General US Politics

[Moblin Major General]

no, he's still wrong. you do realize that "liberal" is a blanket term life uses to describe the left? as in, the left loves stalin and hitler.

the left comprises many (dozens, i believe) sociopolitical ideologies and only one of them would love stalin. and even then not really, because stalin was a dictator and most wouldn;t really enjoy a dictator as a leader.

politically, liberals did not love hitler. also, a vast majority of left-leaning folks in the united states do not support government control of business. so even economically, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that adored hitler.

life doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and quotes conservative think-tanks constantly. i'm half-expecting a cite to conservapedia at some point. he asked for "decent" left-wing journalists, to which i replied with a couple, and has since been ignored. i'm not going to waste my time on someone who comes here and treats this place like a soap-box under the guise of "discussion." he's not willing to educate himself--just look back to the whole transgender thing. the science is literally there and he denies it.

and life has been like this since before you got here, so i'd much rather waste my time amusing myself than talking to someone who won't listen.

You seem to forget that you have to go into an argument as though you are most definitely wrong. I've taken the time to consider that I'm nothing more than a blithering idiot when debating with people (except for maybe Duff, but I think he's finally been kicked), whereas you assume the moral and logical high ground. He won't listen because you won't either. I don't agree with him, but he could still have a point you're missing because he offends you, possibly because of him being, both religiously and ethnically, a Jew. In the same vein, I'm a Christian, who you expect to carry a bible just to wave it at "librul gaes" but I don't and hate people who do. I would like to see you two debate face to face just to see if you could spit the same vitriol you do when on SF. I bet you couldn't.

[Nobody]

i hate the dichotomy between "liberal" and "conservative"

Liberal doesn't even necessarily means "left". Liberalism in many place means support for free markets combined with social liberalism. Even in some anglophone countries, like australia, the liberal party is the right of center party.

Most liberal parties in continental Europe associate with the center and center right, such as the FDP in germany, VVD in the netherlands, Ciudadanos in Spain, Venstre in Denmark, I could go on forever. Even the libdems in the UK aren't left wing at all.

The only thing all "liberals" have in common, except some liberal conservatives is the support for socially liberal instances. It's hard to look at the term "liberal" in a vacuum, without taking into account the contest of the place the "liberals" are from. In many places, liberal is used as an opposition to socialist (i.e economically liberal vs economically socialist)

Edited August 19, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Phoenix Wright]

You seem to forget that you have to go into an argument as though you are most definitely wrong.

no you don't. if someone tells me the earth is flat, and i choose to discuss the topic, it would be foolish to enter into a discussion as though i'm wrong for knowing the earth is round.

economically and politically, there exist ideas that are in practical terms wrong. this includes trickle-down economics, communism, anarchism, etc. etc.

moral and logical high ground.

i don't assume any moral high ground.

He won't listen because you won't either.

please point out what's worth listening to. one time only, you can select good points you think life has made and i will dissect them seriously.

I don't agree with him, but he could still have a point you're missing because he offends you,

he doesn't offend me lol

possibly because of him being, both religiously and ethnically, a Jew.

why does him being a jew matter

In the same vein, I'm a Christian, who you expect to carry a bible just to wave it at "librul gaes"

please point out where i said anything like this. i would say you're strawmanning, but i've literally said nothing on the topic of generalizing christians.

I bet you couldn't.

what is this supposed to be...? it's not like i'm internet gang bangin lol. i can call someone a racist irl it ain't no thang. plus i already said i'd have a beer with the guy

i think it's interesting that you think life actually presses my buttons. the only person who can do that is olwen. who, given the state of this forum, i actually kinda miss now.

[eclipse]

please point out where i said anything like this. i would say you're strawmanning, but i've literally said nothing on the topic of generalizing christians.

I believe you made some mention about how I get mad when people bash Christianity, which indicates that you care about the bashing side.

i think it's interesting that you think life actually presses my buttons. the only person who can do that is olwen. who, given the state of this forum, i actually kinda miss now.

He's on reddit, if you really want to talk to him.

