Ive had 3 posts deleted in the past week that were scientifically based, that really throw a monkey wrench in the spokes of any white supremacist narrative, including Joseph's Myth, yet some ExMo found them offensive because they invited some increadibly racist MORmON troll to spill his racist guts.
Then when I went to disprove racist MORmON, *Poof* entire thread, gone.
No explanation.

It may simply be that there's a troll who is targeting certain threads and it's not worth the trouble to keep them going. It may not be about you or the original subject. Eventually the troll will move on.

I agree. For the admins it is sometimes just easier to pull a complete threat, rather than try and clean it up from troll interference.

It's realistically not about you Koriwhore.

Darren Steers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree. For the admins it is sometimes just
> easier to pull a complete threat, rather than try
> and clean it up from troll interference.
>
> It's realistically not about you Koriwhore.

Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not just either disprove the racist or ban the white supremacists ip addy and let the discussion continue?

I'm not a mod. I'm just expressing an opinion, not giving you the definitive answer.

Darren Steers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not a mod. I'm just expressing an opinion,
> not giving you the definitive answer.


I respectfully disagree.
Its like the ultimate hecklers veto.
You want to shout somebody down?
Just start spewing insane racist myths that have long been busted.
Then get the inevitable, predictable reaction.
The entire discourse breaks down and people choose sides.
We Call BS!
Im with the Generation NeXt.
My children are Malala's Generation.
We did well by them.
They are the most intelligent,
Kind, badasses in WA right now.
The Revolution is upon us.
The future is theirs
I support them.
The future is theirs.
We are closer to NucleR Ear than during the Cuban Missile Crisis
Every day is worse than Watergate
Multi Billionaire Donsnld has a space station thats a Trump Space Station
Where he ascends do heaven while his minions fight it out in America, one nstion, under Fire.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2018 08:29PM by koriwhore.

Nice!

Your history with science posts is tenuous at best

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your history with science posts is tenuous at best
Your connection to reality is tenuous at best.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dogblogger Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your history with science posts is tenuous at
> best
> Your connection to reality is tenuous at best.

Isn't it pretty to think so.

Stop your whining !

I think I hold the record for number of deleted threads.

Donald Trump couldn't have said it better.

You assume you were deleted for excessive uncomfortable "truth". That's choice.

I don't care what you post, you will never "prove" your argument against white supremacists. White supremacists are not interested in science or facts. They are interested in getting their ugly narrative posted in any forum that will allow it.

Three deleted threads should be the clue that it's time to stop baiting them. You're never going to change their minds, and I don't want that sh*t on a forum meant for recovering ex-Mormons.

That's exactly what was happening.

Dorothy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't care what you post, you will never "prove"
> your argument against white supremacists. White
> supremacists are not interested in science or
> facts. They are interested in getting their ugly
> narrative posted in any forum that will allow it.
>
> Three deleted threads should be the clue that it's
> time to stop baiting them. You're never going to
> change their minds, and I don't want that sh*t on
> a forum meant for recovering ex-Mormons.

It's not "baiting" them. Its debunking bogus myths.
If everybody had your attitude there would be no point of having a public forum. Has RfM just become an echo chamber with people shouting their opinions at each other?
I hope not.
I for one value the opinions of most ExMos at RfM and the MORmON trolls are pretty easy to ID and single out for ridicule.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not "baiting" them. Its debunking bogus
> myths.
> If everybody had your attitude there would be no
> point of having a public forum. Has RfM just
> become an echo chamber with people shouting their
> opinions at each other?
> I hope not.
> I for one value the opinions of most ExMos at RfM
> and the MORmON trolls are pretty easy to ID and
> single out for ridicule.

By definition a myth is already bogus, no need to qualify it further. As for baiting them you are the one drawing them out. There would be no rebuttal if you don't bring it up. RFM isn't a place where racist douches post, it is a place they hang out waiting for your fat worm and then they bite.

This isn't a public forum and there actually isn't much point in a public forum. A public forum is normally a place where the mild and untested opinion reigns.

