Fyi, another lesser known and much less utilized principle of free speech is the right to not speak, e.g., to ignore stupid trolling attempts.

I haven't trolled very much itt and certainly not today.

Sometimes that's fun. Other times its fun to mock rapists who make 700 whining posts and who spew homophobic speech on other forums because they have a sad that their obviously, obviously racist friend took his ball and went home.

Also fun to lol at how you don't really have an example of an issue that couldn't be discussed on this forum. The closest you came was when you opined that the guy linking to neo-Nazi sites and arguing about how Africans had the lowest IQ got banned from the site upon asking to be banned didn't have a racist bone in his body (because....reasons) and, errr, that wasn't really close!

but you admit its your common mo? If so you might understand that foldn hasn't been scrutinizing your posts thoroughly enough to notice you had stopped?

Have another go now you have his attention though maybe he just thinks you are some gimmick account.

At first, when foldn said he was going to start a new thread on free speech, I thought I had done an excellent job of trolling the politics forum by encouraging him to do so. Job well done, I thought, trollolol.

But that thread would almost have to be better than debating how the forum should be modded. Well, assuming (maybe this is a bad assumption) it didn't devolve back into that.

Dude, we aren't asking to ban the r-word, we're just trying to censor it in the context of "You're a r-word". We're trying to make it a Alta forum rule that phrase "you're a r-word" is always considered a "personal attack".

Now, I really object to you calling me "dishonest". In fact, how is that not a legitimate "personal attack" upon me ??

LOL @u lecturing me about keeping up with the conversation. I'm obviouskly only addressing your second issue here. I'm glad we agree that our mutually proposed rule change regarding the phrase "you're a r-word" is indeed censorship. However once again, I'm going to call you out for your despicable calumny, and your begging of the question, regarding this crap about our Alta mods maliciously mis-enforcing the no "name-calling" rule. Shame on you !!!1!

Like I said, I think it's juvenile to play the "gotcha" game, but for seemingly nobody to pause a moment from the troll fest to learn anything at all from the fact Glenn Greenwald hasn't deleted the hate speech from his own website is telling of the group of regulars in this forum. I mean Glenn is homosexual and someone claimed gays are disgusting and don't deserve equal rights on his forum. How can he allow that?? Doesn't that show he supports hate speech?! No, of course it doesn't. Not at all. It shows he has a deep understanding of the value of free speech. Something that is lacking here in Politics.

Fixed for accuracy

Also one of your Adnon posts and the BruceZ post is gone. So I guess with the BruceZ post getting deleted, the lesson here is Glenn Greenwald supports more restrictions on free speech than SMP since Bruce's offensive hate speech got snap deleted there.

Lol, everyone here should understand that Mat has only been ceding to the demands of Wookie and the anti-racists on here who don't understand or agree with Greenwald et al that censorship is not the right way to combat bigotry.

The same Greenwald that deleted the hate speech?

Dude, you are claiming right here ITT that censorship is indeed a right way to combat racism. In particular, we both agree that the r-word should be censored in the context of "you're a r-word".

Don't you feel even the wee-bit embarrassed by directly contradicting yourself ??

Yesterday I asked him about the pms he's getting from BruceZ and he put me on ignore. Something fishy is going on iyam.

Nice hand, sir.

Yeah, results, one BruceZ post and ZOMG censorship

We live in a modship so mods are generally free to shape their forums. That's the 2+2 way.

Unless you mean the site rules have been changed by the demands of wookie. I suggested site wide PC rules but the world isn't ready for that yet (or possibly I'm nuts)

Hahahahahhahah

Me calling a racist person a ****ing racist isn't censorship

So FoldN, now that Glenn Greenwald has deleted the posts, as it was obvious he was going to do to everyone in the thread but you, are we done with this troll session? Not surprisingly, you have zero clue what Greenwald means when he talks about free speech nor can you apply the principles you dont understand to speech on this messageboard.

I mean the answer is probably no, you are a mentally ill person devoted to avenging BruceZ's non punishment in this life or the next, but maybe there is a chance you'll feel the shame you should be feeling right now and climb back under whatever rock you came from under.

Have they gone? Safe to repeat my question now

So I see one post and the BruceZ post (is that you?) were deleted, while the other post remains. I'm not sure what the reasoning was, but I'll be surprised if it was for "hate speech," as the other post that remains states homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights, something clearly hate speech according to wookie, who ITT vehemently argued that should not be allowed in a classroom.

Perhaps the deleted posts were off topic, like if I dropped in and posted "I like potatoes," and you responded "I like onion rings," or did someone in here email them to let them know what's going on? I wasn't really expecting tampering, but then again... considering the crowd here.


I agree. I have no illusions I will convince Wookie to change the rules, or rather, enforce them in a viewpoint neutral fashion. I was hoping he and others who agree with the expanding safe space culture would understand the arguments against it, and how it probably actually does more harm than good to the causes of anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc., by seeking to unfairly censor ideas, and drive off those who hold them instead of interacting with them in constructive dialogue. This is what Rauch, Greenwald, Obama, et al have been arguing. I do think those ideas will eventually sink in with them and others, despite their constant protests, and some day they might change their outlook.

Well, try not to strain a muscle while patting yourself on the back for having an unproductive conversation about the need for productive conversations rather than actually having a productive conversation.

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. No. The post that was left up is abhorrent, but isnt offensive hate speech. The posts that were hate speech were deleted. Your hero is doing himself some fine censorship. No surprise to anyone but you FoldN.

Tampering? Huh?

As we have seen, Greenwald censors his site by deleting hate speech. You were dead wrong. Period.

Also, note that Greenwald left up personal attacks! Much more blatant than the grey area ones around here FoldN whines about.

So, to summarize, on Greenwald's internet forum he deletes hate speech but allows personal attacks.

Onto the next appeal to authority for our fearless rapist.

I'm glad you recognize unproductive conversations. Do you know how to foster productive ones, and do you want to?

To attempt to answer the vague question of what "intellectual" discussions are being missed out on because of the unequal way in which this forum rules are set up, I can't really tell you until we get into a discussion. Take for example something that was recently brought up where BruceZ said the Ferguson witnesses were probably racist.

Okay, well clearly that is an overgeneralized, oversimplified assertion, and on one level it is clearly a racist statement. Like when Donald J. Drumpf claimed the judge would be biased because he is hispanic. But on another level, there lies a grain of truth behind it. Members of an oppressed class are more likely to be prejudiced against their oppressors. That seems like a true statement. Attorneys routinely use this idea to select juries more favorable to thier clients. Should we call that racist? I think we could, but we would also call an attorney who didn't do that an engineer, or a doctor. If this this is then evidence of institutional racism, how do you propose to stop it other than convincing people on an individual level not to have racial bias?

Maybe some of you disagree with part or all of my arguments, maybe my logic is flawed. Maybe these are terrible questions in your mind not worth discussing. Do mere personal attacks help me gain better understanding of flaws in my reasoning, or do attacks on the arguments?

Actually, yeah, we do call that racist and lawyers arent allowed to strike jurors due to race.


Also that discussion was allowed on twoplustwo and Bruce was allowed to explain his statement right here in the politics forum. Would you like me to quote the post? You seem to keep forgetting that we archive posts on here so your usual scheme of constantly lying doesnt really work well.

Also you can start a thread right now on the subject! Bruce was never banned on the politics forum for the content of his posts. Fact.

Take that up with wookie. He argued ITT that it was right for a teacher to censor her student who argued that homosexuals should have equal rights, claiming it is hate speech.

Why the other posts were deleted, I'm trying to find out. If it was hate speech, I'll let you know.