[Phoenix Wright]

I believe you made some mention about how I get mad when people bash Christianity, which indicates that you care about the bashing side.

He's on reddit, if you really want to talk to him.

what do you mean by "care about the bashing side"? and please note that i made the distinction of religious establishment vs. faith. it's a similar distinction of company vs. employees. i hate walmart, but that's no reason to hate its employees. you see what i'm saying? also, you do get mad when people speak ill of christianity. i speak both as someone who as seen it happen to others and as someone who has been warned for it.

eh, but thanks for the info!

Edited August 19, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

That's never been a conservative idea. Only liberals.

Liberals loved both Stalin and Hitler (leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party) who were far left. Pol Pot was also left, by the way. In comparison, Ayn Rand was far right (to give you an idea of how left and right works). This is based on economics, however. Authoritarianism can be both left or right but most examples tend to emerge from the left.

Conservatives have never been anti-freedom of speech as a general idea. Liberals are more in that camp but they usually do it "for the greater good" (a socialist idea).

Actual bullshit. Hitler in the traditional definition of the terms was absolutely not far left, and the notion that liberals loved either Hitler or Stalin is objectively false. Even Stalin's fellow Communists hated him, at least in the US; most people left the Communist party after Molotov-Ribbentropp. Also, please for the love of god tell me you don't like Ayn Rand. I don't even care if you agree with her, but at least admit she was a terrible writer.

Back on track, I've always hated the left right axis, but if we're to use it Hitler was economically left, socially right, and right in terms of foreign policy. Then again Fascism generally has always been a gray area in terms of where it is, and I think that the only legitimate claim it has is that it is actually the third way. I think it's wrong to call Hitler left or right. Stalin and Pol Pot were most definitely left, though. However, none of them were liberal by any definition; this is complete nonsense.

[Nobody]

Then again Fascism generally has always been a gray area in terms of where it is, and I think that the only legitimate claim it has is that it is actually the third way.

Fascism is basically the opposite of the politics currently known as third way, a position that was extremely widespread through the 90s. Fascists are authoritarian and social conservative, but are completely opposed to free market, thinking that the state should control everything, not being exactly capitalist. What is most commonly called third way are politics that acknowledge that capitalism has flaws but is by far the most effective system, trying to atone its flaws by adding some safety net and regulations. Third way believes in market economy and mainstream/neoclassic economics, though with some regulations, are by definition democratic (willing to work with both the left and the right) and are social liberal.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[eclipse]

what do you mean by "care about the bashing side"? and please note that i made the distinction of religious establishment vs. faith. it's a similar distinction of company vs. employees. i hate walmart, but that's no reason to hate its employees. you see what i'm saying? also, you do get mad when people speak ill of christianity. i speak both as someone who as seen it happen to others and as someone who has been warned for it.

Just like any other criticism, it depends on when, why, and how. If I really didn't like any sort of criticism against Christianity, any thread regarding religion would be shut down immediately. However, such threads are the appropriate WHEN. Making stupid comments about Christianity during the aftermath of the Charleston shootings (and yes, that happened) was not the appropriate "when". Next is why - there's a difference between not liking Walmart due to their employment practices (as one example), taking out your frustrations of the world on Walmart because they have more money than you, and elevating yourself at the expense of others. On another board I go to, the "why" of a recent bout of drama boiled down to the second reason, and a certain other Christian who I gave a short sermon to fell under the third reason. Lastly is the "how". Notice how I get really irritated when a bunch of blanket statements are introduced, and ask for sources? I don't like lazy claims, and generalizing everything with no source is one example of laziness ("here's a claim and no I won't tell you how I drew that conclusion"). In other words, if your criticism is relevant, thought-out, and sourced if necessary, I'll probably let it go. If it's because of the millionth argument about why YOU think Christianity is the worst thing to happen to humanity since testicular torsion and anyone who disagrees with you believes in a magical sky fairy, that's not cool.

Though I don't agree with tuvarkz's views in this thread that much, at least he's sourcing his claims, and for that I respect him. And if anyone's wondering what the hell the above has to do with politics, it's an insight into how I mod this thread - and just about everything else.

