I think this is a reasonable first approximation, but that there should be at least some site-wide rules, and per the terms and conditions those site-wide rules already include posting "hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable" material. The question is about some minimally consistent interpretation of that rule which could be applied site-wide.

Beyond that, it seems like exiles work fairly well for some/many of these cases.

Without a standard baseline, like well named mentioned, I couldn't agree with that. See P7.0

Yes. But for the purposes of this conversation I want us to assume he was banned for racism. You wanted him banned for that, correct? And you want him gone from the entire site, forever? Correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming the above is correct, you would also be opposed to allowing him to continue posting in BFI?

What is this bull****?

1) Of course the fact that I am somewhat unwilling to expend a large amount of effort trying to clarify to you what I've already admitted is a highly discretionary line doesn't change my position. Why would it?

2) Obviously I can easily provide endless examples of posts that should be allowed. The difficulty is in providing examples that are not over the line, but also very close to the line. But this would be difficult with your line as well.

3) Here:

That was a post in P7 by noted genius and scholar JiggyMac. I do not think this post should be modded, deleted, or result in a ban.

Here’s the thing: many people who post in politics also post in other forums. It’s not simply a question of politics posters wanting others banned from forums they, the politics posters, never visit.

Way too broad. Depends on the specific posts.

There absolutely exist a set of posts he could make that are racist and should result in an instant site-wide ban, but that set != the set of all racist posts.

Except who decides? All cows eat grass? You? Me? Gizmo? Zeno?

In my world, it is decided by the active participants in a forum and that forum's moderators. Yes, there is a site-wide rule against "objectionable" material. Ultimately that still becomes a judgment call.

This is a good place for people like Jbrochu to provide some links.

You do, silly :P

I thought that, in P7, people should have been allowed to express the position that they were not obligated to recognize transgender identities. That is, they should have been allowed to express the position that they were unwilling to call someone "she" if they thought the person was male. I think it's a bigoted position to take, but given that it's both the dominant view in our culture, as well as being a contemporary cultural/political issue, it doesn't make sense to me to forbid the discussion, despite the fact that I consider it to be a bigoted and ignorant position.

Other examples I can think of would be stuff like
- Expressing support for voter ID laws
- Denying the existence of racial bias in policing, employment, education, or etc.
- Denying the existence of the gendered wage gap
- Denying that men, white people, or other groups are privileged.
- Denying that gender gaps in various occupations are a result of sexism

Note that I think all of those positions are misguided/ignorant at minimum, and often reflect underlying prejudices and biases. Also, if it's not obvious, there are ways in which people might express similar views that I think would cross the line. It's hard to describe in a perfectly clear way. But just from the P7 discussion about trans I think it's clear that you are much more strident than I am in wanting to forbid the expression of some opinions, although we agree about them being bigoted.

That is what I would have said if I had much more patience.

Just to be clear, you had a guy in P7 who posted fantasies about physically assaulting trans people in bathrooms. Framing this as a guy who just "wanted to express opinions" seems very generous.

I disagree with you. That post is blatantly transphobic on multiple levels.

implies all trans women are mentally ill
implies trans women are just men with beards in dresses
implies the mere presence of a trans woman in public is a threat to the safety of children

You seriously think this is cool?

That was before I was a P7 mod, and it's an example of something being related but over the line imo.

Heavily depends on your use of the word "cool". As I said, I don't think that post in isolation warrants deletion or banning of the poster, provided it is made in the context of a transgender rights discussion in a politics forum.

Obviously, I think it's a terrible post, and even "close to the line", which is (again, obviously) why I chose it as an example.

You should decide in the best interest of who might visit your site. I wouldn't particularly be keen on returning to your site if I was from India and read some of Zeno's silly attempts to be shocking. Nor if I was a black person would I want to return to your site after reading some of TS's works.

The bolded. This is denying the existence of trans women, and relegating trans women to merely mentally ill men. This is denying trans women their existence and humanity. I obviously disagree with you strongly.

Well named is above and beyond the best mod I've encountered on this site. Every other mod should follow his example.

Sure. It's also like a mainstream political opinion. It should not be deleted from politics forums. If you see it posted, then you can reply
"This is denying the existence of trans women, and relegating trans women to merely mentally ill men. This is denying trans women their existence and humanity. I obviously disagree with you strongly."
and like, political discussion will be had.

Make that site wide baseline rule more clear imo

I know. And I don't expect to persuade you. But I thought your request for examples was worth a response.

TS clearly seems to be a Trump fan/supporter, and while I don't have the same politics I do see a trend of that alone making him a racist in many forum posters eyes if he argues a position from that side's perspective.

If you are going to constantly ban people site-wide for racism you are going to go down a slippery slope as you have to clearly define what you consider racist posting and it will be a constant moving target the way things are going with the world and PC culture today.

I'd wager a huge chunk of the mods would have completely different interpretations of what does constitute bannable offenses for racism and what doesn't. That's not a recipe for success if you are perma banning valuable posters for saying something offensive or stupid in a random forum - esp one like Politics or SMP which invites that type of debate.

All I know is Tooth is one of if not THE most valuable contributors to the BFI forum, in part because he is willing to answer/debate so many random posters and is so active in sharing his thought process. Many take umbrage by his tone or claims but that is their problem not his.

I'd appreciate it if you would unban him from BFI immediately since it does not appear that anyone on the forum, including the mods, have a clue wtf he did that was deserving of a lifetime ban from the entire site and especially BFI.

#freeTS

Huge lol at all those trying to convince Mat that if he'd only follow their strict rules of proper language and thought his business would thrive. Y'all are clueless.

^^^

Riiight. And then like, maybe trans men and women might see these posts, decide to raise a stink about them, have nothing done, and then feel unwelcomed on the site ...