Total posts: 502
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not one of those right wingers.
I want this website to carry the legacy of Debate.org and be better. This means, it should have similar rules on speech restrictions. Advocating for fringe positions should not be restricted by the mere bias of a left wing moderator that wants to curtail it under the name of "hate speech."
This isn't an echo chamber. Fringe-leaning ideologues such as communists and fascists should be able to both freely express their opinions on here.
Created:
Hate speech rules, in general, exist to protect historically disadvantaged and marginalized groups against invective or slurs; though, I don't see why invective against other groups cannot, in certain contexts, constitute hate speech. Your post was reported. Clearly, your post was not moderatable in the sense that it was not the case that you should be either warned or punished. That is because "idiot" likely does not rise to the threshold of "invective." I therefore reached out to you not to warn or punish, but to apprise you of the rules of the site in that regard and advise caution in the face of future actions which might conceivably and reasonably be construed as violating the COC.
This is quite obviously political in nature. The question of minority groups and their treatment is a controversial subject in itself, and is best left to political discourse.
And tell me, what counts as "invective?" If "invective" against minority groups is prohibited, does that note essentially descend into violating the free expression of political ideas here? "Invective" is defined as "highly critical language." If someone is to oppose ideas possesed by LGBT and would say, advocate for something like sodomy laws, would that be classified as "invective?"
The old Debate.org rulebook had nothing against criticizing "marginalized" groups.
Would it count as hate speech to advocate for sodomy laws and/or restrict LGBTQ+ rights?
Essentially, you're restricting a free and open online debate discourse and are trying to align it to be politically correct. If that's your goal, so be it.
In essence, I think you have overreacted here to my message. I neither concluded that you broke the rules nor took any moderation action against you. Rather, fearing that your future conduct might veer towards a COC violation if left unremarked upon, I attempted to gently remind you that a COC does exist and will be enforced if necessary. I also clearly explained my objection to your post, and it had nothing to do with the political content of the post, but rather everything to do with your own choice of words. Your objections are noted, and perhaps I could make the purpose of such messages more clear in the future, but your objections are each unfounded.
I didn't break the rules, yet the post warranted a delete? That's the issue, my post was censored.
And as I said, if I can't call non-binary genders "idiots," then this means one should have their posts deleted for practically calling any group an idiot. Unless this protection is specifically in place for "marginalized" groups. In other words, this website would then restrict free expression by stating that you can not criticize or advocate against certain marginalized groups - thus enforcing political correctness on what is supposed to be a free debate site.
Many people in the political forum coin terms like "trumpanzees" or "liberal butterflies." If these insults aren't allowed, why are LGBTQ+ groups protected?
Created:
Oh my gosh, I just read rule 4 of the COC:
4. Hate SpeechSlurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech.
Wow, so who else can not wait for criticism against "marginalized" groups such as LGBT or certain religions to be censored because of this "hate speech" clause?
If you want this site to become a liberal-bent echo chamber, by all means go ahead. But do not expect it to be anything other than an echo chamber.
Created:
This should be taken for granted:
If non-binary people can't be called idiots, this should essentially mean no group can be called "idiots."
If I say "rich white christian men are idiots," this should technically warrant a delete as should my previous statement.
If it does not, then this is sheer hypocrisy and blatant bias among bsh1's moderation.
Created:
This comment of yours is highly problematic: "Just include an option called 'other' for idiots who can't align with the binary. There's only two genders lol."This comment could constitute "invective against an entire class of people," which is prohibited as hate speech under the COC.The issue with your comment is not that you question whether that there are two or more genders--it's perfectly fine to argue that there are only two genders, though it might be anatomically incorrect in the case of intersex people.What is problematic with your comment is that you suggest that gender non-binary individuals and trans individuals are "idiots." This disparages an entire group of people in a way which is, at the very least, troublesome. It is even more troublesome when placed in the context of your other remarks on the matter, which clearly mock gender non-binary and trans people.This is not an official warning. But it is a reminder that language like this is not looked kindly upon by moderation, and that it is best to avoid comments which may be reasonably construed as hate speech.
Well, looks like "bsh1" is the moderator. Geez, I can't wait to have politically right-wing posts deleted left and right for "hate speech" so we can ensure this site is a safe space for minorities against bigots like me.