[Life]

I know that as a Jew you would definitely prefer to distance yourself from Hitler, but Free Speech is Libertarian, not Conservative. Stalin and Hitler were obviously Authoritarian, the opposite of Libertarian. You are a conservative libertarian, where Hitler and Stalin were center authoritarian. As much as I despise hate speech and Shoah denial, I will only go so far as to call those out and criticize them, until or unless the person expressing said views commits a hate crime.

I don't really care about distancing myself from Hitler because I'm a Jew. The fact of the matter was, the left loved both him and Stalin in the early 1930's. That is fact.

Also, this is to Pheonix. I don't respond to your posts in general anymore because I don't think you bring much substance to a debate. I get the same feeling from you that I do when I watch Cenk from The Young Turks.

I have been respectful to you and have been only greeted with hostility for my views (you have called me a bigot). We don't agree on things. Fine. But at least respect the person who you're debating so that you can attempt to learn from the debate in general.

Honestly, I thought you would be better than that because you're not stupid. It feels like intellectual dishonesty.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[blah the Prussian]

Fascism is basically the opposite of the politics currently known as third way, a position that was extremely widespread through the 90s. Fascists are authoritarian and social conservative, but are completely opposed to free market, thinking that the state should control everything, not being exactly capitalist. What is most commonly called third way are politics that acknowledge that capitalism has flaws but is by far the most effective system, trying to atone its flaws by adding some safety net and regulations. Third way believes in market economy and mainstream/neoclassic economics, though with some regulations, are by definition democratic (willing to work with both the left and the right) and are social liberal.

That's one definition, but Mussolini referred to Fascism first as the third way, as an alternative to both the left and the right, because it mixed elements of the two. I generally agree with this; Fascism can't be placed on a left-right axis, thus it is the third way. Then again, different forms of Fascism differ greatly (Mussolini's Fascism was more reactionary while Hitler's was more futurist) but they all share the same general traits. That's what I meant.

Edit: Also, Life, you're the one making the absurdly outlandish claim that liberals loved Hitler, source please.

Edited August 19, 2016 by blah the Prussian

[Tryhard]

I have to admit that this is starting to sound like Trump trying to convince people that Obama is the founder of ISIS.

Liberals love Hitler, he honours them, they love Hitler. Tremendous.

[-Cynthia-]

So I was wondering... (this doesn't really have anything to do with the last few pages, but I hope that's OK)

What do you guys think about the voting system in the US? Personally, I don't really see the point in the electoral delegates. I mean, this makes it very possible that a president is elected with less than 50% of the votes, it makes individual votes more or less valuable depending on the quota voters/delegates and if you're living in a state where the outcome is clear anyway, your vote kinda doesn't matter at all, even if the election is close nationwide.

I might just be dumb (very real possibility ;) but I just don't see any real advantages... So is there a reason why the voting system doesn't get changed?

Tradition is the main reason I suppose. I have heard the argument that if it were all based on the popular vote, then candidates would only focus their campaigning on major cities because that would be more efficient population wise but I'm not sure if that's true or important in reality. I don't think you're dumb, the electoral college seems outdated to me.

[Phoenix Wright]

I don't really care about distancing myself from Hitler because I'm a Jew. The fact of the matter was, the left loved both him and Stalin in the early 1930's. That is fact.

is it? which left, where? immediately, one can cast doubt that the united states and similar countries during the cold war held anything but contempt for stalin, except for the most staunch opposition to capitalism. under stalin, a known purger and paranoid mad-man, would opposition to his rule ever vocally exist? i don't think there exists data that supports the united states left supported stalin in the 1930s.

support for hitler is far more clouded. lots of people in germany supported hitler for a long time. but where's the data that suggests leftists everywhere, or anywhere supported him? from what do you base this "fact" on?

the left in germany or russia is far different from the left in the united states or the united kingdom, or elsewhere. which left are you talking about?

(you have called me a bigot).

when is it okay to call someone a bigot in your opinion? i'm genuinely curious. you called transsexuals and transexuality an "abomination." that's bigotry if i've ever seen it, so to you, what qualifies?

