to allow trolls, that is the question. For example, the Regular Troll:
This guy is openly 180-degrees opposed to the purpose and/or ideological orientation of the blog. Whatever you’re for, he’s against, and vice-versa. If you’re doing a free-market blog about tax policy, he’s yelling that tax cuts are evil, “globalization” is wicked, and throwing in snarky anti-Republican messages, even though the blog is expressly about policy, not politics.
A troll is to be distinguished from someone who simply disagrees. Disagreement is welcome, but the troll seeks to take over the blog by inflaming others, not merely making a point. The distinction between disagreement and trolling leaves a gap wide enough for a troll to drive a truck through.
Not all Republicans are racists, but all racists vote Republican.
Republicans don’t all fit into any single mold but they are intolerant of others in general.
By nature, Republicans are suspicious of others, even more so of minority race groups.
And of course the Republicans Sean Hannity debate trick is to find equivalents, called “Tu quoque” by listing some minority racist groups or persons whom they perceive to be racist in order to prove that two wrongs make a right.
Republicans also declare no racism exits within their party so any charge of racism that is exhibited is not racism since racism can’t exist within the Republican party.
Btw, Republicans are not conservative, they are authoritarian.That’s how they ruled in the past and that’s how they will predictably rule in the future.
Tu quoque: the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.
So allow trolls, or not?