banned
'polite' being the code word doing a lot of work, here.
You can say that black people are stupid and trans people are deluded pedophiles every day for years, as long as you maintain decorum. That's still 'polite'.
But if someones recognizes that what you're saying there is 'fuck everyone not like me' and responds with 'hey, fuck you too', that person is not being polite and must be eliminated.
Hlynka wasn't interested in maintaining decorum when it was an obvious papering over disrespectful or violent thoughts. I admired how long he was able to act on that disinterest without getting permabanned.
Personally, the masquerade is getting boring for me too. But out of respect for mod wishes, I'll try to fade out rather than flame out if it becomes too annoying to bother with.
FarNearEverywhere
19d ago
No.
I've put up with you doing the Nanny bit because you're a mod and you have the authority, but I'm not going to accept sneering without responding in kind.
If OP can be polite about their response, I'll be polite in return. OP goes on about "reality is only allowed to have appropriately gritty" so on, I'll respond in the same tone.
You can tell me I'm wrong, you can tell me I'm banned, but you can't tell me how to feel my feelings.
AhhhTheFrench
We will sell no wine before its time
1mo ago
Some of us get rate limited. The people here love Mike Pence the same way people on reddit love pitbulls. I was banned there for pitbull hate speech.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
I don't know. I think if some activity X is generally banned, but with an exception for Y, then you remove the exception for Y, your action is fairly characterized as "banning Y." You used to be able to do Y. Now you can't. Sounds like a ban to me!
HaroldWilson
5mo ago
The_Donald
Hard to be at all sympathetic given that they banned any criticism of Trump. Hard to complain about being banned for 'contradicting woke orthodoxy' (which I don't think is a fair representation of what happened but nevertheless) when you don't allow any contradiction of Trumpian orthodoxy.
sliders1234
11mo ago
I’m a proud member of the banned from Reddit anti-trans group. I actually didn’t know how much Reddit was censor before. My time on Reddit is probably not that much longer.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
14d ago
"Those", being the same government that just banned it?
do_something
23d ago
they went out of their way to say hypnosis porn is banned, what the fuck
I am not so surprised that someone wants rape via mind control be kicked out of their platform (or is it somehow something else?)
Ben___Garrison
Voltaire's Viceroy
2mo ago
Agreed. This forum's meta treatment of Christianity is very goofy. You can call trans people delusional and nothing will happen. You can call people in favor of covid lockdowns delusional and nothing will happen. You can even call people you're arguing against delusional as an ad-hominem and nothing will happen. But call religious people delusional and you should absolutely expect to get warned/banned.
Dude, you attacked me and then you claim to play defense and try to frame it as you being someone motivated to reduce inflammatory claims when it isn't true.
This dishonest game of defecting and then pretending you never defect and just spin after spin, might have something to do with why people have a problem with your faction.
Why should supporting hate speech laws deserve “beef?” If this community just banned people for endorsing bad ideas, we’d still be on Reddit, because 95% of our users would be gone. Instead, the Motte aims to allow the most degenerate, reactionary, humanist, traditional, secular, surreal opinions.
One man's boo the outgroup that is negative towards the progressive movement and wokeness ADL, Soros, civil rights movements or even the behavior of Jewish establishment and tries to articulate it is the other person's tolerance of bad ideas when they hate white supremacists, white identitarians, right wing identitarianism, support hate speech, or even dehumanizing the palestinians and approving of attrocities against them and so on.
People are allowed here to concern troll right wing identity politics and they are not vilifying the outgroup but we are not allowed to argue that this is racist. Nor that it leads inevitably and promoted by a faction that we see in practice tolerate or outright themselves promote excessive victimhood for the ingroup. Nor to connect it with the progressive identitarian movements in general, and to argue against them all.
Because this isn't merely an idea, but "booing the outgroup"! Conversely the people here who think the other side are racists like you do are not booing the outgroup! So one side has carte blache to vilify the opposition and spin it self as good, lets call them the progressive side that tries to put sometimes a bit of limited hangout. That can include in it the Bill Maher types. This side consistently frames the opposition to it as racist. Even more so certain branches of it. A direct opposition is not allowed, but I guess if you accept some of the progressive's framing that tribalism for the right wing side and victimhood is bad period, maybe you would be allowed some space... But not if you directly oppose it as a bad ideology and argue that it would be good for society if it lost influence, even if you qualify it to think that equal racist supremacist movement on the right wing dominating would also be bad.
