Search:

please negrep me

please negrep me

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;905507]Yes, unte agastin our comon enenemy£

Fuc lag[/QUOTE]
racist

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Yes, unte agastin our comon enenemy£

Fuc lag

racist

Literally every thread you’re in you have to throw an ad hominem at someone who you disagree with.

Literally every thread you’re in you have to throw an ad hominem at someone who you disagree with.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;904772]I had a bit of a longer response typed up but I figured I didn't want to go through the effort of reading more word salad and cognitive dissonance. It really does feel to me like Oberon legitimately has not developed the facilities for critical reasoning of his own and other's arguments, and seems to be posting contradicting ideas here, all based off of feelings (or more accurately, what Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro have told him to feel) with not a shred of evidence yet to back anything up.

Time to get this thread back on topic.
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em-wMMLWMAAPcjW?format=png&name=900x900[/IMG]
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em-h03uXcAAVhXr?format=png&name=900x900[/IMG]
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em48QX-XYAM91Vc?format=png&name=900x900[/IMG]
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em0nMcmXYAA7-Sx?format=jpg&name=medium[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I’m really at the last straw here. You can personally go fuck yourself along with your shitty attitude. I have absolutely no interest in talking to someone who has to insult me little every single post. You may present yourself as a reasonable person who likes arguing, but all you are is a little bitch who likes to throw temper tantrums and passivelt aggressively attack others and then deflect and pretend you’re somehow either justified or wasn’t actually insulting them.
Have a good day.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

I had a bit of a longer response typed up but I figured I didn't want to go through the effort of reading more word salad and cognitive dissonance. It really does feel to me like Oberon legitimately has not developed the facilities for critical reasoning of his own and other's arguments, and seems to be posting contradicting ideas here, all based off of feelings (or more accurately, what Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro have told him to feel) with not a shred of evidence yet to back anything up.

Time to get this thread back on topic.

I’m really at the last straw here. You can personally go fuck yourself along with your shitty attitude. I have absolutely no interest in talking to someone who has to insult me little every single post. You may present yourself as a reasonable person who likes arguing, but all you are is a little bitch who likes to throw temper tantrums and passivelt aggressively attack others and then deflect and pretend you’re somehow either justified or wasn’t actually insulting them.
Have a good day.

I didn’t say that in this thread though. I think theres a serious issue with the state owning that kind of media but its not like they’re not altrady in bed with it. As far as I’m concerned Facebook et al are practically publicly owned in all but name. I just think that nationalizing them could be a temporary solution as long as the government can be trusted not to enforce hate speech laws too liberally. Its just that that comes with all the inherent problems that nationalization has. The other idea is to regulate them - and sure - but if they are to be regulated those regulations have to be very well thought out and very, very clear. There’s no simple solution to that problem as far as I can see it.

I didn’t say that in this thread though. I think theres a serious issue with the state owning that kind of media but its not like they’re not altrady in bed with it. As far as I’m concerned Facebook et al are practically publicly owned in all but name. I just think that nationalizing them could be a temporary solution as long as the government can be trusted not to enforce hate speech laws too liberally. Its just that that comes with all the inherent problems that nationalization has. The other idea is to regulate them - and sure - but if they are to be regulated those regulations have to be very well thought out and very, very clear. There’s no simple solution to that problem as far as I can see it.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;904760]Right, mag.
:calix:[/QUOTE]
i hate myself as well

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Right, mag.

i hate myself as well

[QUOTE=rumox;904756]Wow you hate marxists?[/QUOTE]
I just hate everyone whose name starts with the letter M.
That’s why I hate [MENTION=29377]Marshmallow Marshall[/MENTION]

Originally Posted by rumox

Wow you hate marxists?

I just hate everyone whose name starts with the letter M.
That’s why I hate @Marshmallow Marshall

[QUOTE=rumox;904756]Wow you hate marxists?[/QUOTE]
Quite the shocker right?!

Originally Posted by rumox

Wow you hate marxists?

Quite the shocker right?!

Also I disagree on Pinochet :P I would personally support Pinochet if given the choice between a literal Marxist and him.

Also I disagree on Pinochet :P I would personally support Pinochet if given the choice between a literal Marxist and him.

[QUOTE=yzb25;904748]I don't know, 60 years is pretty good for a soft authoritarian regime not to collapse into a hardcore authoritarian regime. It's bleak, but most democracies collapse sometime before 50. Western Europe and the US are exceptions not the rule and even Western Europe's democracies have come within a hair's width of collapse multiple times in the last 100 years. I'd of course argue that there are economic factors driving that instability, but we really have no place to look down on them lol.[/QUOTE] That’s a fair point. Maybe we’re just inserting our own Eurocentric biases here xD

Originally Posted by yzb25

I don't know, 60 years is pretty good for a soft authoritarian regime not to collapse into a hardcore authoritarian regime. It's bleak, but most democracies collapse sometime before 50. Western Europe and the US are exceptions not the rule and even Western Europe's democracies have come within a hair's width of collapse multiple times in the last 100 years. I'd of course argue that there are economic factors driving that instability, but we really have no place to look down on them lol.

That’s a fair point. Maybe we’re just inserting our own Eurocentric biases here xD

[QUOTE=Stealthbomber16;904745]Yes, but can I have some specific examples of this? I'm asking you for sources of this, not additional generalization.



I have actually just done this because you've interested me. I picked "trump corona update" as my search term. In my extremely anecdotal searches I've come to the conclusion that google values recency higher than duckduckgo.

