Blah blah blah

Actually, I'll walk back the last sentence I posted and respond to this.

I hope that you are justifying a stance, the stance of the forum towards posting rules.

If you aren't, you're admitting that the moderation here is not merely tyrannical but despotic too. You're admitting the purpose of the forum's moderation is to fulfill the mods' own whimsically sadistic will to power.

Even the most brutal tyrants have a narrative, a public justification of their stances or policies. A despot may carelessly forego even that.

A real zinger. Speaking of stereotypes...

Predictable.

Uh huh. Let me distill the burning question for you, since you seemed to have missed it. Do you think your actions are furthering the public discourse? Do you care?

This is what I'm not missing:

Take your discourse to a forum where someone might care.

To which I responded, you missed, then proceeded to miss the punchline a second time, as you've missed most of what I've said to you so far as we've attempted to communicate (you think I would have learned by now, but, then again, I wouldn't exactly say I was talking to you in particular).

And I wonder why no one left here may care? I remember the level of discourse in NVG, even in 2014. There were a lot of quality threads with multi-K posters making strong and provocative arguments. There wasn't some 3 and a half day old post on page one with the only halfway decent convo getting locked by dilettante mods.

Your speaking for the entire remaining readership is hysterically presumptuous. However, I speak truthfully for myself when I say that I don't care what you do or how you run your business, as stated. I care about enlightening those who are capable of seeing the truth, but not enough to spend much more time here.

I'm just a bird of prey, after all, like so many among your disaffected readership.

So eat, drink and get fat for us.

No, we really can't make such a conclusion. Banning someone from a privately run forum is not even remotely related to a misdemeanor crime.

There's really no need for an analogy at all here. If you are banned from the site, it's much like a business' right to refuse service. In fact, that's exactly what it is. And they don't need to have a reason for doing so, as long as it isn't being done for discriminatory reasons. Now, you can argue that doing so might be bad for the business, and in some cases you would be correct.

I must apologize for not being clear enough, and having you explain the context and definitions, which I understood. It's the sentence itself that makes no sense to me:

I assume "little tyrants" refers to mods. Where does quoting come into it?

What does this mean? The stance of the forum towards posting rules is that we have posting rules, and mods are permitted to enforce them. Is there something more that you're seeking?

No, I'm simply having a conversation and trying to provide you with some clarity. But I suspect that I'm actually being trolled. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.

It seems self-evidently reasonable to me that a minor offense against a fair minded proprietor of a business - particularly one trading in information, especially news that is purportedly meant to inform - should be held to the same clarity of definition as a minor offense against the public. You think it's not? Common Law, the entire basis of the Western legal system, sprang from the days of feudalism and absolute monarchy, when all the lords' and kings' subjects were their respective property and the land their business.

Yes, there's massively ample precedent to say that the clarity of definition for one should be commensurate with the other.

I preemptively agreed with this statement multiple times, including in pm's with mods and this thread.



He's directly quoting the would-be klitarch Potter Stewart. Why do I call him a klitarch? Because he is a tyrant with no deference to the law who rules by whim.

Yes, coherence or, if nothing else, at at least a minimally objective standard.

I'm not saying you are forced to do this in any way, as stated. I'm saying it is the right thing for a fair minded proprietor and his business to do.

Correct. I do not believe that a forum needs to bear the same standard of proof to ban someone's posting account than a jury or judge does to convict someone of a criminal misdemeanor. I feel silly even typing this out, as it just makes me more sure I'm being trolled.

Excellent.

OK, thanks. I understand where the confusion was. The person who originally provided the quote wasn't a mod, so I don't believe there is a tyrant quoting a play kritarch. But I understand you now.

I don't think you're going to get anything more coherent than racist posts aren't permitted.

This might be the most convoluted defense of "cuz blacks" I've ever seen.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean Paul-Sartre

Just ban him. You're getting played for fools.

Lol anit-porn activist. Spin, baby, spin!

