Total posts: 4,340
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
"If it wasn't for the king you wouldn't have this tiny amount of money".Should we now get on our hands and knees and bow down to king bezos and his majesty bill gates?
The King didn't produce to society in mutually consensual ways; the American top 1% did. The King inherited his power and wealth from somebody who engaged in practices not mutually consensual to obtain that wealth. The top 1% obtains their wealth through mutually consensual means.
If socialism worked, then why aren't people rushing to get into Cuba, Venezuela, or the EU(except for some Muslims, but even they often head to America)?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Those who own the means of production refuse to share even scraps of their wealth
As an investor, I don't want to give my money to strangers. That's like forcing you to give money to kids in Africa.
unless we agree to whatever wage we are offered
The wage is mutually consensual. If you want more money, find a better job.
or be subjected to possible destitution, homelessness and starvation enforced by the implicit threat of police violence by the state.
You need to contribute to society for society to give you something in return. People aren't trying to get into socialist countries the way they are trying to enter America. Clearly, Americans are doing something right that the Chinese aren't.
There is generally excepted to he a disparity in wages with white men getting on average more scraps and more opportunities for employment, advancement and also for being extended credit than a woman or person of color.
Just like Asians get more than whites, and that Jews get more than Christians. Few are advocating for taxing Asians and Jews to pay for White Christains. But this is because people in a free society are allowed to earn what they are able and willing to earn and they can spend or invest that money as they see fit.
It would be impossible to "live like the amish" without first engaging in capitalism to the degree at least which affords you the price of land upon which to build.
Land is not a right. You have to pay for property. Capitalism is an unequally shared blessing. Socialism is an equally shared misery. People aren't moving to communist Cuba, Venezuela, or even left wing Scadinavia the same way they are moving to America.
Jeff Bezos does not deserve more money than a nurse or a first responder or someone who works with disabled children or someone working to make beneficial medicine but he makes more than any of them will make in a life time.
Jeff Bezos contributes way more to society than a nurse (nurse make a lot as well). Jeff Bezos's company sells tens of millions of products to people every single day. A nurse may help out 5 people in a day.
but he doesn't deserve a billion dollars because no one is entitled to more than they need as their neighbors starve.
Other people starving isn't my problem and it isn't yours. If you feel different, your free to sponsor kids in poverty with your own money. You can be as generous as you want with your own money but your a thief if your generous with other people's money, irrespective of how rich they are.
You are no more responsible for this system than I am but that you are gain more benefits under the system than most people did does not make it a good system just one that arbitrarily favors you.
It's not arbitrary. People that contribute more to others get more money from those others. Jeff Bezos gets money from you when you buy something on Amazon at a cheaper price than what the store offers for the same product.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Labor doesn't get stolen. It is exchanged at a mutually agreed rate.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
The unintended consequence is what causes society to improve.Only if improving society is not your intention.
In order for capitalism to function, you must benefit your society in order to get paid. Amazon only gets your money if you agree to buy using their website. If it wasn't for the 1%, we'd be living like the Amish.
It is odd that you are recommending that I lose everything when I want everyone, including you, to have enough.
People get enough since they get jobs. But if you care about the homeless, your free to invite them into your own home. You can be as generous as you want with your own recources. However, you are a thief if you give other people's money away.
Making the 1% take care of poor people with their money is like making middle class Americans take care of Africans with their money. If a 1% person wants to give their money away, that it their right. If an individual wants to sponsor African children to save their lives, that is their right. It cannot be forced in a free society.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Libertarian socialists want no government at, no state, things like free healthcare are just badges in the system you can be a libertarian socialist and support progressive laws on some other basis while still wanting no government.
How are you getting free healthcare if there is no government? You can't have both.
it like me saying your not a right wing libertarian because you support age of consent laws
Anarchists by my definition don't want age of consent laws. I'm not an anarchist. Libetarians want anything that is victimless to be legal.
you claim to hate authoritarian yet you think private property is not a form of authority
It's your property; you own it. If you think this is bad, you can welcome strangers in your home. It shouldn't be forced by the government.
its not very libertarian of you to want corporate supergiants controlling where you can and cant do.