That isn't what an echo chamber is and while RFM can be an echo chamber at time that is more due to the targeted audience and less that we love shouting at each other that we agree with each other.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It's not "baiting" them. Its debunking bogus
> > myths.
> > If everybody had your attitude there would be
> no
> > point of having a public forum. Has RfM just
> > become an echo chamber with people shouting
> their
> > opinions at each other?
> > I hope not.
> > I for one value the opinions of most ExMos at
> RfM
> > and the MORmON trolls are pretty easy to ID and
> > single out for ridicule.
>
> By definition a myth is already bogus, no need to
> qualify it further. As for baiting them you are
> the one drawing them out. There would be no
> rebuttal if you don't bring it up. RFM isn't a
> place where racist douches post, it is a place
> they hang out waiting for your fat worm and then
> they bite.
>
> This isn't a public forum and there actually isn't
> much point in a public forum. A public forum is
> normally a place where the mild and untested
> opinion reigns.
>
> That isn't what an echo chamber is and while RFM
> can be an echo chamber at time that is more due to
> the targeted audience and less that we love
> shouting at each other that we agree with each
> other.

That's interesting opinion.
I agree with most of it, I think.
It just seems like nobody wants to talk about what's real.
I mean what are the real implications of being 3% Neanderthal like Eurasians vs. 0% Neanderthal, like Africans?
Especially considering Chimps and Bonobos are 99% Identical to us genetically and a lot closer to us than they are to gorillas And we're all just as genetically different from Asian Apes?
And Asians are up to 9% Neanderthal Denisovan and only 91% Homo Sapiens Sapiens?
I never hear anybody talk about what that means.
I never hear anybody talk about the name we use to distinguish our particular species from all the other billions of species of animals on this planet.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens means Wise Wise Man.
Yet how many of us know how many Wise Men there were before us? Or that we all came from one Wise Man, Homo Sapiens Idaltu, the First Wise Man.
Elder
Literally the missing link between us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and the African Apes.
We found the missing Link and it was an African.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu
AKA,
Adam
He had lots of Eve's.
Homo Erectus
Homo CroMagnon
And probably even Troglodite at one point way back when.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2018 09:43PM by koriwhore.

This is your forth attempt to bait, invite or draw out some racists. I really hope that you get the discussion and success you are looking for. If you get vile racist missives, this butthurt RFMer will report the racists.

I'm so grateful to the moderators. What a hard job. All the thanks to them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2018 10:43AM by Dorothy.

That's so sweet.
thanks.
Yeah, hats off to the Mods. It's a tough job and I'm glad I don't have to keep track of all the MORmON trolls & sock puppets.

"It just seems like nobody wants to talk about what's real."

I think you found your answer. What's real and should be talked about according to you, isn't necessarily of any interest to anyone else.

"I mean what are the real implications of being 3% Neanderthal like Eurasians vs. 0% Neanderthal, like Africans?
Especially considering Chimps and Bonobos are 99% Identical to us genetically and a lot closer to us than they are to gorillas And we're all just as genetically different from Asian Apes?
And Asians are up to 9% Neanderthal Denisovan and only 91% Homo Sapiens Sapiens?
I never hear anybody talk about what that means.
I never hear anybody talk about the name we use to distinguish our particular species from all the other billions of species of animals on this planet.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens means Wise Wise Man.
Yet how many of us know how many Wise Men there were before us? Or that we all came from one Wise Man, Homo Sapiens Idaltu, the First Wise Man.
Elder
Literally the missing link between us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and the African Apes.
We found the missing Link and it was an African.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu
AKA,
Adam
He had lots of Eve's.
Homo Erectus
Homo CroMagnon
And probably even Troglodite at one point way back when."

Just like the above...may be super real and interesting to you, but not to anyone else. I know its of no interest to me, and that makes me nothing more than not interested.

