So @tim wood, this would not be a bannable comment because it doesn't meet your personal definition of "espousal" of racism, right?

I am an unrepentant racist. For me, the concept that blacks should be considered the equal of whites, if they are any kind of white, is simply fucking ludicrous

So by that logic, it wouldn't be justified to ban for racism someone who said this either.

I am an unrepentant racist. For me, the concept that blacks should be considered the equal of whites, if they are any kind of white, is simply fucking ludicrous

I don't relate much to your idea of justice.

No, because fuck misogynists. Clear enough?

Don't have to make it too complicated. Employ common sense and ban the open carry of assault weapons in public places.

Guidelines: Sexists get banned
Sexist: I'm a sexist!
Mod: [Bans sexist]

Amusing that this becomes a topic for debate. But do go on, folks...

:up:

I think that treating racists like that is one big cause that we keep having them all around us in societies. — dimosthenis9

Boringly, we mods are not in the business of reforming anyone. Just enforcing the rules.

Don't really want to venture into your self-made linguistic quagmire tbh as the matter is fairly straightforward. We don't want sexists, racists etc here. Zwingli is an avowed and (apparently) proud sexist. Therefore he is not welcome here. I don't think the guidelines are unclear and I don't find your attempt to parse this out very informed.

Don't think the semantics matter enough to edit anything in the guidelines. Besides, yes, stating that women can't be equal to men is adopting a sexist belief by definition.

One post. See:

"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."

If there were some subtelty or ambiguity a pattern of behaviour would probably be necessary to make a judgement but there wasn't in this case.

Banned @Michael Zwingli

Reason:

I am an unrepentant misogynist. For me, the concept that a woman should be considered the equal of a man, if he is any kind of man, is simply fucking ludicrous — Michael Zwingli

For me, the concept that a woman should be considered the equal of a man, if he is any kind of man, is simply fucking ludicrous — Michael Zwingli

I wasn't expecting that tbh, so therefore it wasn't entrapment. Banned.

Ah yeah, got it.



If the dominant resident of Rittenhouse's skull is a bunch of contradictory trash he doesn't even understand himself then maybe we need to go a level up to get to a problem that can actually be addressed. Doesn't make him a victim, a hero, or a villian. Maybe he's just not worth talking about.

What about "lefties". Got any of them?

Don't think there's much point in trying to analyze Rittenhouse's psychology as if somehow we could find what he truly believes in his heart of hearts (probably he doesn't even know himself; most likely he's just a dumb kid with a gun and a distaste for lefties, one of many millions).

I myself am not particularly prejudiced against what are commonly called "black people", but I hold and cherish some very strong prejudices of other types, nonetheless. — Michael Zwingli

Who don't you like, Jews? Arabs? Homosexuals? The Dutch?

The bottom line here is that Rittenhouse stands in opposition to what you believe in — Hanover

I'm abstracting that out. I don't think heavily armed BLM members should be allowed police Trump (or Klan) rallies either. Their presence would also likely be considered a threat and provoke violence. End result the same. You can't do that where I come from. Be like us.

If he's not guilty (of anything) maybe you should revisit your laws as the precedent of allowing heavily armed self-styled militia onto the streets to kill people in conflicts they themselves provoke through the threat of their presence seems a bad one.

Just 'cos I've got Ebola, smallpox and leprosy (having a bad disease day) doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed down the pub. Muh rights!

We agree. Maybe somewhere people are voting for these policies, but none that I have seen. — NOS4A2

If these policies had no support, it would be political suicide to pursue them. Only it hasn't been. Why? Because regardless of what you've seen a majority of the public are still broadly behind strong anti-covid measures (e.g. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/coronavirus-polls/ ). We can reasonably infer from that they don't consider them a violation of basic human rights. Until that changes (and I'm not saying it won't), there's no reason to think those in charge are going to change track and no democratic way to make them change track, is there?

but the puerile and weak solution is to let the state dictate how to solve it — NOS4A2

You're starting to sound confused about whether fascism is the problem or the solution. We're agreed policy change needs to happen democratically or not?

More referring to the psychological genesis of the "fascism" hysteria, counterproductive as it is, seeing as such hyperbole obfuscates genuine concerns and makes you look precious and weak. A stronger foundation could be had by at least acknowledging there's a problem that governments are trying to solve here and that problem is not "How can we oppress NOS more?".

How about seatbelt fascism, another bugbear of the anti-collective collective? Wonder if we can trace the roots of this oxymoronic group back to mommy and eat-your-greens fascism?

I’m already not a part of any collective — NOS4A2

A fine sartorial ambition to be unliveried but your customary apparel suggests otherwise, no?

People's inability to resist an easy dopamine hit is more of the root problem here imo rather than social media per se.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that the issue itself may not be with social media itself, but with the way it is used and with the way our society is today. Social Media is merely a tool and like all tools created before it (like books, newspapers, movies, television, etc.), it can help or harm depending on what people want to do with it and whether or not such actions can harm others.

IMHO if the issues with social media is more of a symptom of a problem (ie since social media is a tool used in causing harm not the source itself) not the problem itself the better question to ask, what (or who) is real source of the harm or problems that are caused using social media and can anything be done about it. — dclements

Agree.

Social media is a natural extension of human sociality and isn't some monolithic good or bad thing but a reflection of how we relate to each other in modem society and similarly complex and nuanced in its forms and effects.

Apparently you can’t use emojis unless you have given money to the forum. Didn’t know this before now. — Leghorn

Neither did I.

?

Was a bit dry, yeah. :smile:

So, barring illness Trump will be the next president of the USA simply by virtue of him not being in a position to fuck things up whereas Biden will. — Benkei

Does mental illness count? Anyhow, no he won't because rabbits are cute. And my argument is just as strong as yours.

If we're going the academic route, we define our context and our aim and justify a definition that suits, usually with the aid of some authority, whether historical or contemporary. Without context, the appropriateness of any specific definition is unresolvable.

That's my guess fwiw.

The problem, as I see it, is the guy who put it up probably earned some cred in the eyes of a few in Beijing who agree. Kind of like Marjorie Taylor Green, those governor's in FL and TX, and other stupid people; they prove their loyalty to nationalist BS and are shelved until needed. Going back further, think Tea Party. I think the thread title says it all. — James Riley

Probably, though if he stepped out of line with the wrong people, it might hurt him. Image is everything. China wants to be seen as strong and the good guys.

I doubt there was much thought put into it. It was a stupid tweet that I guess the big boys in Beijing told the little guys in Baoji to disappear. I mean Baoji is relatively tiny and unimportant on a national level. Not that this type of crap doesn't tend to be popular internally. Even my own generally enlightened students in China had a willing streak of xenophobia in them. I just wouldn't take it to be reflective of party policy in any meaningful way.

Not China per se, but some local party hack. I'd take it about as seriously as the pronouncements of the Arizona Republican party.

Thank you, sir.

I think I just have a higher tolerance for strange people with strange views. I get the clutter thing, but he did attempt to explain himself when you challenged him on his weirdness. — Noble Dust

There's all sorts of weird, interesting weird, boring weird, stimulating weird, exhausting weird. You don't get banned just for being weird.

No, you can stay.

Seemed like an ok guy but not a good fit for here to be sure.

This discussion was merged into What is mysticism?

Hi and welcome! You can do that here in the lounge.