I certainly hope the guy who creates this website doesn't endorse this action. A potentially great debating site, to fulfill the legacy of debate.org, is going to become a crappy place once we have morons like him censor posts left and right for "hate speech" because we insult groups a progressive moderator doesn't like.
If he does, well you can surely insist that you'll have a flight of people from this already in-need-of-activity place.
Created:
Let's make a list of genders for the debateart profile settings, I'll start:
- Male
- Female
- Agender
- Third gender
- Fourth gender
- Fifth gender
- Genderqueer
- Gender fluid
- 1/3rd male 2/3rd female
- Fluidgender
- Male to Male transgender
- Female to Male transgebder
- Male to female to male transgender
- Female to male to female transgender
- Boeing AH6 Apache Attack Helicopter
- A10C Thunderbolt II
- Concord
- EC-130 Commando Solo III
- USS New Orleans Amphibious transport dock
- Al Qaeda
- Toast
- Eggs
- Glock 18
- AK-47
- Hezbollah
- Hamas
- ISIS
- Accordion
- Grand Piano
- Flute
- Pathological liar Hillary Clinton
- Zodiac killer Cruz
- Communist liberal lizard alien Obama
- Drumpfism
- $$$
- Goldman Sachs
- Spaghetti
- Chinese noodles
- Mexican Burritos
- Indian curry
- French Croissant
- Arizona state University
- Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry
- Harvard University
- Yale University
- 你好中国
- Binary Code
- NPC
- Fish
- Snowflake
- 1000001010110111101010001010010101010100
Please continue the list of genders!
Created:
Posted in:
Can you say that you're not liberal and that you admire the American Revolution?
I consider myself to be a patriotic American, but in no way can I support the flawed origins in liberalism that plagued this nation. If I were alive in the mid-1700s, chances are that I'd be a Loyalist.
Why? Because the American Revolution was a liberal revolution.
American politics are inherently liberal. The term "conservative" is usually applied relatively. Both, modern conservatives and modern liberalis carry ideology that is very well in alignment with Classical Liberalism. Such includes unrestrained freedom, republicanism, secularism and church-state separation, separation of powers, and so forth. These were inherently liberal ideas that traced their origins to Classical Liberals such as Voltaire, Montesquie, John Locke, and so forth.
Maybe you're a self-proclaimed Conservative who believes that these liberal ideas were "inherently different" from more modernist forms of liberalism such as feminism, LGBT rights, multiculturalism, etc. This would be wrong. Classical Liberalism of the old centuries and modern Liberalism are closely intertwined. They may appear different but rest upon very similar foundations and beliefs.
For this reason, the American Revolution was a mistake from a reactionary perspective. It undermined the instutition of monarchy and replaced it with an enlightenment-based republic. It gave us secularism and a weak/inefficient government that was heavily restricted from legislating morality.
From a practical persepctive, we can see how this manifested. The institution of Monarchy provided much more stability than did a Liberal Republic. Moreover, it was not controlled by interest groups. The early Republic, on the other hand, was prone to much more corruption. The founding fathers themselves consisted of freemasons, criminal smugglers, slaveowners, and of the like. Many of these interests were empowered after the American Revolution, resulting in a cronyism that would eventually grow and strike us hard decades later - if they haven't already. Slavery was a prominent example. The revolution gave power to southern plantation elites, away from the British Crown. What was the result? Slavery was expanded to new territories and the government at times was controlled by "pro-slavery" advocates. Monarchy subjugates and controls these interest groups, but a Republic lets them run free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Only as long as we add "attack helicopter"
Created:
Posted in:
America's racial structure was never ideal from the start.
Blacks were brought as slaves to toil on the cotton farms for southern elites. In smaller numbers, Asians came working under slave-like conditions for other elites in charge. Both faced discrimination that tried to lower their opportunities in order to enforce their lower position in society.
However, you would now notice that Asians are unlike any other minority. They carry more power and wealth than whiites - speaking on averages. Blacks on the other hand remain in dysfunctional communities and are still present in a lower socio-economic status.
Now while there could be multiple reasons to this, let's first consider the approach for equality. Blacks largely followed liberal leaders such as Web DuBois, placing a focus on protest for equal treatment. Asians largely took an approach more similar to Booker T Washington's ideals. They focused on education and economic opportunities to readily exploit.
As a result, who do you believe is in a better condition nowadays?
Asians remain segregated at times, for you can spot multiple "Chinatowns." However, you'd also find Asians who are much more integrated - almost entirely. Nobody really minds either.