How does this happen? Corporations don't ban me from doing much stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
I think this radical right winger was going to murder people irrespective of his mental health. Some people deserve death.
I would say the same thing if a left winger murdered a right winger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I support the death penalty for 2 reasons:
1) I believe there are times when eye for an eye is acceptable.
2) I don't want to spend a mere penny to help a murderer out, and I don't want to force taxpayers to pay the bill for keeping a parasitic murderer alive.
The fact that the death penalty has no indication on the homicide rate is an argument neither for or against the death penalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Why don't we take the money we would waste on a death penalty and fund enough mental health interventions to prevent fifty more of these?
It won't be enough. Excluding the court case (which will happen regardless of punishment for this guy), the death penalty needs nothing more than a bullet, a reusuable gun, and a reusuable sharp shooter. This is much cheaper than spending thousands of dollars to implement mental health situations to prevent even one homicide. What you are proposing is more expensive than a simple firing squad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There is little evidence that confirms that the death penalty reduces or increases the homicide rate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
If you oppose the death penalty, then your fine with murderers living off of taxpayers for their life. If we are going to place limits on welfare use to people that don't commit murder, we shouldn't pay a single penny to keep a murderer alive.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Capitalism exists for the sole purpose of generating profit. Anything else that comes of it, good or bad, is merely an unintended consequence.
The unintended consequence is what causes society to improve.
I agree we live in a world where workers are exploited
The workers aren't being exploited by rape whistles being made. Less people are being raped because rape whistles are being made. Capitalism didn't create the rapes.
If you think capitalism sucks, sell your computer, sell everything you own, and give the money to the poor if you really don't care about money.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Would you perfer it if a rape whistle company didn't exist? If that was the case, then rape rates would skyrocket.
Capitalism exists to fix some of society's problems. If would be nice if there was no need for rape whistles, but we don't live in that world.
Created:
Posted in:
Murderers deserve the death penalty, even if your a republican who murders liberals for being pro choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If you won 50 consecutive times, then had a 51-50 record, I'd say you did worse for the 51-50 record than the 50-0 record, making 101-50 worse than 50-0.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Having 50 consecutive wins in a series is much less likely than having 50 wins in a 101-50 record.
50-0 is better than 101-50.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Liberal republicans are essentially libertarians.
How do we know the "liberal" part of "Liberal republicans" aren't referring to economic issues, making them more like rust belt voters.
Political parties shouldn't exist and everyone should be an independent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
A 101 - 50 record can have 50 consecutive wins.
Extremely unlikely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I NEVER held a min wage job
Your story is not the story of 97% of people. It might be the story for roughly half the country. But the data says your story is the story for 97% of people and I don't think the figure is nearly this high.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
My experience I think is more than anecdotal. Are you saying that the town I'm in has a (proportion of highschoolers and college aged people) that work minimum wage jobs is 16x higher than the national average? I'd have a hard time believing that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I think I am a solispsist based on my understanding of the world, unless my city has an extremely unusually high concentration of minimum wage workers under the age of 25.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
In 2017, 542,000 workers earned the Federal min wage of $7.25/hr., about half of these, or 271,000 are under 25 yrs old. These numbers have declined during the pandemic but official numbers aren't out yet.
No way is the number this low in the entire nation. I'm in college. Most of the people I know are working minimum wage jobs. It can't be only 271,000 in the entire nation.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not keep track of simulations.
This is correct, but most people are simulations because there is no way there are only 271,000 minimum wage workers under the age of 25 in the whole country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
"Let's say..." Is that supposed to be a valid statistic?
I know that the proportion of highschoolers with a minimum wage job is higher than 3%, and since it's higher than 3%, it means that some people are simulated.
What if one person has more than one job?
Then this would skew the statistics. But unless the typical minimum wage highschooler has 16 different jobs at once, I find this hard to believe.
School-aged people may also have higher-paying jobs, or no jobs. You stated stats do not speak to either condition.
I doubt a highschooler has a high chance of having a job other than a minimum wage job.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
OK, so you'd eliminate the Senate. How do you represent such wide disparities?
