No, such a hypothetical poster would take notice, but it would be more subtle to notice because it's not front and center. Just like it would be more subtle to notice that nearly everyone mocks and chastises him. A thread title with the N-word, or any other racial slur, appears directly on the front page. That is much more immediately noticeable. I'm not defending his actions, but I don't think we should get rid of him.
Would that hypothetical poster feel welcome on a board where he was derided as an animal and it was tolerated? Would he be inclined to stick around? I seriously doubt it. Sorry, I just don't agree that it's just about how noticeable it is on the front page. It's just illogical to me. It's like someone who hates chocolate ice cream refusing to eat a chocolate coated vanilla ice cream, but being okay with a vanilla coated chocolate ice cream because he doesn't immediately see the chocolate.
It depends on what you mean by tolerated. The majority of us do not tolerate it, and openly call Dinner out for such statements. But I understand that you mean tolerated in the sense that he isn't banned or censored from making those statements. I think that like his statements, it's just as subtle that we don't tolerate that behavior.
Well, again, you say we don't tolerate it. But the more he's been doing it the less he's being engaged on it because people are getting sick of it - the downside of which to an observer is that those views are going unchallenged. Plus, Dinner won't engage in a debate over what he says anyway, just like gturner wouldn't. He just posts his bile and then if you catch him out he name calls and then runs away, only to then start another thread bleating on about "animals", "rapefugees" and "savages" again. That's why I was so amused by the idea that gtardo was the worst thing ever, because lots of people are willing to go on tolerating Dinner. It's a total double standard.
That's a hard question, and worth asking. I don't know I have a complete answer, but it does stick out to me that there used to be a loud group here, possibly a majority, that welcomed Muslim deaths during the Iraq war (as opposed to simply supporting the war and accepting Muslim deaths as a necessary evil). We didn't have the same concern then. Was that simply a mistake at the time, or is there something even worse than we saw then about what we see now with Dinner?
I don't think that's a form of acceptable behaviour either, albeit I could understand how some Americans might have been caught up in post-9/11 emotion. But I don't think it was so much as "welcoming" Muslim deaths, as much as it it was bravado. With Dinner it is a clear prejudice, which uses particularly disgraceful language, is used over and over and is not limited to Islamic idealogy as he claims, but routinely includes stereotyping based on culture, nationality and ethnicity. This is part of the reason why I say a new rule should be tailored specifically to persistent, continuing prejudice, rather than one off comments here and there. What's more, for the more occasional slurs, if there was a more effective and structured warning system in place, those who were unintentionally crossing the line would not get banned anyway. They'd just get a warning and that would be it.
