[jjjensen90]

I realize you've made a weak straw man argument here, but there are important distinctions that need to be made in discussions about platform/user base moderation. While there are classes of people protected from discrimination by civil rights laws, what is not protected is discrimination or refusal of service for customers based on what they do rather than who they are. Banning someone for cheating, harassment, circumventing moderation, etc is not comparable for banning users of a certain race, and even attempting to equivocate them is a weak argument.

[lopmotr]

Sure. But Paulchap made a general statement without any of those distinctions. People often make such broad statements of belief when they're trying to make their position sound powerful and important but end up contradicting their actual beliefs. If you restrict it to a certain case or list a bunch of exceptions, it sounds less fundamental or important and makes it look more arbitrary. But that's more honest.

Most people's beliefs about right and wrong are arbitrary, not based on any fundamental principles, and there really isn't much of a defense for them other than "well, that just happens to be what I believe."

[mynameisvlad]

Paulchap literally said "as long as it's within the legal bounds of the ToS".

Discrimination against race or another protected class falls outside of the "legal bounds of the ToS".

They already accounted for the case you're trying to argue against.

[lopmotr]

Yes. Like I said, if the law allowed it, he would support racial discrimination too, according to his statement.

[mynameisvlad]

That's the most liberal reading of a statement I've heard in a long time.