Maybe just maybe you who supports censoring your opposition and aligns with the progressive stack movement are trying to censor your opposition.
Reddit is another forum that was ruined by left wing pro progressive stack anti right wing moderation and those who run it also pretended that this was reddit just banning people who break the rules and right wingers break the rules more.
Personally, I think speaking truth to power and criticizing sacred cows and movements that have captured power and vilify and mistreat classes of people, based on false dogmas is necessary. As someone who has studied the history of your movement, I know of the consistent viciousness that they close ranks and has treated any dissent and enforced conformism. It is why it is especially important for people faced with the demand for struggle sessions to not be discouraged when dealing with such people. They should know with what they are dealing with.
Conversely, there is something both cowardly and obscene with siding with groups like the ADL and left wing establishment as they abuse their power to enforce lies and punish dissent, and discriminate, harm and vilify their ethnic and right wing outgroups. Whether in the most overt manner. Or in the slightly more indirect manner of their protectors and fellow travelers who demand that they are allowed to defect, align and support this but for us to pretend that this isn't the case. That demand that any treatment of this phenomenon is wishy washy, of course.
But somehow this concern trolling doesn't exist when it comes to clearer denouncation of right wing historically more pervasively seen racist supremacist movements, or ages. Nobody will be treated to vilify the outgroup if they argue that Jim Crow was anti black, but it sensationalizes as boo outgroup to call MLK and his movement as antiwhite. To attack the KKK does not sensationalize instead of the much more relevant ADL or George Soros which does sensationalize you. To attach dissident right wing identitarians somehow doesn't result in accusations of vilifying the outgroup. Hell, even when I argue that Jim Crow age was anti-black, there is no care in the world.
The daft utopian dogma that condemning as bad particular factions is evil and intolerable (which vilifies those accused of doing it) is obviously not enforced consistently but concern trolling the outgroup. I am also not aware of any society that it has existed and enforced consistently.
Both you who are more transparent at it, and obviously Amadan and others of this mentality want submission to your false and blatantly prejudiced ideological vision of who are the good guys (who ought not be criticized) and who are the bad guys (which you are allowed to sharply criticize) and hide under platitudes of people "booing their outgroup".
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
3mo ago
It says "Moms for Liberty" right on the tin
And yet, most of their advocacy revolves around banning books and curricula discussing LGBT, trans and civil rights issues:
Accompanying that letter is an 11-page spreadsheet with complaints about books on the district’s curriculum, ranging from popular books on civil rights heroes to books about poisonous animals (“text speaks of horned lizard squirting blood out of its eyes”), Johnny Appleseed (“story is sad and dark”), and Greek and Roman mythology (“illustration of the goddess Venus naked coming out of the ocean...story of Tantalus and how he cooks up, serves, and eats his son.”) A book about hurricanes is no good (“1st grade is too young to hear about possible devastating effects of hurricanes”) and a book about owls is designated as a downer. (“It’s a sad book, but turns out ok. Not a book I would want to read for fun,” an adult wrote of the owl book in the spreadsheet.)
...
At one juncture, the group implores the school district to include more charitable descriptions of the Catholic Church when teaching a book about astronomer Galileo Galilei, who was persecuted by said church for suggesting that Earth revolves around the sun. “Where is the HERO of the church?” the group’s spreadsheet asks, “to contrast with their mistakes? There are so many opportunities to teach children the truth of our history as a nation. The Church has a huge and lasting influence on American culture. Both good and bad should be represented. The Christian church is responsible for the genesis of Hospitals, Orphanages, Social Work, Charity, to name a few.” MFL’s Williamson County chapter also takes issue with a picture book about seahorses, in part because it depicted “mating seahorses with pictures of postions [sic] and discussion of the male carrying the eggs.”
So painting them as being about Liberty in any meaningful sense of the word, other than Liberty being a red-tribe codeword, seems patently dishonest. Their objections to content are often explicitly political and coded red-tribe. Some of the shit that was banned in Florida schools a few years ago was hilariously inoffensive.
