Probably because "banning" on the site would be functionally meaningless, based on what little I know of the mechanics of the site. They don't even have classic accounts; they have a "cookie-me-up" system that lets you register a name and not much more. They don't even register an email address, so banning someone repeatedly would do nothing more than take up dozens/hundreds/thousands of names until they got tired of "re-registering", which takes less than 30 seconds to do. Many places choose not to ban trolls because they believe that doing so is enough of a response to encourage them to continue; I do not have enough insight into TV Tropes' administration decisions to guess if that's the case here, but considering it's a Wiki site, it wouldn't surprise me since that seems pretty standard for Wikis.
I've never seen this happen, and the Something Awful threads you point to -- what I read of the opening posts, anyway -- don't link to this happening. On the threads I've been in, which is largely limited to the ginormous FATAL thread, people have been exceedingly quick to call out racism, sexism, etc. so it would seem that one's experience varies across the site. Again, Not A Safe Place, but that's a far jump to "actually a horrible place".
Here is the actual quote:
The "chokeslam" reads like sarcasm/exaggeration to me. If it doesn't to you, well, that's what the Your Mileage May Vary page is for. As for what you, personally, would or wouldn't feel the urge to do in reaction to being struck, well, that's why being hit is apparently not a *trigger* for you. It would not surprise me even in the least for someone with a trigger against being hit to feel an urge to strike out reflexively at a child. I'm not
going to judge someone for having that urge, especially when they've very clearly stated that acting on the urge is something inappropriate that they are actively fighting against.
I want to reiterate that: I am not okay with calling anyone a bad person based solely on the basis of this quote. If you think that makes me
a bad person, so be it, but that is my opinion.
So a site with thousands (if not millions at this point) pages at this point, which can be created and edited by anyone in the world with a single push of a button, and which is (as far as I know) administered entirely by an unpaid volunteer staff in their free time took five months to notice an objectionable thread and deleted it? That... actually seems like a pretty good reaction time to me.
Oh... so they do ban people after all. But it takes them... four months to do so? Again, it's a really big site. I'm not seeing this as a damning thing, I'm sorry.
Re: Porn in its various shapes and forms, I've generally found that porn in general is too complicated for me to express an opinion on right now. I'm sorry, but I'll have to leave it at that.
You're entitled to your opinion, and as I said in my post I appreciate the reiteration that TV Tropes is Not A Safe Space.
Having said that, I have no interest whatsoever in judging another site for their moderation policy or lack thereof. If you look hard enough, there is/are rape apologetics and victim blaming in the comments on THIS site and I've not banned anyone yet. I suppose it'd be easy for someone on Something Awful to make a thread about how Dreadfully Awful my site is because I didn't ban someone who posts on a rape apologetics board, but to post such a thread would fail to take into account WHY I don't ban jerks willy-nilly. (I have my reasons, but to post them would take more time than I have at the moment.)
I'm really not sure why you are asking all this on my site and not, say, the TV Tropes site. I don't own the site, I just link to the trope pages as needed. However, to answer: