The concentration of Trump and the US is a direct result of media partisanship on overdrive and people identifying and supporting that, tribalism really.
So are you suggesting that partisan posts stop happening? Or only partisan posts you disagree with?
So are you suggesting that partisan posts stop happening? Or only partisan posts you disagree with?
Trying to understand people would be a good start, especially people on another side of the idealogical fence.
I often hear we should respect people of different religions and promote freedom of religion, i daresay as a society we have moved towards arbitrarily 'respecting religion' as an ideal but insulting and denigrating people of 'different politics'.
In many ways the hypocrisy is startling.
If we can promote freedom and respect of different religions, at least on the outset, i think we should be extending that to political affiliation, not make an exception for our own petty grievances.
So are you suggesting that partisan posts stop happening? Or only partisan posts you disagree with?
Trying to understand people would be a good start, especially people on another side of the idealogical fence.
I often hear we should respect people of different religions and promote freedom of religion, i daresay as a society we have moved towards arbitrarily 'respecting religion' as an ideal but insulting and denigrating people of 'different politics'.
In many ways the hypocrisy is startling.
If we can promote freedom and respect of different religions, at least on the outset, i think we should be extending that to political affiliation, not make an exception for our own petty grievances.
Okay, so how about answering my question? You keep complaining about partisan stuff happening in this thread - do you want it to stop entirely or what? What is your end goal here?
There aren't nearly as many staunchly liberal posters here as is made out. 4 as far as I can tell: me, @smeagolheart, @BelleSorciere, and @BillyYank . @Mathsorcerer is an analytical libertarian. @deltago and @Grond0 offer a range of opinions. @WarChiefZeke represents the faction of the right disgusted by liberalism. @Balrog99 is conservative and has gone so far as to invite me to Michigan for a beer, and praised the tolerant atmosphere compared to most of the web.
Well, crap. I must redouble my efforts to remain off-topic and subtly troll everyone if I wish to make the next list of regulars.
I know, you didn't wish to shame the other regulars by listing me as abnormally brilliant and insightful. I won't tell.
The proper honest reply is to admit it is a conflict of interest but its allowed anyway because we all want to have fun and have a casual atmosphere, not to try and say it isn't.
In the real world, this is a strong rule for virtually any cases where your in a position to put down rulings and judgements (ie judges, cops etc).
This is how we handle it: if a moderator is personally involved in an argument, that moderator does not handle the situation. Another moderator handles it instead. So if I'm arguing with somebody in the thread and one of our posts gets reported, I don't vote on the matter in the moderating team's private deliberations, and if a warning is issued, a separate moderator issues the warning, not me. It's like when a new forumite recently reported @JuliusBorisov for disrespectful behavior. When we reviewed the complaint, JB did not participate in the review.
This way, moderators can express a personal opinion on something, but if we do, we can no longer use moderator powers on the issue, or vote in the review process.
I don't go for moderator reporting, because as you seem to suggest encouraging, we should participate in the thread heavily, therein you contradict your own approach.
I'm sorry; I failed to clarify the distinction between two different situations. If you feel somebody is being too anti-Trump, talk to them in-thread and make your counterargument. That's the most effective way to counter a bias. But if somebody is attacking you for being pro-Trump (or any reason, really), that's against the Site Rules, and the moderating team needs to address. Argue with the argument; report the rulebreaking.
And to close, jjstraka34 posts and articles he links is heavily anti-republican and he makes no effort to hide his hate-boner for that side, especially when there is a history of accusing them as 'racists' as well in this thread, Can you clarify if i broke the rules for this comment?
Well, yes, for that one sentence. "Hate-boner" is a pretty clear pejorative, and you're calling him out by name. But none of your other posts here have been rule-breaking; it's not against the Site Rules to complain about the direction of a thread.
Accusing people of being racist, though, is against the Site Rules. The appropriate response to a racist post is to report it, not to call it out in-thread.
And I will add a few things in defense of @vanatos. This thread is Exhibit A of why 'like' and 'agree' buttons are terrible things for discussion forums, and I hope @vanatos continues to post because, whether I agree or disagree with him/her, this is the most interesting thing to happen to the thread in a couple hundred pages.
