You not being allowed in P makes your opinion on P posters less than compelling. You should really focus on things you can control like how bad you post rather than what other people do.

Kerowo, you constantly amaze with your astonishing hypocrisy.

Please elaborate. Who am I whining about that I have no control over?

What about him?

^

.

But you see his posts, don't you?

Looking at 25 of his most recent posts since the 12th in the Trump thread, this is the closest to a personal attack I could find:

So you might consider dropping the hysterical hyperbole, as it doesn't strengthen your argument.

Perhaps Clovis was infracted or temp-banned and it has had the desired effect on him, but at least recently he's at or under 4% personal attacks.

You don't!

Lol. He must have substantially improved his posting recently then.

Also is it okay to state facts here on the forums even if it's seen as a personal attack? I've always kinda wondered this.

For example Zorkman and Sushy are racists and bigots is a statement of objective fact. They see it as a personal attack. What's the rule here? Varies by forum?

I used to.

That's how some people react to getting temp-bans: they take some responsibility & change their behavior.

Others end up getting software exiles and whining endlessly in ATF about a forum they can't even access anymore.

I think this is a disingenuous characterization of your position. You wrote:

Because I am a competent speaker of the English language, I was able to understand the implicit meaning of your simile, which is clearly this:

I didn't say your post was bigoted because it refused to place an adjective in front of the word Muslim. I am not demanding that you refer to all Muslims as moderate. I am objecting to the claim that all Muslims are extremists. You made this meaning clear first by using the KKK in your simile, as well as in the same post in which you now claim to have meant something else:

Here you are making explicitly the argument that all Muslims are extremists, on the basis of your opinion of the Quran, Muslims' treatment of women and gays, support for violence, or whatever else. So, your claim that you merely wish to avoid using an adjective is clearly false.

No. The claim is dehumanizing because you are refusing to recognize that members of this group of 1.5 billion human beings are not all identical, either in their beliefs or their practices. They are not all similar to KKK members in any way. Your insistence that no adjectives may be used alongside the word "Muslim" serves the purpose of erasing the individual existence of each member of the group, as well all the differences between them. This type of tactic -- reducing individuals in a group to the value attached to the group label -- has been explored in various sociological and psychological literature about dehumanization and acts of violence. It's the connection between this kind of reductive thinking and discrimination and violence towards members of certain groups that is problematic. I say your claim is bigoted both because it's false (not all Muslims are alike; being Muslim is not a simple state of affairs like being pregnant) but also because it relies on this dehumanizing rhetorical strategy.

Note that I think this kind of rhetorical strategy can be problematic when used to describe "all Republicans", or "all Trump voters" too, although the specifics matter. Not all generalizations are false, or dehumanizing, of course, and not all patterns of over-generalization in political discourse are as likely to lead to acts of violence. But, taking into account the recent shooting of Scalise, as well as the rise of other hate crimes (against Muslims for example) it's something to be concerned about. I don't think you can claim to care about civility in discourse while demanding the right to falsely characterize a billion people as extremists.

Really, how fascinating. I suppose it would be silly of me to ask for evidence.

You have 1800 posts here. Go back and read them and figure it out.

You people are so bad at this.

It is nonsense to go on a wild goose chase on behalf of a months' old grudge of an exiled troll.

I rest my case, your honor.

Excellent. Bye then.

lol u

Like a lot of liberals, wookie is quick to form an opinion about a person and put them in a box that they may not belong by saying conservatives are quick to form an opinion about a person and put them in a box that they may not belong.

Not quite. I forgot my closing address.

See folks. This last series of posts here perfectly highlights and encapsulates what is wrong with the P forum. I could not have described it better.

A left-wing poster makes an unsubstantiated allegation against a conservative and when asked for evidence refuses to provide evidence. The mod then takes his side and condones his refusal to provide evidence.

Absolutely astonishing. Thank-you wookie for displaying your true colors for all to see.

Timmmmmmmmayyyyyyyy

I haven't read that much of this thread, but I assume you are shifting goalposts here. I can't imagine a scenario where a poster would say wookie is unbiased.

..and he wasn't the only current/former mod in P or PU to be biased. There is a very strong lean on this site.