"towel heads are an abomination," "whites are an abomination," "jews are an abomination," "gays are an abomination," do none of these qualify?

as far as "debate" goes, on why you were conservative, you listed four points, all of which i responded to respectfully. you did not respond. ( http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56082&p=4498975 )

on transsexualism, two other posters have already linked scientific evidence showing that it exists and is a thing. this was ignored. i gave you journalists, that was ignored. in fact, the only posts you seem to respond to are the ones where i make fun of you! that's weird.

what's really happening is you're crying victim again and some people are falling for it.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Life]

Jesus, everyone is missing the point.

I'm not saying that they love him now. I haven't said that. What I said was "the left in the 1930's loved Hitler at the time".

Case in point: Berlin Olympics in 1936. That was Hitler's chance to show the world that Fascism was excellent. And many world leaders and others ran home gushing about how great Fascism was.

Of course they changed their minds when Hitler started annexing Europe. And I don't resent them for it. Hitler fooled them hard. Cudos to Nazi Germany, right?

How do I know this? Because when you're a Jew and go to Jewish school, you spend far too much time learning about the Holocaust than what is healthy. Yad Vashem does a great exhibit on German propoganda to the outside world.

No, I'm not saying that the left wanted to kill Jews too. That's silly. But they thought Hitler was a pretty good leader until it showed that he pulled the wool over their eyes. I'm simply looking for a nice soundbite that shows it.

when is it okay to call someone a bigot in your opinion? i'm genuinely curious. you called transsexuals and transexuality an "abomination." that's bigotry if i've ever seen it, so to you, what qualifies?

"towel heads are an abomination," "whites are an abomination," "jews are an abomination," "gays are an abomination," do none of these qualify?

as far as "debate" goes, on why you were conservative, you listed four points, all of which i responded to respectfully. you did not respond. ( http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56082&p=4498975 )

on transsexualism, two other posters have already linked scientific evidence showing that it exists and is a thing. this was ignored. i gave you journalists, that was ignored. in fact, the only posts you seem to respond to are the ones where i make fun of you! that's weird.

what's really happening is you're crying victim again and some people are falling for it.

Let's do this and for the last time.

Transexual argument: I clearly stated that I was not going to attempt to change anyone's mind, simply defend my viewpoint.

The issue is the fact that you used an ad hominem. "You're a bigot so you're wrong." When I'm off my phone, I'll find the post and quote it because I know I'm not doing it verbatim.

Is it bigotry? Sure. Is it my opinion? Yes. Did I ever once state that I would draft legislation to ostracize transexuals or restrict their rights? No. Will I invite a transexual to my wedding to prove that I'm not bigoted? No.

Did you use the fact that I may be bigoted as the reason for why I deserve to be treated with utter disrespect and as a rebuttal for why my opinion is worthless? Yeah. There's my issue. For someone who wants to be tolerant, it seems like that doesn't apply when it comes to different mindsets.

On my lack of a response to the Conservative rebuttal: I got suspended for 5 days. I would have loved to contest it because those are new topics to this thread. But I physically couldn't.

As for why I got suspended? My fault entirely. That's all you need to know. If you don't believe me, ask one of the mods (Integrity gave me the suspension, for example).

Science on transexuality: I told you that I was flying and received a 1 day suspension once arriving home. Ask eclipse about that.

I haven't not responded because I ignore your points. I haven't responded because of suspensions or physical inability. As for why I didn't respond once I could, there would have been no point since A) the conversation had moved on and B) I was apparently hurting feelings far too much.

I would have loved to respond to those but I couldn't.

Victimization: Whatever. The fact remains that I don't launch into character assassinations at the drop of a pin. You did that the second you heard me say "I don't like transexuals". I've simply pointed out that you don't like the idea that I have a radically different view of the world than you and attempt to shut down debate first.

That's all I'll say on the matter. You can choose to respond but now I will ignore those comments. Conversation has moved on, Pheonix.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[blah the Prussian]

Uh huh. Evidence that this was specifically the left? For example, while Winston Churchill was a Conservative, so we're Chamberlain and Halifax. I won't deny that people admired Hitler in the early days, but this wasn't something uniquely liberal.

