He's a previously banned or newly minted poster whose opinion is worth more than several mods who have served 2+2 for years.

I have called the forum a defacto-hate group. Some have argued that it does not rise to that level. If you want to call it a hate-orientated community that is fine too. Still to harsh? call it a community with some hostility issues I don't think it matters much. Acknowledging the politics forum is/was seriously broken is what is important. I happen to go as far to say that it is so broken that it has become a net drag on society. I think Mason might be coming to that realization too.

You don't want politics to go away? Well you need people to say, "smashing the windows of republican offices is going over the line" when it becomes acceptable there to post that you want to start smashing windows of republican offices. Unfortunately people who say such things get exiled/banned, while moderators defend or at least minimize the over the top statements.

Can I take this as official and final concession that the Politics sub-forum is not a hate group as defined by the ADL?

What is El Lobo Gordo's former account?

So cat face is banned and this guy is not even though a half dozen mods, super mods, quadruple mods and site owners know he is a banned user.

I don’t even know why anything else is worthy of discussion this one reality is so absurd.

And I’m not some white knight of cat face. I honestly don’t even know who they are. I have just seen several people banned, forums turned into tizzys and this guy is still completely unfettered. It is stupid.

I think a few threads in ATF about the problems in politics over the years would have had a hand in this as well.

I have said such things, and I am neither exiled nor banned. I don't believe anyone has ever been exiled or banned for expressing such a view.

That said, I agree that politics moderators ought to moderate similar posts, I just want to point out that you are conflating two different complaints which are unrelated (banned posters and non-moderation of over-the-top rhetoric). As it happens, I know of at least one instance in the last few days where a post was reported and then moderated for crossing this line. I think the changes Jman has implemented address this latter concern adequately.

“A net drag on society” lmfao

wat?

classic toothsayer

Mason can barely step into P without having to ban and warn people. Whether we agree with the bans/warnings or not, it's extremely clear evidence that he sees a problem well beyond a few exiled posters or complaints in ATF.

I wouldn't downplay too much the importance of these threads as without a moderation thread in politics none of these issues would come to light for the rest of the site unless Mason or Mat was to act behind the scenes and we'd see a request for change. Certainly these kinds of threads would provide reasons for such change.

you misspelled choosing to ban

I take it as read that it wasn't a law of physics. It would be reasonable for a forum to consider as a standard for survival of a forum here that MM can pop in without having to ban and warn people to behave.

I have long thought that if MM created an anonymous account and started trying to post about politics in P then the forum wouldn't survive a few weeks. If you totally disagree fine but if you suspect that might be accurate then you should realise there's a big problem.

NET DRAG ON SOCIETY

Maybe it was nitty on my part but he even reversed some of his bans. I should add that I sort of agree with the point of your post (he has a problem with the P forum). The clearest evidence was his 2+2 Magazine article. I'm not sure you agree with that take on the root of his issues with P, which is why I said sort of.

Bit harsh to compare MM to wil.

maybe but I haven't even considered doing that, txs. I'll let you know ....

You should check out the Tucker Carlson thread (believe the politically neutral title of the thread is Cucker Tarlson) where the weigh the pros and cons of burning his house down. People standing outside his house at night covered in all black and chanting "we know where you live" and "mail bombs" was perfectly fine. The mob almost turned on chezlaw and well named for trying to talk some sense in to them, but they promptly backed down and peace was restored

SJW vs deplorable is a completely silly comparison

Deplorable is negative by definition. In context, we all know where it came from and how it was used by Hilary. It was a viscous generalization that she had to walk back.

SJW isn't negative by definition. It was also a name social/political activist types gave themselves. It's actually more comparable to an Ed Hardy shirt. They started off as cool but then became the official uniform for a douche. People on here don't want to be called SJW because the image also changed. I think it's more comparable to calling a trump supporter a trumpkin

none of that is an argument for or against what language should be used

Like molasses, that generalization

That is an unsurprising mischaracterization of the thread, and of SJW.


Off topic: Also, Tucker Carlson should be in jail.

That mod edit was lightning fast. I'm not sure why you feel the need to remove examples of the image people have of male SJW's, it's not really off topic or political. If someone tried to describe what they thought a trumpkin or a deplorable was and thought using examples would do a better job, that shouldn't be a problem either

I don't know where you go to complain about the moderation of this thread, but it's definitely not here :P

lol got it

brb composing a 750 word OP in a thread on moderation of the political chat about the politics forum thread