[Suggestion] Ban the (((ECHO)))

[Oklahoman State]

Subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Also, they're not blocked from American IPs.

Relevance?

if America passed a law requiring free speech on internet forums, it would be subject. That's not currently the law, but i strongly support such a provision. Otherwise not relevant, besides a moral obligation to protect free speech.

But like a moral obligation to remove ads selling prostitutes or something, not necessarily legally required.

[Linux and the X]

Relevance?

if America passed a law requiring free speech on internet forums, it would be subject. That's not currently the law, but i strongly support such a provision. Otherwise not relevant, besides a moral obligation to protect free speech.

But like a moral obligation to remove ads selling prostitutes or something, not necessarily legally required.

Canada is not subject to US jurisdiction. Ironically, such a law actually would run afoul of the first amendment.

[Oklahoman State]

if America passed a law requiring free speech on internet forums, it would be subject. That's not currently the law, but i strongly support such a provision. Otherwise not relevant, besides a moral obligation to protect free speech.

But like a moral obligation to remove ads selling prostitutes or something, not necessarily legally required.

Canada is not subject to US jurisdiction. Ironically, such a law actually would run afoul of the first amendment.

Nah, we'd only regulate businesses. So if they traffic in interstate commerce.

You know, if they have ads, or their server is owned by a larger business. Or if their internet service is run by a large corporation subject to regulation.

Private individuals who don't rent, but actually have their own server and have their own internet connection separate from a corporation(E.G. cox cable, AT&T) can do whatever they want. But if they traffic in interstate commerce, they're subject to U.S. regulation.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Excuse me, but what does that have anything to do with categorizing the echo as trolling?

[Oklahoman State]

Excuse me, but what does that have anything to do with categorizing the echo as trolling?

Nothing, absolutely nothing.

point being, i don't think it should be against the rules to use echos.

[Linux and the X]

Canada is not subject to US jurisdiction. Ironically, such a law actually would run afoul of the first amendment.

Nah, we'd only regulate businesses. So if they traffic in interstate commerce.

You know, if they have ads, or their server is owned by a larger business. Or if their internet service is run by a large corporation subject to regulation.

Private individuals who don't rent, but actually have their own server and have their own internet connection separate from a corporation(E.G. cox cable, AT&T) can do whatever they want. But if they traffic in interstate commerce, they're subject to U.S. regulation.

The server and internet connection are in Canada. They are not bound by US law. And again, your law would be actual government regulation of speech.

point being, i don't think it should be against the rules to use echos.

I think it should be. And it seems the mods agree.

[Imperium Britannicum]

Do we have to treat everything as offensive or trolling? Can't people get over it without having to make a rule against it? If people are determined to organise an attack on someone, pretty sure that banning ((())) won't deter them.

[The Forsworn Knights]

isn't the owner of the website a foreigner? I don't think they even have free speech over there, really.

So is tagging someone as a possible Jew trolling? Is tagging someone as a possible liberal trolling?

The owner is literally Australian, with mods in America and Europe.

I don't think the "free speech" argument you posed bears out as much as you think it does.

I think one of the mods lives in Japan.

[Giovenith]

Excuse me, but what does that have anything to do with categorizing the echo as trolling?

Nothing, absolutely nothing.

point being, i don't think it should be against the rules to use echos.

So did you ignore the some five times people explained to you that echo is specifically used to mark people for harassment and death threats and NOT just a mean way of calling them a Jew, or were you honestly under the impression that harassment and incitements to crime are in fact covered by free speech? Because - they're not. Not even in the US.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The owner is literally Australian, with mods in America and Europe.

I don't think the "free speech" argument you posed bears out as much as you think it does.

I think one of the mods lives in Japan.

That would be NERVUN, yes.

Damn.

