So in summary, you don't like his opinion?
I think liking/not liking someone's opinion is sufficient criteria for deciding who to include/exclude from my trust list, no?
Can you explain the difference. I mean your poo poohing seems worse?
If you don't know the difference in gravity between calling for someone's death and any of the other things you mentioned, I can't help you.
Exactly, there is a difference with discussions that starts to get into threats of the physical actions in the real world, versus just throwing around words on the interwebs. Sometimes discussions of race might end up going in that physical actions direction, but merely differing of opinion about race or one persons ability to talk about racial topics or their substantive opinions about race would not necessarily, on its face, rise to the same level of egregiousness as actual physical threats, or trying to entice or encourage others to carry out physical violence, whether death or some lesser physical assault.
I find problematic death threats and even lesser threats (less than death) to physically harm someone in the real world (like beat him up) if such threat is either seriously suggesting such action should be carried out (of course, sometimes there are jokes that are just meant symbolically rather than real advocation of physical violence) or such threat could be read by a reasonable person as advocating such real world physical violence action... one time posts might be considered less serious.. because the idea is more fleeting, rather than putting the matter in a signature or in personal text as an ongoing message.
No, not liking some one's opinion is not valid reason for excluding them. You are supposed to include and exclude people based on whether you think their use of the trust system is valid or not. I don't remember saying death threats were acceptable, but please feel free to quote me.