It might be a good time to tell you that LB is our local dilettante intellectual.

My favorite part of this whole dustup is a poster with zero posts in the prior politics thread coming in HOT.

as is tradition

I haven't really participated in POG politics in a while, and not much on 2+2 at all recently. I'm guessing that trend will continue, so there's no real reason for me to wade into a topic like this, and I have no intention of starting some campaign to overturn the moderation decisions here, but just fwiw:

I disagreed with kelhus on just about everything, and frequently told him so. I often think he has the wrong end of the stick, and that he can be pretty stubbornly attached to ways of thinking and arguing that are wrongheaded.

But, in the 15 months that I moderated the politics forum, I don't think I ever needed to temp-ban him. I was always able to tell him where the lines were IMO, and he was willing to respect them and try to work within them. While he is clearly skeptical of the political left, and of a lot of ideas and claims that I think are reasonable and socially/politically important, I do not think that he is particularly bigoted, malicious, or such an awful human being that it's impossible to have a conversation with him.

In my experience, kelhus has been banned more often for having been banned before than for actually causing problems that require banning. Though I think that maybe the first time he got banned he probably deserved it (my memory is fuzzy). But given my experiences, I disagree with the perma-ban. Philosophically, I guess I'm a little weary and disappointed with some of the attitudes about political discourse that are prevalent lately, but even accepting that I'm wrong to feel that way, I don't see a reason for a perma-ban over just asking him to stop posting whatever it is that you want him to stop posting, or even telling him he should stick to the politics forum.

Anyway, sorry to hit and run. Hope you are all well (and not too mad at me for having this opinion).

goddamn those were some great memes from pwns

Ok. I had actually already started it.

Gender essentialism is a concept used to examine the attribution of fixed, intrinsic, innate qualities to women and men.

And we are saying that there are no fixed intrinsic properties and that beliefs that there are transphobic?

Thank you Well Named.

Yes. If you assume that a person is the way they are because of their sex organs, then you're erasing the existence of trans people.

I did not have WN throwing eyebooger under the bus on my bingo card. Now I’m conflicted. :/

seems like kelhus was ok in ww, right? it was the politics thread that was insufferable.

I like eyebooger. I think it's understandable why he made the decision the way he did. I don't think it was egregious or malicious. I have no grudge against him. I just happen to think it's a bad decision. The majority of people will probably disagree with me. Maybe he's right and I'm wrong. YMMV

WN did not read the posts kelhus made and so his opinion is not valid.

And frankly is inappropriate for him to voice it at all given that.

Unless i am wrong and you read them before weighing in, WN?

It's not throwing me under the bus (at least I didn't read it that way).

He just thinks I'm wrong. I disagree.

Like why would you say anything if you haven’t actually read his posts, WN? you are as bad as Dustin

Ok-- so that's a different definition of gender essentialism than the one in the wiki article. You're saying it relates to sex organs and the wiki article is saying it's about any intrinsic properties-- although obviously sex organs would be the first place one might look.
I'll keep reading.

Ok. I'm going to unlock the thread so we can quote posts.

Kelhus was relating it to sex organs & hormones, yes?

I read the last couple of pages. There's probably stuff I missed, but I've had this conversation a few times with kelhus so I'm pretty familiar with his views.

Relating the concept of gender specifically to these things, I'm not sure. I'm certain we were talking about sex organs at various points in the discussion but I'm going there now.

Pming kelhus directly telling him to stop doing whatever was considered wrong seems reasonable.

I think I’ve just always had a bad read on WN. Now I’m sad.

you can do what you want but i’m over discussing this with you as you have ignored me multiple times as i’ve expressed how i view the situation

you made up your mind even as you admitted to not read kelhus posts

i’m not going to argue with you on terms that you fully control and selectively enforce

i didn't read his posts either. at least not after the first handful. so maybe his posts got even worse, and idk what i'm talking about and should stay out of it too.

damn! and i was really hoping to post all day about kelhus too. ugh. guess i'll just have to make that sacrifice

it was explained to him multiple times in the thread that what he was saying was hurtful and he chose to ignore it and plow ahead

Eyebooger,
I've been on discord with Kelhus.
Can he just agree to not post in POG politics?
If he's going to upset people then ok-- I'm fine with it. I upset people too though and I'm fine with that as well. Allow him to still play in VR's game, and other ww games, and restrict his political posting to the main forum?