[Cerillium]

I missed the AOL era, I was an ICQ and IRC newbie, we used *hugs* and /me instead. Another half-serious suggestion to float out of the lair is weaponizing the word filter to turn (((THIS))) into ♥︎♥︎♥︎THIS♥︎♥︎♥︎. Which made me laugh way too much and get some weird looks at work.

You didn't miss much. Though, in honesty, I do miss some of the chat rooms.

I fully support the word filter suggestion. It would solve problems and takes the "edge" right out of the intentionally trollish post.

I also didn't realize the triple parentheses was classified as a form of hate speech by the Anti-Defamation League. Thanks for sharing that info link, Farn.

Humans do not have a "freedom" to launch harassment campaigns on another.

Seriously, actually read the links OP and others provided before dipping into your bag of automated responses about how precious and special opinions are. ((())) has jack all to do with simple, innocent, "unpopular opinions." Not everything that gets banned is due to an evil, free speech-hating conspiracy, some things are actually worth banning - in ((()))'s case, so that writers with "Jewish-sounding" names can exercise their opinions without having a hoard of Neo-Nazi intimidation dumped on their doorstep and making them not want to speak any further.

Yes, there is a problem with unpopular opinions getting silenced, but I'm getting real sick of people thinking that this somehow endows them to say whatever however they want whenever they want without consequence like spoiled children. No, you don't get to have cries of "brainwashed PC Jew" with zero substance treated on an equal level of respect as other forms of argumentation. It's not because people "can't stand other opinions," it's because they don't know how to express their opinions with a modicum of sanity or civility and all they do is clog of the path of discussion with unproductive, hostile garbage that contributes nothing. You have a right to an opinion, you do NOT have a right to behave like a savage psychopath all over an opinion.

Emphasis mine. Well stated, as always, Miss Gio.

Another point that people seem to overlook is that this is a privately owned site. We're guests here. Max isn't stifling free speech. People are free to voice whatever they wish outside but, once they log in here, they're stepping into Max's property. He has every right to dictate what is or isn't allowed. He pays for the property, he has staff to tend his investment, there are rules all guests must follow.

Some Americans should reflect on what "Free Speech" means. Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. The government of the US or Australia can not come in and prohibit Max from running a site where opinions are often critical of how these governments operate. We have freedom to express our negative views.

"Free Speech" does not mean you're entitled to speak freely without repercussions from others. With private venues, the owner is within his or her right to curtail unacceptable behavior. They can have you removed from the premises. Likewise, behaving like a shithead on NS means you will be curtailed and/or removed from the premises. You do have the option of standing outside the venue and protesting. This means you don't log in.

Max does give you the right to voice an opinion that conflicts with his own. He doesn't unnecessarily censor things; what little censorship we have is framed by regulatory laws (Federal Trade Commission, etc in the US) and buttressed by site rules we agree to follow, and the ToS that NS agrees to follow. The site rules make the site more pleasant by reminding people to "not be a dick". ((())) is classified as a new form of online targeting of individuals and groups, and promoting hate. Don't blame Max. Point a finger at the people behaving like dicks by abusing it.

[Reploid Productions]

Gio and Cer have basically nailed it in one.

Free Speech = doesn't exist here, as this is Max's private property. He could make using the letter "e" a delete-worthy offense and be completely within his rights to do so. Do not mistake his willingness to allow discussion on most topics/opinions for free speech. The FAQ is quite clear on this fact:

>It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

Any further arguments re: free speech really has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of discussion, and if that particular derail continues, it will be removed from the thread.

(((echoes))): Probably don't need to add an entire separate rule about them to the OSRS as the intention/action meant by them is already covered under some combination of trolling, threats, and harassment. The thing that makes it actionable is that it essentially says "This person is part of the zionist ebil conspiracy and should be targeted for harassment/threats/etc." In contexts where it's being used to show hugs or somesuch... well, again, the context is key. Some anime nation in a furry RP/chat thread that's been all amiable chatter going "OMG (((NAME)))! I haven't seen you in ages!" for instance, is an entirely different context compared to a fascist-flavor nation in a heated NSG debate going "Well, (((NAME))) is wrong because $reason!"