[Tryhard]

Jesus, everyone is missing the point.

I'm not saying that they love him now. I haven't said that. What I said was "the left in the 1930's loved Hitler at the time".

Case in point: Berlin Olympics in 1936. That was Hitler's chance to show the world that Fascism was excellent. And many world leaders and others ran home gushing about how great Fascism was.

Of course they changed their minds when Hitler started annexing Europe. And I don't resent them for it. Hitler fooled them hard. Cudos to Nazi Germany, right?

How do I know this? Because when you're a Jew and go to Jewish school, you spend far too much time learning about the Holocaust than what is healthy. Yad Vashem does a great exhibit on German propoganda to the outside world.

No, I'm not saying that the left wanted to kill Jews too. That's silly. But they thought Hitler was a pretty good leader until it showed that he pulled the wool over their eyes. I'm simply looking for a nice soundbite that shows it.

Let's assume this is true. What relevancy does it have? Maybe liberals or leftists thought his economic policies were good, or that the Treaty of Versailles reparations were too harsh. A lot of people regardless of affiliation were more concerned with Stalin at the time and thought that Hitler could be an ally. Evidently, this turned out not to be the case, and if you admit that he deceived them after he did his power grab, then how does that prove anything? Once again, they didn't love him when he was relentlessly authoritarian, and even if they did, then I'm not sure I could trust their knowledge of what was happening inside Germany.

[Phoenix Wright]

Jesus, everyone is missing the point.

I'm not saying that they love him now. I haven't said that. What I said was "the left in the 1930's loved Hitler at the time".

with my response in particular, i didn't even mention contemporary leftists. obviously no one worth mentioning today supports hitler dude.

Case in point: Berlin Olympics in 1936. That was Hitler's chance to show the world that Fascism was excellent. And many world leaders and others ran home gushing about how great Fascism was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Summer_Olympics#Controversies

leftists and rightists alike didn't condone the olympics, at least in the united states. i legit have no idea what you're talking about here.

How do I know this? Because when you're a Jew and go to Jewish school, you spend far too much time learning about the Holocaust than what is healthy.

this isn't evidence. because of the internet, we have access to roughly the same information.

"i'm a jew obviously i would know about jewish things" also isn't an argument.

[spoiler=shits too long]

Transexual argument: I clearly stated that I was not going to attempt to change anyone's mind, simply defend my viewpoint.

direct evidence that you used sd as a soap-box rather than as a place for discussion. debate is about changing minds, not putting ideas out there.

Is it bigotry? Sure. Is it my opinion? Yes. Did I ever once state that I would draft legislation to ostracize transexuals or restrict their rights? No. Will I invite a transexual to my wedding to prove that I'm not bigoted? No.

so you admit to it being bigotry. ok, now i'm just totally confused.

Did you use the fact that I may be bigoted as the reason for why I deserve to be treated with utter disrespect and as a rebuttal for why my opinion is worthless? Yeah. There's my issue. For someone who wants to be tolerant, it seems like that doesn't apply when it comes to different mindsets.

again, do i give credence to claims that are long debunked? if someone holds the opinion that homosexuality is a choice, am i supposed to pat that person on the back and exclaim what a great job he's doing getting his ideas out there?

As for why I got suspended? My fault entirely. That's all you need to know. If you don't believe me, ask one of the mods (Integrity gave me the suspension, for example).

it's okay, i believe you. also i don't care lol

Science on transexuality: I told you that I was flying and received a 1 day suspension once arriving home. Ask eclipse about that.

this isn't a response to anything. "why do you deny the science," was the question.

Victimization: Whatever. The fact remains that I don't launch into character assassinations at the drop of a pin. You did that the second you heard me say "I don't like transexuals". I've simply pointed out that you don't like the idea that I have a radically different view of the world than you and attempt to shut down debate first.

based on your response you assassinated your own character lol. you admit to bigotry outright and that you didn't come here to learn, just support your view on something.