Of the top 5 articles google offered me, 4 of them were made in the last week. Only one was from October. DuckDuckGo offered me more dated articles from a wider variety of sources. I don't pretend to understand how search engines work, but could this not potentially just be that the two algorithms are coded differently? It makes sense from a corporate perspective. Google is the most used search engine in the world, millions if not billions of people use it for research every day. Would it not be within your company's best interest to have the most up-to-date information be the most accessible, perhaps at the cost of it being less objective?[/QUOTE]
Whenever I google something about the coronavirus pandemic, I only find articles that tell me why ‘it’s real’ and why the lockdown is necessary; even if I tailor the search to look specifically for results that would favour my opinion. On DuckDuckGo there still seems to be a bias in favour of pro-lockdown results but I usually do manage to find articles expressing opinions similar to my own. In DDG’s case I do not know if that is the result of inherent bias in the search algorithm or if its just due to what the media is most likely to report. I will try to look for a specific example for you.

Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16

Yes, but can I have some specific examples of this? I'm asking you for sources of this, not additional generalization.



I have actually just done this because you've interested me. I picked "trump corona update" as my search term. In my extremely anecdotal searches I've come to the conclusion that google values recency higher than duckduckgo.

Of the top 5 articles google offered me, 4 of them were made in the last week. Only one was from October. DuckDuckGo offered me more dated articles from a wider variety of sources. I don't pretend to understand how search engines work, but could this not potentially just be that the two algorithms are coded differently? It makes sense from a corporate perspective. Google is the most used search engine in the world, millions if not billions of people use it for research every day. Would it not be within your company's best interest to have the most up-to-date information be the most accessible, perhaps at the cost of it being less objective?

Whenever I google something about the coronavirus pandemic, I only find articles that tell me why ‘it’s real’ and why the lockdown is necessary; even if I tailor the search to look specifically for results that would favour my opinion. On DuckDuckGo there still seems to be a bias in favour of pro-lockdown results but I usually do manage to find articles expressing opinions similar to my own. In DDG’s case I do not know if that is the result of inherent bias in the search algorithm or if its just due to what the media is most likely to report. I will try to look for a specific example for you.

Look up something on Google about Trump or the coronavirus and then look up the same thing on DuckDuckGo. You will get some verybdifferent results; it will be much easier to find something ‘centrist’ or conservative on DuckDuckGo than on Google.
YouTubr has the same problem. People criticizing the lockdown have gotten censored.

Look up something on Google about Trump or the coronavirus and then look up the same thing on DuckDuckGo. You will get some verybdifferent results; it will be much easier to find something ‘centrist’ or conservative on DuckDuckGo than on Google.
YouTubr has the same problem. People criticizing the lockdown have gotten censored.

[QUOTE=Stealthbomber16;904650]You've really made me curious here. What are some examples of Google and Twitter or other electronic media giants having their interests "align with the state's" since it happens so often?[/QUOTE]
The narratives they attempt to push all the time are the same as the ones major political parties are in favour of. Facebook and Twitter are heavily pro-lock down. I just can’t help but wonder if the people running those businesses aren’t somehow connected to influential politicians.

Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16

You've really made me curious here. What are some examples of Google and Twitter or other electronic media giants having their interests "align with the state's" since it happens so often?

The narratives they attempt to push all the time are the same as the ones major political parties are in favour of. Facebook and Twitter are heavily pro-lock down. I just can’t help but wonder if the people running those businesses aren’t somehow connected to influential politicians.

[QUOTE=Plotato;902979]> We need to be united under one mega government to make this work efficiently.

Imagine thinking government can micromanage the world when they can't even micromanage shit KEKW[/QUOTE]
They could under me. I promise to carry out my 11 terms as President of the Planet with dignity and raspekt.

Originally Posted by Plotato

> We need to be united under one mega government to make this work efficiently.

Imagine thinking government can micromanage the world when they can't even micromanage shit KEKW

They could under me. I promise to carry out my 11 terms as President of the Planet with dignity and raspekt.

Google and Twitter are indeed private corporations but the way their interests align with the State’s so often nowadays really has me wondering whether they are in bed with them. There is no easy answer in my view to the problem of Big Tech companies overstepping their boundaries to such an extent. Nationalizing them gives the government the ability to control what censored and what doesn’t. Regulating them is another story that already comes with its own set if problems.

Google and Twitter are indeed private corporations but the way their interests align with the State’s so often nowadays really has me wondering whether they are in bed with them. There is no easy answer in my view to the problem of Big Tech companies overstepping their boundaries to such an extent. Nationalizing them gives the government the ability to control what censored and what doesn’t. Regulating them is another story that already comes with its own set if problems.

Exeter you are making a lot of assumptions lol. I didn’t even look at everything but the part where ‘Trump wouldn’t have been allowed to run due to the inflammatory comments’ piqued my interest. While I do not necessarily always condone hus comments, they are sometimes necessary and I fully agree and am 100% on board with him when they’re targeted at someone or something that deserves it. If he talks about far left anarchism and says they are thugs and paints the media as being their supporters I have absolutely no issue with this because this is sinething that needs to be said. The fact that the President is doing it is even better. His inflammatory comments were necessary to some extent.

Also MM you’re atill paintig Exeter’s views in a very dim light that I do not agree with. Exeter is obviously not suggesting Stalinist style surveillance amd thought police; if you look at Freedom House’s ranking Singapore is ‘Partly Free’ overall and Unfree when it comes to press freedom. Please hold off with the Stalin comparisons.

The fact of the matter is that Exeters countrys had the same government since the 60s and government corruption is very low. Do I expect this to last? No, but I can see why Exeter is heavily advocating for it.

Exeter you are making a lot of assumptions lol. I didn’t even look at everything but the part where ‘Trump wouldn’t have been allowed to run due to the inflammatory comments’ piqued my interest. While I do not necessarily always condone hus comments, they are sometimes necessary and I fully agree and am 100% on board with him when they’re targeted at someone or something that deserves it. If he talks about far left anarchism and says they are thugs and paints the media as being their supporters I have absolutely no issue with this because this is sinething that needs to be said. The fact that the President is doing it is even better. His inflammatory comments were necessary to some extent.

Also MM you’re atill paintig Exeter’s views in a very dim light that I do not agree with. Exeter is obviously not suggesting Stalinist style surveillance amd thought police; if you look at Freedom House’s ranking Singapore is ‘Partly Free’ overall and Unfree when it comes to press freedom. Please hold off with the Stalin comparisons.