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Cerillium]

Gio and Cer have basically nailed it in one.

Free Speech = doesn't exist here, as this is Max's private property. He could make using the letter "e" a delete-worthy offense and be completely within his rights to do so. Do not mistake his willingness to allow discussion on most topics/opinions for free speech. The FAQ is quite clear on this fact:

>It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

Any further arguments re: free speech really has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of discussion, and if that particular derail continues, it will be removed from the thread.

(((echoes))): Probably don't need to add an entire separate rule about them to the OSRS as the intention/action meant by them is already covered under some combination of trolling, threats, and harassment. The thing that makes it actionable is that it essentially says "This person is part of the zionist ebil conspiracy and should be targeted for harassment/threats/etc." In contexts where it's being used to show hugs or somesuch... well, again, the context is key. Some anime nation in a furry RP/chat thread that's been all amiable chatter going "OMG (((NAME)))! I haven't seen you in ages!" for instance, is an entirely different context compared to a fascist-flavor nation in a heated NSG debate going "Well, (((NAME))) is wrong because $reason!"

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Thanks, Reppy.

With regard to the echoes, could we add OSRS guidance to an existing section rather than bother with an entirely new rule? There are many on NS who have no idea what echoes are.
I believe a snippet of what you stated above would fit nicely in either the "harassment" or "trolling" section.

[Bears Armed]

Presumably this ruling would also apply to any attempts at getting around the ban on posting "(((whoever)))" by posting "[echo]whoever[/echo]"?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Gio and Cer have basically nailed it in one.

Free Speech = doesn't exist here, as this is Max's private property. He could make using the letter "e" a delete-worthy offense and be completely within his rights to do so. Do not mistake his willingness to allow discussion on most topics/opinions for free speech. The FAQ is quite clear on this fact:

>It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

Any further arguments re: free speech really has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of discussion, and if that particular derail continues, it will be removed from the thread.

(((echoes))): Probably don't need to add an entire separate rule about them to the OSRS as the intention/action meant by them is already covered under some combination of trolling, threats, and harassment. The thing that makes it actionable is that it essentially says "This person is part of the zionist ebil conspiracy and should be targeted for harassment/threats/etc." In contexts where it's being used to show hugs or somesuch... well, again, the context is key. Some anime nation in a furry RP/chat thread that's been all amiable chatter going "OMG (((NAME)))! I haven't seen you in ages!" for instance, is an entirely different context compared to a fascist-flavor nation in a heated NSG debate going "Well, (((NAME))) is wrong because $reason!"

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Sorry to ask but, is this really an issue on NS? I have never seen the ((())) tags used anywhere on the site. Of course, I stick to NSG and Arts & Fiction so my take is not well rounded but this thread is the first time I've come across such an issue. It sounds incredibly odd to me and I was wondering how truly problematic it is.

[Katganistan]

We've seen it twice so far, I believe, and it's been dealt with under trolling.

[Linux and the X]

Gio and Cer have basically nailed it in one.

Free Speech = doesn't exist here, as this is Max's private property. He could make using the letter "e" a delete-worthy offense and be completely within his rights to do so. Do not mistake his willingness to allow discussion on most topics/opinions for free speech. The FAQ is quite clear on this fact:

>It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

Any further arguments re: free speech really has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of discussion, and if that particular derail continues, it will be removed from the thread.

(((echoes))): Probably don't need to add an entire separate rule about them to the OSRS as the intention/action meant by them is already covered under some combination of trolling, threats, and harassment. The thing that makes it actionable is that it essentially says "This person is part of the zionist ebil conspiracy and should be targeted for harassment/threats/etc." In contexts where it's being used to show hugs or somesuch... well, again, the context is key. Some anime nation in a furry RP/chat thread that's been all amiable chatter going "OMG (((NAME)))! I haven't seen you in ages!" for instance, is an entirely different context compared to a fascist-flavor nation in a heated NSG debate going "Well, (((NAME))) is wrong because $reason!"