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "It just seems like nobody wants to talk about
> what's real."
>
> I think you found your answer. What's real and
> should be talked about according to you, isn't
> necessarily of any interest to anyone else.
>
> Just like the above...may be super real and
> interesting to you, but not to anyone else. I
> know its of no interest to me, and that makes me
> nothing more than not interested.

DNA evidence isn't real or of any interest to anyone else?
Our relationship to other species of Homo Sapiens and chimpanzees and Bonobos isn't interesting to you or anyone else?
That's got to be the most ignorant comment I've read on RfM in awhile, and that's saying alot!

Very Active and Compassionate Activity on the Recovery Board - 2018

Wow. So I'm ignorant because I'm not interested in DNA and our relationship to primates?

Are you interested in songwriting, playing a dozen instruments and learning new ones, performing original material live, studio recording? I am. If you're not, does that make you ignorant? No, just not interested, Jeez.

I just noted that there doesn't seem to be as much interest as you seem to want. When people don't seem interested, you seem to get pissed off at them, as demonstrated by your reply to me.

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. So I'm ignorant because I'm not interested
> in DNA and our relationship to primates?
>
> Are you interested in songwriting, playing a dozen
> instruments and learning new ones, performing
> original material live, studio recording? I am.
> If you're not, does that make you ignorant? No,
> just not interested, Jeez.

I'm not a musician.
You are a human.
To not be interested in what makes you human, vs something other than human, just seems kinda ignorant.
>
> I just noted that there doesn't seem to be as much
> interest as you seem to want. When people don't
> seem interested, you seem to get pissed off at
> them, as demonstrated by your reply to me.

Im not pissed, just making an observation, youd think people would be more interested in their origins, but msybe Im alone here.

"I'm not a musician.
You are a human.
To not be interested in what makes you human, vs something other than human....."

Being a musician is what makes feel human. Take away the music and I wouldn't feel that way. Its different for everyone.

Also, I don't really see humans as anything other than animals that live on the planet, so I'm not concerned with our differences. We're no better, no worse....well, in some cases, we are worse.

".....just seems kinda ignorant."

It isn't ignorance, it's just lack of interest. That would be like me calling people ignorant if they don't want to discuss the use of a 6 string vs. 12 string guitar, or the unique sound you can get on a good ukulele and what you can do with it, or the pros and cons of a sitar strung in the northern style vs. southern style, etc.

".....you'd think people would be more interested in their origins, but maybe I'm alone here."

That's all I'm suggesting. Wasn't trying to offend you or spew ignorance.

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I'm not a musician.
> You are a human.
> To not be interested in what makes you human, vs
> something other than human....."
>
> Being a musician is what makes feel human. Take
> away the music and I wouldn't feel that way. Its
> different for everyone.
>
> Also, I don't really see humans as anything other
> than animals that live on the planet, so I'm not
> concerned with our differences. We're no better,
> no worse....well, in some cases, we are worse.
>
> ".....just seems kinda ignorant."
>
> It isn't ignorance, it's just lack of interest.
> That would be like me calling people ignorant if
> they don't want to discuss the use of a 6 string
> vs. 12 string guitar, or the unique sound you can
> get on a good ukulele and what you can do with it,
> or the pros and cons of a sitar strung in the
> northern style vs. southern style, etc.
>
> ".....you'd think people would be more interested
> in their origins, but maybe I'm alone here."
>
> That's all I'm suggesting. Wasn't trying to
> offend you or spew ignorance.

Cool Bro. I appreciate Music, just not a musician.

I enjoy these posts. Havent been on in a while and must have missed something.

Very Active and Compassionate Activity on the Recovery Board - 2018

Not all truths are useful.

I heard that somewhere . . . .

and we are the folks who are going to have to step up and get the world ready for what's coming if humanity is going to survive...

OP, IMO, you just come off as hateful and judgemental, and your content has nothing to do with recovery from mormonism. Everyone is not going to like or be interested in your every topic. LOL. Grow up a little.