I think I would redraw counties so every country met both of the following:
1) Had borders be entirely straight lines and preferably rectangles, with the only exception being if they border a body of water. No more gerrymandered districts.
2) Have anywhere between 67,000 people and 134,000 people. If it has more people, it gets broken up. If it has too little people, it gets merged with other counties to create a bigger county. As long as the population doesn't escape the 67K to 133K range, it can't be divided up, redrawn, or merged. As the population of the nation expands, the county sizes (by land area) would decrease on average. Every county gets one representative. This makes roughly 3300 representatives in the country.
If every county gets at least one representative, then what's to stop state legislatures from manufacturing more counties to increase representation?
Because if they do that, their counties won't be big enough population wise to get representation, plus it would be illegal for a county to have less than 67K people or more than 134K.
To my mind, this portion of the population is already over-represented at the state level to the harm of proportional representation. County representation would profoundly increase that harm.
Not if the urban counties break up into smaller counties.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Ten or fifteen years ago, people couldn't care less who you voted for, and whoever you voted for didn't make you an enemy, a bad person, less or more of a patriot, and you didn't have to agree wholeheartedly with everything your vote getter said or did.
This is correct. Getting rid of the 2 party system would cause less division within America due to the lack of an, "Us vs Them" mentality and cause politicians to think for themselves.
I want red counties to be able to implement some laws they want without oversight from a blue state and vice versa. More experiments for America to decide if certain policies are good.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The primary system is, "Whoever gets the most votes is the nominee." even if they are hated by everyone in the party who didn't vote for them.
The alternative vote is, "Whoever gets the most number of vote points is the nominee" so a politician often has to be liked even by people who wouldn't consider him their first choice in order to win.
Then a politician has to appeal to multiple groups that are now on both sides of the political spectrum in order to win. You also wouldn't get, "red state vs blue state" and it would be good in unifying the country, especially as polarized as it is now.
Created:
Posted in:
us population - Bing states that about 330 million people live in the US.
Roughly 10% of the US's population is highschool or college aged.
Therefore, there are about 33 million people in the US that are highschool or college aged.
Lets say that 50% of people in this age group have a minimum wage job.
That would mean that about 17 million highschoolers and college aged people have a minimum wage job in the US.
But the BLS confirms that this number is only about 1 million.
How can these numbers be so drastically different?
My idea is that the BLS is keeping track of Non simulated people, whereas what we think is true is for ALL people (which includes non simulated and simulated people). If this is the case, then for every 1 non simulated person in the US, there are about 16 simulated people.
If most people are simulated, how do we know who is real and who is fake? I could be a fake human for all you know and so are 90% of the people you, "know".
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Minority rule shouldn't exist. That's why I think America should have instant runoff voting/alternative voting so in the event that we get a situation where no party wins a majority, then people end up having their 2nd choice get elected. People rank their preferred parties on a ballot in order, and your going to end up with a president that the majority of people don't dispise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
He says God is a "genocidal maniac unfit for worship.", But do people who say such silly things ever wonder how Christianity was able to get a majority of people to convert and consider God to be worthy of worship?
Because the people who get converted to christianity never fact check the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
it's possible to believe in God without believing the bible is inerrant and without being a fundamentalist christian
It depends on your definition of, "belief in god". You as a liberal believe in Donald Trump if you think he exists. That doesn't mean you support him. Your allowed to not support things you believe exist. But if God is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving (what christians argue he is) and he wrote the bible, then everything in the bible is supposed to be for the good of humanity. Instead, God opposes freedom of speech by imposing harsher punishments for freedom of speech than the Chinese communists. God is an SJW.
why would you say you left christianity and then assume all of the stupid stuff christians believe is actually true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Christianity first excelled in those parts of the world that had a higher percentage of people who could read. In fact, Christianity really took off AFTER the printing press made bibles accessable to all. There were no colleges when Christianity started.
Christianity took off when the Roman empire became Christian. People didn't know how to read back then.
For example, you were told the world is spherical. You believed it. What's the difference there?
The scientific consensus is that the earth is round. I can google map the shape of the earth and confirm the world is spherical.
