Before politics v.9 here is closed, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank Bundy, Juan Valdez, and especially Fat Wolf for demonstrating exactly why it is that it is necessary to moderate the forum the way that Wookie and I do.

Regards,

—jman220

Yeah thanks for clearing that up goofy, I rescind my earlier comment that there was an inappropriate pileup. Hope that you feel welcome to continue to post there

I don't think you should assume that just because Wookie makes a comparative judgement about the relative harmfulness of the statements "go back to Africa" and "go back to Europe" that you can extrapolate his judgement to any arbitrarily chosen comparison. I don't think your analogy is helpful. But I certainly think one advantage of moderating both is that it avoids having to deal with the question. I suspect that in the future if such a post were reported jman would probably moderate it under the updated rules, although I could be wrong about that.

Calling the forum a hate group is hyperbolic IMO. I'm sure Juan Valdez will be happy to explain why.

More generally, I don't want to see the forum closed and I doubt that your feedback is likely to lead to further changes right now. It seems like you played some role in Mason's intervention and I think Jman's intention to moderate personal attacks more strictly is probably helpful, and may also address your new concern about terms like "deplorable." So that seems like a positive outcome to me.

The ADL describes a hate group thusly:

I submit that the Politics sub-forum is not and cannot be a hate group as described above on the following grounds:

1) It does not constitute an organisation

2) It is not rooted in shared antipathy of the sort described above

3) Ignoring 1) and 2), the stated purpose of the Politics sub-forum is 'political discourse', which description is found both on the forum index page and on the main page of the sub-forum itself. That does not constitute a "hate-based orientation/purpose" as described above. There may be Politics posters who are hateful, but the description above specifically precludes that fact from conferring 'hate group' status.

Given the above, I propose that El Lobo Gordo may either dispute the reasoning above, or may propose an alternative definition and present arguments for why his alternative should be preferred and present arguments for why Politics matches that description. Failing that, he may retract the claim that the Politics sub-forum is a hate group.

I propose that, should El Lobo Gordo decline to substantially engage in a good-faith effort to pursue at least one of the three options presented above, summary judgement be handed down and future references to the Politics sub-forum as a "hate group" be prohibited, incurring infractions and/or bans at the relevant mod's discretion.

Hate groups everywhere.

I'm torn - hate marmite but love twiglets

Jfc that's just plain perverted.

I know - I really need to make my mind up where I stand on yeast extract.

hate group lmao

derplorables gonna derp

Cite or ban?

Many people are saying. I didn't say it but many people have

Some people are saying the wolf should be banned for hate for a group. I will cite nyslef. Make it so.

Well they are and have if you see the responses in Mason's thread.

I also think seeing members come forward and share what they have experienced (abuse, trolling, etc) in politics will re-enforce further why change needs to occur and open some members up to it as some are still denying that there was a problem to begin with

One time I posted in politics and Morphismus turned my post into a meme. It hurt my feelings.

All-In_Flynn, thank you for your post. You are demonstrating a willingness to have an intelligent dialogue on the matter I raised. You probably missed it, but I have already presented a definition of hate group. This was the first paragraph in the thread I started that got quickly deleted.

This is the argument I raised:
1. If twoplustwo harbors a hate group it should stop.
2. If a subforum on twoplus satisfies the definition of a hate group, it can be said to be a hate group.
3. The politics subforum is harbored by twoplustwo
4. The politics forum satisfies the definition of a hate group as evidenced by exhibit A, B, and C.
Conclusion: The politics subforum on twoplustwo should be shut down.

I am okay changing the conclusion from "shut down" to "rehabilitated". Either successful intervention stops Twoplustwo from harboring a hate group.

Are you willing to stipulate that the argument above is logically valid? That If the premises are true then conclusion follows? If so would you also stipulate that premises 1 through 3 are true and what is up for debate is the truth of premise 4?