The fact of the matter is that Exeters countrys had the same government since the 60s and government corruption is very low. Do I expect this to last? No, but I can see why Exeter is heavily advocating for it.

[QUOTE=rumox;902928]With a hypothetical 'public' social media platform, what jurisdiction would it fall in?

:thinking:[/QUOTE]
Probably the government's.

Originally Posted by rumox

With a hypothetical 'public' social media platform, what jurisdiction would it fall in?

Probably the government's.

Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are arguably not private entities.

Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are arguably not private entities.

[QUOTE=aamirus;902859]If twitter and Facebook are the standard then I guess our site is a glorious bastion of free speech so people should stop bitching.

Look watch this:
Bitch nigger cuck fag

I’d be like instantly banned on any of those sites.

Food for thought to all the whiners who want sc2mafia to be their personal 8chan[/QUOTE]
Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits.

Originally Posted by aamirus

If twitter and Facebook are the standard then I guess our site is a glorious bastion of free speech so people should stop bitching.

Look watch this:
Bitch nigger cuck fag

I’d be like instantly banned on any of those sites.

Food for thought to all the whiners who want sc2mafia to be their personal 8chan

Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits.

I did not make the claim that 'saying that someone's views are stupid' suppresses free speech. It depends on who says it.
If Distorted says someone's views were stupid (assuming that someone were THERE, on the discord, and assuming that it was intended to reach that someone), it is pretty evidently made to stifle speech.
If I say it? Who gives a shit? But it's a completely different matter when someone 'in charge' does it. Imagine if Justin Trudeau went ahead and said "oops is a retard and nobody should listen to him". How would you feel?

Also, you're still talking about legal issues lol when I already agreed that from a legal standpoint you are totally in your right to ban someone from your site for being a Trump supporter. Just remember that when Slaol swung his admin dick around, he got demoted. For admin abuse. You or anyone, for that matter, hypothetically banning Trump supporters would fall in the same scenario for me.

I did not make the claim that 'saying that someone's views are stupid' suppresses free speech. It depends on who says it.
If Distorted says someone's views were stupid (assuming that someone were THERE, on the discord, and assuming that it was intended to reach that someone), it is pretty evidently made to stifle speech.
If I say it? Who gives a shit? But it's a completely different matter when someone 'in charge' does it. Imagine if Justin Trudeau went ahead and said "oops is a retard and nobody should listen to him". How would you feel?

Also, you're still talking about legal issues lol when I already agreed that from a legal standpoint you are totally in your right to ban someone from your site for being a Trump supporter. Just remember that when Slaol swung his admin dick around, he got demoted. For admin abuse. You or anyone, for that matter, hypothetically banning Trump supporters would fall in the same scenario for me.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;902807]Of course you can, you can say whatever you want. That's what free speech is.

I'm fully free to tell you you're a fucking dumbass and that your views are straight up retarded. I could even ban you from the site if I wanted to, just for being a Trump supporter.

Then you and others are free to respond however you want to me doing that, including calling me a libtard snowflake and leaving the site in mass.

That's what freedom is. Not your pussified hugbox elementary school "everyone's opinions matter :)" bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the point is that you shouldn't do that.

Edit: Actually banning someone from the site isn't freedom except in the sense that legally speaking it is totally your right to do that. Nobody in their right mind would argue that that is fair and not 'oppressive', however.

Also, in a free society, everyone's opinion DOES count. It's just that people are free to discard them. And the idea is that people should be courteous to one another when having a discussion; there's a moral argument here in that if one side happens to win, that side ought not to be a sore winner and label the other's opinion 'retarded' just because (there's evolutionary reasons for that as well, btw), because, then two things can happen:
a) the next time you debate that person, if they win, they will rub it in your face, and rub it in 'BIGLEY', as Renegade put it
b) the person will simply avoid discussion with you in the future.
The utilitarian argument would be that injecting emotion into a discussion naturally means people will be less likely to be reasonable and reach a consensus.

So if you're saying that not every opinion is worthy of respect, I can agree with that. If on the other hand you're saying that people should not be awarded common human courtesy just because you feel/think/proved that 'their opinions are retarded', then I couldn't disagree more.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Of course you can, you can say whatever you want. That's what free speech is.

I'm fully free to tell you you're a fucking dumbass and that your views are straight up retarded. I could even ban you from the site if I wanted to, just for being a Trump supporter.

Then you and others are free to respond however you want to me doing that, including calling me a libtard snowflake and leaving the site in mass.

That's what freedom is. Not your pussified hugbox elementary school "everyone's opinions matter " bullshit.

Yeah but the point is that you shouldn't do that.

Edit: Actually banning someone from the site isn't freedom except in the sense that legally speaking it is totally your right to do that. Nobody in their right mind would argue that that is fair and not 'oppressive', however.

Also, in a free society, everyone's opinion DOES count. It's just that people are free to discard them. And the idea is that people should be courteous to one another when having a discussion; there's a moral argument here in that if one side happens to win, that side ought not to be a sore winner and label the other's opinion 'retarded' just because (there's evolutionary reasons for that as well, btw), because, then two things can happen:
a) the next time you debate that person, if they win, they will rub it in your face, and rub it in 'BIGLEY', as Renegade put it
b) the person will simply avoid discussion with you in the future.
The utilitarian argument would be that injecting emotion into a discussion naturally means people will be less likely to be reasonable and reach a consensus.

So if you're saying that not every opinion is worthy of respect, I can agree with that. If on the other hand you're saying that people should not be awarded common human courtesy just because you feel/think/proved that 'their opinions are retarded', then I couldn't disagree more.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;902804]
Ahh, so that's the fundamental point we differ on: the inherent trust in our government. I believe in some sort of "power corrupts" reality, for the simple reason that if people can do something that benefits them without getting in trouble for it, they will most likely go for it. Hence why democratic tradition is extremely important.