Kori, I think you were around when Simon Southerton used to post here. He is an Australian plant geneticist who is very knowledgeable about DNA issues as they apply to Mormons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Southerton

http://www.mormonstories.org/simon-southerton-dna-lamanites-and-the-book-of-mormon/

With Simon's presence, there used to be some very advanced discussions and arguments about DNA on this board.

It is clear at this point that your more superficial discussion is attracting unwanted attention from a troll. As Susan I/S used to say, "knock it off." If you've been deleted three times, give it a rest. There is a reason that certain threads and topics are deleted, and it isn't always about you.

We are all here because a few people are willing to do the hard work of running a message board, and (having done it myself long ago,) yes, it is WORK. You come home from your job or after a long day of family responsibilities, and you have yet more work to do online -- reading emails, internal discussions with other mods, deleting posts or threads. None of it is fun. It is an often painful service that is only rarely rewarded.

Please take the hint. There is likely more going on behind the scenes than you know about.

When I first came to this site some 21 years ago, the referrer indicated that it was a great site about lds and famil members. However you soon learn that this welcoming and inclusive site has boundaries - just like any other group including LDS. I've had my butt whipped here for asking what I thought were valid topics and concerns. So in many respects, this collection of people is no different than any other group that you have dealt with. The only reason I continue to peek in once in a while is because of my initial roots and ties with this site.

Every moderated board has boundaries, some looser or tighter than others. Unmoderated boards are like the wild west. Given the choice, I'll go for a moderated board every time.

agree to some extent - I'm just occasionally peek in now and then and continue to see how rotten people treat other people...

definitely not the site that it started out as....

If you think that being an anti-white supremist on this board is difficult, try being a Donald Trump supporter. A long thread of people can bash him relentlessy with false information and dis-respectful narritive. I respectfully object and what happens? [DELETE]. Then I object to being deleted and what happens [DELETE]. Then the thread continues on without me, as people bash him with name-calling, lies and speculation about possible conspiracy theories.

It appears that those who take a popular position are less often deleted. So if it's popular to bash a certain political candidate or office holder and if that is what you are doing, your posts seem to be relatively safe. If you are the only person who holds your expressed beliefs and if others adamently disagree, your posts are toast.

Last October I made some political predictions here about the 2018 November elections and everyone on that thread thought I was crazy and politically naive. "How could he possibly know that?", they said. My thought processes were sound and not politically biased without fact-based merit. Since that time, the tide has turned a lot in the real world, in favor of what I said last October. This coming November after the elections, I expect to be able to post a link in a new post, pointing to my original post (a year later), saying "I told you so". It'll be interesting to see if that post stays or gets deleted when that happens. It's true that some people can't handle the truth.

Donald Trump has a cult of personality much like that of North Korea albeit much less organised.

Facts don't matter. Reason doesn't matter. Trump's supporters view criticism of Donald Trump as criticism of them.

Trump's supporters keep hoping against hope that he will become the "great white hope" they so desperately want him to be.

But he never will be.

To poster "anybody", the point of my post wasn't to stir-up a trump debate. So please, let's let's not go there. I only referred to Trump supporters as an example of posters who's posts tend to get deleted in this forum (right or wrong). It's not because I don't want the debate either, but because both of our posts will end up being deleted if we debate partison politics here.

what I write below here does relate to mormonism because of the mormon need for absolutes (as in "everyone" or "no one"), right/wrong thinking, and 'group think', all of which are common problems in mormonism.

You did prove the point of my post that I refered to from last October. Much of the time when someone lumps the suspected thoughts of a large group of people from the public together, your own thoughts and assumptions start becoming inaccurate. It's like saying "all black people....." or "all white people....". Whatever you think or say after that is probably going to be in error. You can only lump a group of people together about how they probably think, when there is a strong reason to pull them together, for example, the salaries and financial perks given to General Authorities as an incentive for them to think and act the same as they build and manage mormonism. To lump together the thoughts of roughly half of Americans in a presidential election seems to be quite overly ambitious at best. All we really know is what the opposing party tells us, and then what we observe coming from the media, whether accurate or not.