This is how we handle it: if a moderator is personally involved in an argument, that moderator does not handle the situation. Another moderator handles it instead. So if I'm arguing with somebody in the thread and one of our posts gets reported, I don't vote on the matter in the moderating team's private deliberations, and if a warning is issued, a separate moderator issues the warning, not me. It's like when a new forumite recently reported @JuliusBorisov for disrespectful behavior. When we reviewed the complaint, JB did not participate in the review.
It would be good of you to participate as a total participant and leave modding totally to someone else.
Well, yes, for that one sentence. "Hate-boner" is a pretty clear pejorative, and you're calling him out by name. But none of your other posts here have been rule-breaking; it's not against the Site Rules to complain about the direction of a thread.
Many people have expressed contempt for my posting of Trump in the past and i never saw any moderation.
If this is your justification its pretty poor honestly, because being intellectually honest, the posting have been extremely anti-trump by certain people and they make no attempt to hide their hatred, arguing semantics of saying its 'anti-trump', 'extremely anti-trump' or there is a 'hate-boner' is ridiculous quibbling over equivalent statements.
Okay, so how about answering my question? You keep complaining about partisan stuff happening in this thread - do you want it to stop entirely or what? What is your end goal here?
I think your looking for malice where there is none.
I think I should mention that the moderating team never actually took any action on @ineth's post; formal warnings are reserved for serious cases. It's just that whenever something gets close to breaking the Site Rules, we issue a reminder. We do this because these posts tend to result in a death spiral of increasingly hostile posts; the idea is to stop the spiral early. Sure enough, nobody's been attacking @ineth and @ineth hasn't been attacking anyone else.
As for @jjstraka34's alleged spamming, I've actually considered several times whether his many posts constitute spamming, which is indeed against the Site Rules. But whenever I look at his actual posts, the subject matter is always different, even if the interpretation is consistently liberal. Re-posting the same comment with minimal variations is spamming; posting multiple different comments on multiple different subjects is not.
As for @jjstraka34's alleged spamming, I've actually considered several times whether his many posts constitute spamming, which is indeed against the Site Rules. But whenever I look at his actual posts, the subject matter is always different, even if the interpretation is consistently liberal. Re-posting the same comment with minimal variations is spamming; posting multiple different comments on multiple different subjects is not.
It has been spam, which has resulted quite self-evidently in the one-sided railroading of the thread with few discussions possible outside anything related to Trump.
the results show itself, thats why i suggest splitting off another thread purely for Trump since by sheer content it might as well be its own thread.
I think your looking for malice where there is none.
I'm not looking for malice, I'm looking for a clear answer to my question. You have repeatedly complained about partisan posters in this thread. I just want to know what you intend to come of that.
I forgot to address your comment about respect: I can't respect a political affiliation that wants to deprive me of my rights and legalize discrimination against people like me. My personhood and my civil rights should not be up for debate, but according to much of the political right, they are. Why should I have to respect that?
@Mathsorcerer this doesn't ring true to me. That may be partly due to differences between the UK and US, but I think even in the US you're being too pessimistic. The 'government' is not one monolithic entity, but a whole range of them set up with the intention of having a balance of powers - local / national, executive / judicial / legislative. As an example, if your farm were compulsorily purchased, then there could be potential redress from the legal system (for instance if the purchase were motivated by malice or corruption or procedures had not been properly followed).
Unfortunately, your assessment of that situation here in the United States is mistaken. In the last 25 years or so, eminent domain has been twisted and warped to allow a government, usually local or State, to say "we want to create public works project x", whether "x" is a stadium, new highway, or whatever, after which they contract the construction of that project to a private entity (a corporation) and then that corporation goes on a land grab and there isn't anything the targets can do about it except cash the checks they are given for their property. Case in point: when Jerry Jones went to build the new stadium for the Cowboys in Arlington after receiving the green light from the city council, his company started buying the apartment complexes which were there at the time, had them declared condemned, and evicted everyone. Yes, he helped them get into other apartments but the fact remains that a corporate entity was forcibly evicting people for reasons other than "nonpayment of rent". Jones just wanted a shiny new stadium which could be seen from the Interstate.
By your standards of course I am dangerously naive as I do believe that my government generally does have the best interests of its citizens at heart . As I work for a local authority I am, in a very small way, part of that government. I think the idea of a 'public service ethos' has weakened during my working lifetime, but I still have absolutely no doubt that the majority of people who work for the government would genuinely say they are trying to help people.
Just because I may call someone "dangerously naive" doesn't mean that they actually *are*. Also, note that I used the generic "you" and did not direct that comment at any individual poster. Local governments typically *do* have the best interests of the residents at heart precisely because they *are* some of those residents, as well as the neighbors of others.
Never hesitate to call me out if I say something which seems outrageous and/or ridiculous.
@jjstraka34 labels me as "an analytical libertarian". My slight dislike of being labeled notwithstanding, his assessment is accurate. That is precisely why I steadfastly *refuse* to join the Libertarian Party, though--I don't need someone else's platform to speak for me when I am capable of doing it for myself. Besides, the LP is sometimes wrong and they haven't figured it out yet.
And I will add a few things in defense of @vanatos. This thread is Exhibit A of why 'like' and 'agree' buttons are terrible things for discussion forums, and I hope @vanatos continues to post because, whether I agree or disagree with him/her, this is the most interesting thing to happen to the thread in a couple hundred pages.
Funnily enough i completely agree with you, the like/dislike is cool for innocent threads but it becomes a mess for any serious partisan discussion.
I'm actually old-school and prefer total anonymous discussion for pure unadultered unfiltered honesty.
I was going to suggest turning it off long ago, but i thought its probably built into the site itself.
I'm not looking for malice, I'm looking for a clear answer to my question. You have repeatedly complained about partisan posters in this thread. I just want to know what you intend to come of that.
hopefully something productive? to be frank lots of thinks are overdue to be addressed in this thread and thats evident.
I forgot to address your comment about respect: I can't respect a political affiliation that wants to deprive me of my rights and legalize discrimination against people like me. My personhood and my civil rights should not be up for debate, but according to much of the political right, they are. Why should I have to respect that?
I don't know what your talking about, care to elaborate?
hopefully something productive? to be frank lots of thinks are overdue to be addressed in this thread and thats evident.
Well I mean what is productive in this sense? You seem particularly bothered that people who are anti-Trump are posting. Do you want them to stop being anti-Trump? Do you want to see more conservative opinions? What is it?
And this is how it happens. @vanatos returns after a 6 month self-imposed sabbatical, returning to spend 2 posts bashing the moderator, which quickly revealed itself to be nothing but a back-door attempt to get to the real target of discussion, which is me. Come at me head on, I'm right here. "Conservatives don't post here because liberals talk too much" is the first cousin of "I voted for Trump because liberals are smug.
I'll quickly point out his constant use of the word "spam" to describe me for the last two pages. This is nothing but an attempt to smear me henceforth as the "spam guy" when no such evidence exists. I believe it is a deliberate tactic I saw through immediately. I DON'T want any action taken against him or anyone else who says things about me. I'll fight my own battles.
The Site Rules don't require respect for any particular ideology, but they do require respect for other forumites, just so we're clear.
@vanatos: If you see rule-breaking posts, report them and the moderating team will review them and take action based strictly on the Site Rules. That's the only criteria we have. Once you report them, the matter is in the hands of the moderators. I'm not giving you my personal opinion here; I'm just repeating what the Site Rules say.
The Site Rules say that the "Flag" feature is the only acceptable response to rulebreaking behavior. They also say that the moderating team must address complaints strictly in private and that reported posts are confidential.
They also say that the Site Rules are not up for debate.
All of these practices are set in stone; I'm just following the rules set down for me.
I DON'T want any action taken against him or anyone else who says things about me. I'll fight my own battles.
That isn't your decision, @jjstraka34. You can refuse to report a personal attack yourself, but the Site Rules explicitly forbid fighting your own battles.
If you're not aware of the GOP's history of legislating against LGBT people and the religious right's history of demonizing, attacking, and even calling for the executions of LGBT people I have no idea where to start.
And then there's the constant attacks on women's reproductive rights.
If you're not aware of the GOP's history of legislating against LGBT people and the religious right's history of demonizing, attacking, and even calling for the executions of LGBT people I have no idea where to start.
And then there's the constant attacks on women's reproductive rights.
I take it you condemn all political parties equally? Do you consider both Hillary and Obama anti-LGBT?
I'm actually old-school and prefer total anonymous discussion for pure unadultered unfiltered honesty.
Your real name is not "vanatos" just like mine is not "Mathsorcerer"; therefore, we already have total anonymity here. As far as "unadulterated unfiltered honesty" is concerned...well, most of us are not that honest here even with the layer of anonymity a screen name implies. On the other hand, we don't use that anonymity to flame or troll each other like so many places do so it balances out quite nicely.