For example, in the UK, since there is no unified written Constitution, the Parliament could (in theory) revoke laws that guarantee British citizens' freedom. Their extremely long-standing democratic tradition (under an extremely large meaning, it stems from as far as the Magna Carta (1215), putting limits encoded in laws to the absolute royal power) protects them from such a thing: it would never be accepted by the people, and the power in place would be overthrown. That is the power of democratic tradition: protecting from power abuse by the "power of the people", which would revolt if its rights were to be taken away; this, in turn, makes governments stop considering blatant authoritarianism as something even possible when the country's democratic tradition is strong.

The USA's democratic tradition (which has been strongly present ever since the country's foundation, despite the significant flaws in its democratic system) seems to have severely declined over the last decades, and I'm honestly unsure of what has caused this. Perhaps the end of the Cold War removed "the enemy" against which the nation was united in its ideology, although that is only a theory of mine.


[COLOR=#008080]I completely agree with this.[/COLOR] It's sad how people aren't learning from the lessons of the past on this point: making the State (or any entity) almighty is never good.
That being said, it becomes necessary at some point to stifle "free speech" when it crosses a basic line, which is the line of threats, violence and oppression (grosso modo).[/QUOTE]
Whether or not you agree doesn't mean you get to tell others you hate their views.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Ahh, so that's the fundamental point we differ on: the inherent trust in our government. I believe in some sort of "power corrupts" reality, for the simple reason that if people can do something that benefits them without getting in trouble for it, they will most likely go for it. Hence why democratic tradition is extremely important.

For example, in the UK, since there is no unified written Constitution, the Parliament could (in theory) revoke laws that guarantee British citizens' freedom. Their extremely long-standing democratic tradition (under an extremely large meaning, it stems from as far as the Magna Carta (1215), putting limits encoded in laws to the absolute royal power) protects them from such a thing: it would never be accepted by the people, and the power in place would be overthrown. That is the power of democratic tradition: protecting from power abuse by the "power of the people", which would revolt if its rights were to be taken away; this, in turn, makes governments stop considering blatant authoritarianism as something even possible when the country's democratic tradition is strong.

The USA's democratic tradition (which has been strongly present ever since the country's foundation, despite the significant flaws in its democratic system) seems to have severely declined over the last decades, and I'm honestly unsure of what has caused this. Perhaps the end of the Cold War removed "the enemy" against which the nation was united in its ideology, although that is only a theory of mine.


I completely agree with this. It's sad how people aren't learning from the lessons of the past on this point: making the State (or any entity) almighty is never good.
That being said, it becomes necessary at some point to stifle "free speech" when it crosses a basic line, which is the line of threats, violence and oppression (grosso modo).

Whether or not you agree doesn't mean you get to tell others you hate their views.

I shouldn’t have said that. I just saw what thedougler had to say and saw him stating he hated something Exeter had said and I’ve just had that happen quite a lot to me and because it was coming from someone I figured I would probably agree with, I figured I was somewhat justified in calling it out.

I am probably more sensitive to this kind of stuff than is otherwise normal so forgive me if I overstep my boundaries, I sometimes react with my heart first and with my head second precisely because of this :S

I shouldn’t have said that. I just saw what thedougler had to say and saw him stating he hated something Exeter had said and I’ve just had that happen quite a lot to me and because it was coming from someone I figured I would probably agree with, I figured I was somewhat justified in calling it out.

I am probably more sensitive to this kind of stuff than is otherwise normal so forgive me if I overstep my boundaries, I sometimes react with my heart first and with my head second precisely because of this

[QUOTE=Helz;902794]>.>[/QUOTE]
I can’t tell if you agree with me, or think I’m being hypocritical for saying this.

Originally Posted by Helz

>.>

I can’t tell if you agree with me, or think I’m being hypocritical for saying this.

I’m concerned with the direction our society is taking. Free speech is increasingly being stifled, as you said (especially in Europe where free speech restrictions are more pervasive than in the US). Recently a Dutch politician was found guilty of hate speech for attacking immigration from Morrocco. He was not punished but the precedent still exists. A much bigger concern is whats currently happening in Britain. I haven’t read the article uou linked though I’m aware of another case (also in Scotland) where a man taught his dog to do the nazi salute as a joke and posted it to YouTube, whereupon he was arrested for (I believe the reason given was ) hate speech. Regardless of if you found that joke funny or appropriate, I think its quite ridiculous how hate speech laws are used to justify the restriction of speech.

I refer to a phrase (I believe it was Lewis Black who said this): when you can’t laugh, the terrorists have won.

Sorry for being so hard on you btw. I’ve had issues online where I was attacked simply for voicing my opinion and I assumed you were doing the same thing ^^

I’m concerned with the direction our society is taking. Free speech is increasingly being stifled, as you said (especially in Europe where free speech restrictions are more pervasive than in the US). Recently a Dutch politician was found guilty of hate speech for attacking immigration from Morrocco. He was not punished but the precedent still exists. A much bigger concern is whats currently happening in Britain. I haven’t read the article uou linked though I’m aware of another case (also in Scotland) where a man taught his dog to do the nazi salute as a joke and posted it to YouTube, whereupon he was arrested for (I believe the reason given was ) hate speech. Regardless of if you found that joke funny or appropriate, I think its quite ridiculous how hate speech laws are used to justify the restriction of speech.

I refer to a phrase (I believe it was Lewis Black who said this): when you can’t laugh, the terrorists have won.

Sorry for being so hard on you btw. I’ve had issues online where I was attacked simply for voicing my opinion and I assumed you were doing the same thing ^^

Lastly, I really do wish people were actually capable of debating even to the slightest extent. You don’t tell others how much you hate their political beliefs when debating; you try attack their ideas directly. The fact that you hate their views is something that has to be internalized. All you’re doing is putting more fuel on the fire. And that will only make their convinctions stronger.

Lastly, I really do wish people were actually capable of debating even to the slightest extent. You don’t tell others how much you hate their political beliefs when debating; you try attack their ideas directly. The fact that you hate their views is something that has to be internalized. All you’re doing is putting more fuel on the fire. And that will only make their convinctions stronger.

You are taking one case where hate speech is used to stifle free speech and taking to mean that free sperch doesnt exist. Thats blowing it out of proportion and in fact I specifically stated that Europe had LESS free speech than the United States. I’m also not talking about Britain - I am talking about the Netherlands.

I’m not sure what your point about more Trump supporters getting fired is because I literally acknowledged that Trump supporters were getting fired (I am a Trump supporter, btw). It seems asthough we agree on that, and is precisely why the idea of the US having more free speech than Europe is of purely historical interest at this point. I also think our elections are fairer than the US’ (at least here in the Netherlands) simply because voting machines are actually illegal here.

You are taking one case where hate speech is used to stifle free speech and taking to mean that free sperch doesnt exist. Thats blowing it out of proportion and in fact I specifically stated that Europe had LESS free speech than the United States. I’m also not talking about Britain - I am talking about the Netherlands.

I’m not sure what your point about more Trump supporters getting fired is because I literally acknowledged that Trump supporters were getting fired (I am a Trump supporter, btw). It seems asthough we agree on that, and is precisely why the idea of the US having more free speech than Europe is of purely historical interest at this point. I also think our elections are fairer than the US’ (at least here in the Netherlands) simply because voting machines are actually illegal here.

I’m European and we do have free speech. The only difference between the US and various European countries is quantitative, not qualitative. Europe most certainly does have free speech, just not quite as much as the US.
The difference is of historical interest though seeing as in the US people have gotten fired for supporting Donald Trump. I have never heard of something like that happening here.

I’m European and we do have free speech. The only difference between the US and various European countries is quantitative, not qualitative. Europe most certainly does have free speech, just not quite as much as the US.
The difference is of historical interest though seeing as in the US people have gotten fired for supporting Donald Trump. I have never heard of something like that happening here.

BTW, fraud is actually not as rare as you may think it is and there’s actually been cases in the United States where fraud was widespread enough to significantly affect the outcome of an election... just not on national levels. In North Carolina, for instance, about 2 years ago, a Republican congressman won a district by 907 votes but was disqualified after heavy suspicion of fraud (I believe they even found evidenxe of it although I am not certain). The Electoral Board decided to hold a special election and the Republicans had to select a nee candidate.

Btw, it is believed that the person in question stole ~1,000 votes.

BTW, fraud is actually not as rare as you may think it is and there’s actually been cases in the United States where fraud was widespread enough to significantly affect the outcome of an election... just not on national levels. In North Carolina, for instance, about 2 years ago, a Republican congressman won a district by 907 votes but was disqualified after heavy suspicion of fraud (I believe they even found evidenxe of it although I am not certain). The Electoral Board decided to hold a special election and the Republicans had to select a nee candidate.

Btw, it is believed that the person in question stole ~1,000 votes.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;902616]Inciting [I]violence[/I] is a crime, and I've seen some things that were really borderline, yeah. Like an article concluding that Americans were legitimate in "resorting to blows in time"...
However, what you're suggesting here seems to be much wider than just jailing [I]for some time[/I] those who incite [I]violence[/I]; it rather extends to people disagreeing with the "official talk", and that is a very dangerous thing. Plus, as terrible as it is, Trump is still president as of now (and he will remain president until January the 20th)... and he is not making things smoother himself.[/QUOTE]
I too would be in favour of overthrowing the Government in the event of massive electoral fraud. There is a reason that the military is seen as the vanguard of democracy in states with an unstable democratic system - like Turkey.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Inciting violence is a crime, and I've seen some things that were really borderline, yeah. Like an article concluding that Americans were legitimate in "resorting to blows in time"...
However, what you're suggesting here seems to be much wider than just jailing for some time those who incite violence; it rather extends to people disagreeing with the "official talk", and that is a very dangerous thing. Plus, as terrible as it is, Trump is still president as of now (and he will remain president until January the 20th)... and he is not making things smoother himself.

I too would be in favour of overthrowing the Government in the event of massive electoral fraud. There is a reason that the military is seen as the vanguard of democracy in states with an unstable democratic system - like Turkey.

[QUOTE=Renegade;902662][COLOR=#00FFFF]Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
“REPORT: DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE. DATA ANALYSIS FINDS 221,000 PENNSYLVANIA VOTES SWITCHED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BIDEN. 941,000 TRUMP VOTES DELETED. STATES USING DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS SWITCHED 435,000 VOTES FROM TRUMP TO BIDEN.” @[URL="https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/member.php?u=6478"]Chane[/URL]lRion @OANN
This claim about election fraud is disputed
11:34 AM · Nov 12, 2020·Twitter for iPhone


[/COLOR]

Like what the fuck, this is what you call credible @[URL="https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/member.php?u=45595"]Oberon[/URL]? Literal fake news, disinformation, propaganda. This is what your undies are in a bunch about?

Elections are all run by local and state governments. The amount of coordination it would take would be massive to pull some shit like this off. I've yet to see a single valid claim of any kind of fraud that isn't from known disinformation agents like OAN and Project Veritas.

Just because Trumpkins are hysterical about Trump losing doesn't validate their hallucinations.

Jeebus.[/QUOTE]
Go away

Originally Posted by Renegade

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
“REPORT: DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE. DATA ANALYSIS FINDS 221,000 PENNSYLVANIA VOTES SWITCHED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BIDEN. 941,000 TRUMP VOTES DELETED. STATES USING DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS SWITCHED 435,000 VOTES FROM TRUMP TO BIDEN.” @ChanelRion @OANN
This claim about election fraud is disputed
11:34 AM · Nov 12, 2020·Twitter for iPhone




Like what the fuck, this is what you call credible @Oberon? Literal fake news, disinformation, propaganda. This is what your undies are in a bunch about?