In the thread that I referred to from last October, one person referred to a political player as "does not have a shread of humanity". This person stuck by that claim, even after I pointed out the likely in-accuracy of that statement. I mean, even Adolph Hitler probably had some shread of humanity. Most of what that other poster said after that lacked credibility, although I did read her words carefully to see if there was anything of wisdom there based on my own truth filters.

The point of this post was to show the OP that it's not personal when their post is deleted, and to show how much more reasonable posts get deleted, even when the intent of the OP is to bring about some reasonable thought. If your thoughts and beliefs are not popular here, the posts that express them may be at risk. I am not a moderator. Many of my posts here get deleted too. Sometimes, un-reasonable ideas prevail while sain ideas get deleted. We live in an imperfect world.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2018 10:36AM by azsteve.

I don't know anything about a "great white hope". But I do know that my net pay just jumped up by over two-thousand dollars per year, and that my employer is thriving (ie: my job is safer). The markets are up, many of my friends no longer have to pay for the privilege of not having health insurance, and the prospects of putting a big beautiful wall on the US southern border is getting more real every day (well worth giving everyone here illegally amnesty, in exchange). Life under the so-called (he who must not be named.... here) is actually pretty damned good and getting better.

I agree. The censorship is as real as the group think is here.

This is a privately owned message board. If you don't care for the rules and the way it's run, you are welcome to host your own. Free speech rules apply only to your interaction with the US government, not to a private message board.

This thread is the perfect example why there cant be any intellectual discussion here. This thread isnt even about a controversial topic and there are already people throwing personal insults around and race baiting conversations that have nothing to do with race. Why?

Why dont you delete the posts of people who clearly have nothing intelligent to say and are just trying to derail the people who do? Instead there is a status quo of idiocy here. This board is an idiocracy. I am not trying to insult anyone. I am just responding to what I just read.

But I will say this. I watched all of Trump's rallies. I noticed how he would say things at random until he got a wild response from the crowd. He is like an old lady who feeds the neighbourhood cats. The cats get fed and the old lady gets love and attention -- except in Trump's case it's not love that he seeks but sycophantic praise and worship to assuage his massive ego and underlying insecurities.

Politics really don't matter to him. Policy doesn't matter to him. He has no vision. He just knows he can get more lavish worship out of the right than the left.

Are you really so blind to not see what he is?

Think. You're not stupid. Use your head.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2018 02:16PM by anybody.

I think that to perceive accurately, the motives of others, you have to think as a professional yourself. Take your own emotions out of the equasion and think objectively, and without personal emotion.

Trump knew that when he referred to illegal refugees as "rapists and drug dealers" that he would be attacked himself, more perhaps than any candidate ever has been. That and similar remarks from him later, fueled over a billion dollars in the free media advertising that funded his eventual win. The media hates him because they knew he was using them like whores, as a tool to win a presidency that went against their own beliefs. But they had to take the ratings and the money that comes with the ratings. So they let themselves get used.

It's not the praise Trump wants and needs. It's the win. His desire to win is directed at what he wants to achieve. He won the presidency because everyone who didn't like him, promptly dismissed him as an unworthy opponent. As a Republican myself, I was glad to see Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican party because neither party really represented the best interests of the American people. If you don't like his ideals, just keep comparing him to the old cat lady, and dismissing him. That works for me. Meanwhile he is systematically knocking down political objectives (mostly my ideals), and causing real-world changes, faster than any president ever has done before. He can't be tricked, threatened, blackmailed, or bullied. It'll take his opponents another eight years, just to figure out what happened.

The moderators create the forum and referee the game. But I don't think they would aspire to set public policy themselves, other than to assist us as we move society away from mormonism, because of the harm it brings to people.

I think that near half of us on this board would promltly leave this forum if a board agenda were revealed to support either liberalism or conservatism. Partison political issues should not be tied to healthy religious beliefs. So the board managers should be neutral on all political topics, least they risk losing a large part of their valuable, balanced, public audience. Both parties in the US have some ideals of merit. If anyone expects the board moderators to lead us in to the correct political party, it's no longer a forum, but a congregaton where the leaders barely bother to even ask for a sustaining vote.

