Okay, that’s your problem right there.
Care to elaborate?
I know it’s very trying having to explain explicitly what you are complaining about.
To help you out, racism and misogyny are not the “same diff” as hate speech. They are different diffs.
I too rise up to complain about the jackbooted oppression of discussion of Pinker’s critique of the Standard Social Science Model.
I would also add that I feel afraid to discuss Kant’s views on aesthetics and teleology as presented in Kritik der Urteilskraft.
I think there has been a misunderstanding. My comment about the broad range of topics are permitted and the limited types of things that are disallowed in post #20 was a general description, not specific to any given warning. I didn’t make any connection between the two warnings you mentioned in the OP and your follow up paragraph’s general description of being constrained about topics for discussion.
My reference to hate speech being forbidden wasn’t related to the two warnings you mentioned.
Here is the warning that manson earned:
The ideas that manson wanted to discuss would probably be fine in GD, i.e. the impact of the behavior of victims in their victimization. But that’s not ATMB material. I attempted to head this off by closing the thread that was going off the rails. Manson does have a pattern of the one line rapid fire question type posting, and IIRC it typically happens in the evening when he has previously said alcohol may be involved. With this background in mind, and given his comments seemed to be escalating as a way to torque others off, especially because it was analogous to the behavior that SamuelA was warned for, I closed the thread in hopes that he would take that as ending that line of discussion. He seemed intent on continuing, even after being told that he would have most likely earned a warning if he continued, and then he continued. Kind of open and shut there.
I’m not familiar with what that is beyond what I just looked up on the wiki page. That’d fine as a debate topic as far as I can see.
Also fine 
You’d have to have the discussion in English though.
There we go. Jackbooted stomping of the highest extreme. Anglophilism abounds.
How you can discuss Shakespeare if you don’t do it in the original Klingon? :rolleyes:
I am NOT a Maoist. My hero might be Trotsky.
I chuckled.
(Not an official Mod endorsement)
Ok so you feel constrained. Any specific ways that you are actually constrained? The topic has not been banned. Is there no way that you could post about the topic without breaking the rules of the board?
I have always said, and I’m pretty sure it’s an idea that I came up with by myself, that if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow. The rhyme was inadvertent. And although I don’t agree with every mod action taken, we’re talking about a bunch of volunteers here for the luva Pete. In my time here the mod action with real consequences, bannination, really has to be earned.
Who’s Pete? I thought they were all here for the love of Cecil.
For some reason the first thing that flashed through my brain was this song
And of course the obligatory Monty Python reference and a possible SDMB bingo game in the future.
As for the OP
a) I don’t expect to be banned and I’ve survived more than one head-to-head with one Mod (acting as a poster) or another in debate without so much as a warning. I would like to think it was the pure brilliance of my posts but its probably because I practice some self-moderation in the hopes of making my, and their, life just a little easier.
b) That being said and all jokes aside, I do agree that something seems/feels different. Now that “Dad” has stepped aside and the inmates are indeed running the asylum -------- it is almost a high school clique kind of vibe. I don’t know if it can be avoided or changed but while I don’t have any fears because of it, I do have to admit (at least to myself) that it is there.
My PE teacher was named Pete but I swear to God he never touched me. Neither has Cecil for that matter but I still keep coming back. 
“Can you show me on this doll where the bad Moderator touched you?”
For that matter, religious discussions are also allowed in other forums, so long as they don’t include witnessing.
I object. Some of them are two lines!
And that wasn’t even a question.
Here’s what I don’t understand about it.
SamuelA said (paraphrasing) that he was not at all blaming the Jews for being exterminated in the Holocaust or for women getting assaulted by being in a man’s room at night, but either of these groups could avoid the bad things by taking other actions.
He, and manson who came to his defense, both said that they were not trying to downplay the criminality of the Nazis, or the criminality of a man assaulting a woman. Okay. He simply said, basically, why wouldn’t you take these steps if available.
Now, one may say that is shortsighted, ignorant, or it does not accurately reflect history, but how is it “racist and misogynistic”?
Then manson asked that same question and got warned just for asking the damn question and pointing out (a rather mundane and undisputed fact) that if women never left their houses they have a better chance of not getting assaulted. He again said that he did not believe that was appropriate to suggest that women never leave their houses, but that the fact was true.
So what was warnable about those things? Was it because it is unseemly to suggest that the Jews could have done something different in WWII or to even mention that women could do something about being assaulted?
FWIW, I think SamuelA’s premise is all sorts of wrong, but being wrong isn’t a warnable offense. Manson’s warning was more directly abhorrent. He simply pointed out a truthful fact.
I guess I am just looking for an explanation of how that is racist or mysogynistic speech.
I think SlackerInc has something of a point, even if he’s not doing a stellar job of explaining it. For example, the United States women’s national soccer team recently won the women’s world cup. There has been some discussion in the media in recent days about the ‘equal pay’ argument they’ve made, comparing their compensation, and their success, to the men’s team. I thought it would be an interesting discussion and briefly toyed with making a thread about it, but thought better of it. Even though I can remain civil and have no intention of using “slurs” to describe the female players, I suspect the arguments I’d advance in that thread would hurt some feels and, given the mods recent sensitivity to women’s issues, I was wary of engaging in a discussion on the topic. There is something of a chilling effect that happens, even if virtually no one will lament that my speech has been chilled.
It’s alright. I said my piece on board and via PM. The mods disagree, and weren’t in a particularly listening mood, but as someone said, it’s just a message board, and I wouldn’t want their job.