As for the OP, whatever. I don't really care. But if people bothered to look at the context, I'd expect most to at least get a chuckle out of the fact that people clutching their pearls at the idea of their child being exposed to the idea that gay people exist then get schwasted with them on the weekend in between threesomes.
HaroldWilson
4mo ago
I was responding to you, specifically your smug mockery of 'start your own website', which was silly because that's exactly what they were able to do.
Kiwifarms, though I don't necessarily agree with Cloudflare's decision, was clearly not just banned just for its ideological proclivities.
Tarnstellung
11mo ago
Yes, the evidence is weak. That is precisely what the authors of the meta-analysis meant by:
The strength of evidence for these conclusions is low due to methodological limitations
If you look at the "Discussion" section, you will note that most of it is dedicated to pointing out problems with the studies under review. The article also notes that de Vries, 2014 has a "serious" risk of bias and the other three adolescent studies have a "moderate" risk of bias, and of the 20 studies they looked at, only three have a "low" risk. All of this means that further research is needed (it always is), but based on the evidence we have now I think it's perfectly reasonable to adopt a working hypothesis that puberty blockers and hormone therapy are beneficial.
Your points about self-selection among participants only imply that doctors should exercise care when choosing which treatments to administer to whom. Clearly some patients do benefit from hormone therapy, therefore the therapy should not be banned.
Well that is a pretty uncharitable way to put things. I'm to the right of most of my social circle but I'm to the left of whatever this place is turning into. People just get sick of getting downvoted and unable to post in real time, eventually they say something rude and get banned or they say "fuck it" and leave.
When the conversation turns to being worried about trump picking his VP based on possible assassination, putting guns in holes as a generational family gun stash in your back yard, "powers that be" conspiring to eliminate people like you, heavily downvoting someone pointing out having sex with blackout drunk people is probably wrong, being afraid to leave your red state for fear of being locked up for defending yourself, practicing religion harder being the only answer to societal ills, women only being truly happy barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen....I mean the parody starts to write itself at some point.
guesswho
2mo ago
I think the bias I'm talking is more of a structural network effects thing rather than something anyone is doing actively. Like...
Toy model, a board is 90% anti-X, 10% pro-X, and has 100 people who are willing to engage in name-calling (90 anti, 10 pro). Each name-caller makes one post per week. All name-callers have a 10% chance to respond to each name-calling post on the other side with a name-calling reply. Each participant in such an interaction has a 10% chance of getting banned for it.
(I'm going to switch to A and P as name-callers on each side, and 'bad post' for name-calling post)
Week 1 has 10 bad P posts. Each of the 90 A posters responds to an average of 1 bad P post, meaning each A poster gets about 9 bad P replies. From these interactions, every P poster has a 10% chance of getting banned this week, and every A poster has a 90% chance of getting banned this week.
Week 1 has 90 bad A posts. Each of the 10 P posters responds to an average of 9 bad A posts, meaning each P poster gets about 1 bad A reply. From these interactions, again, each P poster has a 10% chance of getting banned this week, and every A poster has a 90% chance of getting banned this week.
Taking those two chances together, next week we expect to have about 81 A posters left, and we have a 10% chance of one A poster surviving.
The end result is the same if you start at 51% vs 49%, and if the reply rates and ban rates are 1% instead of 10%. It just takes longer.
You can try to decrease the rate at which people make bad posts, and the rate at which people reply to bad posts. But again, that just takes longer.
You can try to ban people for bad posts even if no one replies to them. But I'm pretty sure that again just takes longer, as long as you're hitting both sides a proportionally equal amount I don't think it changes the long-term trend.
As long as your policy is to not care who started it and punish both people in the exchange, you will long-term converge towards whichever side has the larger starting population ending up with complete domination.
They will at some point become the only side making any bad posts at all, and you will have an ideological echo chamber at least on the fringes.
And once that's established, new people making bad posts on the dominant side can join and not get punished because there's no one to reply to them and trigger moderation. So the number of bad posters on that side can swell ad infinitum.
And new entrants making bad posts on the non-dominant side are especially screwed. As the numbers are so lop-sided, they're very likely to disappear immediately, so that side can never build up more numbers to challenge the existing dominance.
