do you honestly believe someone reading that description would have an accurate picture of what happened? iirc wil basically talked about stopping a man following his daughter in to a washroom. painting a picture where wil is attacking trans based on political belief is absurdly misleading imo. would it be fair to say that wil "physical assault" has a broad definition also? touching someones shoulder is different than their crotch. spitting vs punching. etc etc

this goes back to a mouth frothing mob claiming virtue in order to justify their endless desire to go around looking for people and things to attack. instead of discussing the idea of rambo with a bra following your pre teen daughter in to the washroom, we now paint a picture of wils desire to assault trans people. its just a mob of loons that have lost the plot. everyones phobe, supremacists, or nazi these days. god forbid someone speaks about their primary concern being their own daughter when a man followers her in to the washroom. speak up and get attacked for your wrong think. its just endless examples of hysteria on here

so the idea "should we ban for racism" is really unclear, right? i mean statues are racist now. last night the California NAACP chapter says national anthem is racist. i'm serious. this is why you let people speak and think.... and be wrong sometimes

It looks like you are trying to apply an outlier standard. This seems wise, since things that a large proportion of the populace believe are things that need to be discussed.

Yeah, having a prejudicial opinion, expressing discomfort from ignorance, and actively promoting abusive discrimination all fall into distinct, but related categories.

+1

I have a feeling my response to this was deleted.

May be wrong though.

Also, it's not a mainstream political opinion. Most people are respectful towards trans men and women. In fact, 7, yes 7 trans men and women just won elections yesterday. A guy that authored an anti trans bathroom bill lost his seat




It is minority, fringe political bigotry.

I'm accepting the premise of Trolly's question for the purposes of trying to clarify my opinion about how site-wide rules might work in the future and where the line might go. I don't see any point in arguing about what wil actually said or didn't say here.

That's more or less accurate, and how I've described my opinion on this question in the past.

Uh,

1. You still post on the site.
2. Not moderating some post is not "not providing a service to transgender people."
3. We are specifically talking about politics forums (and maybe politics-dedicated threads on other forums). People who are easily offended should probably stay away. Obviously that post shouldn't be allowed elsewhere on the site.

I have to sleep. Post 100 is the greater point, for anyone reading.

We know. Good night!

Of course we like trans people, like others.

This is kind of off-topic, but there might be a reason for that. Such as, y'know, the arguments he makes.

See for example Pew Research



My position is that a politics forum ought to allow someone to express the opinion that "whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by sex at birth", despite the fact that I think that this demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the issue.

I realize that you can draw a distinction between holding the above belief and yet being willing to address people in the way they want to be addressed, and in fact I think people who hold that belief should make that distinction. But it's clear that someone who doesn't want to address trans people by their preferred pronoun is probably motivated by the above very mainstream belief.

again with the lying and misinformation. TS posted some really reprehensible stuff. the idea that he was only slightly racist or that ppl falsely ascribed racist tendencies to him bc he supported Trump/conservatives is just not tethered to reality.

this is a guy that claimed gay/trans is a mental deficiency. on multiple occasions he compared it to bestiality.

he claimed that lynching was not a big deal bc whites were lynched as often as blacks in the post civil war era.

he has repeatedly demonized Muslims.

and there are tons of other blatantly racist posts and others that were only provocative.

so I just dont get why ppl want to try to rewrite history and act like TS did not put out some pretty heinous opinions.

now, just so BoredSocial doesnt get on my case for "shutting down free speech", I am in no way saying that I want him banned. I really dont care.

ACEG -

So here's the question. What is acceptable difference of opinion in regards to discussing Trans issues in a political aspect?

Yes, it would be fantastic if everyone thought the same way you do, but they don't. Where is the line, for you, in what is okay to discuss (and maybe persuade people to change their minds) and when does that become bigotry that crosses a line and should not be allowed in a public space?
Certainly there is a space for discussion? If someone is open with saying "no, I don't think I feel comfortable with my daughter using the same bathroom as a transwoman". Do you think there's room to discuss or is this language that should never be allowed?

*cough*

bolded is more lies and distortion. I think that everyone agrees it is ok to be concerned if a man follows your daughter into the bathroom.

the argument was actually about if it is OK for a trans person to use the bathroom of their choice.

2p2 is a business. Businesses make accommodations to their customers. A business that does not make accommodations to customers create an unwelcoming environment. Allowing transphobic bigotry on the site is effectively a "transgenders are not welcome here" policy.

This is framed so bizarrely. If a poster is banned for violating site-wide rules, they should be banned from the whole site. If they are banned for violating forum-specific rules, they should be exiled from the relevant forum. This all seems obvious.

Should there be a site-wide rule against posting racist content? This is conceivably debatable, but it also seems like an obvious yes.

Should posters in specific subforums who like a banned poster get to reverse a sitewide ban because they like the poster? No, of course not.

Framing this as a question about "politics" is bizarre. Yes, virtually everyone from that forum hates TS because of his many horrible posts, but assuming that he was banned somewhere else for violation of a site-wide rule, it's really got nothing to do with the politics forum or politics in general.

You lock the bathroom when taking a dump (or a piss). You think people are watching?

See this right here is part of the problem. Am I a racist? I'd hire any black person, I'd date any asian person, I see no race that's superior to any other (outside of maybe black people in some sports?).

Simultaneously I used to be a stand-up comic. I think race jokes are hilarious. I think all jokes are hilarious, but race jokes particularly. I think posting memes of black women snapping their fingers is funny. I disagree with this:



So if somewhere a racist joke was taken as more than a joke, now all of a sudden my backstory on 2p2 is I'm racist?

Na man that stinks. What I'm not is a snowflake. I make jokes about being disabled (I'm darn near it myself). I make jokes about being Jewish (I am one), I make jokes about the small penis on the Asian guy in our fantasy football league. I'm not going to stop doing that, certainly not because anyone in here asks. In a world full of crazy, I'm not going to stop with the funny. And it's very possible that my funny isn't funny to you. But it doesn't make me a racist. And this is exactly the black/white/grey stuff I was talking about. You don't KNOW me. You don't know what I stand for. But you make crazy assumptions because of a joke here or there, or because I like Tooth? lol.

"I wouldn't feel comfortable with my daughter using the same restroom as a black person."

What do you think of this quote?

Right. Ive never called for any of the deplorables to be banned but they still dont like me expressing an honest view they are bigots or racists. Basically they want to be able to say what they want without harsh criticism coming back at them. Here is a link for them.

Marijuana is illegal in Nevada and Colorado. Correct?

I'm letting moderators interpret, or even ignore, the site wide rule. Does that make more sense? We always reserve the right to intervene from above.

what wil did and didn't say and the resulting misleading hysteria isn't a defence of wil, its for the purpose of conceptualizing useful site wide rules. wil talked about intervening if he saw a man follow his pre teen daughter in to a washroom. this got twisted in to some hysteria where wil wanted to punch tans. you could go over this situation endlessly and thats why its relevant to how the forum is moderated

ps the national anthem was declared racist by the NAACP last night. don't be singing that racist chant now. and don't stand proud when others sing it. dont be defending like some apologist either. dont be racist. the point is, we clearly need to evaluate what is at the core of accusations, what is racist, what can be discussed, etc.

stop posting in this thread.