If you feel that too many posts and/or posters here are offering opinions which are different than yours or are ones with which you disagree, I would counter that this situation is several orders of magnitude better than posting in an echo chamber where 95% of all the posters agree on 95% of all topics. That would be *boring*.
edit/add: @BelleSorciere I am unaware of any Republican calling for the execution of LBGT people. Do you have a specific example in mind? Truthfully, I don't pay attention to everything every Republican politician says so I might have missed the example you are likely to cite.
Your real name is not "vanatos" just like mine is not "Mathsorcerer"; therefore, we already have total anonymity here. As far as "unadulterated unfiltered honesty" is concerned...well, most of us are not that honest here even with the layer of anonymity a screen name implies. On the other hand, we don't use that anonymity to flame or troll each other like so many places do so it balances out quite nicely.
No, 'Vanatos' and 'Mathsorcerer' is your identity here, it is not totally anonymous, in the sense your next post i cannot link to ones prior.
Anonymity in what i refer to is literally no one can figure out your the same person no matter what posts you do, of course i could possibly achieve this by starting a new account for every post but thats not really feasible.
If you feel that too many posts and/or posters here are offering opinions which are different than yours or are ones with which you disagree, I would counter that this situation is several orders of magnitude better than posting in an echo chamber where 95% of all the posters agree on 95% of all topics. That would be *boring*.
Boards of total anonymity are the least echo-chamber of all types, and boards with 'identities' are most echo-chamber.
Thats pretty evident for the entirety of the history of the internet really.
@vanatos I suspect you're using a different interpretation of spam than I am. Spamming, in the context you're using it, would be excessive multiple postings of the same or similar message(s). Your interpretation seems to be that because the conclusion of most of @jjstraka34's posts is similar that constitutes spam - is that correct?
Just for the record I agree with @semiticgod's analysis of what spam is, i.e. if the subject of posts is not repeated, the fact that those posts support a particular political slant does not make them spam. If that were not the case then pretty much all communications from all political parties would be defined as spam (rather than just a good proportion of them ).
If you're not aware of the GOP's history of legislating against LGBT people and the religious right's history of demonizing, attacking, and even calling for the executions of LGBT people I have no idea where to start.
And then there's the constant attacks on women's reproductive rights.
I take it you condemn all political parties equally? Do you consider both Hillary and Obama anti-LGBT?
All political parties do not equally attack LGBT people. I have been highly critical of Clinton and Obama for their approach to LGBT rights in the past, as well as of Bill Clinton's support of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
However, the Democratic party does not overtly seek the annihilation of LGBT people by any means the way the GOP has.
The Site Rules don't require respect for any particular ideology, but they do require respect for other forumites, just so we're clear.
@vanatos: If you see rule-breaking posts, report them and the moderating team will review them and take action based strictly on the Site Rules. That's the only criteria we have. Once you report them, the matter is in the hands of the moderators. I'm not giving you my personal opinion here; I'm just repeating what the Site Rules say.
The Site Rules say that the "Flag" feature is the only acceptable response to rulebreaking behavior. They also say that the moderating team must address complaints strictly in private and that reported posts are confidential.
They also say that the Site Rules are not up for debate.
All of these practices are set in stone; I'm just following the rules set down for me.
I DON'T want any action taken against him or anyone else who says things about me. I'll fight my own battles.
That isn't your decision, @jjstraka34. You can refuse to report a personal attack yourself, but the Site Rules explicitly forbid fighting your own battles.
He's managed to purposefully derail the entire thread into an argument about the ethics of the moderator and liberal posters. Instead of returning and addressing a topic, his first order of business was attacking the ref (you), and then attempting to smear the most active liberal poster (me) with accusations of behavior I haven't engaged in, in an attempt to invalidate both of us as a prerequisite to him jumping back into the discussion. Now, you are the unfair moderator, and I am the liberal spammer. It's already happened. Again, this is how it works.
@vanatos I suspect you're using a different interpretation of spam than I am. Spamming, in the context you're using it, would be excessive multiple postings of the same or similar message(s). Your interpretation seems to be that because the conclusion of most of @jjstraka34's posts is similar that constitutes spam - is that correct?