If the Bible itself discouraged belief in God, the Advent of the printing press and formal schools would have quickly killed Christianity.
People didn't always read the bible. I have a bible at home. It doesn't mean I read all of it. The typical person who bought a bible didn't read all of it.
Christianity florishes where people can read and Bible's are available.
Christainity is losing supporters because people are reading bad bible quotes and deciding that they don't want to be affiliated with it.
By the time people learn how to read, their faith is cemented in.
What I meant to say was when literacy became common significantly after people became religious. This doesn't mean people read the bible initially just because they were literate.
But atheism is developing and Christianity is losing its stronghold on the US, the EU, and other western places.
People are reading the bible and are alienated by it.
People are converting in record numbers in Africa, Asia, and South America under no threat at all. To what do you attribute that?
Atheism is stigmatized in Africa. In Asia, christianity isn't that popular except in countries that are copying the west. South Korea likes to copy the west so they have a lot of christians there. When the west is the wealthiest civilization in the world, other civilization like to copy them.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
They believe in what is called universalism. This means everyone either goes to heaven when they die or they just cease to exist when they do die. There are even a branch of liberal Christians who hold to reincarnation.
Liberal christians don't believe in reincarnation. Eastern faiths believe in that.
Do All conservative Christians think China is evil? I suppose some do. But hardly ALL.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Conservatives think China is evil.
Humanity willfully chose to break that one command despite the consequences. God gave humanity the capacity to consider immortality with Him or death without God.
Humanity never consented to this.
God as the creator has that prerogative.
Just because you create a life does not mean you get the right to destroy the life. Otherwise, a biological parent would be legally and morally allowed to kill the kid they created.
That is not just disobedience - it is TREASON.
Eating fruits isn't treason.
God never gave Adam choice to obey or not obey. He gave him life and he gave him freedom in that life.
This is a contradiction.
When a government make a law - e.g. not to speed. Is the government saying - hey, I am going to give you a choice. Speed or not speed. If you speed you get punished. If you don't you get to drive your car.
The government didn't give us a choice here. The government is telling us what to do. The only choice that is a free choice is one with no punishments levied by a 3rd party.
Breaking the speed limit is not treason. Telling God to get stuffed is.
Telling God to get fucked over you not liking his law is like telling Biden to get fucked over you not liking his law. Both are freedom of speech! It's not treason to disagree with the people in charge. God should grow a skin at least as thick as our politicians.
This response reveals why I think you lack understanding. Some Conservative Christians believe in Hell. Some don't. Also no Liberal Christian believes in Hell. They believe all are saved or if not, then you die and no longer exist.
Most if not all Christians believe in hell. Conservatives think atheists are going there. Liberals think Trump supporters are going there.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
At the federal level, I would implement a proportional system. If 40% of your country votes democrat, then your party gets 40% of the seats in congress. This works with Israel. It also would break up the 2 party system without anyone worrying about throwing their vote away. There would be all sorts of parties coming to fruition (and these parties would be bipartisan too) since nobody has to worry about throwing their vote away.
Like the Femenist party. Very pro choice. Also is tough on crime (favoring the death penalty for rape and by extension murder).
Or the black people's party. Very pro BLM and anti police brutality. Also very pro 2nd amendment to defend against that police brutality.
Or The Western party. Very tough on immigration to preserve western values. Also supporting Universal healthcare, another western value.
It hopefully causes the democrats and republicans to become irrelevant and we are left with just smaller parties that are principled in their beliefs.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
What do these laws state that prohibits states from being split up into counties?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
He says God is a "genocidal maniac unfit for worship.", But do people who say such silly things ever wonder how Christianity was able to get a majority of people to convert and consider God to be worthy of worship?
Because most people, especially people without college degrees (like the people who originally converted to christianity) don't bother to fact check everything they are told. They are told there is an invisible man in the sky; they believe it. They are told that the bible is his word, they believe it. They never bother to read the bible because they can't read. By the time people learn how to read, their faith is cemented in. But atheism is developing and Christianity is losing its stronghold on the US, the EU, and other western places.
