So in summary, you don't like his opinion?
I think liking/not liking someone's opinion is sufficient criteria for deciding who to include/exclude from my trust list, no?Can you explain the difference. I mean your poo poohing seems worse?
Exactly, there is a difference with discussions that starts to get into threats of the physical actions in the real world, versus just throwing around words on the interwebs. Sometimes discussions of race might end up going in that physical actions direction, but merely differing of opinion about race or one person’s ability to talk about racial topics or their substantive opinions about race would not necessarily, on its face, rise to the same level of egregiousness as actual physical threats, or trying to entice or encourage others to carry out physical violence, whether death or some lesser physical assault.
I find problematic death threats and even lesser threats (less than death) to physically harm someone in the real world (like beat him up) if such threat is either seriously suggesting such action should be carried out (of course, sometimes there are jokes that are just meant symbolically rather than real advocation of physical violence) or such threat could be read by a reasonable person as advocating such real world physical violence action... one time posts might be considered less serious.. because the idea is more fleeting, rather than putting the matter in a signature or in personal text as an ongoing message.
No, not liking some one's opinion is not valid reason for excluding them. You are supposed to include and exclude people based on whether you think their use of the trust system is valid or not. I don't remember saying death threats were acceptable, but please feel free to quote me.
It seems that I was largely suggesting that there are differing kinds of behaviors, and there is a difference when words are used for the purpose of threatening people in the real world, whether that is death or bodily harm as compared with having differing opinions about race or if someone has or does not have credibility to speak on a topic, such as race.
Regarding excluding or excluding someone from trust, there could be a variety of reasons, including that you might exclude someone because you believe that they do not understand certain kinds of meaningful distinctions, such as the difference between having disagreements about race or whether it is acceptable for a member to advocate for the physical harm of another member, whether death or some other lesser form of physical harm.
So, yes, some members might conclude that NOT understanding such differences between differing kinds of threats or different kinds of advocating is NOT a BIG deal to them, but to me it seems a fair reason to NOT trust someone's judgement if they are making comments that seem to not recognizing a difference in various kinds of forum conduct and that from their perspective physically threatening crosses over a line and not understanding that physically threatening crosses over a line of a person having bad judgement, and cannot otherwise be trusted (from my opinion).
In this hypothetical, you, TECSHARE, might include that person in your trust list in spite of their beliefs, and that is in your discretion, but I might decide to exclude them in my trust or even exclude you because you have told me that you don't believe that there is a difference between physically threatening and advocating racial beliefs in one direction or another.
In other words, because in this hypothetical, I believe that you and or that other member has poor judgement, I decide to exclude you and that other person.. while at the same time both you and I are potentially being reasonable in our own way of thinking and we have discretion regarding those kinds of inclusions and exclusion decision matters, and we each have discretion to explain our reasoning for inclusions or not or to choose NOT to explain our reasoning for such inclusion or exclusion decisions.