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Sorry to ask but, is this really an issue on NS? I have never seen the ((())) tags used anywhere on the site. Of course, I stick to NSG and Arts & Fiction so my take is not well rounded but this thread is the first time I've come across such an issue. It sounds incredibly odd to me and I was wondering how truly problematic it is.

It has happened, and given that it's a popular neo-Nazi symbol (well, popular as such things can be, anyway), it's not a bad idea to be proactive and clarify that it's trolling.

[Socialist Nordia]

Humans do not have a "freedom" to launch harassment campaigns on another.

Seriously, actually read the links OP and others provided before dipping into your bag of automated responses about how precious and special opinions are. ((())) has jack all to do with simple, innocent, "unpopular opinions." Not everything that gets banned is due to an evil, free speech-hating conspiracy, some things are actually worth banning - in ((()))'s case, so that writers with "Jewish-sounding" names can exercise their opinions without having a hoard of Neo-Nazi intimidation dumped on their doorstep and making them not want to speak any further.

Yes, there is a problem with unpopular opinions getting silenced, but I'm getting real sick of people thinking that this somehow endows them to say whatever however they want whenever they want without consequence like spoiled children. No, you don't get to have cries of "brainwashed PC Jew" with zero substance treated on an equal level of respect as other forms of argumentation. It's not because people "can't stand other opinions," it's because they don't know how to express their opinions with a modicum of sanity or civility and all they do is clog of the path of discussion with unproductive, hostile garbage that contributes nothing. You have a right to an opinion, you do NOT have a right to behave like a savage psychopath all over an opinion.

Yes they do, if I stand outside someone's door and call him a faggot with the top of my lungs, there is nothing about that action in itself which I cannot perform, only consequences created by the actions of others who might find me doing so contrary to their interests. Humans have the freedom to do whatever is within their power, superior force might establish conditions where the consequences of them exercising that may be adverse leading to restraint, but they have that 'freedom' in the non-metaphysical sense regardless.

How is pointing out a jewish writer is jewish stopping them from expressing an opinion? They take that choice of their own accord, same as Maoist tactics by SJWs don't limit the free speech of White Supremacists, if anything it just seems like various upper-middle class journalists not used to being directly criticised in debate don't understand how the internet works.

"le spoilt children" is just another meaningless ad hominem. No one is forcing you to treat it with respect, you don't have to, and likewise they don't have to treat your empty cries of "savage psychopath violating human rights!" which has equally zero substance with respect. All the concept of free speech says is you can both say it. This really is just nothing more than you saying "Yeah i love free speech and all...but psychopaths? hatred?!!! nah nah nah." It literally is just 'these opinions are bad because they are so there'.

"sanity" and "civility" are both subjective terms for your particular moral values, which until they are defended with additional explanation, are just meaningless badisms. Similar 'savage psychopath' - psychopath is simply a term used for people who do not conform to the established standards of morality. I could bundle a set of traits I dislike and call it 'sociophilia' and prance about calling people who offend me sociophiliacs, it would not make it anything other than empty insistence.

Really your post just seems like a sad excuse for censoring people who are better at arguing than you.

From FAQ

>It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

[Even Less of Mackonia]

Yes they do, if I stand outside someone's door and call him a faggot with the top of my lungs, there is nothing about that action in itself which I cannot perform, only consequences created by the actions of others who might find me doing so contrary to their interests. Humans have the freedom to do whatever is within their power, superior force might establish conditions where the consequences of them exercising that may be adverse leading to restraint, but they have that 'freedom' in the non-metaphysical sense regardless.

How is pointing out a jewish writer is jewish stopping them from expressing an opinion? They take that choice of their own accord, same as Maoist tactics by SJWs don't limit the free speech of White Supremacists, if anything it just seems like various upper-middle class journalists not used to being directly criticised in debate don't understand how the internet works.