Just for the record I agree with @semiticgod's analysis of what spam is, i.e. if the subject of posts is not repeated, the fact that those posts support a particular political slant does not make them spam. If that were not the case then pretty much all communications from all political parties would be defined as spam (rather than just a good proportion of them ).
The subject matter is really to be anti-trump, there is little honest intention of delving into any particular anti-trump post, just do lots of it to convince people Trump is a terrible person, in that its really just mirroring the mainstream left media strategy.
Even this i actually don't have a problem with, the main problem is the sheer repetitiveness and frequency which makes discussing anything else extremely hard.
All political parties do not equally attack LGBT people. I have been highly critical of Clinton and Obama for their approach to LGBT rights in the past, as well as of Bill Clinton's support of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
However, the Democratic party does not overtly seek the annihilation of LGBT people by any means the way the GOP has.
I don't think the GOP overtly seeks the annihilation of LGBT, to be frank thats exaggeration, you may refer to i suppose hardcore christian evangelists, but thats perfectly mirrored in the hardcore Islamists that mostly are Democrats.
However, the Democratic party does not overtly seek the annihilation of LGBT people by any means the way the GOP has.
You probably missed my earlier question, which happens often when I try to edit/add comments to something I said earlier.
I am unaware of any Republican calling for the execution of LBGT people. Do you have a specific example in mind? Truthfully, I don't pay attention to everything every Republican politician says so I might have missed the example you are likely to cite.
edit/add: @BelleSorciere I am unaware of any Republican calling for the execution of LBGT people. Do you have a specific example in mind? Truthfully, I don't pay attention to everything every Republican politician says so I might have missed the example you are likely to cite.
I said people on the religious right have done this.
edit/add: @BelleSorciere I am unaware of any Republican calling for the execution of LBGT people. Do you have a specific example in mind? Truthfully, I don't pay attention to everything every Republican politician says so I might have missed the example you are likely to cite.
I said people on the religious right have done this.
And the Islamic 'left' that are nominally democrat behave the same way, then the Democrat party pursues the annihilation of the LBGT just as much as the GOP, per your argument.
I said people on the religious right have done this.
Ah so, that you did. Well, when I am wrong I am wrong. In any event, thank you for the response because I don't pay attention to the religious right, either, so I miss these things.
this is the most interesting thing to happen to the thread in a couple hundred pages.
Fake news.
Last we talked you were trying to sell me some 'bigly' powerful artifacts from the Ten Towns and carping about how that witch Deidre needed to be locked up.
Comments
I often hear we should respect people of different religions and promote freedom of religion, i daresay as a society we have moved towards arbitrarily 'respecting religion' as an ideal but insulting and denigrating people of 'different politics'.
In many ways the hypocrisy is startling.
If we can promote freedom and respect of different religions, at least on the outset, i think we should be extending that to political affiliation, not make an exception for our own petty grievances.
I know, you didn't wish to shame the other regulars by listing me as abnormally brilliant and insightful. I won't tell.
This way, moderators can express a personal opinion on something, but if we do, we can no longer use moderator powers on the issue, or vote in the review process. I'm sorry; I failed to clarify the distinction between two different situations. If you feel somebody is being too anti-Trump, talk to them in-thread and make your counterargument. That's the most effective way to counter a bias. But if somebody is attacking you for being pro-Trump (or any reason, really), that's against the Site Rules, and the moderating team needs to address. Argue with the argument; report the rulebreaking. Well, yes, for that one sentence. "Hate-boner" is a pretty clear pejorative, and you're calling him out by name. But none of your other posts here have been rule-breaking; it's not against the Site Rules to complain about the direction of a thread.
Accusing people of being racist, though, is against the Site Rules. The appropriate response to a racist post is to report it, not to call it out in-thread.
If this is your justification its pretty poor honestly, because being intellectually honest, the posting have been extremely anti-trump by certain people and they make no attempt to hide their hatred, arguing semantics of saying its 'anti-trump', 'extremely anti-trump' or there is a 'hate-boner' is ridiculous quibbling over equivalent statements. I think your looking for malice where there is none.
As for @jjstraka34's alleged spamming, I've actually considered several times whether his many posts constitute spamming, which is indeed against the Site Rules. But whenever I look at his actual posts, the subject matter is always different, even if the interpretation is consistently liberal. Re-posting the same comment with minimal variations is spamming; posting multiple different comments on multiple different subjects is not.
the results show itself, thats why i suggest splitting off another thread purely for Trump since by sheer content it might as well be its own thread.