People converted under threat of death by the Roman empire after the emperor had converted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I believe God exists but he is a genocidal maniac unfit for worship. He supports cruel and unusual punishment (something that liberals oppose) and he supports censorship (something that conservatives oppose).
Created:
Our response to 9/11 was way overblown. Somehow 3000 deaths in the US justifies 500,000 middle eastern deaths in the middle east. You don't have middle easterners having this, "Never forget" mentality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
But I think it's obvious that someone with a 101-50 record (while pretty good) isn't nearly as good as someone who won 50 consecutive times and never lost once.
Created:
I think this would be beneficial for many reasons.
1) Your more likely to agree with the politics of your county than the politics of your state. This means I am more likely to find politicians that agree with me on most things.
2) It allows for counties to be themselves instead of being bossed around by a state. It allows upstate NY to be more conservative and it allows for Austin to be more liberal. Currently, Austin has much conservative influence due to being in Texas and Upstate NY has a lot of liberal influence due to NYC. Letting every county run themselves to an extent lets Austin be as liberal as they want and it allows upstate NY to be as conservative as they want, provided both of their ideas are in line with the constitution and supreme court cases.
3) Other counties have more autonomy and you have even more experiments within certain counties. Currently America has 50 states with 50 experiments. If every county was given the same autonomy a state currently has, we have up to 3143 experiments running.
4) It makes it easier to move to a place that you are more ideologically in line with. A liberal person from Alabama has to travel hundreds of miles to be in a blue state. Now they just need to move to the nearest liberal county which will be much closer. A conservative from New York doesn't have to go all the way to Texas to be somewhere conservative. They just need to find a right wing suburb if they want to be in a conservative environment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Abortion and gun laws are both issues because they impact your wallet very little in comparison to the amount they impact society.
weakeredge didn't say anything that affects anyone is a social issue stop strawmanning
The weakredge said:
anything effecting the population's lives in such a significant way is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Win percentage = Win count / Game count
1 win / 1 game = 100%
100 wins / 101 games = 99.009901%
By the win percentage formula method, a 1-0 record is better than a 100-1 record.
Subtract the number of losses from the number of wins
Here you are describing the Wins-Losses formula method.
By this method, a 101-50 record is better than a 50-0 record. In other words, winning about 2/3 of your games would be better than winning 50 straight times.
Both methods that I'm aware of have flaws when taken to the extreme. The only method that can work is a method that both displays a 100-1 record as better than a 1-0 record and that displays a 50-0 record as better than a 101-50 record.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
You could make that argument, but the win percentage is higher with the 5-0 record than the 10-2 record. If (Wins-Losses) is your sole metric for who has the better record, a team with 101 wins and 50 losses would have a better record than an undefeated team with 50 wins and 0 losses.
At the same time, if win percentage was the only thing that mattered, someone with a 1-0 record would be better than someone with a 100-1 record.
You need both win percentage and the W-L formula to figure out who has the better record. If you use just win percentage, then someone with a 1-0 record did better than someone with a 100-1 record. If you use just the W-L formula, then a team with 101 wins and 50 losses would have a better record than an undefeated team with 50 wins and 0 losses.
There needs to be an objective way to determine who is better for us to find out that meets both extremes.
Created:
Posted in:
A team that has 10 wins and 2 losses?
Or a team that has 5 wins and no losses?
Assume all their games were equally as tough.
Created:
Liberal christains: Against cruel and unusual punishment and opposes the death penalty no matter what.
Conservative christains: Thinks China is evil for punishing people for disagreeing with the Chinese government.
God: Anybody who refuses to worship me and agree with me on everything by faith burns in hell forever (a fate worse than death).
Both types of Christains: This is fine.
Me: If your against the death penalty or against cencorship, you should call out God for being worse than communists in China for sentencing people to fates worse than death for their freedom of speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
@Ramshutu
@drlebronski
I think I have change my vote to Ramshutu.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Economics are social issues dude - anything effecting the population's lives in such a significant way is.