"le spoilt children" is just another meaningless ad hominem. No one is forcing you to treat it with respect, you don't have to, and likewise they don't have to treat your empty cries of "savage psychopath violating human rights!" which has equally zero substance with respect. All the concept of free speech says is you can both say it. This really is just nothing more than you saying "Yeah i love free speech and all...but psychopaths? hatred?!!! nah nah nah." It literally is just 'these opinions are bad because they are so there'.

"sanity" and "civility" are both subjective terms for your particular moral values, which until they are defended with additional explanation, are just meaningless badisms. Similar 'savage psychopath' - psychopath is simply a term used for people who do not conform to the established standards of morality. I could bundle a set of traits I dislike and call it 'sociophilia' and prance about calling people who offend me sociophiliacs, it would not make it anything other than empty insistence.

Really your post just seems like a sad excuse for censoring people who are better at arguing than you.

From FAQ

>It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

"But its da roolz" Is a poor justification for policy. Besides, I was not questioning Max Barry's right to censor opinions on his website - just the pretence that this is somehow not a curtailment of free speech and opposing opinions, which it is- and Giovanith's in my view poor argument that things he don't like aren't real speech because feels. He's still completely able to do so. But as I have said before, appealing to Max Barry to justify the huge leaps of interpretation made by NS moderators is pretty null and void unless he personally communicates his approval for every moderation action.

And also I genuinely did not see the mods have banned discussion of free speech in this thread, so I am ending my partaking in it for my own sake.

[Katganistan]

Two posts have been removed to the evidence locker as being 'in bad faith' for review by admin.

As noted earlier, trolling with stereotypes and posts made to anger people are not allowed. A wide range of opinions that people may disagree with are allowed.

Approval of the rules is not required, but adherence to them is.

[Even Less of Mackonia]

Two posts have been removed to the evidence locker as being 'in bad faith' for review by admin.

As noted earlier, trolling with stereotypes and posts made to anger people are not allowed. A wide range of opinions that people may disagree with are allowed.

Approval of the rules is not required, but adherence to them is.

I didn't remotely criticise NS mods in the post you removed, I questioned the rationale behind deeming echoes offensive and said that it seemed to me moderators should now ban 'Nazi' or indeed any label the opposition disagrees with, if MRAs deem 'misogynist' offensive trolling mods should ban 'misogynist', if fundamentalist Christians deem 'homophobic' offensive trolling mods should ban 'homophobic' and its similarly garbled cousins like 'transphobic'.

I did not remotely criticise the mods themselves in that post, I am genuinely curious as to how the mods will rationalise the topic case but not these others.

[Katganistan]

Asking for second opinion.

[Dakini]

Two posts have been removed to the evidence locker as being 'in bad faith' for review by admin.

As noted earlier, trolling with stereotypes and posts made to anger people are not allowed. A wide range of opinions that people may disagree with are allowed.

Approval of the rules is not required, but adherence to them is.

I didn't remotely criticise NS mods in the post you removed, I questioned the rationale behind deeming echoes offensive and said that it seemed to me moderators should now ban 'Nazi' or indeed any label the opposition disagrees with, if MRAs deem 'misogynist' offensive trolling mods should ban 'misogynist', if fundamentalist Christians deem 'homophobic' offensive trolling mods should ban 'homophobic' and its similarly garbled cousins like 'transphobic'.

I did not remotely criticise the mods themselves in that post, I am genuinely curious as to how the mods will rationalise the topic case but not these others.

There's a difference between insulting ideas and insulting people. While a person's ideas may be important to them, they alone do not constitute a person's identity and furthermore, a person's ideas are, to some extent, both malleable and chosen by the individual while a person's gender/race/sexual orientation/etc are not.

Saying that something someone has said is (or their ideas are) racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/Nazi-esque is very different from using a slur to describe a person.

