And the people in power are the ones who decide — T Clark

You could leave the rest of the sentence as a wildcard, since what you wrote up to that point is a truism (or at least that is what it is meant to be). This "universal acid" style of rhetoric can be applied to anything, but that is what makes it unconvincing.

Bit of a non sequitur. The fact that it can be applied to anything doesn't make it any less true.

Imo the one where he hoped every woman would die — fdrake

Can you not find any positive things to say about misogyny?

Bit of a non sequitur. The fact that it can be applied to anything doesn't make it any less true. — ChatteringMonkey

But what is the point of saying it? "I'm not disagreeing with the people in power, I'm just saying they have all the power"

The point is that it is an argument to not have restrictions on free speech, because it can and will be used by those in power to consolidate their power.

The point is that it is an argument to not have restrictions on free speech, because it can and will be used by those in power to consolidate their power. — ChatteringMonkey

So Jamal is suppressing misogynistic speech to consolidate his power?

It can... I don't think we should suspect Jamal in this instance, but it won't always be Jamal in charge.

It seems to me like taking a minor infraction as an excuse to ban someone with unwelcome opinions.

Apparently we're only allowed to discuss ideas here that people have positive things to say about. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This thread is one of the best on this website so far.

Whenever a user is banned, we all discuss whether the decision was legitimate or not, the reasons for the banning, and how the banned user could have acted to avoid his/her banning.

But what I like the most is that here you can see some folks (myself included) wishing for the banning of others. If you ban him for this, you should also ban the other for that, hehe.

Two weeks ago it was @Arcane Sandwich; now it is @Gregory.

This works like throwing a token in the roulette. Who will be the next of us to be tagged as 'banned'?

But here's a real life example. In a lot of western countries a lot of these restrictions to free speech have been set in place after the horrors of world war II. Very understandably so, and I'm sure they had all the best intentions. But what has happened after a couple of decennia is that some political parties have weaponised these restrictions to make otherwise perhaps legitimate concerns of other political parties undiscussable.

I just think, like T Clark, that there are worse things than allowing speech that may hurt feelings.

I wonder if there is a possibility, a sliver of hope, that if we repent to the gods of free speech and offer our community up as a platform for misogynists and the like to spread their hatred, that we might, humble lot we are, have some chance of emulating that utopia and paragon of social virtues that is the contemporary United States?

just think, like T Clark, that there are worse things than allowing speech that may hurt feelings. — ChatteringMonkey

And you feel the same way about racist speech?

I mean it's difficult isn't it, because already I'm hesitating to say what I think because of all the taboos surrounding it.

If it is purely racism in the narrow sense, based on skin-colour, then I would say sure forbid it, but if it's about ethnicity and culture, then I think we should be able to discuss that.

The problem is the definition of what is racism has become so wide, that it typically also has come to include restricting speech about culture and the like.

And I think that is the point, that these things tend to shift and expand further than the original goal that may have been perfectly benign initially.

It's not that complicated. Don't accept intolerance.

Stop, my face hurts from laughing! And besides, we here in the US have plenty of good things to say about misogyny, just ask our misogynist-in-chief!

By Hecuba, may I be boiled alive, consumed by ferrets, and my bones ground into powder and blown up an ass's arse before I should parly more. I will but bow to that bright orange star of hope and greatness that is god emperor Trump! :sparkle:

I think it's a bit more complicated... but I don't have the time now, have to go.

He wouldn't understand a word of that. Trumpius, god of stupidity.

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

Personally, I think this says all that needs to be said. I'll close this discussion now but if anyone wants to start a discussion about this aspect of the guidelines, feel free to do so in the Feedback section.

Karl Stone was banned for repetitive postings of content that lacked meaningful substance after warning.

Karl Stone — Hanover

Understandable. I think we all expected this sorrowful end. Don't you?

Honestly, I believe that @karl stone was like a preacher in the desert. His ideas are good and revolutionary, but I think he is sending the message to the incorrect audience. If I were him, I would have already started a campaign. But, for unclear reasons, he decided to share his ideas with us. The first time is nice, but the rest can be unbearable, and I guess this is what caused the banning of @karl stone. Whenever we ignored (or even criticised) his 'Magma Forever' theory, he took it personally.

Instead of redeeming himself, he kept the same attitude. Now, I would like to ask @karl stone: Who is the shepherd and who is the lamb? This can answer many questions. He either felt like the shepherd or the lamb.

Descanse en Paz. A really picturesque member.

A crime we used to call 'being a broken record'. A crime we used to call 'being a broken record'. A crime we used to call 'being a broken record'. A crime we used to call 'being a broken record'.

Banned unenlightened for being a broken record.

Banned unenlightened for being a broken record. — Benkei

He doesn't come close to breaking that record.

Karl Stone has the martyrdom he desired.

Don't accept intolerance. — frank

Mikie is quite intolerant ;)

@Eros1982 was banned for racism.

Eros1982 was banned for racism. — Jamal

Who? Lol. :lol:

What he say? You know, replace "Group X" with, I dunno, peacocks or something. Like, give us some context at least. Was it just an illogical screed or part of a relevant discussion? Not that it matters, sure, I for one trust your judgement entirely, just, you know, for the sake of accountability, public discussion, to pacify the naysayers, and whatnot. :smirk:

He wrote an OP expressing his belief that race and aesthetics are connected: Northern European people are better than others at producing beautiful works of art, and Northern European women have a greater range of facial expressions than sub-Saharan African women and are thus more aesthetically inspiring.

And without stating it explicitly he implied that this greater aesthetic ability of whites was connected with higher IQ.

Then he went on to speculate that the hostility to immigration in Northern Europe is partly attributable to these differences and that whites are responding to an aesthetic degradation caused by the influx of non-white people.

He presented all this dishonestly: bigotry masquerading as innocent intellectual enquiry.

And without stating it explicitly he implied that this greater aesthetic ability of whites was connected with higher IQ. — Jamal

I’m not looking for an argument or even an explanation. I’m just curious. Is expressing the opinion that white people are more intelligent as a class than black people cause for immediate banning?