Economic issues are different from social issues. Gun rights are different from taxes. Abortion is different from spending. Weed is different from the US debt. By your definition, every single issue is a social issue because I can't think of a single issue that doesn't impact some member of society. But not every issue is a social issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There is no evidence that banning Muslims would have any detectable impact on national security.
No muslims in America -> less terror attacks. But freedom and economic growth are trade offs to the deaths from terrorism, so the US lets muslims in.
Your gay example if just as absurd.
The gay example is legitimate because HIV is also a health threat and kills many people just like covid, unless your claiming HIV is no big deal.
You haven’t listened to a word I or anyone else has said.
Or maybe you just don't make any sense.
Getting vaccinated is not merely a personal choice, your actions impact everyone else around you.
This is false. Vaccinations only impact you and unvaccinated people.
Unvaccinated people not only have a far greater chance of spreading the virus to other people including those who are immune compromised
People who are immunocompromised (like my brother) can still get a vaccine to protect themselves.
but they are far more likely to drain our medical resources by filling up hospital ICU’s
America does not have UHC. The government does not pay a single cent for people to get treated.
contribute to mutations of the virus that the vaccines may not be able to protect against
The flu also does this. However, people that want to be vaccinated against the flu get vaccinated every year and the process only takes some amount of time to drive there and back to get your vacciene.
contribute to the economic impacts this has on all of us.
People who aren't vaccinated only impact their own economy. Buisinesses can hire others for more money to fill the void left by the employee that got covid.
Setting aside the disgusting claim that 30,000 lives a year is a proportional trade off to letting everyone speed all year… Speeding doesn’t just endanger the safety of the driver, it impacts the safety of every car and pedestrian around that driver.
So I'm assuming you don't speed? Because I speed fairly frequently and so do over 90% of drivers. If your against speeding, you are free to drive below the speed limit if you don't want to cause any deaths. But the freedom to speed is a legitimate trade off to the lives saved from speed limits of only 20 mph on the highways.
Do you believe in the old saying; “the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else’s nose”?
It's more like, "People can swing their arms if the odds of hitting someone is almost non existent (assuming they are blind and have no idea if they are hitting someone)". I have sped thousands of times and never killed a single person in an accident.
Speed limits as they are are authoritarian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I guess that makes sense; I'd have to think about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
lol people who unironically think SJW's are oppressing whites and compare it to slavery need serious mental help.
I don't think anyone is complaining about being enslaved by SJWs. This is a strawman, at least for now. People in the far future might advocate for enslaving whites because blacks were enslaved in the past; lets hope we never get to that point. But SJWs are very far left individuals that complain about alleged racism way too much (and very often what they describe isn't racist). If someone doesn't approve of BLM, the SJW thinks that person is a racist over an opinion half the country has, whereas any normal lefty would merely think they disagree on that issue. I don't care if your on the left, but if your an SJW, you should see a therapist(this includes certain prominent users on this site).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
If someone wanted to advocate for Nambla; he would get absolutely destroyed on this site, the only time I would think action would be appropriate , if he started saying it so constantly and so thoroughly that it drowned out other content.
So he can advocate for Nambla once and not get banned, but then if it becomes repetitive, you'd ban him for it? With other issues, we don't see this. Someone can advocate for gun rights and constantly advocate for gun rights and not talk about anything else, but that's not ban worthy. People are allowed to back unpopular positions like being pro Nambla.
but if free speech is being exercised in a way that drives off everyone who disagrees with you - then that’s every bit as bad as over-moderating controversial individuals for the same reason.
I think that if someone uses their free speech to drive everyone off, then those people drived off can find a different thread to comment on. If I advocate for legalizing murder and am passionate about it, then other people don't have to engage with me if they think I'm being crazy or ill decourmed.
is that it’s called a presidency, it really should be couple of people; someone left wing and someone right wing
This would be fine and probably better than one president because I'm not going to like a left winger and drlebronski isn't going to like someone right wing generally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I think mesmer is making a point about how he is treating Nigerians similar to how SJWs in America treat white people.
Me personally, if Nigeria became more or less racially diverse, I wouldn't give a shit. If America or the UK became more or less racially diverse, I also wouldn't give a shit.
Created: