The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I don't think anyone here is for censorship. or at least not anyone here who is of the left.

I personally do draw a line however : at rape, pedophilia, torture, promotion of slavery and supremacist ideals and that last one I'm actually willing to let slide.

It's the discrepancy between france banning mein kampf and the US allowing it that makes me hesitant. I don't know who's more right there.

it's just there's no benefit to letting it contaminate young minds and having to undo that from within through educated zealots.

to some degree it's a waste of time and energy. but if there were actually a risk of these ideals contaminating a majority then I would wholeheartedly recommend censorship.

but surely you realize you're way out of your depth comparing all that to LGBT movement's expression, as annoying as they might be.

I don't think Gorbles belives in censorship of Carl Benjamin but i'll let him speak for himself.

I personally do not.

it falls into what I mentioned here : if (as a grown man) just listening to someone morally hurts you then you should question your morals : https://forums.uberent.com/threads/the-politics-thread-play-nicely.70907/page-166#post-1141514

You need to know historical documents in order to have a better understanding. Any individual with poor judgment, had poor judgment before they read it.

Same with "learning islam in world history in school". If the left wants to ban "Mein Kampft", and the right wants to ban Islamic Studies, then... ??? Where does that leave us on liberties?

You ever think to leave the individual jaggoffs alone? Ever think by being the boogeyman of liberties, that you might just make a lot more enemies of people who aren't even racist supremacists?

The LGBT aren't annoying. Well, some LGBT can be annoying, like some feminists can, but the movement itself is about liberty, which is fine. Gun ownership can just as much be about liberty, or just as much an annoyance when some dumb **** tries to block a 50 cal with an encyclopedia. Alas, banning either is punishing a non-crime to save a non-victim. Murder and pedophilia are already illegal, trying to precrime by calling LGBT pedophiles and gun-owners murderers, is stupid two-fold: They're stupid extremist divisive prosecutions, and they're a waste of resources at the debate table while nobody does anything for the actual working class citizen.

In a stalemate that already benefits the rich, only the rich prosper.

In a world with left and right both mostly agree on marriage equality, in a world where marriage is not exclusive to Christian culture, no more than dreadlocks are to African culture or refrigeration is to Caucasian culture... it would be nice to recognize marriage equality as a resounding success, and look for the next real equalizer in legislation and judiciary interpretation to improve liberty.

To be clear, dreadlocks are seen in many cultures pre-dating globalization, and refrigeration as we know it was invented by an African-American. Edit: Dumb link was Dumb. https://www.livescience.com/57797-refrigerator-history.html

you really don't give a shiit about what i say do you ? you'll just say I said anything you want.

Surely france isn't the left as a whole. nor can it be equated to it nor can it be considered it's leader though i'm humbled.

google would really help you out here. mein kampft has been progressively re-allowed in libraries and re-published in historian-commented versions in france for a long time.

I was simply highlighting the stark contrast between allowing it outright and initially banning it then progressively letting it open once again.

If anything the left wants to reduce censorship.
Since the left has been in power in france and censorship of even mein kaft has all but disappeared in it's time in power.

please document yourself before you speak.

I REALLY fail to see how you manage to put these in the same box.

LGBT? crime? ......what? ...............wwwwwhy?

what exactly are you saying?

are you saying lgbt are murderers or pedophiles? either way I'm lost for words

Mein kampf is forbidden in several European countries. It's not a partisan thing, pretty much everyone here agrees with it. I get that America's lesson from WWII was that "wow that was kind cool" but the rest of the world thought it was horrible and repetition is best avoided.

Ironically a politician wanting to ban the Quran was against the ban of Mein Kampf.

I'm not sure what your logic is here. Trump jr's emails make it clear that he tried to collude. He himself suggested the Russians had nothing, but that doesn't matter for the charge of collusion: It's against the law to seek help from foreign governments to aid in an election. Whether they had anything is not relevant to that.