Blacks are pseudo-segregated. They have been forced to be desegregated with mixed results. Many of those who co-exist with whites will still form some level of self segregation, which are in dysfunctional communities promoting cancer such as "thug life" or single motherhood. Those who attempt to better themselves may be branded as "Uncle Toms, Oreos, Whitewahsed," or other such derogatory terms.
Can we conclude from this that blacks have followed the wrong method for civil rights, and due so today? Their modern condition is not due to "Institutional racism" (given affirmative action and reverse discrimination policies) but poor communities, crime, cultural marxism, and a failure of working to a sense of upliftment.
Created:
-->
@ravensjt
Probably not. However, would discrimination against Bantus by the Native tribes be justified? If not, why should white farmers face land seizures instead of finding more reasonable ways of dealing with the situation?
Also, Jews are more or less an ingroup. They consider themselves to have, more or less, an identity in blood. There is such a thing as "ethnic Jew." The Jews are certainly in positions of power and have all the means to be prejudiced. Why is that not racism?
Created:
-->
@ravensjt
The minority Race can be prejudice or bigoted.......Racism is a system in which a dominant Race benefits off the oppression of others,overtly or covertly, consciously or subconsciouslyRacism doesn't always equate to the majority Race (See South Africa)Because of this, it's debatable whether the downtrodden Race can be "Racist"
Jews disproportionnately make up the upper and wealthier classes of various nations, which is done while keeping others down. Does this mean discrimination against Jews could not be anti-Semitic?
Created:
-->
@ravensjt
It certainly would've been dumb.... But no, South Africans were/are taking back what was rightfully theirs, Those Whites were the beneficiaries of stolen land. Their Race is a by product of the thievery of their Forefathers
By this logic, the native tribes of South Africa should ethnically cleanse all of the Bantus.
Created:
Posted in:
The problem I see with LSD, as stated by others, is the changes it causes to one's mind and brain chemistry.
It is quite apparent that LSD is physically harmless. However, this doesn't mean the psychological effects should be overlooked. People report of LSD "changing and opening up their mind." It totally changes people and turns them into different people. They become more as stereotypical "hippies," conpletely falling out of line with traditional society.
Those who do psychedelics are entirely different people once they do. I don't see the risk as worth it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
1. I can certainly see the logic behind this.
2. I don't see the need to organize prostitution into brothels. It's an inherently exploitative system that leaves large room for abuse.
My ideal solution is to legalize escorts in a very small region or city of a nation. Initially I supported violent crackdown upon any escorts/sex services, but I realized people are imperfect. Legal escorts in a small part of a country would deter more dangerous illegal services and reduce the possibility of rape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
These are things that have been brought up and disproven over and over again. It seems to me as if Protestants lack basic understanding of Catholic theology. Though I'm not surprised given how decentralized the religion is...
1. Mary is not equal to Christ. In Catholicism, vemeration/respect is organized into dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. Latria is afforded to the lord, while hyperdulia is for Mary.
2. Misinterpretation. This has been debunked various times; I suggest reading this: https://www.catholic.com/tract/call-no-man-father
3. What difference does carring it on a long pole make?
4. No Catholic literally sees bread and wine as Jesus's literal blood and flesh??? We damn well know that it's symbolic.
Those "others" are classic misinterpretations and misunderstandings of Catholic theology. It's what you get when you base a religion off of reading a book and drawing your own conclusions, rather than looking to centuries of old wisdom, tradition, and knowledge regarding the faith - organized under a hierarchy that preserves it.
Created:
Posted in:
I am a Catholic here and we see the Catholic Church as the legitimate Church. Anyone care to explain to me how Catholic teachings are in any way contradictory to Jesus's teachings?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Meh, he's a Classical Liberal. I'm not supporting that as somewhat of a reactionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
And here leftists will continue to claim that "science is on their side," when in fact any science against them has been suppressed...
Just goes to show you who's in power (Shapiro is still cringe).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You know what other institution historically quashed science? The Catholic Church, which goes to show you how much "Universities" have morphed into religious liberal institutions of dogma.
Not true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The libertarian right has far too broad a definition of socialism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kasmic
I do not disagree one bit. What I'd like to know is your proposal or ideas as to extent should we distinguish and classify political ideologies, which would be comprehensible enough to the commoner?
Created:
-->
@David
Also, do you believe there was a "divine role" in the situation which Israel and the Jews have faced throughout history?