That's all I'll say on the matter. You can choose to respond but now I will ignore those comments. Conversation has moved on, Pheonix.

it's the internet and there's a written record of the entire conversation. the conversation could come and go as it pleases, that's the beauty of language and conversation. we can revisit things. the sky is the limit, friend!

Edited August 19, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Time the Crestfallen]

It seems that you and Phillius oppose Right Wing because he holds a stance that is visibly unpopular. I might not defend Right Wing, but he needs to be at least treated like he's on the same level of intelligence that we all claim to be.

Excuse you? I oppose Right Wing because I don't think think that Islam is inherently shitty, that fundamentalist anything is bad, that singling out Islam for fundamentalist behaviour is unfair and that there's more than one factor contributing to the awfulness of many Muslim-majority countries other than 'because they're Islam'. I was being polite until he decided that he 'couldn't take me seriously', because if he's going to start saying stuff like that than I don't see why I should be perfectly civil either.

Victimization: Whatever. The fact remains that I don't launch into character assassinations at the drop of a pin. You did that the second you heard me say "I don't like transexuals". I've simply pointed out that you don't like the idea that I have a radically different view of the world than you and attempt to shut down debate first.

That being said, he's right about this. Simply throwing around the word bigoted in response to an argument is hardly promoting debate. If you think he's wrong, than try to prove it using facts and reason. I don't think anyone ever has ever changed their mind about a debate because someone insulted them enough times.

[eclipse]

Excuse you? I oppose Right Wing because I don't think think that Islam is inherently shitty, that fundamentalist anything is bad, that singling out Islam for fundamentalist behaviour is unfair and that there's more than one factor contributing to the awfulness of many Muslim-majority countries other than 'because they're Islam'. I was being polite until he decided that he 'couldn't take me seriously', because if he's going to start saying stuff like that than I don't see why I should be perfectly civil either.

That being said, he's right about this. Simply throwing around the word bigoted in response to an argument is hardly promoting debate. If you think he's wrong, than try to prove it using facts and reason. I don't think anyone ever has ever changed their mind about a debate because someone insulted them enough times.

First paragraph - Always stay civil, it's the best way to make your resident mod happy.

Second paragraph - Bingo! Rip arguments to shreds, not the person behind them.

[Life]

Excuse you? I oppose Right Wing because I don't think think that Islam is inherently shitty, that fundamentalist anything is bad, that singling out Islam for fundamentalist behaviour is unfair and that there's more than one factor contributing to the awfulness of many Muslim-majority countries other than 'because they're Islam'. I was being polite until he decided that he 'couldn't take me seriously', because if he's going to start saying stuff like that than I don't see why I should be perfectly civil either.

That being said, he's right about this. Simply throwing around the word bigoted in response to an argument is hardly promoting debate. If you think he's wrong, than try to prove it using facts and reason. I don't think anyone ever has ever changed their mind about a debate because someone insulted them enough times.

This is why I enjoy debating you.

I think you're wrong about Islam and I think you should watch that video I put up a while ago. You don't have to agree but I want you to understand my side.

I get the other side. I thought I was liberal because I always accepted the idea of freedom of speech and other ideas that the left claims to have a monopoly on. Imagine my surprise when I found out that they're really right-wing. I quite literally felt cheated.

I grew up in Canada where the Conservative Party is possibly more left wing than the Democratic Party in the US. Because I always voted Conservative (and Rob Ford too), I thought I was more left than I really am. Turns out that I'm a right-wing nut job.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Phoenix Wright]

This is why I enjoy debating you.

I think you're wrong about Islam and I think you should watch that video I put up a while ago. You don't have to agree but I want you to understand my side.

I get the other side. I thought I was liberal because I always accepted the idea of freedom of speech and other ideas that the left claims to have a monopoly on. Imagine my surprise when I found out that they're really right-wing. I quite literally felt cheated.

how do you feel about left-leaning folks that feel a similar way you do about islam?

[Tryhard]

I get the other side. I thought I was liberal because I always accepted the idea of freedom of speech and other ideas that the left claims to have a monopoly on. Imagine my surprise when I found out that they're really right-wing. I quite literally felt cheated.