Even if the russians had anything (they could just release it via Wikileaks), charging Hillary with anything lies firmly in the GOP's court. But it's not really in their advantage, as long as there's no trial there's no official outcome, and they can maintain their narrative. If she got cleared, it would be really bad for the GOP as it would mean everything during the election was just a big smear job. They have nothing to gain by clearing things up.

So i don't know why you bring up equality in this.

Everyone is for censorship. Just their particular form of censorship. The stuff you mention IS censorship.

If you don't show rape or pedophilia, that's censorship. If you kick out someone being an A-hole on the internet, that's censorship. Censorship, political correctness, they have very real purposes and it's not all bad. But it's become a recent trend to call everything censorship and everything is political correctness, and then those words loose meaning. But at it's core, censorship is a necessary element, because i wouldn't want kids to see child porn or excessive sex and violence.

fair enough. again this is a semantic issue. I gave censorship a different meaning then you do. but I'm fine with using your meaning if we can agree that while some things are better off being barred total and absolute free speech the free roaming of information as an ideology has it's merits.

I guess what I'm saying is I have a view of how the world should be which is not in alignment with either the absolute free speech dogma nor with the controlled distribution of info dogma ...I'm ...somewhere in the middle.

OOOOH MY GOOOOOD

trump keeps making this worse and worse for himself

Show of hands among the right assembly here :
@thetrophysystem
@elodea
@mered4
@gmase
(I hope I'm not forgetting anyone)

who among you agrees with this new Trump claim that Putin wanted Hillary to win not Trump?

here's the full UNTAMPERED interview it sports some athletic levels of stupidity (at one point trump sais hillary's weakness and his strength is that she wanted to build WINDMILLS ) :

9:16 "he can hurt us he can decimate our country and we can do the same thing to him"
see ??? both of these idiots have no notion whatsoever that nuclear war wouldn't just wipe our parts of the US and russia it would kill all life on earth and suppress any possibility of human or even mammal heritage on this planet.

10:10 to 10:33 is the WINDMILL

for pete's sake they're called wind turbines if you have the "best words"

Which is fine, really. I think most people are in the grey area, since it's not hard to show that censorship is necessary and pretty much unavoidable. On the other hand, nobody really wants to censor everything all the time. Ideally, we apply it only in the most necessary cases. Seems to me that people talk too little nowadays, censoring only makes it worse. The US has many problems it really, really should sit down and talk about, but it's reduced to nothing but shouting from one party to the other. Seems like Brexit was something that needed to be talked over more (E.g. Wales, an area that benefits the most from the EU with support program, voted out. Did they really want to go out, or were there other things that could've been done)

OK this MIGHT upset some people or make them laugh A LOT. I hope the latter :


recent events Trump and Don JR songified :

First off, someone stupid enough to fire a 50 cal at a live person shielding with an encyclopedia, is doomed to kill themselves some way. A girl electrocuted herself out of the bath handling a wall socket with a phone charger. You can either ban household electricity, make people pay 200 dollars/euros to take a class to handle electricity for a license to own it, or... OR, you can accept that what people do with the tools at their disposal, are manifestations of their own actions only.

As the old worn saying goes, guns don't kill people, or if they do, they certainly don't kill as many people as forks do, given obesity-related death toll claims.

If you want a cheap apology, I'll admit I hadn't even thought about how Mein Kampft had set politically in France (not a citizen of there ofc)... then again, I was under the impression that in 2016 or something, some license holder's influence expired legally, and before then, it was them keeping the ban in place by not publicizing it and making it piracy to own and pass around. Was I wrong or something? Could have sworn that was the case or something.

The point still remains, that bans are not to be taken lightly. If something victimizes enough people, it'll naturally gain super-majority support to ban it. This includes murder, rape, theft. I'm not an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. However, with a small and narrow-minded enough citizen pool, one can believe banning homosexuality can benefit the population, because we're not caught up to China. That ****'s stupid and probably should be vetoed, mainly because the victimization is not direct, it's "indirect" as one can claim to be a victim of it, nobody is dying from it. On the other hand, enforcing a lifestyle, is very much victimizing the person who is forced to live their one life doing what some other ******* thunk out for him.

