my very personal view. it is proof that people who have a problem with homosexuals are completely insane idiots. given that personal view, i have a hard time believing it is causing any damage to anybody but insane, idiot, homophobics. that said, i really do allow the moderators of the individual forums to proceed as they see fit. zeno had some interesting things to say about that post in the mod forum. if you ask him, perhaps he'll post them here.

never mind my edit, above. i just realized he's dead serious when he points out that "Men have stronger more precise tongues"

Did you follow Mason's Trump thread in NVG? And take note of the posts he turbo deleted and those he allowed to remain?

In the interest of maintaining civility I'll spare you my opinion of Mason and my view on his, tolerance.

I have more to say if you want to continue, but I'm headed out for a while.

Have fun in the real world. We can discuss anything you like, but i'm not sure what your personal feelings about Mason have to do with this conversation. Any issues with what's allowed in the politics forums falls directly on me.

Unfortunately, spreading hate speech online very often damages the targets of that speech, similar to how spreading conspiracy theories led a nut job to go shoot up a random pizzeria.

Can you tell me which online sites are being blamed?

My present working theory is that this site has too many smart people on all sides of an issue for any one idea to catch fire in the way i think it might elsewhere.

A person crazy enough to go on a shooting spree is going to do it, pretty much? If he's on a site where all he hears is one perspective, that might push him over the edge quicker, i suppose. But again, i'm thinking this site can offer a balance, regarding politics, unseen most other places.

For instance, crazy ..... comes here because he finds a reference on google about an idea he agrees with, but unlike stormfront he sees opposition to that view and it slows him down just enough not to go on that shooting spree. nutty perspective on my part?

How many racist, bigoted, anti-muslim *******s have we converted by showing that their views are not tolerated, other than allowed to be posted on one of the larger internet forums? Why would we expect lurkers to be convinced at a higher rate than posters?

Yes, but only if you believe the most recent evidence-based research on the subject.

Have you seen the main Politics forum on this site?

you'll have to educate me there. i'm not aware of this research. and i mean that. i'm not arguing. i am sincerely curious. it's actually very disturbing that there is enough violence
attached to internet banter that research studies can take place on the topic

yes. it's pretty much a liberal echo chamber. but people aren't yelling at me trying to shut it down.

so i don't need to question or defend its existence.

But people are yelling at you to make it less of an echo chamber. (see this very thread)

i know. not quite enough of you, though. keep in mind, this is the two plus two poker forums, not politics forums.

Here's an article about internet hate speech leading to violence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...f7c_story.html

And here's one explaining how being confronted with facts that challenge your beliefs doesn't change any minds:

https://medium.com/homeland-security...d-a79d4e6e8061

Let me guess. Some of the people saying they have no issues with homosexuality or gay marriage talk about bestiality, disease, suicide rates and pedophile.

Kind of like how IQ, testosterone and the rest comes up just about every time AA are discussed.

i am now going to my friend's pool to swim and drink beer. i will read noodle's links later. thank you for posting them.

without reading them, however, i want to say this: if we ever see another poker boom and this site takes off again, all political discussion will be banned from the site. i ****ing hate how this rips everyone apart.

Maybe, but the op starts by calling gay people incestuous, iirc

Well... at least he comes out and owns it instead of playing the im just intellectually curious and philosophy minded game. Like most of those threads go.

Thread was indescribable.

Unrepentant and Radicalized Online: A Look at the Trial of Dylann Roof

Your post seemed to imply Mason was involved in the decision. That's how I read it anyway.

I'm still baffled about the deep concern regarding possible damage to the 2+2 brand from an Amazon review pointing out abhorrent posts on the forum they own while steadfastly defending the freedom to express abhorrent views on said forum.

Seems to me if one is so strong on personal expression that they allow these posts on the forum, they would also be capable of withstanding a negative review in the interest of free expression.

On the one hand, anti-Muslim posts lead to violence, but on the other, pro-Muslim posts have no effect. Hmmm....

Good god man thanks for proving my point better than I could've expected to.

These types of posts are so brazenly stupid it physically hurts people to read them. And the other problem you run into is that if you're doing it on purpose, then you're trolling.

Nah, I just call it as I see it bro.

And you are a repeat offender.

I think you're missing a couple of distinctions he made:

Mat's making a distinction between the books and the poker forums. That could be made simply on the basis of them being separate entities, but to take it further, he made an earlier note about how it was hurting 2+2 authors, and he didn't think it was fair that they were being harmed by someone's dislike of content on our forums - I'm paraphrasing here, but I think I've got it close enough.

As for your comment about "pointing out abhorrent posts on the forum they own", I believe you've missed another distinction:

In other words, pointing out the posts would have been fine, but that wasn't what was done. When you simply say that the company is fine with views X, Y, and Z, but provide no further explanation, readers of said review have no context or any way of judging whether the review is accurate.

But the argument being made is that the one(s) who is/are so strong on personal expression aren't the only ones having to withstand the negative review. There is of course lots of crossover, but there are third parties brought into the reviews (book authors, primarily). And the review is unrelated to the actual product being "reviewed".

A lot of people make a distinction between expressing bigoted viewpoints, and advocating violence, promoting hatred, etc., based on said viewpoints. Of course I understand that can be a fine line to try to draw.

I'm lucky enough to moderate forums where I don't have to make decisions like this. Since all the forums I moderate have a narrow focus, there's no reason for people to break out their bigotry, and I can just infract and/or ban all the idiots. But I don't envy those who mod forums like Politics and RGT, where it can't always be easy determining what's over the line. Pretty sure there'd be a lot more bans and deletions if I modded one of those forums, but I'm not convinced my way would be better than others'.