You dont need to let me know FoldN. I know the reason. Everyone knows the reason. It was due to hate speech. Also the internet message board and a college classroom are different places with different rules and you've blatantly lied about the circumstances behind that "censorship". Not a shock, you have a pattern of telling blatant lies on this forum and in this thread in particular.

Also, lol at "but but buuuuut maybe it wasnt censored for hate speech" being some sort of relevant defense of your position on the absolute virtues of free speech. So if someone bashes minorities, that must be allowed at all costs, but somehow posts judged off topic, there we can bring down the iron fist of censorship and its OK?

Lol FoldN. This is why you are a dumb troll.

Could be, but that would be very surprising. Unlike in this forum, there is no rule in there terms of conduct about disallowing racism, homophobia, etc. And as you see, the other post remains.

Amazing. You just constantly lie.

Okay, what did you say then? Please clarify.

Dude, are you trying to get a Black-Belt in begging the question?

Uh, this isn't an example.

The odious Bruce Z was never censored. In fact, all his racist posts are still there to this day. The only one who hindered having an 'intellectual' discussion regarding them was Bruce Z by threatening to ban folks, and Bruce Z by running away with his tail between his legs.

Ya think ???/? Institutional racism isn't the net sum of individual bias. And... you know, IRL activists have been working on this problem for like about 200 years. Over that time, they've actually developed certain strategies & tactics. I'll give you a hint... they have lots of proposals other than "convincing people on an individual level not to have racial bias". Why do you keep presuming to give strategy advice to IRL activists? Like... you ain't any more qualified doing that, than I'm qualified to coach a hockey team. Stop JAQing off !!!1!

The other post isnt as,much open bigoted hate speech. Find someone without a mental/social disorder to explain the context to you and why the deleted posts were different than the post allowed to stay.

It was deleted because it was hate speech. Surprises no one except you.

That's all fine and good. So that's the discussion that should take place, imo, explaining why you think that is institutional racism, and what strategies are best to fix it. Attacking the arguer and then banning him when he attacks you back does not accomplish that. Most of the time it just drives off those people you despise. Guess how they're voting?

Arguing that homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights is hate speech, but the student should have been shut up not because of that but because his rant had nothing to do with the class.

Literally nothing was or is stopping you from having that discussion here! We even made a second forum just in case you needed to dish out the hottest of takes!

Also looooool at "now you have Trump, checkmates liberals". So dumb on sooooo many levels, lololol

So to clarify again, you believe it is fine to argue against homosexual rights in the classroom assuming it's on topic, and you would not ban anyone for doing the same in this forum?

1. Dude, are you trying to reach the 38th level of Begging the Question Mastery? If you wanna make the case that "you're a r-word" is always a personal attack regardless of context... make that case. Otherwise STFU with this "attacking the arguer" crap.

2. You have a garbage-in garbage-out preconception of what the purpose of Alta Politards is, and what actually goes on here. The purpose of Alta Politards isn't to combat IRL racism. IRL racism isn't combatted here.

3. You keep making factual claims about how racism is more effectively confronted IRL. You have no experience or knowledge to make any claims of this sort.

4. And... good to see another old canard from the Team #N toolbox being dragged out. This is the classic "We shouldn't drive the racists away, because otherwise they'll end up 'stewing' together at dailynazi.hate". Again, LMFAO @u giving strategy advice.

5. I don't vote, bitch.

Again, no there is nothing stopping me, except that it is always a crappy, meaningless discussion filled with hateful personal attacks, and I'll get banned if I respond in kind.

This bad faith smug bull**** is definitely a productive discussion, man, definitely we need to make this forum more welcoming and tolerant to encourage it.

It depends.

On if they're Muslim or Christian?

Wow, I'm chessmated.

No kidding. DeadMoneyWalking made this argument for weeks and isnt banned. Someone coming on here making the argument using hateful slurs would get banned. Freedom of speech doesnt mean we have to allow bad arguments against homosexual rights pass without being mocked for being dumb, no matter how much FoldN whines. Glenn Greenwald agrees with me, as he deleted hate speech FoldN posted to his forum, but not merely dumb bigoted thoughts. Greenwald also openly allows calling people morons and racists.

Obvious to anyone with the social awareness level of your average pre teen.

Twoplustwo even made you a second politics forum where you have more leeway to say whatever you want about why homosexuals shouldnt have equal rights! Feel free to fire away!

FoldN hasn't gotten banned despite openly trolling a moderator for like a day and a half, still whines about it because he'll get banned if he calls people ****** lovers.

GG

It was in this very thread, and yet somehow Foldn is still playing the plaint game.

I take credit for that, btw. You soo would have banned him by now if it wouldn't prove my points so well. I'm doing good work here

Uh, of course discussing why Mexican folk may or may not be cockroaches with an odious fool who just loves derailing about the "sandy vagina pc-police" is always going to be a crappy meaningless discussion. WTF do you expect ??

Dishonest [x], Begging the Question [x], Spam [x]

Why can't you just not respond to the r-word ??

Or just treat it like any other word. I've been called a bigot and racist on here at various times. Shockingly I was able to respond without threatening other users.

I mean this is just such a simple concept to grasp! Why is there a rule on this forum to attack the argument not the arguer? Can anyone answer that? Seriously?

Imagine if you went into a conservative chat room and everyone was allowed to mock you and call you an idiot (just an honest description), but when you called them racist they banned you.

Dude's openly discussing ways to troll Glenn Greenwald by posting homophobic **** on his forums. Pretty clear he's achieved Unbannable status.