...and please allow me to elaborate. There are two things I handle on the daily basis that seem to piss me off. Gun control being sworn as necessary, when the government is already selling rights back to the citizen at rates comparable to highway robbery. If gun control was with good intention, the government would eat the cost to train any citizen volunteering to pass a class to own one. If they can't, then they're in it for the money, end of. The second, is how homosexuality doesn't sustain population or promotes bad lifestyles or something. Nobody that interacts with a lot of openly homosexual people, believes they lack talent, morales, or are dangerous people. Furthermore, we're not a species of population strength, our technology and social-structure means that children without parents, could be raised by parent-volunteers who can't have children. If anything, that argument that it's not naturally practical, is extremely counter-productive and incorrect.

Almost everything can be summarized as "empower people, don't smother them or manipulate them to act outside their own interests".

Even then, I do not support banning any speech that argues that homosexuals are dangerous to natural advancement. That speech they publicize, is a perfect opportunity, to disprove the entire thing in direct argument of. You don't just go "argh Sargon of Akkad that means you prove you're a racist homophobe and I don't have to argue or listen to you anymore I automatically win argument hohah".

Not all liberals might base all their support on feeling-based buzzwords, but enough might in a way that could influence an election a lot more than Russia.


Common sense gun control is practical, such as background checks for instance, but did you know that if you purchase a gun at a gun show or pawn shop in America, you don't need a background check? You didn't know that? Of course you didn't. Nobody does. ...Because it's not true.




Hey, this one will really tickle @Gorbles! It's the guy he knows by name, that really riffles his jammies when linked on Uber Forum's Politics Thread. Honestly, he is "supposed" to be of the social-libertarian political compass, but sounds like he could be anywhere between a super-capitalistic libertarian, to a full-stop capitalist authoritarian. He, again, also doesn't know, that Libertarian aren't Anarchists, social contracts are fine as long as they aren't extremely one-sided. He's right about at least one thing though, the government probably shouldn't be regulation-locking the market and/or subsidizing private companies in a way that everyone can't access. That's the single worst part in government.

To say, that I compare liberals to the worst examples, is to say he compares libertarians to... well, anarchists. Libertarians aren't about anarchy, they're about just enough government to defend everyone, without the excessive government that stops defending certain people and instead oppresses them based on arbitrary demographic like consumption of certain plants, or sexual preference.

I mostly disagree with him, but to understand, I suggest you watch the ENTIRE 45 minute video. If you argue points, I will quote segments toward the vaguely late-middle, for comprehension check. (Isn't this a fun game, @tatsujb?)



...and to answer your question, Tatsu...

You're assuming Russia had a preference. Really, this is the complicated way things are, every country and it's leaders have good and bad ties with other leaders and their staff. This includes Trump and China, this includes Trump and Russia, this includes Trump and Saudi Arabia, this includes Hillary and Russia, this includes Obama and Saudi Arabia.

Would I love a leader to be entirely transparent with every action they do? **** the hell yeah I would. If I were president, I'd self-stream every single friggin official action I did that wasn't top secret, and I'd openly question why I couldn't stream those too. I'd be the youtuber-streamer of presidents, because that's the level of transparency I'd like. Also because it'd be cool to have all those subscribers for other youtube projects, shameless plug.

@thetrophysystem fuckk it I'm willing to drop the gun topic if you'll respond to those instead :

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/the-politics-thread-play-nicely.70907/page-171#post-1141716
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/the-politics-thread-play-nicely.70907/page-170#post-1141709
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/the-politics-thread-play-nicely.70907/page-170#post-1141710

the whole gun issue is a lot less dear to my heart

------------

--------------

This one I straight up didn't address. However, you fundamentally misunderstood my sentence entirely.

What you read: "LGBT are pedophiles, gun owners (???), and murderers, we should arrest them in advance."

The sentence meant: "Rape and Murder are already illegal. Why make it a crime in advance to be a gun owner, or LGBT, by claiming 100% of each are Murderers, and Rapists, before they're Murderers, and Rapists? (respectively)

NEITHER of those correlations even make statistical sense btw, the vast majority of gun owners are not even mass murderers, and the LGBT community has a massively lower statistic of sex crimes as they make up of 3% of Americans openly and less than 3% of rape cases while the rest of rapes are carried out by heteros.