Somehow, my response to the post from Lot's wife ended up two posts above hers (as a response to one of my own posts), instead of being direcrly below hers.

No worries. I'll follow you here.

I understand your point and partly agree with it. I do, however, think it problematic in some ways.

In particular, I disagree with your assertion that "the board managers should be neutral on all political topics." The problem is that you are describing the middle of a political spectrum as the right place to be without recognizing that the endpoints of the spectrum change.

This point is easiest to make if we take extreme examples from other countries, things on which you and I would probably concur. It would be wrong, I suggest, for the board moderators to assume a neutral position on female genital manipulation, forced clothing of women in Iran or Afghanistan or Pakistan, the suppression of information in North Korea, Putin's ruthless monopolization of power, the punishment of people expressing different opinions in Venezuela or the Philippines. In all those cases there is strong popular opinion on both sides of the issues. But neutrality would be wrong in general and in a place for people recovering from a particular cult.

Returning to the States (where I presume you live and where many people probably presume I do), the situation becomes more complicated. But there are surely American issues on which neutrality is not appropriate. There are people in the US who believe one race is superior to others; there are significant numbers of people on both sides of that question. Surely the administrators could not maintain a position of neutrality on that issue without jeopardizing this place as a refuge for people (of any color) escaping Mormonism.

My point is simply that the ends of political spectra are constantly being pushed in or pulled further out. Being at the midpoint on a moving spectrum is not the right place to be at all times. That would effective cede control of the political debate to whoever manages to push their side of the spectrum more aggressively towards extremism.

My personal inclination is to leave as much on the board as possible. Free speech is generally a disinfectant. The only places where I would moderate assertively are on racist threads, misogynistic or misanthropic threads, or anti-LGTBQ threads because that makes the place hostile to certain classes of people who are trying to disentangle themselves from our common and unfortunate heritage.

The problem for the mods, as I perceive it, is that in the last few years aggressive views on some of these topics have gained more currency. Adopting a policy of neutrality on things that are profoundly Mormon--the status of different races, the status of different genders, nepotistic privilege, manipulation of truth--would mean that large numbers of disaffected Mormons would not be welcome here. I think some of those threads, and some of those posts, truly do have to be blocked.

And I say that as someone who has been deleted many, many times.

I agree with your standards for what should and shouldn't be deleted, and why. Where to draw the lines can be a slippery slope. I was more concerned with the issues of mainstream, current, political politics, more in the near-middle range. But your point about the extremes can't be ignored either. It's in the middle where most of the lies and gaslighting occur on a daily basis, the front-lines of a battle that can go in both extremes, to bad places. Whether one watches CNN or FOX news, can create totally different world views in a person. For moderation to adopt either position and allow or delete posts accordingly, seems to be dangerous as RFM grows and has an increasing level of influence in the world.

I worry greatly about the polarization of American opinion, which is hugely unhealthy. Ultimately that has to change.

The problem about these political issues is that to the extent that a view is an essential part of leaving Mormonism, it cannot be eschewed simply because a political movement now asserts what is very close to the traditional Mormon view. Anything close to racism, patriarchy, the judgment of classes of people on the basis of innate characteristics falls into that category.

More debatable are questions of authority and deference thereto. It is difficult to discuss the escape from Mormonism while simultaneously insisting that established elites must by dint of their position be respected. This could be read as an anti-GOP statement or an anti-Dem statement, a paradox that I embrace, but in today's world it means a particular variant of that.

I do not think the mods get their decisions right all the time. I've had a lot of posts that I thought acceptable expunged, and seen others that I was sure would be dinged allowed to remain. This might bother me, but I don't see the bigger picture and am happy that I don't have to. They are walking a fine line that I believe, in theory, is the right one.

Bingo -- it's all just a game!

The world that you seek will not come to pass.