Debatable on both sides, unfortunately. When Donald Trump actually went and had an AMA on the The Donald subreddit, it was estimated that at least 2000 users were shadowbanned for asking unflattering questions. This is supposed to be a place that champions the supposed role of free speech, but the moderators went and shown that they evidently don't care about it. There's almost nowhere on the internet where you could not be restricted for what you say.

If you're being offensive for the sake of being offensive, or an asshole, or breaching that sites code of conduct (even though any private site can punish/ban you for any reason) then I don't really have a problem with private sites removing you. It's just that the government shouldn't be able to take action over what you say with exceptions like threats and others.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Tryhard

[Nobody]

yeah, I agree with tryhard, free speech only refers to the state. As long as the state can't punish from what you say or stop you from saying what you want, then it's free speech. A private entity can ban anyone for saying anything they find offensive, and that's actually a part of free speech itself. I don't get why so many people on right side of the political spectrum, who value private property a lot, can't get it. If reddit, twitter, or whatever social network decides to ban anyone for whatever reason, even for public pressure, they're in their right to do so, because they're a private entity. If they did that following public pressure, it even brings the principle of free market into account, i.e. they deemed that the support of the people who are asking for the ban would be better from a financial/moral/whatever point of view and ultimately better for their business compared to letting the controversial subject in their property.

Another thing I don't get is why people claim the democratic party is supposedly to the right of right of center parties in other countries. I don't think that's true at all. Their views on taxes are more comparable to the left of center mainstream parties (the US has higher corporate taxes than almost all other first world countries), they advocate for some government influence on economy (as much as the mainstream center-left parties in other first world countries, that is, not that much, which imo isn't a bad thing), they favor welfare. The only issues I don't see they being as left are paid leave and healthcare, but only because those are stuff the USA in general opposes, as seen by the opposition to Obamacare, a very simple healthcare plan. I mean, yeah, they're a bit to the right of most left of center mainstream parties, but I don't see they being to the right of the right of center parties. The USA under Obama had way less austerity than Europe, for example.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Time the Crestfallen]

This is why I enjoy debating you.

I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

I think you're wrong about Islam and I think you should watch that video I put up a while ago. You don't have to agree but I want you to understand my side.

Oh yeah, that was a thing I was gonna do. I'll have a gander.

Debatable on both sides, unfortunately. When Donald Trump actually went and had an AMA on the The Donald subreddit, it was estimated that at least 2000 users were shadowbanned for asking unflattering questions. This is supposed to be a place that champions the supposed role of free speech, but the moderators went and shown that they evidently don't care about it. There's almost nowhere on the internet where you could not be restricted for what you say.

I've noticed that many of the subreddits that say they're very pro-free speech are not only misinterpreting what free-speech actually is (the xkrd comic comes to mind), but do so in opposition of far-left subreddits (MRA to Feminism for example) but are perfectly happy to ban away when push comes to shove as r/TheDonald demonstrated. It's one of those things I find funny, since it shows that the far-left and the far-right are (and in more ways than just this) far more similar than either of them would care to admit.

[Tangerine]

Debatable on both sides, unfortunately. When Donald Trump actually went and had an AMA on the The Donald subreddit, it was estimated that at least 2000 users were shadowbanned for asking unflattering questions. This is supposed to be a place that champions the supposed role of free speech, but the moderators went and shown that they evidently don't care about it. There's almost nowhere on the internet where you could not be restricted for what you say.

If you're being offensive for the sake of being offensive, or an asshole, or breaching that sites code of conduct (even though any private site can punish/ban you for any reason) then I don't really have a problem with private sites removing you. It's just that the government shouldn't be able to take action over what you say with exceptions like threats and others.

Reddit shouldn't be talked about as an example of anything political or used as a resource for anything political when the Clinton campaign is working with a super PAC to spam and downvote anything unflattering to her or supportive of Trump on r/politics lol. Mods on r/politics have been demoted for supporting Trump. Reddit is the absolute worst place to discuss politics right now because it's being used the same way mainstream media is.

There really isn't an unbiased place to discuss things.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Tangerine