Well, you’ve committed a variety of offenses. But your recent ones from Jonathan have been either for insults (specifically accusing other posters of racism), or failing to follow moderator instructions. Those are really pretty simple.
So, my basic instructions for avoiding warnings would be:
Don’t insult other posters, and in particular don’t accuse them of racism or being racists.
Read the thread, and obey moderator instructions.
That really shouldn’t be that hard.
Some of your older warnings were for accusing other posters of lying, and for attacking the poster and not the post. So don’t do that either.
The real issue, looking at your warnings, is your inability to not personalize your arguments.
It’s never a good idea to do so. Someone disagreeing with you, or even holding forth an opinion you find repugnant, does not make them a bad person. If you believe it does, somehow, then you need to learn to not bring that at them. If you continue to personalize your attacks you’ll find you keep getting warnings.
Remember, this is a message board. You don’t need to insult or objectify other posters to somehow ‘win’ an argument. Don’t do it.
If I may add an independent, disinterested observation, as I know little about Damuri Ajashi or his/her posting history:
Damuri Ajashi, you seem to feel you were wronged because you were expressing some legitimate ideas whose expression should be permissible. I can sympathize with that point – not that I necessarily agree with your arguments – but the problem is, to be quite frank, that you express those arguments in very inappropriate ways that are obviously insulting. It’s almost like you can’t help yourself from doing so. Both warnings were deserved, IMHO, but it’s not because of your arguments, it’s the way you chose to phrase them.
To cite the first example, you try here in ATMB to explain your post by saying that it meant that the other poster’s argument was “creating space for racists to continue to be racist”. But that isn’t what you originally wrote. As already noted several times, any statement beginning with “People like you …” followed by something insulting is clearly a direct personal attack. If you meant that the other poster’s argument was “creating space for racists”, you should have said that, rather than personalizing it the way you did, which, as a sort of bonus insult, also carried the inference that the poster himself was likely a racist.
The second example was even worse. Your argument there against the other poster was “I am saying that the standards you apply to find discrimination against asians is significantly higher than the standard you apply to find discrimination against other groups.” In my view – again, not taking sides here – that should be a permissible argument. Fine. But why did it have to be preceded with “I am more than implying you are hypocritical”? That’s calling the poster an insulting term and then saying he’s even worse than that. And then to top it all off, you follow it up with the rhetorical question “What do you call a person who thinks that a low bar of evidence is sufficient to find racism against one group but requires a higher bar of evidence to establish racism against another group”. I can think of several answers to that question, all of which are insulting, and the most obvious of which is “a racist”. So you have an argument that is (probably, IMHO) permissible but can’t resist bracketing it front and back with personal insults. And therein lies the problem.