Copy paste from two threads from Ham "defining" racism...

I'm 100% against racism.
Everybody else is correct, however. That needs a definition. And not a textbook one with loose terminology.

Using the N word? Course a bad idea. Beyond that, you need to make it clear.

Is racism to you:

• Speaking disparagingly of a race without any facts relevant to the subject matter?
• Speaking disparagingly of a race with facts relevant to the subject matter?
• Focusing (mainly) on subject matter reflecting poorly on a race, or someone of a race?
• Sharing subject matter reflecting poorly on a race, or someone of a race?
• etc.

Personally, for me, its bullet point 1. Speaking with facts is legitimate critique, not racism.

It's important to allow such discussion.
Per example: Speaking as to how much crime migrants/blacks commit as opposed to other immigrants or native population is important for our future and being able to admit a problem exists is a baseline to solve prevent and solve such problems.

Personally, I dislike any needless name-calling and don't think it has a place on forums - which is probably the root of Hams feelings, but it's manifested into something beyond that now, either through lack of enforcement or excessive trolling that he's overly focused on and manifested to be a collective of everybody he doesn't like.

IMO, abuse in that regard should be removed or banned outright, ESPECIALLY if you're associating with a specific political group. (edit: others disagree and think we let the collective just downvote them to oblivion - which works, and I'm a bit of a fence sitter there - I just feel that if it's gonna be "X supporter forum", it's better to take action than let leftists and journo-types latch on). The caveat, of course, is bullet point 2 in my copy-paste above. Calling someone black/yellow/white/brown/aboriginal is NOT racism, some people try to make it to be. They're wrong. Speaking of a group having issues specific to that group is NOT racism in the slightest(it's actually the opposite, addressing problems IMPROVES life for that group). Eg. "First Nations literacy rate is abysmal" is not racism. 33% is abysmal. Neither is saying that the Canadian literacy rate as a whole at 56% is trash. One could argue that it's probably low due to family immigration system being seemingly en masse year after year. Also not racism. Saying "those damn sand n***** can't even read"; probably racism. It certainly isn't conducive conversation, at minimum.
is it free speech? Sure. That doesn't mean you aren't an asshole for espousing it, and it doesn't mean a forum has to welcome that use of language.

Simple answer? Mirror TD and make a "PPC supporters only" rule. It doesn't mean you ban people for disagreeing, but it means you can take transparent action against the extremists/trolls. People who come in with respectful disagreement/discussion are always great to engage with. I do it all the time over at patriots.win, often changing their mind or at least helping them see things in a different light. It means you aren't a "free speech haven", but you don't have to pretend to be either. Just be respectful and you're welcome. It isn't difficult to conduct yourself in a respectful manner. But omega bans feel somewhat arbitrary at times.

I'll support whatever comes out of this, I don't actually think the average visitor to this page actually disagree with Ham, but the lack of transparency and childlike tantrums just don't fly. I think the trolls and a few actual racists have cracked him.

^My insert is kind of rambley, but I'm not editing it as I'm at work now, sorry