Bobo, thank you for representing my views here. Your take matches mine. But did you miss my memo about being polite? Come on, man, why be such a prick about it?

that' what i'm saying. it is checked here. the article doesn't say the speech should be censored.

No one changes but somehow some change. I know not many.

The white flight of Derek Black

"Matthew decided his best chance to affect Derek’s thinking was not to ignore him or confront him, but simply to include him. “Maybe he’d never spent time with a Jewish person before,” Matthew remembered thinking.

It was the only social invitation Derek had received since returning to campus, so he agreed to go. The Shabbat meals had sometimes included eight or 10 students, but this time only a few showed up. “Let’s try to treat him like anyone else,” Matthew remembered instructing them.

Derek arrived with a bottle of wine. Nobody mentioned white nationalism or the forum, out of respect for Matthew. Derek was quiet and polite, and he came back the next week and then the next, until after a few months, nobody felt all that threatened, and the Shabbat group grew back to its original size."

****ing Americans and their ****ing politeness.

Two Plus Two - Where Hate Speech Can Live Forever, But Only In Eventual Closed Threads

Doesn't seem like a motto to be proud of

Do you see how some people can value free expression of ideas for its own sake, even hateful ideas (without themselves subscribing to those ideas)? I mean, maybe you disagree with Mat's values, but they seem coherent to me. The ethical framework underlying this approach to moderating forums for discussions of controversial ideas is not mysterious. Sure, we can recognize that allowing hate speech in political/religious/philosophical discussions can have some negative effects on people. Do you recognize that, for people who value free expression, the kind of moderation that would be required to ban all hate speech also has harmful effects in limiting free expression?

Do you see how valueing free expression of those kind of ideas could be hurtful to the business as people can draw conclusions?

Do you see the inconsistency of steadfastly protecting the right to post this hateful giberish while turbo banning someone for pointing out elsewhere that these ideas are allowed on this site?

Mat I no longer wish to be associated in any manner with this site. If you could please zap my account I would appreciate it. I would prefer my user name be changed to guest if possible.

Thanks.

If I am a woodmaker

and I make wooden platforms and daises

and five different people order platforms from me

and they all pay with solid good cold cash

so I can now feed my family

and one of them uses it to exhort people to vote for Hillary

and another of them uses it to exhort people to vote for Trump

and the third of them uses it to exhort people to donate blood

and the fourth of them uses it to call for the domination of the world by ISIS

and the fifth of them uses it to call for the extermination of [insert racial or ethnic group here]

Does that mean I support any of the people who bought and are using my fine-worksmanship platforms? Or when they paid me cash for my platforms (or paid cash to my advertisers who then paid me cash), isn't it the case rather that they are supporting me? A nice guy? Me?

Does it mean I support any of my buyers' viewpoints? One of them? Two of them? All of them? Only the good ones? Only the bad ones? Do I get to choose? Or does public opinion choose for me? Will it assume the best in me? Will it assume the worst in me?

I'm just trying to sell platforms. Will you boycott me if I fail to request a comprehensive issue-by-issue questionnaire and forbid you to give me money if you fail to score a 100% on said questionnaire?

Anyone who thinks Mat Sklansky stands behind every single thing that is said by anonymous trolls from around the world is an IDIOT. Let's be fair. You're welcome, Mat.

co-signed

Another ****ty internet analogy

The biggest mistake many of you make in falling all over yourselves to protect sacred free speech rights and minority opinions on 2+2 is that you seem to think these people are sincere. They are not.

Zorkman and Sushy and most others aren't here to have a conversation. They aren't here to participate in the community. They don't have an actual point of view they want to express. They want to be as disruptive and offensive as they can get away with, and when they can't get away with it any more they try to be disruptive by whining instead.

That's the whole game to them, and when you extend them the benefit of the doubt you're just getting played. They're intentionally exploiting the very principles you're trying to uphold in order to undermine the system those principles are meant to protect.

If someone is just a troll, wouldn't it be better to just ban them than to change what topics are allowed or which viewpoints can be expressed? After all, as you say, banning those topics doesn't stop people from trolling - they will just switch topics.

That's your opinion only (minus evidence), and you are welcome to it but you couldn't be more wrong.

See this is the problem when you have an echo chamber. People start believing their own bull**** so much that they just can't comprehend that anyone could have a sincere opposing viewpoint. It's actually quite sad and even potentially dangerous in the current political environment in my opinion.

if you still feel this way in a couple days, let me know ad i'll grant the request. account deletion can't be reversed.

Links to any of your good faith efforts to have a sincere political discussion?

No one believes you are sincere, maybe if you weren't such a dick?

Many of them do get banned, and then others insincerely point to those bannings as evidence of political bias.

Well, sure. I appreciate the owners of 2p2 providing us with a platform to discuss poker and other topics. I'm glad that they are able to make money doing so as it wouldn't otherwise be sustainable. But I'm not going to criticize a business owner for running their business in a way that is consistent with their values rather than just focusing on profit alone.

No, not really. We ban posters for all kinds of bad behavior, including using racist, sexist, or homophobic language. This isn't Nam. No one is suggesting that we shouldn't have any rules at all.

If you do follow through with this I'll say congratulations and wish you luck. With the horrifying amount of time many have wasted here, some could have easily became the next Neil Armstrong or Ron Jeremy.

So, you accuse me of being insincere (without any evidence) and you expect me to provide links to disprove it.

Lol, you people are incredible.

The prosecution rests.

LOL.

The prosecution is full of ****.

You're the one making the accusations. You provide links to prove your case or stfu.

Typical bloody lying leftist. Blatantly lies about someone, with nothing to back it up, and then tells them to disprove it. Incredible.

The prosecution triple dog dare rests.

I agree.