From a structural perspective, I only see two simple ways out of this.
1 is to ban people for making bad posts before people make bad replies to them, and remove those posts so people can't make replies. I don't think you can/should have to respond that fast, and I think it goes against the ethos here to remove the posts.
2 is to respond initial bad posts more strongly than bad responses. It's galling and may feel like a double-standard from one perspective, given that both did the same behavior in the abstract. But I think it's the only policy that doesn't a priori lead to one side dominating over time.
Or, you can just accept that one side is going to dominate as an inevitable result of your policy, and accept that as better than the other consequences of changing your policy. That may well be the best you can do.
But if you're doing it, then it's kind of disingenuous to claim that you're not an A-leaning board, that your moderation does not favor A posters. If you know that your policies, enforced fairly and regularly, will lead to a board with lots of egregiously bad and antagonistic and aggressive A posts, and few to none on the P side, then own that consequence and talk openly about how it is an outcome you are accepting in your moderation policy and vision for the board, even if only as an unfortunate but necessary evil.
(and of course, it's not really that there are posters who are 100% and others who are 100% bad, it's that each poster has some percentage chance of each post being bad, with wide variance. In the very long run, any A with a non-zero chance of making a bad post ever will be eliminated by the same structural network dynamics above, eventually creating a complete echo chamber across the whole spectrum of post quality)
PierreMenard
6mo ago
While in our modern cultural milieu, all of the above are almost universally interlinked, my bugbear with any of them is that they're taken too far, rather than me denying women equal rights or considering alternate sexualities sinful. I'm certainly not colorblind anymore.
As for whether gay men having piss orgies or fucking till their assholes big enough to drive through, why should I give a fuck? If they're not raping me, I have no reason to care.
I respect the right of anyone to self-infect with anything, as long as it's not contagious by normal means, and in the case of HIV, as long as they disclose to potential partners or refrain from donating blood and the like. Is it deeply stupid? Of course. I don't think that's grounds for it to be illegal by itself, until it infringes on my safety or freedom. Since the piss orgy relates to the nothing-burger of monkeypox, which didn't spread significantly outside the gay community, it doesn't reach that level of concern.
People with the behavior that you describe strike me as some kind of experiment in the development of new infectious agents. In other words biolabs, or biological warfare laboratories. They should be banned according to the Biological Weapons Convention.
I understand that you could have a professional bias toward keeping as many customers coming back again and again, but for us regular folks, these behaviors pose a significant threat.
Like, is it really worse than being a negative utilitarian or eliminative materialist?
Well, I suppose it depends on whether you're talking virtue ethics/deontology or consequentialism.
Because yeah, a lot of things that are 'the same' under virtue ethics or deontology, are extremely different under consequentialism.
Once speakers at national conventions are talking about 'eliminating' groups of people to wide applause, it does raise the stakes on discussing the ideas their rhetoric is drawing from.
Definitely that's not really fair to the people who care about those ideas as ideas rather than policy goals, and who don't support the policies or more extreme rhetoric of those speakers. As someone who is interested in some leftist ideas, trust me, that's a hurt I'm intimately familiar with.
If Byrne had said 'when push comes to shove, philosophy professors are largely utilitarians who are reluctant to promote ideas that they think will lead to real people being actively harmed', I'd have a lot more sympathy for his point and find it a lot more interesting to discuss. He didn't say that though, he said they were cowards who were afraid of being ostracized.
Do you think it's possible to make the gender-critical/anti-trans philosophical arguments without being annoying and mean / having your book banned?
When you ask blanket questions like this, the only correct answer is 'of course it's possible, anything is possible.'
Is it likely?... well, let me say that I think there's quite a lot of adverse selection at play in the current political environment, with regards to what type of gender-critical writing aimed at mass popular audiences is likely to get picked up by publishers and catch enough attention for people to hear about it.
Basically, this topic has been mind-killed in the popular imagination by dint of becoming a political football, and it's no easier to have a civil and well-measured discussion about it in popular media outlets than it is to have one about gun control or Trump or critical race theory or etc. One side is not interested in reading anything that's at all critical of modern gender movements, the other side is not interested in hearing any criticism of them which is polite or well-intentioned.