For a while, they were unusually oppressed and despised by powerful empires after their freeing from Babylon: Persians, Greeks, Romans, Caliphates/Arabs, Crusaders, Ottomans, etc.
What would be your explanation for this? Thoughts by some Christians have suggested that the oppression of Israel and the Jews were based upon their failure to align with God's will.
Created:
-->
@David
What is your opinion on the state of Israel, and the rights of Palestinians/Muslims/Christians in the land?
What's your rationale for rejecting Jesus as the messiah?
Can anybody become Jewish, or is it tied with ethnicity?
Created:
Posted in:
Oversimplification is used to describe a complicated world of political ideologies, to masses who merely judge based upon a few remarks and news articles about politics - them being ignorant themselves.
I quite agree politics are oversimplified. Though I'm not sure how we would go about "unsimplifying" it; how would the average joe react? Do you think they'd care to read Locke, or understand the difference between two forms of communism?
Created:
Posted in:
RIP
I'm not one to agree with his views, but he was a person who intended well and did what he felt was best to serve the country. His personality generally seemed alright too. Though I'd attribute the higher than normal amount of sympathy for his military service.
(And FYI, please ignore Analyesic and RM turning this into a cancerous thread).
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
I did make that statement yes, but more so to make you shut up rather than derail this thread into an IQ discussion. Guess it failed lol. Why would I bother reasoning with someone as stuck up and annoying as you are?
Oh well, might you now go back to those pedophillic hedonistic posts in the Society category?
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Meanwhile, you've completely ignored all my argumentation and research, probably Googled "IQ Tests Do Not Accurately Predict Intelligence", and posted the first article you found, without reading any of it, let alone the research which supposedly supports said conclusion.This is laughably pathetic.
Probably because I'm not trying to derail a thread on something that has nothing to do with IQ?
Cutting down your self-righteous and a$$hole personality would surely help, thanks.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Remember that you gave no evidence of your own.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Race Realism is a joke. Jews have a higher IQ, however, this is assuming that IQ is a valid indicator of anything.
1. IQ isn't necessarily an accurate indicator of intelligence
2. IQ isn't entirely genetic
3. There isn't any Jewish connection to such IQ studies which you've linked, which is a potential source of manipulation.
Created:
Posted in:
I think China's capacity as a world superpower is largely overrated. While they do have potential, it does seem as if their recent growth has been backfiring and has been met with certain deeper-rooted problems.
For instance,
- Chinese "mercantilism" is facing backlash at the onslaught of populism in the industrialized world. Initiating with Trump, I expect to see more trade restrictions.
- Resistance to Chinese influence has risen in some areas, with tensions recently rising in Africa.
- If Russia is to improve its relations with the western world, it's possible to see "Sino-Soviet split 2.0." With this in mind, China is left without a strong ally.
- China's internal problems from its aging population, human rights abuses, environmental degradation, etc, are fundamental issues that need to be addressed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
I suppose it depends on the sort of labor shortage. Crucial jobs such as the medical field should certainly be filled by immigrants as a short-term solution. That being said, the rate at which this occurs should be quite limited at best - which I think is a point we can agree upon.In many cases, there simply aren't any workers available to take the job, regardless of how high the pay-rate is. Those are the kinds of labor shortages that should be filled by immigrants. Leaving them unfilled would just inflict gratuitous harm upon businesses.
Created:
-->
@Buddamoose
@Imabench
I deadass don't even know why we are as closely allied with Israel as we currently are. We constantly stick our necks out for Israel in spite of how much their existence and actions antagonize other nations in the region (many times through no fault of Israel, but there are times where it is their fault), and we get almost nothing in return as a result of this partnership.... Israel has the economic capacity the size of Wisconsin so we dont benefit from trade with them very much, and the only thing they really offer that other nation does is intel on Middle Eastern terrorists.
I'd suppose it's primarily due to the lobbyism.
How does donating to political campaigns necessarily equal "buying out" candidates, ergo, bribery?
It's the nature of lobbyism. Corrupt politicians will advocate for a specific stance on a certain issue simply due to the money paid for by lobbies - of which the Israeli lobby is no exception. Should they chose to advocate against Israel, there is less financial benefit to doing so as there's no such "Palestine lobby," at least not with the same extent and influence.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are Comey and the FBI constantly corrupting the entire US political system and buying out nearly every candidate there is? There's no comparison. The Israeli Jews are a much greater influence and threat.