[Reploid Productions]

I see nothing wrong with my colleague's "bad faith" ruling on the two removed posts. Both amount to completely unconstructive ranting and continued railing on the "free speech" subject, offering nothing constructive to the actual discussion. But then that's not my call to make. The posts remain in the evidence locker for the admin to review. If you feel your posts were removed in error, you may file a Getting Help request to report moderator misuse of the "bad faith" guideline to flag it for admin attention.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Even Less of Mackonia]

I see nothing wrong with my colleague's "bad faith" ruling on the two removed posts. Both amount to completely unconstructive ranting and continued railing on the "free speech" subject, offering nothing constructive to the actual discussion. But then that's not my call to make. The posts remain in the evidence locker for the admin to review. If you feel your posts were removed in error, you may file a Getting Help request to report moderator misuse of the "bad faith" guideline to flag it for admin attention.

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

And I'm glad you repaid my unconstructive ranting in kind given you've made absolutely no attempt to elucidate why my post was in bad faith or why it was unconstructive in order to make room for your usual protective pomposity and tiresome graphical narcissism. And if you had bothered to read the post removed you would see it did not deal with free speech, it questioned why echoes are offensive, and how the recent trend in banning things due to ''offensive origin'' does not apply to the word 'Nazi' when it fits the description perfectly: a word the people described by it dislike and see as a misrepresentation of their views and which was coined in order to mock them, no different from ''dindu nuffin'' or echoes.

I didn't remotely criticise NS mods in the post you removed, I questioned the rationale behind deeming echoes offensive and said that it seemed to me moderators should now ban 'Nazi' or indeed any label the opposition disagrees with, if MRAs deem 'misogynist' offensive trolling mods should ban 'misogynist', if fundamentalist Christians deem 'homophobic' offensive trolling mods should ban 'homophobic' and its similarly garbled cousins like 'transphobic'.

I did not remotely criticise the mods themselves in that post, I am genuinely curious as to how the mods will rationalise the topic case but not these others.

There's a difference between insulting ideas and insulting people. While a person's ideas may be important to them, they alone do not constitute a person's identity and furthermore, a person's ideas are, to some extent, both malleable and chosen by the individual while a person's gender/race/sexual orientation/etc are not.

Saying that something someone has said is (or their ideas are) racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/Nazi-esque is very different from using a slur to describe a person.

A person's ideas are the sum of the only identity worth talking about. But this really is off-topic and discussing it would just get a wall of reppy tantrum-text about 'unrelated discussion'.

The reason the mods seem to give for banning terms like 'dindu nuffin' and echoes is that it is a term meant solely to provoke offense invented by le ebil alt-right, and they indeed are offensive as the people labelled by those terms Jews and persons of colour killed in police shootings find them irritating. I'm arguing that by this logic those other terms should also be banned. Not by the argument that insulting views is the same as insulting individuals.

For example the term 'homophobic' implies fear of homosexuals, many who disagree with homosexual behaviour would say that does not represent their views, they are not afraid of homosexuals, they find them immoral or dislike their behaviour - but fear they do not feel. They are so to speak "offended" by its usage. 'Homophobic' is a carefully chosen word by the defenders of that sexual philia, by implying opposition to homosexuality is the result of fear it is already marked out as irrational. So why is it treated differently from dindu nuffin?

Similarly for 'Nazi', the historical Nazis and all the Nazis I've met hate the term, it was coined purely by their enemies to make them sound silly and because 'National Socialism' is a bit of a mouthful I suppose. How does this not fit the exact criteria used to ban dindu nuffin or echoes? Is it not invented by a hostile party? Does it not offend the people labelled?

Am I saying they should ban the word 'Nazi'? No, that's ridiculous, and for the same reason the echoes or the dindu nuffin meme should not be banned. Political factions come up with denigrating labels for their opponents all the time and many of them stick, and it just seems like the banning of them only comes down on certain political factions: which is as biased as it gets.