First, the clubhouse rules that I agreed to say nothing about expressing varied social and political viewpoints. They ban flaming and trolling. And I have nothing against that. I know firsthand what a persistent troll can do to a community.
So first of all, I should mention that as thorough as the rules page tries to be, there are long-standing rules that are not explicitly spelled out there. Just as one example, there is nothing in the rules page that says you can't talk about who you have on ignore, but it is a rule, and you can get warned for it. Admittedly, this does sometimes cause confusion for newer members, as well as probably angering the "rules lawyers". So just keep in mind that there is precedent built up over time, that might not be codified.
And that inevitably leads to people complaining that
they should be allowed to be homophobic, because the rules don't specifically forbid it. But that's not the way it works.
But to my main point...
First, the clubhouse rules that I agreed to say nothing about expressing varied social and political viewpoints.
Second, I support the free exchange of viewpoints.
But the choice of "conform to our beliefs or face the consequences" leads nowhere good, whether it's a community standard or an actual law.
I think the main issue here, is that we have an extremely significant (perhaps insurmountable?) difference of opinion as to what constitutes a valid "political viewpoint".
From my point of view, I would say emphatically that we do
not issue warnings or otherwise punish posters for having a different political opinion. And if that were in fact happening, I suspect that the mod in question would not retain their moderator position for very long. Just to give an example of what I'm talking about: I am a left-leaning Canadian who is
very anti-gun. But people come into this forum and occasionally talk about their guns, and what gun-related hobbies they participate in. You yourself, if I am remembering correctly, used to wax poetic about your Glock back when you first joined. (And yes, I had to look up what that even was at the time!
) If mods were going around punishing for different political viewpoints, then one might suspect I would have a history of warning people for being pro-gun. But that
doesn't happen. Now, I am within my rights to argue about gun laws, or post a lament about the prevalence of gun culture in the US, or whatever, but I
don't have a right to issue warnings against people just because I disagree with them. And in fact, doing so would ultimately end up getting
me in trouble.
Now, of course, if, in the course of a pro-gun post, the poster flames someone, or trolls the other members, or something, then yes, I can issue a warning... because they broke the rules, not because they're pro-gun. And alternatively, if an anti-gun poster also flamed someone, I would be expected to warn them as well, even though I may agree with their standpoint on the gun topic.
So this whole "conform to our beliefs or face the consequences" thing you are railing against, isn't happening.
But as I mentioned, the difference seems to be what we consider a valid political viewpoint. What I said earlier, and which ended up causing a lot of back and forth in this thread, was that people's humanity, and their right to exist and participate in society cannot be up for "debate". That's because these rights are
fundamental--or inalienable, as I believe you Americans are fond of saying. That means that there are
no circumstances under which these rights should ever be withheld or rescinded.
So, from this perspective, any post that advocates for removing these fundamental rights or for dehumanizing members of the group in question, is by definition not just a different "political viewpoint" or "contrary opinion" that is worthy of respect and continuing discourse. It is, rather, simply an attack on the community in question. Or, in basic terms, it is simple hatred.
And no, we don't allow
that on the board.
I gather from your posts, that from your perspective, that this is just a difference in political views, like whether the budget should be balanced vs. running a deficit, or whether a carbon tax should be implemented, or what have you. And that is why you feel persecuted for expressing your "opinions". But you don't seem to see that by expressing such opinions, you would be the one doing the persecuting.
We have members from all walks of life here on the board, including many different minority groups. They come here to talk Star Trek or whatever with other fans. Why should they have to endure reading posts that call their very humanity into question, or refute their right to exist as they are? On the rules page, it mentions that the rules are in place to keep it fun here. Being exposed to racism, or homophobia, or what have you, is not fun. You lament the curtailing of your speech rights (which, I might add, are not really being curtailed--as stated, you can say what you want, but then you also get the consequences for doing so), but what of the rights of others to come here and participate as themselves, without being subjected to all the discrimination that's out there in the rest of the world?
So yes, our house rules prohibit discrimination and bigotry. And I am all for it. A club that allowed rampant bigotry doesn't sound like a club I would want to be a part of.
Apologies, this got very long. I don't usually write so much all at once. But this is something I feel strongly about, and I also wanted to try to give you some insight into what goes into moderating here. I know that others are much more eloquent about these topics than I, but hopefully I was able to communicate my point. I don't expect to change your mind, but I hope it at least opened your eyes a little to the opposite perspective.
). And rest assured, the only people I think "shouldn't exist" are ones who pose a threat. I do not apologize for owning a gun (don't have the Glock anymore though) or for being willing to defend myself or others. Given that phasers are a fixture among Star Trek characters, I think that's a shared belief. 
I think I would have given in to the temptation to klick the ban button a hundred times in all these years.
