiming he can't be a racist and that it was an example of censorship.

lol at this description of events. Sort of missed the whole part where Bruce decided to stage an NWO style take over of the politics forum, threatened a user via PM, tried to ban the word racist in politics by decree, and acted so vile in the mod forum that Mat, a guy bending over backwards to save Bruce out of respect and friendship, finally had to throw in the towel and give him a gentle slap on the wrist. Guess lily-livered liberal butt buddy isnt a personal attack either.


looooooooooooooool

Actually "estrogen laden liberal butt buddies" was the exact term. Also made in a post where he called people eggheads and a poster "a little bitch". All while, of course, decrying personal attacks.

FoldN, you are aware that, like, this forum has an archive right?

It's still consistent with same rules for everybody. I think the rules should have a PC bias and am perfectly happy to say so. If wookie does to then good on him. That's not everything though, it's the role of attack/personal animosity in political progress and liberalism where we seem to disagree.

(I'm not getting back into the Brucez fiasco. Duffee's banning seemed poor but it stands out to me as anomalous so maybe there's something I don't know).

I'm probably more than anyone else here, happy to see some restrictions on non-pc free speech up to and including criminalizing it when it's hateful or OTT so I'm not sure what that makes me

Lol, just because there are a few smatterings of non-lie in that gibberish doesn't mask the lies and distortions. Nobody is claiming Bruce didn't get out of line.

But you do bring up another vehicle of censorship. The ambiguous, dreaded 'hate site'. I'll let you in on a secret, part of the reason I was so careful in here to post articles from liberal leaning sites, like Vox, Huff Po, Atlantic, etc., the off chance some of you would read them and learn something, was to avoid accidentally linking to a 'hate site.' It's tough to tell what might earn that label these days. I saw you call a Christian site a hate site over in PU.

Duffee did the same as me, he did google searches and posted information, only he was not as careful to check the blacklist. I never saw anyone claim the info posted from the 'dreaded hate site' was in any way in error or hateful. But there you go. Another way many of you avoid facing arguments with censorship.

Here you are being 100% dishonest.

It has been explained to you several times that the words "you're a r-word" are not necessarily considered a personal attack here in Alta Politardia... it depends on the context. You are of the opinion that those words, in that order, are always a personal attack, regardless of the context.

The above is a honest difference of opinion.

What it's not is "does not enforce the personal attack rule", or "purely unequal censorship" (or censorship period), or any of the rest of your spew. What you are doing is assuming your personal opinion is true above, then using your own assumption to "prove" your own assumption. Like this...

No dude, the odious Bruce Z didn't "try to get posters punished" by say reporting some posts to this forum's mods. He threatened to do that 'punishing' himself unilaterally. He also unilaterally decided that his personal opinion (ie that the words "you're a r-word" are always a personal attack, regardless of context) trumps the long time established practice by this forum's mods here in Alta Politardia.

Now you, just like the odious Bruce Z, are perfectly free to suggest a policy change by our mods here in Alta Politardia. But you need to be honest about it... you need to acknowledge that this is indeed simply a matter of personal opinion, that reasonable people can reasonably disagree regarding their personal opinions, and that this has absolutely nothing to with "censorship", or "suppressing ideas", or any of this other spew you are spewing.

I mean, dailystormer.com isn't really in the gray area FoldN. People who have real jobs sometimes read this site at work, you think having people clicking on dailystormer links from here is acceptable? My actual claim wasn't that the information is wrong, its that I cant read the information because, you know, I don't want to be fired for browsing a Neo-nazi site at my office. Here is my exact post

Lifesitenews, the other site you are concern trolling about here, praised Uganda's law penalizing homosexuality by penalty of death and advocating other countries to pass similar laws in order to cleanse the world of homosexals. You don't consider that a hate site?


Massive lol FoldN, always and forever. Feel free to point out where the lie was in my earlier post. Again, we have archives here at twoplustwo. My claims are all verifiable.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says

so maybe you are familiar with their work?

But anyways, if you want to defend the neo-nazis or that homosexuals need to be executed, that's up to you FoldN. I will continue to call those websites hate sites as it is an accurate description of the material contained on those websites.

Right.

In that sense, I am perfectly content that 2+2 be a "safe space" for anti-racists, and by extension for, you know, people of color, or women, where they (ideally) wouldn't have to wade through a ton of nonsense. Like fly, there are some "intellectual discussions" I'm not actually interested in having here.

Foldn: This is an important point that you keep ignoring. As far as I'm aware, you haven't even acknowledged the argument, let alone tried to address it. This may be the sort of judgement call that can't be settled in any purely objective way, but it doesn't do you any good to pretend that the disagreement is that we don't care about "equal enforcement of the rules" when the disagreement is actually about something else.

This is why you should listen to the Jonathan Rauch podcast I posted. He gives a practical and moral argument why that line of thinking is not helpful.

The owners of twoplustwo have decided not to allow certain types of speech on their website for obvious commercial reasons. You are, of course, free to start FoldNRape.com and allow any discussion that you please!

Also note no one here is trying to shut down these hate sites (although some of the harassment promoted by dailystormer is pretty clearly over the line and the authorities would be within their bounds stepping in). People are free to go on the internet and start their site and spew whatever nonsense they want. We are, of course, free to identify those hate sites as hate sites and not take the SMP path of arguing we need to talk nicely with the people who hate minorities and acknowledge their point has merit. Twoplustwo is, of course, not obligated to allow hate speech on their commercial website.

There's basically no chance I'm going to listen to the podcast. If there's a transcript, I'd read it. I have no attention span for audio. Or, you can summarize the arguments if you'd like.

I don't really follow this thread, nor do I really know what Foldn's point is (if there is one), but for some reason everytime I log in and see that he has added another hundred posts it makes me smile inside. Keep fighting the power!

BTW did you guys ever figure out if black slavery was OK or not?

Even if I were to cede there are times when calling someone a racist is not intended as personal attack, the same can be said of any personal "criticism" if you will. I can sincerely believe someone is an idiot, and hope to let them know that as a criticism so that they will stop being such an idiot. They would probably still claim it's a personal attack. Besides, can you say with a straight face you believe the majority of the racism attacks comments coming from fly, et al., are not simply meant to be personal attacks? Be serious.

It's the personal part that is not needed at all. Hence the rule, attack the argument, not the arguer. It couldn't be much more simple than that.

FoldN, do you think the majority of readers think you give a whit about free speech principles and aren't just in here grinding old axes and trying to make politics a friendlier place for racists? Be serious.

You could always go back to your self-moderated PU thread where fly will never come in to bother your discussion. Or back to SMP.

Hahahahahah

It's hard to summarize them well without filling pages, but he counters many of the arguments found in here well. Here's an article he wrote in the Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...speech/309524/

Are you really denying this?

No, it's just another intellectual argument that deserves a proper, productive discussion.

Your imputed causality is a complete fabrication.

You do realize by that metric we cannot link to most sites supporting Islam because they would be considered hate sites.