I am supporting the LGBT and the gun-owners in that sentence, and am suggesting if something is already illegal, don't try to enforce pre-crime on it, especially using shoddy shoddy biased statistics.
--------------
BONUS:

You see Hitler put jews in furnaces, and decide Mein Kampft is offensive and should be banned. That guy watches Muslim Extremist fly a pair of jets into the WTC and see American Citizens jump from the top as their bodies bounce off the concrete hundreds of stories below, and he decided "dat dere Koran" (that arsewipe doesn't even spell it right anyhow) is offensive and should be banned.

How is that any different? Either ban both, or neither. C'mon. It's very similar to banning anything related to the Confederacy from the Civil War, despite the Confederacy and all within it being acquitted of any wrongdoing by their peers upon resolution of the war, instead of being incarcerated and executed as war criminals and traitors. If the Union that had to live with the Confederacy pardoned their actions, why do some entitled twats 160 years later feel entitled to decide to run their name through the mud over the (false) fact that they were the sole supporters of 1860s slavery? They just want to pick fights with rednecks because political divisions, that and they also failed to obtain a proper American History education.

If censorship is even remotely okay, then it should be on the farthest stretch of under-enforcement. Total-ban nothing. Mein Kampft is important for scholars to see the psychotic fallacies in Hitler's logic and what he felt as he carried out those crimes against humanity. That's like Naruto not bothering to show why Orochimaru acted how he did, because there was no excuse for it. There was no excuse, but he had a backstory anyway, and it was important for comprehension. Hitler was a genius and psychopath, that kind of history is important to study.

If you want to enforce censorship, make mandated warnings before showing any category of censored material. Warning, the following contains graphic visuals. Warning, the following portrays a crime against humanity. Warning, the following should only be used as a negative example to avoid ever happening again.

So, here's a fringe case story on an article I read.

17 year old male cashier, sees a 17 year old female department manager, having sex with 42 year old store manager in a storage area outside of surveillance.

Captures it on phone camera, as evidence to turn into police against the 42 year old store manager.

Police arrest 17 year old cashier, when he goes to submit it to police as evidence. The police take phone as evidence of capturing child pornography. The police stupidly let phone screen lock, it's an iPhone and access to the memory is encrypted by the phone lock code and cannot be accessed without the code. 17 year old male cashier refuses to let them have code, only evidence cannot be accessed, police eventually forced to release him and drop charges.

17 year old male says, next time, he'll just publicize the 17 year old female department manager's sex tape on Wikileaks anonymously, and let that shitstorm explode from a safe viewing distance.

So... censorship handled appropriately? And given the need for actual justice for the 17 year old female manager being exploited by the store manager, and threat of police retaliation for merely capturing evidence, is anonymous public submission outside of jurisdiction, really appropriate either, even as a last resort?

I say that's the most confusing and arsanine situation I've ever tried to wrap my mind around.

yeah but that's my problem with that. by what logic would it be a crime to be LGBT ??

I DO NOT follow.

this is much much worse or bewildering then "all Muslims are terrorists" why are you even using this as a theoretical example even then it makes no sense and destroys your own argument.

Just ...WHY???

Well... crime is a strong word. I'd say, the only thing I can tell you is, that it is not a theoretical example, that the LGBT are simply denied rights to adopt children in some places, because those places don't deem their lifestyle as a healthy environment to a child.

That, happening in real life, is an active government-funded facility, taking a stance to spend government funds raising children sub-optimally, because they claim their feelings are that the children are in even more danger in a home with LGBT adoptive parents.

That, is a government waste of resources, to persecute a demographic, based on claims they're inferior and dangerous, when no evidence exists and the claim itself offensive as hell.

Fun fact: If 1 out of 3 churchgoing American families adopt a single child each, orphanages nationwide would be empty, and there would be no more children left for the LGBT to adopt.

