Originally Posted by signal
Excuse me, I'm not following you.
The links you're referring to are about Margaret Sanger, and some conservative sources that seem to think legal abortion is the same as a program of eugenics-- which I'm guessing you do as well? Also that slowing America's population growth must mean we will practice eugenics? Because that seems like a pretty inflammatory, baseless conclusion. Does talking about immigration control mean concentration camps?
The point isn't the conclusion here. I've posted some links in here and JG has as well. People can agree or disagree. The point is this. If someone has linked to what they believe is true and you declare you have the right to harass them and ignore the posting guidelines because they haven't proven it to your satisfaction, then you will likely have the moderator come down on you. The definition of harass in this instance involves spamming this thread with about 25-30 requests and the banned party in question often loses it and begins spamming multiple threads with an additional 10-15 requests each.
Is that what you mean? That if "liberals" support legal abortion they are eugenicists? And slowing population growth? Because you should probably say that. Although then I'm not sure why there needs to be new thread about how liberals are "sliding into psychosis" because the Democratic Party has supported legal abortion for quite a while now, and lots of people see population growth as a problem. Very nice people that want to encourage things like non-coercive birth control. Also some people who think illegal immigration is a problem because it contributes to population growth in this country, putting demands on scarce resources.
I'm pretty sure JG posted those as recent and historical examples. The leftists on here make strident statements that certain attributes are impossible within their realm of political thought. My contention has more to do with believing certain individuals are elite or superhuman to the point of being able to lord or rule over someone else when that person does not desire it. When you decide that you have the right to rule by decree rather than by consent, that is practicing eugenics. You've declared the good of the whole must outweigh the consent of the governed for the betterment of society as a whole. This is a central point in the formation of all leftist authoritarian governments.
The language of said thought reflects the masses being unfit to decide for themselves. Myself and others have posted links to that language. That is a subpoint within the overall point of the thread which is the left losing touch with reality when the promised nirvanna their policies and votes associated with them were supposed to bring instead turned into the tea party and being bounced from office. Instead of believing the voters actually voted their interests and desire the language of the leadership declares them stupid, scared, disengaged, uninformed, misinformed, etc. This is delusional language because it says the majority of people out basically don't know how to or deserve to run their own lives.
Anyway, I also don't see why pointing this out is typical of why the previous poster has been banned. Do they ban people for pointing out pretty commonsensical things, here? I also see a link to a moderator "outing" the same poster with a previous identity, I guess because he was saying things like he's saying here? Is this a rightwing website, where liberals are bullied?
He wasn't banned just once. He was banned multiple times for harassment and spamming. It had nothing to do with his political orientation or worldview. If you follow the thread of that link it is because his method of trolling is identifiable and when called on it, he denied his identity. The forum software allows you to ignore certain posters. If that poster registers under a different name and begins harassing the same parties, they've sought to override the software, the intent of the person not desiring to be harassed and also are working to circumvent the posting guidelines.
You've seen posters here declaring they are right not by reasoning, but by a consensus of complainers. What you may not realize is several of these accounts, perhaps not this time, but in the past have been the same person. So if I log on with four different accounts and have all of them say you are wrong on some point and then send several messages from each account in the same thread declaring you must be wrong due to the consensus of parties noting you are wrong, when I'm all really the same person, then that isn't a legitimate use of the discussion feature of the forums. If you go to member list and look at all the accounts starting with Hassan you will see what we mean.
Now when someone becomes harassing or abusive, for example they go from saying someone is childish to saying someone beats their wife, they get temp banned from here. That means they tell them to go away and cool off for a period of three to ten days. If you decide to use one of your "alternative" accounts or create to come back in and begin harassing and abusing said poster again, you get permabanned. This permabanning has happened to MJ aka Hassan in several different forms multiple times.
He wasn't banned for being of a political orientation. He was banned for being harassing abusive and then ignoring the mod advice to cool off by creating new accounts to circumvent the cool down bans.