We're talking about a popular media book for general audiences that a publisher picked up and got somewhat wide attention. No, I think it's very very unlikely that any piece of gender-critical writing could reach that position in the current political climate without being annoying and mean.
Byrne's book, as far as I can tell, was quite reasonable, kind, and philosophical.
I have admittedly not read any excerpts from the book itself, but the linked article from Byrne should presumably be representative, and is quite feeble IMO. Starting with the standard 'The dictionary defines gender as' spiel and the long-since hacky 'identifying as an attack helicopter' bit (in this case a princess), going straight into equivocating between the words gender and sex with no acknowledgement as if the proposed difference between those two terms weren't the entire crux of the article, slipping in standard right-wing blood libel rhetoric about desistance and mutilating infants through the back door of 'not infrequently (estimates vary)' and 'let us imagine', etc.
It is certainly true that Byrne takes on the affect of a polite, kind, and reasonable philosopher who is 'just asking questions'. In the same way that Ben Shapiro takes on the affect of being a smart, rational, fact-driven intellectual, despite actually being a kind of dumb affect-driven political hack. What Byrne is actually talking about (at least in the linked article) is mostly the same semantic games and innuendo that other conservative talking heads have been pedaling for a decade at this point, said with a lot more words and the aesthetic layout of a logical proof, but not that much more substance. And as his actions have shown, he's more than happy to jump on the conservative 'I've-been-cancelled the-left-is-intolerant' fame-and-fortune tour that is a clear and persistent political cudgel of the right.
So, yeah. If you're used to reading anti-trans stuff from politically-motivated right-wing talking heads, Byrne is certainly one of the most polite and thoughtful and restrained of those available.
Is he an important and meaningful philosopher with anything academically rigorous or interesting to say? Do his ideas demand serious response on their own merits, outside of their political import? I certainly haven't seen anything yet that would indicate as much.
Rov_Scam
8mo ago
To take your arguments one by one:
So like Barack Obama in 2008? Or 2012? (when Democrats worried absentee voting would drive old-people votes which harmed them).
I don't remember this. I do remember some kerfuffle where the Obama campaign sued Ohio because they passed a law giving the military three extra early voting days, and the conservative media tried to spin it as him trying to restrict military votes when the lawsuit sought to give the rest of the population the same early voting window as the military. Obama's been pretty consistent about "more voting, not less".
Or Trump whining about it for months before the election as the scheme was being ramped up by executive fiat in explicit contravention to election laws across dozens of states?
I clearly limited my argument to before 2020. And the states that ramped up mail-in voting by executive fiat weren't ones that were at issue in the 2020 election. Only 5 states changed absentee voting requirements through executive action—less than half a dozen, not dozens—and among them, three are clearly red states controlled by Republicans (Alabama, Arkansas, and West Virginia), one (Kentucky) is a red state with a Democratic governor, and one (New Hampshire) is left-leaning with a Republican governor. There was no clear liberal pattern here.
There are dozens of high profile examples over the last 2 decades...
I don't know about dozens, but I'll admit there are a few. But I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. Everything involves tradeoffs. Suppose, for the sake of argument, it were conclusively proven that voter fraud could be eliminated entirely if we limited voting to polling places in major cities. The ultimate effect of this, of course, would be that the rural vote would be rendered entirely irrelevant and elections would have a decidedly partisan lean, probably to the point that our politics would realign entirely. If these now disenfranchised voters complained, I'd respond that people who find it too inconvenient to drive a couple hours to vote obviously aren't motivated enough to deserve any say in government, and people who can't afford the trip obviously don't have enough "skin in the game" to deserve a say in government. If the primary goal is the elimination of fraud, why wouldn't this be an ideal solution? We both know the answer to this question. The question isn't whether fraud exists, it's whether it has enough of a practical effect to make additional restrictions worthwhile.
Each time mail-in or absentee voting legislation has been passed, this was discussed repeatedly with additional security requirements and conditions because of those concerns.
