Rafiki, why dont you show us these posts where ppl called you racist?

wil was characterized as someone who is in favor of assaulting trans. wil was speaking his mind. thats callled thinking. he was thinking that he would intervene if someone with a penis followed his daughter in to a washroom designated for women. wil may be wrong in thinking people with penises are men but maybe not. the hysteria is absurd. the need to twist the plot in order to direct hate is habitual

Just FYI, I mostly agree with your post. But the bolded part is incorrect. BFI is not a place where someone can just use any tone they want and get away with it, even if the input is valuable. That doesn't mean it's intended to be a safe space, but I'm not cool with people being totally obnoxious either.

TS can be totally obnoxious at times, so as a BFI mod, I assumed that's what led to the ban. :P

Like beyond the dude who just brought up some infraction and why the topic must be sensitive for me?

Lol I'd love to see the old post in question. I'm absolutely sure it was some black or asian joke in poor taste. Or a blasian. blasians get the best of all of it frankly. Elite smart athlete is a deadly combo.

You're saying wil saw the person's penis? I don't recall that being part of the story

Zeno lifted the ban on toothsayer.

I edited the post. Tried to express the bathrooms should not be segregated. And also when real privacy is needed.

No, this is a ridiculous distortion.

This is not equivalent. We live in a culture where bathrooms are commonly segregated by sex, ffs.

Saying that moderators of particular forums can ignore (certain) site-wide rules basically means that the ignorable rules aren't really site-wide rules, they're just common or suggested forum rules that can be adopted or not by moderators of particular forums. There's no reason you can't do that, but you're (hypothetically) saying that 2p2 is demoting its site-wide rule against racist posting to a suggested forum rule, and that racist posts are allowed in forums that allow it. It's hard to understand why that's a good idea.

You're assuming that the reason for the ban was racism, but what if it was some other site-wide rule. What if he was sending threatening PMs to people? Is there as much hand-wringing about whether it's appropriate to ban him from the site?

WTF do I want? I want people to stop yelling at each other. It's amazing to me how tone deaf people can be, so that anything that someone on basically the same wing says is ok and understandable, but something said by someone on the "other side" can be decried via transitive arguments of "A is basically B, and B are basically C," where C equals either Nazis or Marxists.

I do think there is some fairness in saying that we tend to ban the folks on the right more often than those on the left. Part of that is that the folks on the right tend to be more aggressive, but that's not all of it. I am pretty shocked that the person who said "The rich, especially the richest of the rich, are ****ing scum who should be slaves" has zero infraction points and is arguing in this thread.

My solution to this issue isn't to ban less people for racism, but to have people stop yelling at each other about politics and for politics to stay in its own forum and stop infecting the rest of the site, including this forum. Every time a thread comes up ITF complaining about anything political, all the politards flock in from around the site and re-live all their favorite arguments.

You are the one doing the twisting. He said he would not let a trans women go in the bathroom with his wife or kid and if they tried to use the bathroom he would use force to keep them out if his words failed to do that.

I'm saying that all rules are actually open to interpretation. Unless Mason or I make the final call, individual moderators can interpret or ignore rules as they see fit.

My entire argument with ACEG is that I think some views which I consider to be "racist" (or which, at minimum, demonstrate beliefs connected to underlying social problems involving racism) should be allowed, especially if they are very commonly held views. My position is not, therefore, that we should disallow discussion of anything which anyone calls racist, and certainly not that we should ban expressing admiration for the national anthem or anything similar. Although it is also my position that there should be some site-wide rules regarding objectionable posting that should be made as clear as they can be.

So I don't see what point you think you are making here in regard to my position. I think you're just trolling me out of habit.

the whole thing was hypothetical. if you think wil couldn't see a hypothetical mans penis when he went in to a hypothetical womens washroom, you might be mentally challenged. i don't think wil was hypothetically checking pam anderson for a penis. i would have to guess wil was hypothetically concerned with a "man" that had stereotypical masculine appearance such as a 5 oclock shadow. going beyond the hypothetical, the washroom issue demonstrated that activists were totally fine with people with penises dressed as stereotypical male could freely use any washroom they chose. i can't believe any of this needs to be explained

i'm absolutely amazed at your body of work. how it elevated to moderation is stunning

ok so you admit that this

was a lie meant to demonize other people.

This is a perfect example of the nonsense "logic" chains I was just talking about. By this logic, since I have seen posts that are insulting towards rich people, poor people, educated people, uneducated people, LAGs, short-stackers, nits, regs, recs, Europeans, Republicans, Democrats, people who refuse to pick a side, people who like mayonnaise, etc., etc. etc. on this site and the posts weren't scrubbed nor were the posters banned, "no one is welcome here."

I demand that this be deleted and that Garick be demodded, nay, banned, nay, executed immediately.

I think it's a good point. It's obviously a bigoted POV, but the question is - is it worth talking to someone who, maybe, doesn't understand the topic very well or has just heard "Men want to dress up as women to rape your little girls!!". Is it even worth having a conversation with someone who has a different (and imo wrong) pov to maybe change their thinking?

I always go back to wookie making the point about it being illegal to force someone to give you an organ when talking about abortion and how someone responded along the line of "I hadn't thought of it like that, huh, I have some thinking to do". Even if it happens incredibly rarely - there is room to have a discussion that may change people's minds. It happened with LK and organic food. It has happened with me many many times in online or personal arguments.

Change in public opinion happens incrementally, part of that is having very difficult uncomfortable discussions. That's just my opinion though.
I can recognize that i'm sitting in a very comfortable, privileged position as a white and conventionally attractive female. Which is why my question is - is there any discussion of Trans rights to be had at all, or do you think the best thing is to only discuss positive opinions on trans rights? Is it better for you as a trans person representing trans rights to never have to be confronted with those opinions?

And these aren't loaded or leading questions. I obviously have zero stake in what happens either way - my concern is that this is obviously very important to you, so I am genuinely wondering your opinions.

2+2 has become a place where personal attacks on posters is commonplace and concerted. That should be stopped - I agree with MM's post/thread - no surprise there- when he says we should minimise insults towards others.

Moderate unacceptable posting, ban users if you really have to but don't allow your site to give in to those who want to make it about personal attacks and hatred towards other posters.

so that is your characterization. here is the post i objected to. this pretty much describes the hysteria i was talking about. right?

this is why we shouldn't be wildly swinging ban hammers and labels around if your goal is to create a sustainable forum

Allow me to join you in saying that bringing up a single minor infraction from 6 years ago for "racism" is ridiculous (at a time when certain mods were infracting any attempt at ethnic humor as "racism"), especially for a poster such as yourself who has been around for a long time and is not known as anything of a problem poster, and Victor's follow up is just as ridiculous.

Just in time for Veterans Day!

don't worry, just like your quoted post in the OP, juan is being incredibly misleading

my point was to clarify what was relevant. also make it clear to others who place a ridiculous value deciding what people or ideas are bigoted based on their assumptions

ive never accused you of that and never criticized your moderation. ive had strong criticism for every other political mod that i'm aware of. i've also told you a number of times that i address you because you are one of the few on the far left that are actually capable and willing to articulate a pov. you don't just hurl labels and outrage. i think its important for both sides to see your opinions

well, i saw their rep in an interview on the subject last night. i don't think they would disagree with me

stellar 1 liner as always. articulating brilliance is your cup of tea sir