This guy sure does like him some adjectives.

Just banning everybody who uses Steve Sailer or his friend David Duke (or any other holocaust denier) to try to prove their point might be an easy solution.

This is a good post.

I'm completely open to the idea that blacks, Mexicans, whites, or even Asians are the root of all evil. But the guy in the OP isn't very good at providing evidence for it.

Op, you are racist because you think race. And race doesn't exist. Only individuals and the whole society does.

Posting racist is at least trolling, often worse.

Somehow the list of things OP has time to research on his own time includes all sorts of race “realism” nonsense, but excludes SCOTUS decisions. Leave that for other people.

Personally, rather than banning it I'd prefer to say this stuff is not News Views and Gossip about poker and therefore belongs in one of the politics forums where it could be answered with arguments like:

The black population of the UK is 1.9 million (3%) and the UK has about 60 gun homicides per year. If the higher number of gun homicides in the US is simply due to the higher number of black people then presumably the 8000 gun homicides per year are being committed by a black population of 250 million. Is that an accurate figure for the black population in the US?

Banning ideas is for people who've lost the argument.

Banning ideas is for people who are sick of winning the same argument over and over and over and over and over and...

Banning ideas is a fundamental strategy out of the leftist playbook, it should be noted. Differing opinions and ideas are poison to leftists.

You only have to look at the politics forum on this very site to to see the ruthlessness with which that strategy is carried out. Leftists rule the political discourse on this site totally. We recently had a forum shut down because leftists didn't agree with the ideas and opinions being expressed in that forum.

They are perfectly entitled to do that, of course, because as has been stated this is a privately owned site. However, it should be made abundantly clear that this is not a politically neutral or unbiased site and some of the moderating is a reflection of that.

The mob rules, and on this site the mob is leftist.

Your choice of president is out there talking about banning any news company who dares to report actual facts.

Swing and a miss.

Of course non-availability of guns will lead to reduced gun homicide rates. This is a straw man, do you actually think I was arguing that countries with strict and effective gun control have similar gun homicide rates, whatever the race, to the U.S? The fact of the matter is, like it or not, that the United States currently has something like 500 million firearms in circulation. Disarming the criminals at this point is a laughable fantasy. That cat left the bag in 1850 around here.

I'm not familiar with crime in the United Kingdom. But since you're ostensibly a betting man, I would be willing to take even money that blacks are over-represented in the homicide category.

Does the distinction between Gray Wolf and Eurasian Wolf exist? If it does, how often could an average person, randomly chosen off the street, differentiate between the two subspecies? Now, how often could that same person distinguish between someone of predominantly sub-saharan African ancestry and someone of European ancestry?

P.S., that is an excellent definition of racism, and it includes absolutely everyone.

It's funny how that's, almost verbatim, the page 1 Google definition of bigotry.

I haven't spent a lot of time on four in a few years and, surprising as it may be, was unaware of the extent of the convergence.

Wise words.

Sorry if I didn't respond to any other poster, but you honestly didn't come off as worthy of engagement. Feel free to prove me wrong. No one in this thread so far has made anything even resembling a substantive point beyond myself, Broadway Sushi and Bobo Fett.

Believe it or not, I actually respect worthy adversaries and look forward to learning from them. But they have to show up first.

I could respond to stuff like this

but beating puppies to death is bad sportsmanship, to say the least.

Not sure why you would assume it's a troll. Most of what businesses in the U.S. do relating to employees, customers or shareholders, is regulated by law. In all those cases, which are the majority of interactions, some legal standard applies. I'm not a fan of imposing that, but it's just how it is. Legal standards apply to many, if not most aspects of business.

More importantly, it seems like that would be a good standard to aspire to for a fair-minded business owner, especially one trading in information.

TL;DR Should twoplustwo allow discussion of the spherical nature of Earth? Mods: absolutely not. The Earth is flat and not thinking so is Pure Evil.

Yet again you guys seem to have mistaken ATF for the politics forum.