The younger generation has no desire for xenophobia, racism, rigid gender roles and exclusion of people based on gender or sex identity, subjugation of women, petit-fascism, corporate statism, religious intolerance and hate.

It is no accident that all of these things are part and parcel of the evangelical movement. Right wing politics, racism, and religion are now intertwined in an unholy alliance.

Trying to re-create the 1950s isn't going to work -- no matter how much you think that is "normal." The world has changed.

Ask yourself: Are you really so afraid of the future that you are willing to abandon your common sense and sense of decency to blindly follow a man like Donald Trump?

Thirty years from now it will all be over. The people who are enthralled by this type of thinking will be simply too few in number.

Instead of being scared of being "one out of many" perhaps you should welcome change instead of trying to forestall the inevitable.

Reply to "anybody"s post. Why would we assume that anyone on this board here want a world with "xenophobes, racism, rigid gender roles based on gender or sex identity, subjigation of women, petit-facism, corporate statism, religious intolerance and hate"? No one here wants that. To assume that others do will hamper your own growth.

and his fascist wannabes.

And I don't have to imagine as I've got eyes to read and ears to hear.

How many years have you had to inerpret what you see and hear, in context of what is really important to others?

To some people, the Trump wall represents only one thing, the ability to stop anyone who was not born in the US, from coming in to the country without permission. It doesn't matter what their race, sex, sexual orientation, or National origin is. No one gets in without being vetted or without permission. To someone else, the wall represents everything that is wrong with humanity. You can't just see and hear. You have to interpret correctly too. Mark Zukerberg has a big wall around his home. Even the vatican has a thirty-foot around their country/city. Why not remove those walls? Is the pope a racist? Probably not.

A wall might be useful if that's the predominant way that people arrive in the US. But it isn't. They mostly come by airplane and occasionally by boat. It's a terribly expensive way to solve a rather small problem. We have other problems that could use the kind of money necessary to build a useless wall. We already have boarder crossings and walls in many places. If people are determined to get around a wall, they will. They tunnel, etc.

But again, the predominant way people get into the US is by airplane on a tourist visa.

I agree that the board owners can do whatever they want with it. That's not censorship in the classic meaning of the word. The government has nothing to do with it. It's all about what the quality level of the discussions should be taking place here. In some ways, the moderators can't win. But sometimes I think the rules they apply should be tweaked, and always evenly applied. Maybe I am wrong but sometimes I think I could accurately guess who some of the moderators voted for, and toward which political party they tend to lean, just by what gets deleted and what doesn't get deleted. If their algorithms were good enough, and evenly applied and without bias, we wouldn't have a clue what they think, unless they post what they think. Maybe that is asking too much of them. It's theirs to do what they want with. But as quality increases, so should the traffic and the affectness of achieving their purpose.

You write that if the moderators' "algorithms were good enough, and evenly applied and without bias, we wouldn't have a clue what they think."

That is Orwellian. It means that if political leaders decide to assert a new line--we have always been at war with Eurasia--the "neutral" position must move in the direction of the new official doctrine. That is how extremism succeeds. If you stake out a moderate position and get a group to compromise with you, you make some progress towards your personal objective. If you stake out an extreme position and get the same group to compromise, they move much further towards your desired goal.

No one who cares about truth would ever say that the standards for truth must move in a politically or socially acceptable ways. If society moves towards Mormonism, for instance, that does not mean that we can no longer criticize elements of that religion simply because they have become more socially acceptable.

Sometimes you effectively ask that we stop criticizing institutional problems that have done immense harm to us and others. The opposite is more likely to occur: if the nepotism and venality of Mormonism become more politically acceptable, for example, it would be reasonable to expect ex-Mormons to become more vociferous about those problems rather than less. You and some others sometimes seem to be asking us to truncate the recovery process in deference to political trends that have already proved injurious in the Mormon context.

I don't think that is a reasonable request.

I'll try again. My response to Lot's wife went a few posts abeve hers, by mistake.