Elections are all run by local and state governments. The amount of coordination it would take would be massive to pull some shit like this off. I've yet to see a single valid claim of any kind of fraud that isn't from known disinformation agents like OAN and Project Veritas.

Just because Trumpkins are hysterical about Trump losing doesn't validate their hallucinations.

Jeebus.

Go away

[QUOTE=MartinGG99;902660][COLOR=#00FF00]IMO, lets momentarily assume the claims of election fraud are true and Trump should've won:
[/COLOR]
The president of one of the most influential countries in the world rn

He has been complaining about his political enemies (and sometimes demonizing them depending on how one looks at it) for how many years now?

While I don't have an accurate statistic or anything regarding that, but if, for hypothetical example, Trump was aware of a possible future where there is election fraud for the entirety of his presidency

He had 4 YEARS to do something about that......and he still lost lol, despite being the president of the godamm United States of America.

Even if the claims of fraud are 100% true and Trump was supposed to win, I think that's enough to disqualify Trump on the basis of severe incompetence. He's part of the Executive branch of the goverment; [U]protecting the law is one of his fucking jobs (to at least some degree) and he failed to protect election law[/U].

And he failed that test. He's fired.

And if someone (I'm not implying this is you Oberon) is going to counter-argue that "the president isn't strong enough to protect the election", then I guess the position isn't that much of a big deal then, am I right?

[SIZE=1]On a clarifying note, I don't think significant amounts of election fraud occurred.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
I actually agree that it is a severe fuckup on his end if he should’ve won. Totally agree. Almost a mindmeld except I feel what he’s done as President whilst he was in office proved his worth, even if he managed to
completely fuck up the election.

Originally Posted by MartinGG99

IMO, lets momentarily assume the claims of election fraud are true and Trump should've won:

The president of one of the most influential countries in the world rn

He has been complaining about his political enemies (and sometimes demonizing them depending on how one looks at it) for how many years now?

While I don't have an accurate statistic or anything regarding that, but if, for hypothetical example, Trump was aware of a possible future where there is election fraud for the entirety of his presidency

He had 4 YEARS to do something about that......and he still lost lol, despite being the president of the godamm United States of America.

Even if the claims of fraud are 100% true and Trump was supposed to win, I think that's enough to disqualify Trump on the basis of severe incompetence. He's part of the Executive branch of the goverment; protecting the law is one of his fucking jobs (to at least some degree) and he failed to protect election law.

And he failed that test. He's fired.

And if someone (I'm not implying this is you Oberon) is going to counter-argue that "the president isn't strong enough to protect the election", then I guess the position isn't that much of a big deal then, am I right?

On a clarifying note, I don't think significant amounts of election fraud occurred.

I actually agree that it is a severe fuckup on his end if he should’ve won. Totally agree. Almost a mindmeld except I feel what he’s done as President whilst he was in office proved his worth, even if he managed to
completely fuck up the election.

[MENTION=30852]Renegade[/MENTION] I strongly suggest you don't play mafia like this, because if you do, you will be turbolynched :)

@Renegade I strongly suggest you don't play mafia like this, because if you do, you will be turbolynched

There's no hard evidence although there's a lot of credible reports coming in. That's exactly why it needs to be investigated.

Edit: Oh, so when the FBI goes to investigate, it's because Trump wants to manipulate people, huh?

It's not possible those reports are legitimate?

There's no hard evidence although there's a lot of credible reports coming in. That's exactly why it needs to be investigated.

Edit: Oh, so when the FBI goes to investigate, it's because Trump wants to manipulate people, huh?

It's not possible those reports are legitimate?

Except there's been multiple allegations of fraud, with some people legit confessing to it under oath (anonymously). It's serious enough that the FBI is investigating the election in Michigan. It's not even close to what you're suggesting.
RIch of you to be calling people delusional, though.

Except there's been multiple allegations of fraud, with some people legit confessing to it under oath (anonymously). It's serious enough that the FBI is investigating the election in Michigan. It's not even close to what you're suggesting.
RIch of you to be calling people delusional, though.

[QUOTE=Helz;902456]I had never considered looking at the Register. I will have to look into that.

My biggest issues with trump outside of his rhetoric was that he stood for whats best for corporations over citizens. I am not sad to see him go but I am a little afraid of Biden screwing with the supreme court.



I feel like this is very well said. Although I would add that the voting structure necessitates a 2 party system.[/QUOTE]

btw if you're interested, here's a link showing the number of pages in the register by year: [URL]https://www.llsdc.org/assets/sourcebook/fed-reg-pages.pdf[/URL]

Originally Posted by Helz

I had never considered looking at the Register. I will have to look into that.

My biggest issues with trump outside of his rhetoric was that he stood for whats best for corporations over citizens. I am not sad to see him go but I am a little afraid of Biden screwing with the supreme court.



I feel like this is very well said. Although I would add that the voting structure necessitates a 2 party system.

btw if you're interested, here's a link showing the number of pages in the register by year: https://www.llsdc.org/assets/sourceb...-reg-pages.pdf

I think that's an entirely different topic and one that would fill pages, at that, so I'd rather not get into the electoral college.
What's more distressing to me is that people are getting pretty much censored and allegations of fraud are suppressed and this really doesn't help anyone - Republican or Democrat, Trumper or Never Trumper; anyone. The media should be pushing for transparency and encouraging the investigation of allegations of fraud because it's good for national (or federal, heh, if you prefer) unity. Instead what's happening is that they're instantly discrediting any and all allegations, even the most believeable ones, of fraud. This helps absolutely nobody, least of all Democrats (the Media's natural ally).

