But after extensive journalistic investigation and analysis, NOS4A2 has singlehandedly demolished the theory that Sean Hannity and Brian Kilmeade were conspiring to violently overthrow the US government and install themselves as Trump's dictator princes. What now have we left??

it's not like he's been gutted and carved up yet. — James Riley

Psychologically, he's been given the full discipline and punish treatment. But, sure, they won't be allowed to waterboard him. Probably.

And I'm going to flag yours - have done; I'm curious to see what happens to it. — tim wood

Flag it for what?

(None of this is to say you're necessarily wrong on the facts, of course. It just seems fair to mess with you sometimes.)

OK, maybe I'll just do this then.

If you’ve seen this administration’s my propaganda, you know they’ll I'll stoop to any level to paint themselves the Dems in a certain light, even though it is comes off as phoney as a three dollar bill. — the real NOS4A2

Better?

You shouldn't be, it'll keep on happening until you start to be consistent and not a naughty little propagandist. :naughty:

Of course, Trump would never do this. Instead of trying to subtley spin stories, he just directly called Fox News and told them to lie for him. If you'd complained about that, you might have some credibility. But you didn't, so you don't.

Henry IV. Shame on me for not having read it before.

:up: The impulse to protect the aggressor here puzzles me too.

Baden might be leaving it open to catch some more misogynists. — jamalrob

Wanted to give a little warning before closing as it had become popular. Then it became funny. Will close soon and try not to steal the last word. :smile:

Would that the gobstopper had fulfilled its employment, our martyr may never have been banned. :cry:

Nice try but meh... Try an Oompah song though and you might pass muster. :strong:

Absolute power corrupts absolutely — Leghorn

'Tis sad indeed what has become of jamalrob. But ne'er fear the tyrant shall be deposed one day and in his place we shall install the fairest and most equitable of democracies... ruled over with an iron first by me.

:lol:

:up: My message to Zwingli and his ilk. :point:



"You get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!"

What if he rises again in three days? — Noble Dust

Why, we'll bury him again, good sir. Along with all apostles we root out, and we'll do so mercilessly and with heaping sods of mockery and disdain, for none of these are men; they are but sad urchins so insecure in their physical and mental fortitude that the notion of a woman of even the minimal moral and intellectual qualities wanted to dwarf all that they are sends them quaking, tiny-booted, back to the foetid basements of their souls from whence they scream absurdities they insult to call "philosophy". No, we shall not listen nor shall we mourn them; no sir, no more than the vector flea whose disease dies with it!

So, from what I can gather, Jesus was peacefully strolling around PF waxing philosophically on his hatred and contempt for half the human race, but, tragically, before his teachings could further enlighten an ignorant populace, he was hunted down by a bloodthirsty moderator who banished him, allowed him to be crucifed by.a baying mob, and then defended these actions with some prejudiced views on equality that would never pass muster in the good old days of wanking and shitting in public.

Many questions follow: What have we learned from this shameful debacle? How can we improve ourselves? Will PF ever recover? Who will make the womenfolk iron our shirts now that our lord and saviour is no longer with us?

Seems like both sides have presented their views to the point of steeply diminishing returns so please file your final thoughts if you have any before we move on and reclose the thread.

The hates women guy was Jesus? Tell me more. [Breaks out popcorn].

:naughty:

You don't get to be a Diogenes just because you masturbated in the marketplace.

Anyhow, said my piece, goodnight all!

Exactly, and not going to be guilt-tripped into indulging the premise either.

Sorry to hear that, TIff.

We're fairly limited in the good we can do society but I do think providing a moderated discussion space is some kind of good and an achievable one as opposed to the fantasy we can or should try to reform bigots by being nice to them.

It's not quite the same — Janus

Distinction without a difference.

I would have though deletion of offensive posts would be enough to get offensive posters to change their tune at least, and perhaps even, with luck, their minds. Banning them might just make them double down, which won't be the forum's problem, because they are gone from here, but it may become a greater problem for their partners, family or society. — Janus

So deleting their posts could make them change their minds but banning them will make them worse? Sounds like a hopelessly gerrymandered argument to me. Is it just a random thought you've had or based on something?

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?