The other day a diary or possibly a hidden comment by nomoreimperialsm got him suspended for "coded anti-Semitism" by Meteor Blades, the person apparently appointed to police the I/P content here.
The diary itself did not contain an anti-Semitic word, and the diary contained no comments visible to me by nomoreimperialsm.
Now I see comments here, and not just from members of the hard-core, bad-faith crowd who label any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism and who unthinkingly defend whatever Israel does, that nomoreimperalism is a racist, anti-Semitic poster.
But, even assuming that there exists a good-faith basis for this view, there remains the question, "Why did he get suspended after writing a diary that did not demonstrate his alleged flaws?" I have been told, as if in answer, that the objectionable comments are hidden and available only to TUs ("trusted users").
But this only leads to the next, and more substantial, question: "When someone is suspended or banned, based on the content or alleged content of hidden comments (and it could not be otherwise, from what I have read in posts defending the suspension), why does the management choose to act ex cathedra without even posting links to (or briefly sampling) the offending material and without deigning to explain why it thinks the guy is guilty of "coded anti-Semitism?" How long could this take?
Perhaps the management is comfortable that the TUs can find the offending comments, and is happy to let the rest of us to eat cake, even though this allows the TUs, who are in fact free to HR with censorious intent notwithstanding the rules, to take the discussion away from everyone else by hiding the comments which then get someone banned or suspended-- a process in which their repeated HRs would undoubtedly have a role, if only to ring the alarm or lobby the mind of the monitor.
We should be automatically suspicious of a two-class societal norm, especially when it can lead to abuse-- not necessarily abuse of nomoreimperialism, but, as I believe may be occurring here, abuse of generally shared assumptions at a "progressive" site supposedly in favor of free discourse.
Ask yourselves whether some of Ilan Pappe's or Norman Finkelstein's or Noam Chomsky's statements would not be gang-HR'd at least, and run a substantial risk of being labelled "coded anti-Semitism" at worst, if posted under assumed names.
Now "coded anti-Semitism" undoubtedly exists, but its application is fraught with difficulty, and certainly bad-faith allegations of it are the mother's milk of the ADL, AIPAC, and their adherents-- it sits in the organizational refrigerator right next to the bottle labelled "self-hating Jew."
So before someone gets suspended or banned on the grounds of "coded anti-Semitism," or for any other reason depending on hidden comments, I think some evidence of the underlying offense ought to be made accessible, and, unless it's obvious, a short explanation of why it's "coded anti-Semitism" or why it's otherwise bannable given, not just for the TUs but for everyone. How big of a task could this possibly be?
"Trust us" just doesn't get it.
P.S. I wonder what proportion of people here are TUs vs. non-TUs. I know my status fluctuates sometimes from day to day. Does anyone know?