Race-adjacent?
I’m not going to hijack this thread. Just go back and reread one of the threads where zi explained it a dozen times or two.
Tried that before, with no luck, but I’ll drop the hijack.
You claim that there is no such thing a “hate speech” and that relabeling racist talk as “racial” makes it o.k., so I’ll just stick with what I wrote.
Position 1) Race A is superior to Race B
Position 2) No race is superior to another race
That’s what I mean. And notice how there is no “you” mentioned
There is racist speech/events. And there is racial speech/events. Us the later only when the former is insufficient. If it is sufficient, stop there.
It’s cool that this is now a thread about whether racism should be allowed.
Umm, no. To me, “mouth breather” is synonymous with “slack jawed yokel” except that SLY implies redneck ancestry and MB does not. Someone “standing around with their mouth agape” can be called a mouth breather, or, if you are in the southern US a “slack jawed yokel”.
Neither term is complimentary, but neither implies any sort of mental defect.
I think that the point being pushed here is that racism shouldn’t be a valid reason to ban someone on this board.
That’s a great topic for another thread, but not a good one here.
Wait, I take that back. I think it’s a terrible topic for another thread, akin to, “Should people be allowed to smear their boogers on strangers at the mall?” and also a terrible topic to hijack this thread with.
Racism and Racialism are synonyms, according to the Oxford online dictionary and Merriam-Webster.
Wave
Hey, i really tried. Honest.
Count me in as not wanting to lose these valuable conservative posters. Who knows how low the level of discourse here will drop without their contributions.
I vote no. Racism has hurt a lot of people, and caused lots of problems and damage where it has thrived. Even under a sneaky synonym, I vote “No.”
It’s similar to the way I can conclude that if an older local sheriff’s deputy in Mississippi refers to adult black men as “boy” is likely due to the person’s race rather than anything else. You are free to think it’s nuts. Your view on this matter is not ever going to be adopted by this message board.
What is your point?
Back to the OP, I have a couple of suggestions, for whatever they’re worth.
If someone is racking up multiple warnings in a thread, especially over the course of a few hours, they should get those warnings. That’s behavior worth tracking. Sure, drunk-posting rage may be different from constant long-term sniping, so three warnings in four hours (for example) may be taken as less significant than three warnings in four weeks. But it’s worth remembering that someone engages in drunk-rage-posting, so if it happens again, that pattern can be considered.
If someone’s warnable posts are bad enough to shut a thread down over, maybe a short-term suspension is also in order.
Finally, if someone’s doubling down after a warning and continuing to antagonize everyone around them, that might be a good opportunity to do a cost/benefit analysis of their continued presence on the board: are they a valuable enough member of the board that it’s worth keeping them around?
List expanded: Those who asked to be banned, those who dare the moderators to ban them, and racists/racialists.
Ban the racists, but maybe the racialists could be, in honor of the wordsmithing, permanently suspended.
IMO an explicit “suicide by mod” where the person asks for it or dares the moderator to ban them should be granted.
In the sequence of events that prompted this thread. the poster wasn’t explicitly asking for it. He was going down a path that, from the outside, would likely lead to banning. But it’s difficult to see that when you’re the one posting and are emotionally charged up. For that, I think the 24-hour cool-off suspension is a better approach. And as LHoD’s suggests, warn them for every offense so you can track if they have a pattern of this.