I forgot to address your comment about respect: I can't respect a political affiliation that wants to deprive me of my rights and legalize discrimination against people like me. My personhood and my civil rights should not be up for debate, but according to much of the political right, they are. Why should I have to respect that?
Never hesitate to call me out if I say something which seems outrageous and/or ridiculous.
@jjstraka34 labels me as "an analytical libertarian". My slight dislike of being labeled notwithstanding, his assessment is accurate. That is precisely why I steadfastly *refuse* to join the Libertarian Party, though--I don't need someone else's platform to speak for me when I am capable of doing it for myself. Besides, the LP is sometimes wrong and they haven't figured it out yet.
I'm actually old-school and prefer total anonymous discussion for pure unadultered unfiltered honesty.
I was going to suggest turning it off long ago, but i thought its probably built into the site itself. hopefully something productive? to be frank lots of thinks are overdue to be addressed in this thread and thats evident. I don't know what your talking about, care to elaborate?
I'll quickly point out his constant use of the word "spam" to describe me for the last two pages. This is nothing but an attempt to smear me henceforth as the "spam guy" when no such evidence exists. I believe it is a deliberate tactic I saw through immediately. I DON'T want any action taken against him or anyone else who says things about me. I'll fight my own battles.
@vanatos: If you see rule-breaking posts, report them and the moderating team will review them and take action based strictly on the Site Rules. That's the only criteria we have. Once you report them, the matter is in the hands of the moderators. I'm not giving you my personal opinion here; I'm just repeating what the Site Rules say.
The Site Rules say that the "Flag" feature is the only acceptable response to rulebreaking behavior. They also say that the moderating team must address complaints strictly in private and that reported posts are confidential.
They also say that the Site Rules are not up for debate.
All of these practices are set in stone; I'm just following the rules set down for me. That isn't your decision, @jjstraka34. You can refuse to report a personal attack yourself, but the Site Rules explicitly forbid fighting your own battles.
And then there's the constant attacks on women's reproductive rights.
If you feel that too many posts and/or posters here are offering opinions which are different than yours or are ones with which you disagree, I would counter that this situation is several orders of magnitude better than posting in an echo chamber where 95% of all the posters agree on 95% of all topics. That would be *boring*.
edit/add: @BelleSorciere I am unaware of any Republican calling for the execution of LBGT people. Do you have a specific example in mind? Truthfully, I don't pay attention to everything every Republican politician says so I might have missed the example you are likely to cite.
Anonymity in what i refer to is literally no one can figure out your the same person no matter what posts you do, of course i could possibly achieve this by starting a new account for every post but thats not really feasible. Boards of total anonymity are the least echo-chamber of all types, and boards with 'identities' are most echo-chamber.
Thats pretty evident for the entirety of the history of the internet really.
Just for the record I agree with @semiticgod's analysis of what spam is, i.e. if the subject of posts is not repeated, the fact that those posts support a particular political slant does not make them spam. If that were not the case then pretty much all communications from all political parties would be defined as spam (rather than just a good proportion of them
However, the Democratic party does not overtly seek the annihilation of LGBT people by any means the way the GOP has.
Even this i actually don't have a problem with, the main problem is the sheer repetitiveness and frequency which makes discussing anything else extremely hard. I don't think the GOP overtly seeks the annihilation of LGBT, to be frank thats exaggeration, you may refer to i suppose hardcore christian evangelists, but thats perfectly mirrored in the hardcore Islamists that mostly are Democrats.
I am unaware of any Republican calling for the execution of LBGT people. Do you have a specific example in mind? Truthfully, I don't pay attention to everything every Republican politician says so I might have missed the example you are likely to cite.
https://www.au.org/church-state/february-2010-church-state/people-events/religious-right-activist-calls-for-execution
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/post_10496_b_8544540.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/11/politics/kfile-roy-moore-kevin-swanson/index.html
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2017/11/conservative-christian-pastor-calls-for-executing-all-gay-people-by-christmas-day/
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2010/18-anti-gay-groups-and-their-propaganda
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/23/california-lawyer-shoot-the-gays-proposal-2016-ballot
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/gop-confab-ends-with-call-to-execute-gays-who-dont-repent-send-queen-elsa-back-to-hell/
http://www.pfaw.org/report/anti-gay-politics-and-the-religious-right/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html
Wait a tic...