you know, but I'll entertain you and Rai.
I was banned there 3 times:
1 - I supported Kapernick except for his cops are pigs socks. Sunny lead the charge and I was banned for 24 hours for trolling.
2 - I got into an argument with Chris around distinctions between tolerance, respect and acceptance. I positioned that I am not required to respect anyone's opinion, only their right to have it. Banned for 1 week to "settle down."
3 - I support the 3 state solution. I argued that the one state solution will lead to the genocide of Jews in Israel and many on the board support that. I was banned indefinitely and within 24 hours the same mod said the Jews were seeking the genocide of Gazans.
You sure you were banned for the substance of your views? I think that's not the issue. Let's take #3, for example.
"Many people on the board support a genocide of Jews," said you. Are you unable to comprehend why that is a pure slander? I grant that it's YOUR view that the one-state solution will lead to a genocide of Jews. I'll assume that it's a reasonable position -- but it's still only your view. Instead, you took YOUR speculation as fact -- an obvious fact that everybody understands so that support for a one-state solution is support for genocide. In reality, it's speculation that genocide would result from a one-state solution. People who support that policy aren't supporting genocide; they are simply disagreeing with your prediction.
There are so many way to express your position in terms that are not incendiary. Let's look at a couple:
A. "I think that a one-state solution will lead to a genocide of Jews, so I cannot support that position. You folks who support that solution ought to consider that aspect of the problem."
B. "A one-state solution could usher in a genocide of Jews. I don't know the exact odds, but it's a genocide so even a low risk should be taken extremely serious, right? Do you think that a low risk of genocide is acceptable?"
C. "I'm afraid of the genocide that could occur from a one-state solution. I'll assume that none of you want that outcome. So maybe it's worth explaining why you are sure that a genocide can't happen, because there are reasons to think it might."
Do you understand how all three of those options manage to convey the valid substance you were trying to express, without accusing other people of being genocidal maniacs? If you're having trouble with it, read those three options again, carefully. If you need further assistance, feel free to ask.
As for the comment that the "Jews were seeking the genocide of Gazans," I doubt that the person used the word Jews. Let's suppose for a moment that they said, "Israelis are seeking the genocide of Gazans." Notice how that isn't directed at any person on the board (probably- I'll get to that). So it's already of a completely different character than what you wrote. in addition, it doesn't require any speculation to be treated as fact. We can see exactly what Israel has done, and it's a reasonable to describe it as a genocide or a genocide precursor. Lots of dispassionate observers who know way more about the issue than you do have done exactly that. So it doesn't require anyone to treat your speculation as fact.
Now, it's possible that there are some Israelis who post on the board or who at least read it. So the statement "Israelis are seeking the genocide of Gazans" can have a personal attack aspect to it. Ideally, we would have unlimited time to massage the wording in our posts, but we don't and so lots of us use shorthand of various sorts. What was meant by the statement, of course, was "Israelis who support Netanyahu" but that's unwieldy. So if you're Israeli, you just say "I'm Israeli, and in no way do I seek the genocide of Gazans," and then we will clarify. We will remove the shorthand and be more careful. Note that this is, to the best of my knowledge, a counterfactual and one that doesn't need to be resolved in order to understand what was wrong with your post. I'm just adding some additional commentary.
If the statement was made "Jews are seeking the genocide of Gazans," then that's more of a problem. It's still not quite a personal attack. If you are Jewish, you can reasonably take offense. But it's still not targeted at you -- not in the way that "you people who support a one-state solution are advocating genocide." The problem is that the term Jews is being used too broadly. The response would be something like "Jews? All Jews? Which Jews?" and now the person who has made the statement can clarify. If the person is reasonable, they would say, "No, not all Jews. I shouldn't have written Jews. I mean the Jewish settlers in Israel" and then it's no longer anti-social. If the person doesn't back down, then they are being anti-Semitic and you should report the post.
Does this make sense?