I think that's an entirely different topic and one that would fill pages, at that, so I'd rather not get into the electoral college.
What's more distressing to me is that people are getting pretty much censored and allegations of fraud are suppressed and this really doesn't help anyone - Republican or Democrat, Trumper or Never Trumper; anyone. The media should be pushing for transparency and encouraging the investigation of allegations of fraud because it's good for national (or federal, heh, if you prefer) unity. Instead what's happening is that they're instantly discrediting any and all allegations, even the most believeable ones, of fraud. This helps absolutely nobody, least of all Democrats (the Media's natural ally).

Can I complain about how much I hate all the information surrounding this election? You have people alleging that some serious fraud took place in some states, and on the other hand you have State governors or whatnot literally going "no, it never happened, its all completely wrong". It pisses me off so much because I cannot tell whats true or whats not. For every allegation or rumour of fraud, there is an equivalent cry of 'FAKE NEWS!!!'

This isn't even about Trump winning; its just about people being able to trust the electoral system. How can people do that when half the country doesnt believe the President is actually the President? People should be pushing for greater investigation into what happened this election just so we have some closure. I'm glad I'm not American because this looks like a total nightmare.

Can I complain about how much I hate all the information surrounding this election? You have people alleging that some serious fraud took place in some states, and on the other hand you have State governors or whatnot literally going "no, it never happened, its all completely wrong". It pisses me off so much because I cannot tell whats true or whats not. For every allegation or rumour of fraud, there is an equivalent cry of 'FAKE NEWS!!!'

This isn't even about Trump winning; its just about people being able to trust the electoral system. How can people do that when half the country doesnt believe the President is actually the President? People should be pushing for greater investigation into what happened this election just so we have some closure. I'm glad I'm not American because this looks like a total nightmare.

[QUOTE=Helz;902446]On a fundamental level they push cosmetic solutions while preserving systemic problems. They both leverage suffering to gain power under the guise of 'change.' But then if you give them 4-8 years we have the exact same issues.[/QUOTE]
For the record I do believe the Republican Party lost its 'ideology' so to speak at some point. The great conservative George W. Bush left almost as many regulations in place by the time he left office as there were when he got elected: the Federal Register had ~83,000 pages when he got elected, and ~80,000 when he left office. In contrast, Trump reduced the size of the Federal Register by at least 25,000 pages between 2016 and 2019.

In addition, at a debate (I believe it was during the Republican Primaries in 2015) between Republican candidates one of them mentioned increasing minimum wage as a campaign policy; I don't remember who (I believe it was Trump, although I may be mistaken) who shut down the proposal, stating that America was not built on minimum wage.

If you look at the Federal Register in general, there's a pattern where during the times when a Democrat was President, the Federal Register increased in size (I believe Harry Truman's presidency is the sole exception). In contrast, look at Ronald Reagan and Trump. They both reduced the size of the Register while in power.

Of course, you still have Republicans like Nixon and Eisenhower (Eisenhower actually continued the New Deal) who actually increased the size of the register.

Originally Posted by Helz

On a fundamental level they push cosmetic solutions while preserving systemic problems. They both leverage suffering to gain power under the guise of 'change.' But then if you give them 4-8 years we have the exact same issues.

For the record I do believe the Republican Party lost its 'ideology' so to speak at some point. The great conservative George W. Bush left almost as many regulations in place by the time he left office as there were when he got elected: the Federal Register had ~83,000 pages when he got elected, and ~80,000 when he left office. In contrast, Trump reduced the size of the Federal Register by at least 25,000 pages between 2016 and 2019.

In addition, at a debate (I believe it was during the Republican Primaries in 2015) between Republican candidates one of them mentioned increasing minimum wage as a campaign policy; I don't remember who (I believe it was Trump, although I may be mistaken) who shut down the proposal, stating that America was not built on minimum wage.

If you look at the Federal Register in general, there's a pattern where during the times when a Democrat was President, the Federal Register increased in size (I believe Harry Truman's presidency is the sole exception). In contrast, look at Ronald Reagan and Trump. They both reduced the size of the Register while in power.

Of course, you still have Republicans like Nixon and Eisenhower (Eisenhower actually continued the New Deal) who actually increased the size of the register.

Note that I mentioned welfare and more 'socialist' economic policies because I've had discussions with MM on this topic before and he's claimed that both parties were right wing, which I staunchy disagree with.

Note that I mentioned welfare and more 'socialist' economic policies because I've had discussions with MM on this topic before and he's claimed that both parties were right wing, which I staunchy disagree with.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;902443]This used to be true, but Trump changed American politics significantly. He actually does things differently (badly, but differently). Acting like COVID doesn't exist, having no green plan whatsoever, leaving international organizations, etc. is definetly not "absolutely identical" to the usual "American style".[/QUOTE]
The Democrats have been supporting left-leaning policies since at least the 1930s when they supported the New Deal ushered in by President Roosevelt (and which laid the basis for Social Security in the United States). Also, Jimmy Carter in the 1970s supported implementing a more progressive taxation system, eliminating tax shelters; also, from WIkipedia: "Proposals contemplated by the Carter administration include a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income"]guaranteed minimum income[/URL], a federal [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee"]job guarantee[/URL] for the unemployed, a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax"]negative income tax[/URL], and direct cash payments to aid recipients".

Lyndon B. Johnson, also from Wikipedia: "Johnson expanded upon the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal"]New Deal[/URL] with the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society"]Great Society[/URL], a series of domestic legislative programs to help the poor and downtrodden. After taking office, he won passage of a major tax cut, the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)"]Clean Air Act[/URL], and the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964"]Civil Rights Act of 1964[/URL]. After the 1964 election, Johnson passed even more sweeping reforms. The [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Amendments_of_1965"]Social Security Amendments of 1965[/URL] created two government-run healthcare programs, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)"]Medicare[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid"]Medicaid[/URL]. The [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965"]Voting Rights Act of 1965[/URL] prohibits racial discrimination in voting, and its passage enfranchised millions of Southern African-Americans. Johnson declared a "[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty"]War on Poverty[/URL]" and established several programs designed to aid the impoverished."