1 out of 3 churchgoing families, oh, for arguments sake, let's say, the richest 1/3rd of all churchgoing American families, including tax breaks offered for children, are definitely capable of doing it, but are inconvenienced and satisfied with "praying" instead of "sacrificing their time and putting in any real effort to improve the lives of their fellow humans".

Now it is I that do not follow. How does it destroy my own argument? How is it even a theoretical example?

Real alt-right use this example all the time, that LGBT lifestyle threatens nuclear families, population, morality, and sex crimes. Their claim, not mine. Very common claim you hear. From literally any alt-right.

Anyone even remotely sensibly-right or moderate, has the sense to know that the LGBT community has excellent statistics of crime-per-demographic (not that it was ever on the table to judge a demographic based on statistics as a group), and that they do not threaten society as a whole or even inconvenience anyone that's not trying to go far out of their way to become inconvenienced by it. Lastly, the sensible and moderate right-wing supporters also support equality for the LGBT even if they don't directly support LGBT lifestyle, because to put any resources into persecution would be destructive of limited and already-abused government resources and attention, when REAL conservatives are classically small-government that doesn't chase stupid ******* witchhunts.

It's practically bipartisan, to support the LGBT. It's practically bipartisan, to support marijuana legalization too, same argument as the LGBT one, whether you support marijuana users or LGBT, the resources wasted in government enforced persecution is arsanine when the government should make no effort in bias against them.

The only people, who are truly against the LGBT AND MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION, are the crotchety extreme-right that want to enforce Christianity and stiff cookie-cutter appearances and social classes. Those are the only puddles of skunk excrement, that think women belong in the kitchen, men belong in leadership, women belong as skinny eye candy for men's pleasure, muslims are all terrorists, hippies are all deadbeats, blacks are all deadbeat criminal robber murderers, all latinos are Mexican and lowball jobs from Americans to send all the money back home to Mexico, and that the only people that are worth anything, are white cis hetero Christian males in 4 piece suits with close relations to those in power.

Those guys are literally a super small percent of anybody, and they screw up everything they touch, screw over everyone they exploit, and piss off every single person out there, and a whole lot of those crotchety old farts, are liberal political leaders that put on an act to pal up to the lower class while showing no sympathy in their actions.

It still takes a special kind of evil to be of a race that's disproportionately higher persecution for marijuana usage, and have a daughter caught using marijuana, and still retain schedule-1 status of federal enforcement in a department directly influenced by the executive-branch of government. That's literally Disney evil.

You know, I was playing Stardew Valley, for the first time months ago when my friend introduced it to me, and it has relationships and marriage in it, sort of like Fable.

Well, I asked, depending on your character's gender, can your character marry any or all of the relationship-available NPCs?

He said he didn't know.

We found out you totally could, no character in the game apparently had a preference, they were all "demisexual", if you pleased them, your gender didn't matter, same outcome.

My observation was, that it was a good idea, because it saves programming code, to simply treat the scenario the same.

Unfortunately, there is code to limit 1 marriage. Apparently, polyamory was coded out. Oh well. One could hope. Btw, I've totally been open to polyamory myself before. Been a neat proposition, never seemed like it had negative side-effects correlated with it, as much as how well it was executed. There you go, I support the LGBT, and Polyamory.

The Koran isn't that specific about murdering people like that. Some sick minds may interpret it that way, but the same happens to the Bible or many other ancient texts that happen to have spawned a religion or two.

I don't get what this example is supposed to be about. What has that to do with censorship? For one in some places of the US this whole "if teenagers make sex videos of themselves they're criminals" is obviously stupid. But that has nothing to do with censorship.

Also publishing a video of others having sex on the internet without their consent is a crime. No matter their age or the situation. Invasion of privacy or whatever the correct english words are for it.
Depending on your local age of consent laws that would be the first and last crime that clearly happens here. If you'd want to make sure the girl is okay and not in an abusive relationship, which sure is a possibility given the situation, you'd have to talk to her and help her go to the police if she needs to.

But really that has nothing to do with censorship.