No, it wasn't. I live in Pennsylvania. When mail-in voting passed in 2019 the biggest issue about the bill was that it also eliminated the straight ticket option, which led to some Democrats voting against it in protest. It otherwise passed unanimously, and was quickly signed by the governor. Every single Republican voted for it, including arch-election truthers like Doug Mastriano. I'm sure you can find some concerns if you look hard enough, but as someone who lived in the state, I don't recall it coming up once, and this is a politically diverse state with the largest legislature in the country. Similarly, in Michigan, the biggest criticism of Prop 3 wasn't that it expanded mail-in voting but that it was making something that should have been a legislative item into a constitutional one.
No one is arguing mail-in voting is inherently "unconstitutional."
I was writing this on my phone at work so I apologize. The OP said that it "violates every principle of Democracy", which I misinterpreted. Feel free to substitute the correct language.
We're not talking about millions of votes needing to swap, but ~40,000 in any of 5 different states
Well, no. Flipping one state wouldn't have been enough to turn the election in favor of Trump. At best he would have needed to flip two, provided they were Michigan and Pennsylvania. Realistically he needs to flip three. And if he goes the flip 2 route then he needs about 80,000 votes in PA and over 100,000 in MI, at least double the 40,000 you mentioned. What's the largest mail vote fraud scheme you can find? How about the average? Remember what I said about tradeoffs?
if a single one did something as simple as requiring canvassing hundreds of thousands of votes which had no signed chain of custody receipts (and no election officials have yet been charged despite this being a crime in multiple states like AZ).
Ah, yes, the old "the previous five audits we requested didn't find anything, but if we do a sixth one we're pretty sure the whole edifice will come crashing down because a televangelist saw something in a viral video that PROVES that Biden and the Democrats committed MASSIVE FRAUD by forging hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots under the cover of night but being too dumb to think of forging chain of custody receipts along with them". I'm sure the Kraken will finally be unleashed.
If two people raced bikes all over France and then the loser tested positive for PEDs, do you think they should both get a do-over race or otherwise we're not talking about "principles"?
Are the PEDs supposed to be a stand-in for fraud, or for mail-in ballots generally? If they're a stand-in for mail-ins generally, then they aren't a banned substance and there's no problem; you can't claim a race was unfair just because you don't like the rules. If they're a stand-in for fraud, then you do get to win the race, but I don't see what this has to do with the election—in one case you found actual evidence of cheating, and in the other you didn't, you just argued that the rules made it easier to cheat. What you're suggesting is more analogous to a race where PEDs are banned and your opponent never tested positive, but you want to rerun the race because you're pretty sure he cheated but can't actually prove it.
The Federal Government is currently abusing laws made 150 years ago in response to the Civil War as well as stretching interpretation of other laws way past their breaking point...
Well, what do you think a more appropriate charge would have been. If organizing a plot to take over the Capitol building in order to prevent the lawful transfer of power of a democratically elected president so that it will remain in the hands of the guy who lost isn't seditious conspiracy, what is exactly? What line do you think he needs to cross? And how is the jury biased? Unless you're arguing that he didn't actually do what the government said he did, there's no room for bias here. Jury nullification isn't something you can expect from any jury, and isn't something you should expect in this case unless you seriously think attempts to overthrow the government should be legal.
Do you follow election disputes/protests over "local judges and clerks," closely?
lol, I'm a lawyer. I deal with these people all the time, and yes, it makes a difference. I not only follow them closely, I follow them closely in counties and even states where I don't live and can't vote. If you want I can fill you in on the drama in West Virginia's First Circuit judicial retention election, or tell you about the recurring pissing match between the current and former Recorders of Deeds in Westmoreland County, PA.
guesswho
2mo ago
Not a historian as I said, and I have a lot of ignorance on this topic, I was referring to a general sense this is true that I'd gotten from reading other people talk about this argument and the slippery slope fallacy in general. I could very definitely be wrong and it's a more recent development.
Are you talking about MAP stuff and the 'gold-star' (non-offending) pedophile narrative?
I have certainly seen stuff along the lines of 'people who are attracted to minors can't help it, they should not actually be woodchippered if they haven't actually done anything to any kids, we should let them looks at drawings or AI porn to deal and monitor them to make sure they don't offend but they're not actually evil just for the thought-crime alone'.
I will say that I've seen this exist, although all the leftist spaces I'm in are pretty hostile to it and I've seen people trying it get banned from several places.
