So once again, we're back to your argument that letting people say racist things is of the UTMOST importance, because if they are not allowed to post those things on one website, or even one part of one website, that is indicative of the kind of censorship that is a creeping fundamental threat to democracy, but if other people call those people racists, well, that is just anti-intellectual and uncivil.

Dude, yes, that's what Glenn and I have said, can't you read?

No, that isn't what Glenn actually said. Can't you read?

Unless I'm messing up with the interweb your post has been deleted with no public fuss. Did you get banned or any message?

Reeeeeally, I can't believe it. I thought that was a direct quote of glenn or me, you fooled me good man. What do you want me to say? You keep making overreactive statements.

It's there.

I was about to post something pretty antisemitic, but I just couldn't do it. It's too much to try and prove a point that nobody will get anyway.

I'm going to bed. If it's gone in the morning, we'll have something to talk about. If not, I'm sure it's meaningless and we can move on to the next round of arglebargle, or not.

It seems to have disappeared from the link I quoted your post from.

I'm seeing 186 comments now but none from Adnon

Weird, did you click on "latest"?

But doing this with something pretty homophobic doesn't phase you?

ah my messup. It is there.

There's also a Brucez post. One of the trollies at play??

Foldn, my point was crystal clear. I'm sure you can get yourself banned from the Intercept if you try hard enough. When that happens, it will not expose some deep and disturbing hypocrisy on the part of Glenn Greenwald. His comments about freedom of speech on college campuses have little to do with the terms of use for a private internet message board, either this one or the Intercept.

And no, I don't think your friendly Muslim homophobe character ("I am Muslim, and I do not recognize the rights of homosexuals, but I would not support their murder either.") would be banned here either.

Uh, you're doing it wrong. You haven't been whining for looser moderation on homophobia... you (and myself) have been whining to have the r-word censored here in Alta Politards.

To prove your point, you need Adnon Dark to start posting "you're a r-word" over there. Then you can see if you get censored, which is what you & me prefer... or if things work the same as over here in Alta Politards.

Okay, well I'm gonna assume our wires are crossed because you just jumped in here fresh, so let me get you up to speed:

1) I absolutely do not want to prove Glenn Greenwald is a hypocrite, that is in no way the idea. The statements he made about free speech are excellent, and I believe he means them sincerely. I believe it enough to take the Pepsi Challenge. It would greatly surprise me if he deleted homophobic posts from his own website, claiming inflammatory speech, or "hate speech," or something else after explaining how important it is not to censor bad ideas:

2) Wookie, Dids and others vehemently asserted earlier ITT that not recognizing homosexual rights is "hate speech." Isn't hate speech bannable in Politics forum?

3) Even if you still believe the first statement would slide in here, dude, the second one would be an insta-perma, right Wookie?

4) Yes, I imaging I could get myself banned for breaking the forum rules at The Intercept, like maybe if I started making too many personal attacks. That would not make Glenn a hypocrite at all, thankfully, unless it was evident he was judging personal attacks differently by viewpoint. For instance if "you're an idiot" is a personal attack, but "you're a racist," well that's just a description. Deal with it, slimy racist. But I really doubt Glenn would do anything like that, because I'm convinced he has too much respect for the principles of free speech.

5) Finally, my intention isn't some juvenile "gotcha" game. I'm trying to convince everyone to, like Glenn, like Obama, like millions of liberal-minded people of the world, understand the great value of freedom of expression!

This really isn't the same thing, of course. Calling a black person is not a personal attack, it is a reference to the essentializing cultural characteristics endemic to their race. Let's call them "essentializing attacks." White people can't functionally be reduced to racial characteristics, especially if they are freethinkers, so calling a white guy a racist is a "personal attack."

Personal attacks have a dangerous quelling effect on discussion, whereas essentializing attacks are necessary if we want to have productive intellectual discussion about our most pressing quandaries. Like "it is OK to rape slaves" and "why do Negros jive in the street like they do."

Am I getting this right?

Those people you need to convince are the Sklansky's and Mason. They have decided they don't want hate speech on their commercial website. Not really a freedom of speech issue.

Also, Glenn's site is rife with personal attacks, so guess being allowed to call people racists isn't quite the death of free speech you made it out to be.

I think the Sklankys get it fine.

Well I'm not sure if Mat Sklansky gets what we are pushing at all. Remember you & me wanna censor the r-word in Alta Politards. That's not what has happened. In fact Mat Sklansky has backed up his volunteer Alta mods, and their policy of not censoring the r-word, completely.

What us pro-censorship advocates need to do is get Mat Sklansky to change his mind, and then direct his volunteer mods to start with the censoring we are both in favor of.

It's a direct quote of Glenn, and you didn't read and understand it. He went to the bigoted depths to clown on bigots. He has no problem with that, clearly, and neither does he think that most of these bigots are worth your time unless you just feel like trolling. But he also found some sharp, reasoned arguments from some of them. That's where you and he differ. You are arguing for giving aid and comfort to any and all arguments regardless of merit. Glenn is arguing to keep an open mind when it comes to sharp arguments.

Up to this point, the people you have cited as having been banned, or threatened with a ban, or just asked to not post in this one particular forum, have been posting simplistic, transparently fallacious garbage. So, once again, we ask the ongoing question of you: what is the sharp, reasoned argument about race or sexuality or whatever you want to have but you feel like you can't? Or, sparing that, what is an example of a sharp, reasoned argument that you or Bruce or someone posted that got unfairly silenced rather than given its due?

From the politics forum rules

So, yeah, maybe not FoldN. But, of course, you can feel free to PM or go to ATF and ask the Sklansky's and Mason to allow open hate speech on their website. Let me know how it goes!

Mat hasn't as yet shown much interest in a more censored more civil alternative. It would be an interesting contrast to the less censured less civil approach.

Dude, the reason I've largely stopped responding you is because of dishonest posts like this. You know that I am not asking to ban the word "racist," nor am I hoping to stop people from calling out racism. I am only trying to get you to understand the value of free speech. To the subject your speaking of, that entails enforcing forum rules without consideration of viewpoint.

Oh boy, the cognitive dissonance is so super strong in this post. Greenwald used the example of how he used to feel about backward midwestern conservatives, how he used to think it was a good idea to just clown on them, disrupt, so on, much like your hero fly. He then explained how he learned that they weren't all so stupid, and thatwas the wrong approach, that it's much better to engage their arguments, and how attempting to have a healthy discussion is a much better way to confront bad ideas, to gain perspective, understanding, and to change minds. He then parlayed that into a strong defense on free speech against censorship.

Assuming you really are confused, and not just trying to wriggle out of getting the points here, maybe this would help. Try to separate in your mind the two arguments being simultaneously discussed here. The first is the case against censorship. The second is in the rare case rules to censor are deemed necessary, to do it equally, and not based on viewpoint, in order to best preserve the principles of free speech.

What subject did not receive the healthy discussion you feel it deserves?

I mean, I even humored you with a serious discussion when you posted your chain letter about Jose immigrant making $100,000 a year. You responded by refusing to honestly engage and calling out egghead liberals.

I've been trying to engage Foldn with discussion about race for two years, and as recently as this morning, but he continuously ignores me. What does it take to get this guy talking?

Did you try solving a math problem or degrading minorities?

Failing that, are you a woman drunk to the point of incapacitation?

Those have worked to attract FoldN's attention in the past.