By these standards, this site is inhospitable to pretty much everyone in the world.
Like I said, this site is a Disneyland for liberals and Arrakis for conservatives. A lot of it is due to the membership of the board and some of it is due to bias in moderation.
No but blacks are a subset of blacks and non-white Africans.
Are you kidding? You think the preponderance of the posts in those threads are in support of this notion that Africans are mentally retarded or against?
Are you saying that this site is inhospitable because someone was allowed to start the thread in the first place?
By your definition of inhospitable, this site is a large ocean of arsenic to conservatives.
So who follows people around calling them congenital imbeciles? It seems to me that we very rarely see these threads and the OP usually gets their ass handed to them by the third post. How is the presence of one ^&#$ indicative of a hostile or inhospitable environment?
Then I either wrote poorly or you read poorly.
Look upthread. Severalposters have already suggested how that statement might be read other than the way you read it.
Yes I am suggesting that. I am saying that the side I was arguing on had EVERYTHING to do with why that post got a warning and others did not.
No. Why would I? My saying that I don’t agree with you is extremely useful to make my point. That I don’t agree with what you said, but still think your Warning was bogus is proof that I do not say what I am saying because of bias.
What I do find strange is that you keep asking me this question. What about the way I post suggests that I would write anything that I didn’t want to write? If what I want to say would bother me to say, then I just don’t say it.
I think disclaimers serve a useful tool in conversations. They can help people understand a lack of bias, as they do here. Or they can just preemptively avoid an argument with just a few extra words, while still getting the point across.
That doesn’t mean I always support them, but, then, when I don’t support them, I don’t make them.
That has never been my understanding. And it seems at odds with the very situation you were involved in where people were talking about the term “whiteness” being racist.
We’ve always been able to discuss whether an idea is racist. We just aren’t allowed to call people racists.
I’m not saying that you are biased. I thought you made the disclaimer in recognition of the hair trigger knee jerk reaction you might stir up by saying anything that wasn’t in direct opposition to anyone saying anything that wasn’t pre-approved by the politburo.
Putting aside the convuluted structure of this sentence, weren’t you complaining about mind reading in the OP?
And what evidence do you have that this exists? When has anyone ever had a problem on this board because they spoke up in defense of one of the board’s conservatives? When I happen to be in agreement with something that one of our conservative posters posted, I’ve said so. And I’ve never had anybody tell me “Don’t do that, Nemo. You’re not allowed to agree with anyone who’s on the board’s enemy list.”
My mind reading does not result in warnings.
You don’t ever recall seeing people piled on for making statements that defend a conservative position with accusations of racism or trumpism or shit like that? Even when they don’t actually hold those positions?