But I'll also point out that 'non-offending' is the central distinction in this rhetoric, this rhetoric relies on drawing a sharp distinction between offending and non-offending pedophiles in a way that actually draws more attention and vitriol towards hating and punishing offenders.
I wouldn't be totally surprised if in 70 years we don't talk about woodchippering people who say they are unfortunately attracted to minors but strictly use AI-generated VR porn to deal with it, or w/e. I actually would expect a world like that where those people are known and monitored (informally at least) and have outlets and a life script to follow to have less child abuse than our current world where they hide off the grid.
Unless you think you have seen people using leftist rhetoric to say why actual sex with children in reality is fine and good, and seen that get any uptake? I absolutely have not seen that, if that's what you mean.
(I'd also point out that groups like NAMBLA have tried that tactic in the past and failed, I think you will always have some people trying to appropriate the current paradigm to support their dumb/bad thing, but that doesn't mean they will succeed nor that the current paradigm favors/helps them. That's just how anyone tries to make their point)
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
7mo ago
This kind of low-effort, low-evidence, low-value snarling is something you've been warned about before. In fact you've been warned and banned repeatedly and you seem to be one of those people who is only here to post edgy snarls at your outgroup. Banned for another week; next time will probably be two weeks to permanent.
WhiningCoil
8mo ago
be able to tell the truth without worrying about being banned immediately?
Are the list of bans still publicly available? You should see my name their amply. Sometimes justified. Too often not IMHO.
That's the answer to your question. Not here.
ImpassionaTwo
10mo ago
if past history is any indication, you will be as unreasonable as ever until we ban you.
I am very reasonable.
The answer is going to be the same, for the umpteenth time: no.
The people you ban are those you have decided are unrighteous. It's not that complicated.
Let's say we are a hive of fascist scum and villainy - does it really make you lose sleep at night knowing this place exists?
I'm here to begin discourse. I don't think there's as much outright fascist scum here as there used to be. I don't personally lose sleep at night knowing this place exists.
do you think that "bullying" them until we ban you will save anyone?
Of the two of us, I'm not sure who needs to worry about being banned more.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
14d ago
Modern new left liberalism is a very radical ideology that doesn't get sufficient negativity for it.
No it isn’t. The world bank, WHO, rules-based-international-order of neoliberalism? That’s about as nonradical as you can get. Aggressively not radical. It files the sharp edges off the communists and the reactionaries in order to keep things running a little more smoothly.
A South Africa that didn't allow parties like ANC and those more extreme, and such politicians found themselves in prison, and parties and organizations with such agenda banned
How do you think that’s enforced? How do you make sure the right people get suppressed? For every apartheid SA there’s a lovely Cambodia or North Korea or Rwanda descending into bloodshed. The best situation we’ve found, empirically speaking, is to weaponize tolerance. That’s liberalism.
The "I can't be trusted alone in a room with a woman that isn't my wife" mike pence?
During an interview in 2002, Pence told a reporter that he would not have dinner alone with a woman other than his wife.
The "I want to force people to have funerals for their miscarriages" mike pence?
The "retarded children should be forced to full term" mike pence?
In March 2016, as Indiana governor, Pence signed into law H.B. 1337, a bill that both banned certain abortion procedures and placed new restrictions on abortion providers. The bill banned abortion if the reason for the procedure given by the woman was the fetus' race or gender or a fetal abnormality. In addition, the bill required that all fetal remains from abortions or miscarriages at any stage of pregnancy be buried or cremated, which according to the Guttmacher Institute was not required in any other state.[155][156][157] The law was described as "exceptional for its breadth"; if implemented, it would have made Indiana "the first state to have a blanket ban on abortions based solely on race, sex or suspected disabilities, including evidence of Down syndrome".[156]
"Coal is the future" mike pence?
Pence has been an outspoken supporter of the coal industry, declaring in his 2015 State of the State address that "Indiana is a pro-coal state," expressing support for an "all-of-the-above energy strategy", and stating: "we must continue to oppose the overreaching schemes of the EPA until we bring their war on coal to an end.
He is your hero?!
Updated with the appropriate context.
More options
Context Copy link