Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

"So their choice here may warrant a look into investigating these kind of decisions."

May? I think it certainly does. The ONLY possible way to read my initial violations (For which there would have been no suspension, regardless if you can take "Punch some Nazis" as a threat) is if "Nazi" is treated equivalent to race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation.

"what lines are drawn and where they are drawn."

Had I given a threat to any individual on the site, I would have been in the wrong. Assault is illegal (and if I commit it, I do so knowing the consequences). If being a Nazi is an opinion, then saying someone is a Nazi Apologist is an opinion too, yes?

Had I said "All Republicans should be punched", I would have been in the wrong. Heck, there can be an argument for "I want to kick all Republicans in the balls" as being in the wrong.

But, what I said? That shouldn't be in the wrong.

"Nazis are mentally deranged. They're Nazis. They fly the flag, they do the salute, the espouse the philosophy; a rhetoric of exclusion, intolerance, hatred, and genocide."

The only way this could have been a violation of the rules, is if Nazis are treated as a protected group. Which, according to Dragoneer's response to my appeal, they are.

That's not where the line should be.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.