John Kennedy, Wikipedia: "In domestic politics, Kennedy made bold proposals in his [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontier"]New Frontier[/URL] agenda, but many of his initiatives were blocked by the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition"]conservative coalition[/URL] of Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The failed initiatives include federal aid education, medical care for the aged, and aid to economically depressed areas. Though initially reluctant to pursue civil rights legislation, in 1963 Kennedy proposed a major civil rights bill that ultimately became the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964"]Civil Rights Act of 1964[/URL]. The economy experienced steady growth, low inflation and a drop in unemployment rates during Kennedy's tenure. Kennedy adopted [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics"]Keynesian economics[/URL]"

Harry Truman, Wikipedia: "In his first major address to Congress after taking office, Truman articulated a liberal domestic program, but his early domestic policy was dominated by post-war reconversion.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Harry_S._Truman#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMcCoy198447%E2%80%9348-192"][187][/URL] As he readied for the 1948 election, Truman made clear his identity as a Democrat in the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal"]New Deal[/URL] tradition, advocating a national health care system, repeal of the Taft–Hartley Act, federal aid to education, expanded public housing programs, a higher minimum wage, more public power projects like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority"]Tennessee Valley Authority[/URL], and a more [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax"]progressive[/URL] tax structure.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Harry_S._Truman#cite_note-FOOTNOTEDallek200884%E2%80%9386-193"][[/URL]"

Literally all of the above supported social welfare in some shape or form.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

This used to be true, but Trump changed American politics significantly. He actually does things differently (badly, but differently). Acting like COVID doesn't exist, having no green plan whatsoever, leaving international organizations, etc. is definetly not "absolutely identical" to the usual "American style".

The Democrats have been supporting left-leaning policies since at least the 1930s when they supported the New Deal ushered in by President Roosevelt (and which laid the basis for Social Security in the United States). Also, Jimmy Carter in the 1970s supported implementing a more progressive taxation system, eliminating tax shelters; also, from WIkipedia: "Proposals contemplated by the Carter administration include a guaranteed minimum income, a federal job guarantee for the unemployed, a negative income tax, and direct cash payments to aid recipients".

Lyndon B. Johnson, also from Wikipedia: "Johnson expanded upon the New Deal with the Great Society, a series of domestic legislative programs to help the poor and downtrodden. After taking office, he won passage of a major tax cut, the Clean Air Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After the 1964 election, Johnson passed even more sweeping reforms. The Social Security Amendments of 1965 created two government-run healthcare programs, Medicare and Medicaid. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in voting, and its passage enfranchised millions of Southern African-Americans. Johnson declared a "War on Poverty" and established several programs designed to aid the impoverished."

John Kennedy, Wikipedia: "In domestic politics, Kennedy made bold proposals in his New Frontier agenda, but many of his initiatives were blocked by the conservative coalition of Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The failed initiatives include federal aid education, medical care for the aged, and aid to economically depressed areas. Though initially reluctant to pursue civil rights legislation, in 1963 Kennedy proposed a major civil rights bill that ultimately became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The economy experienced steady growth, low inflation and a drop in unemployment rates during Kennedy's tenure. Kennedy adopted Keynesian economics"

Harry Truman, Wikipedia: "In his first major address to Congress after taking office, Truman articulated a liberal domestic program, but his early domestic policy was dominated by post-war reconversion.[187] As he readied for the 1948 election, Truman made clear his identity as a Democrat in the New Deal tradition, advocating a national health care system, repeal of the Taft–Hartley Act, federal aid to education, expanded public housing programs, a higher minimum wage, more public power projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority, and a more progressive tax structure.["

Literally all of the above supported social welfare in some shape or form.

How are they identical?

How are they identical?

[QUOTE=Helz;902433]I never understood people being so emotional about an election or sports. I get that theres shared emotions tied to seeing 'your team' win or loose but when it causes some emotional breakdown and becomes the most important thing in your life I just don't understand. Maybe its a thing for people that don't have anything else in their life?

Or more likely some people just crave drama.[/QUOTE]
Personally I was hoping Trump would win just to see the cringe unfold. So I guess for me I'm in the 'crave drama' category. :P

Originally Posted by Helz

I never understood people being so emotional about an election or sports. I get that theres shared emotions tied to seeing 'your team' win or loose but when it causes some emotional breakdown and becomes the most important thing in your life I just don't understand. Maybe its a thing for people that don't have anything else in their life?

Or more likely some people just crave drama.

Personally I was hoping Trump would win just to see the cringe unfold. So I guess for me I'm in the 'crave drama' category. :P

lol nice

lol nice

[QUOTE=FrostByte;901880]So you're looking at a pussy right now in real life? You must be looking in the mirror then.

You don't read very well, do you?[/QUOTE]
My apologies. I meant to say that I was talking to one.

Originally Posted by FrostByte

So you're looking at a pussy right now in real life? You must be looking in the mirror then.

You don't read very well, do you?

My apologies. I meant to say that I was talking to one.

[QUOTE=FrostByte;901806]so you and these crybaby Killary supporters have this in common, then because you've been crying about this shit for a week now

Is it religion? Do you support trump because of religion?

Are your parents conservative?

Have you ever seen a vagina in real life?

Have you ever seen a vagina in real life that you didn't have to pay for?[/QUOTE]
Im looking at one right now

Originally Posted by FrostByte

so you and these crybaby Killary supporters have this in common, then because you've been crying about this shit for a week now

Is it religion? Do you support trump because of religion?

Are your parents conservative?

Have you ever seen a vagina in real life?

Have you ever seen a vagina in real life that you didn't have to pay for?

Im looking at one right now

lmao

lmao

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27567[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27568[/ATTACH]
i guess holding in all that outrage for 4 years after having cried over it means you need to see donald trump's supporters crying :P
also someone sounds awfully butthurt lmfao

i guess holding in all that outrage for 4 years after having cried over it means you need to see donald trump's supporters crying :P
also someone sounds awfully butthurt lmfao