One of the things I will applaud Jman220 for is his moderation tracking experiment. But if you look at it, he started out with specific reasons why a poster was infracted. So and so got banned because he told another to go "eat a dick". I can click the quote and go to the post to see the context for myself.

As time goes on he is getting more nebulous with his reasons. So and so infracted for trolling with no example or link. What does Jman220 consider trolling? There is no context to be examined. If there is no context to be examined, what then is the point of the moderation tracking experiment?

In my case, he thinks that because I lobby for the closure of the politics forum that is trolling. It isn't. Can it be that in Jman220 mind, a troll is one who advocates a cause or position that Jman220 is against?

So much projection by El Lobo Gordo.

Sure, no problem. The only current point of contention is the relative merits of a definition sourced from Wikipedia versus one sourced from an NGO whose stated goal is:

Wikipedia is an all-purpose repository of general information whose content is ultimately user-generated. The Anti-Defamation League is a professional organisation which in part exists to identify and combat hate groups. It's not quite bringing Urban Dictionary to a Merriam-Webster fight, but it's of that nature.

How we resolve this is unclear to me. I consider the ADL prima facie vastly more suited as a source for a definition of 'hate group' than Wikipedia. I will consider any argument to the contrary you represent.

Breaking down and sobbing uncontrollably as I testify before the Politics Truth And Reconciliation Commission.

I don't really care whether or not jman maintains the tracking thread. The effort:benefit ratio there is very unclear to me, and from experience I know it's a pain in the ass. I don't think (for example) that your ongoing feedback on the moderation is valuable enough to justify the effort, and I doubt the sincerity of your interest.

Actually people think you're a troll (read: insincere, disingenuous, acting in bad faith) mostly because you're obviously a previously banned poster.

I tend to think people overuse "troll" as a label, that Poe's law is a thing, and I said before that I thought people also tended to use that word just to indicate that they thought someone was arguing badly. I also think some politics posters just call people trolls to express their antipathy towards reading debates they think are stupid.

But in your case I can't really fault people for questioning your motives or calling you a troll. Calling the forum a hate group is a bad argument, and while I'm more forgiving of bad arguments than most here and probably more interested in engaging them, it also appears to be a disingenuous argument coming from you.

I guess, from my perspective, I wouldn't immediately dismiss any complaint about the forum purely because it was being offered by a previously banned user pretending to be new. I can decide whether I think a complaint has merit on its own terms. But I don't see much reason to pretend like you are some neutral, disinterested, reasonable third party any more then Juan or bundy are.

You only used half of the Wiki definition. It actually states:

A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a hate group's "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."[1]

First, you cannot prove that the Politics Forums primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility or malice against persons differing from its organization's members.

Second, using the catch-all provision "or any other designated sector of society" is extremely weak. Actually it is nonsensical. Clearly, the forums conduct does not advocate hate based on race, nationality or sexual orientation, etc.

Conservatives, republicans, Trump voters, while are sectors of society, are not designated sectors of society. People can be fiscal conservatives but social liberals, people can vote for Trump one year but not the next, Republicans include blacks, log cabin gays and members of each nationality. Ideals or political affilation do not place someone in a designated sector of society.

It seems you are saying the wikipedia definition is bad because it comes from wikipedia and the ADL definition is better because it comes from the ADL, correct?

TBH, I used the wikipedia definition because that was the 1st link when I googled "hategroup". I read it, said to myself, that sounds like a reasonable definition, so I used it.

Telling me my argument is bad because it comes from me isn't going to persuade me I have made a bad argument.

I am not saying the Wikipedia definition is "bad". I am saying that it is vastly less suited for use as a reference point in determining whether or not something constitutes a hate group than a definition provided by a professional organisation concerned with identifying and combating hate groups.

I'm not criticising you for it, Wikipedia is often very useful for first-glance information on general topics. May I take it that this indicates you are prepared to accept the ADL definition, and then we can begin?