Created:
Just goes to show you, the media will constantly talk about how Russia intervened in the election. Democrats claim they did and Republicans deny it, but none of them have spoken a SINGLE WORD about the Israeli Jews and their influence over the election:
Reminder to die for our "greatest ally."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
I don't think Americans will be eager to convert to autocracy and have the country ruled by a series of despots. As corrupted as the current Democracy is, the current enforcement of term limits and mostly free and fair elections makes it more than possible for unpopular leaders to be removed from power.
Americans might not seem as eager as they are now, though neither were the Romans. Attitudes can change, especially due to a single person. The current enforcement seems strong enough to prevent the rise of a despot, though democracies have always crumbled to dictators in spite of how rigid the system may have been.
This "single person" I mentioned would probably have to have certain characteristics... They would have to be charismatic, populist, controversial, somewhat "radical," not aligned to traditional Republican/Democrat ideas, nationalist, etc.
Donald Trump fits much of these, though he's far from charismatic. I don't see his emotional intelligence and leadership ability as high enough to fit the type of a hypothetical American Caesar.
My main worry is if democracy continues to deteriorate to the point that average citizens start to think their only option for reform is through political assassination. One of the reasons the Roman Republic fell was because people figured out that you could just assassinate senators and emperors who disrupted the norm and threatened the wealth of the rich. I completely fail to see Americans supporting a dictator, but I can certainly see Americans feeling that assassination is the only way to weed out politicians they don't feel should be in office.
It seems as if political violence is growing. I'd say it's more likely than not that asassination will become an option for reform.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
And I actually hate the idea of using immigration to fill domestic labor shortages. It's fine as a short-term solution, but in the long-term, we should be reforming our education system and social safety net so that those labor shortages don't exist in the first place (although, again, since immigrant labor tends to be cheaper than American labor, this would cause some price inflation).
Labor shortages aren't a bad thing, they drive up wages and working conditions. The elites emphasize it as such for this reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ravensjt
Yep, Cultural Marxism and thug culture took a hard hit on African Americans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
And I would guess that is why you can't understand democratic movements. Humans are highly driven by having a sense of belonging, and having democracy feeds their sense of belonging.
I would argue the opposite, democracy can lead to pitting people against one another in order for votes.
That attachment to society improves when democracy takes care of them, and that is just simple social contract theory.
Social contract theory was also followed by Thomas Hobbes, who was an absolutist.
Without that feedback, especially in a society where it already has existed, the state has no integrity in its assertion of authority over the individual. At that point, anarchy is more legitimate than governance.
The state is more important than the individual, as it is the guiding force of society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
The "ShamWow" that's worked fine for ages? Many of the most prosperous societies in the world, before the age of western enlightenment liberalism, were absolutist. The Roman Empire flourished under the rule of despotic leaders, and the Eastern Roman Empire flourished as a dictorial theocracy.
And look at other examples: The Persians, Imperial Chinese dynasties, Caliphates, etc.
Sounds like a "miracle product" to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Quite true. Zarroette is pretty stubborn in nature. She'll link one source, draw unfounded assertions with a self righteous tone, and suddenly break out in emotion and anger in her response. Then, of course, withdraw the argument.
Created:
Posted in:
Not an obsession,
lol
just a very important talking point, given the implications (I.Q. is an extremely strong predictor of the ability to function in a society).
Proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zarroette
Let's say someone says that black people have lower I.Q. than white people. Again, you'll be met with the term racist.
What is with your obsession over racial IQ gaps?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
You do have some good conjectural points, that being said... Empiricism would dictate otherwise.
With the examples of Benito Mussolini, Antonio Salazar, Francisco Franco, or even Julius Caesar if we want to go back far enough, I fail to see how a democracy to despotic transition can't effectively work if a proper passover of power is organized (which is what these regimes lacked) or the political climate isn't fulled with the horrendous western liberalism forcing itself upon the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
Don't mean to sound offensive, but how did your opinion on promiscuity change after your previous remarks on DDO?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Eugenics are stupid.
Religion is a part of stable society. Removing religion means removing morality, and allowing for more degenerate forms of secular morality to replace the fixed dogmas of religion.
Your idea of Capitalism will only make a society soul-less. Remove religion and you will be subject to previously unconcievable tyranny.
Created: