The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

that's a theory craft you have no way to prove will happen and you have no corroborating evidence AND as it stands is incredibly dubious.

Just as you say :

which isn't true. the first bears certain correlation. but anyways : there's as much evidence that banning main kamf would lead to the ban of guns as there is that binging the whole teletubies would incur a desire to vote for trump.

But even still I see you've successfully taken us on one of your distracting tangents because as we've confirmed with various European members in this thread : Mein Kampf stands no risk of being banned in the future quite the contrary.

Small sidenote:

Is this forum slow for anyone else? It sometimes can take 1-2 minutes for me to load anything.

nope. restart your router twice and your computer once after that see if that helps.

Censorship is very political. A lot of entities are handling censorship very poorly. Germany wants to pretend WWII never happened, so nobody hates them for any reason, not because there's no reason to hate a country that mostly wasn't alive during the time, but because "1934, 1935, something, censored, something, 1949". China wants to strictly control what anyone within their influence learns quoting "knowledge might make them dangerous", kind of like how people think Mein Kampf can make someone dangerous. YouTube and Facebook want to put age restrictions and graphic content warnings on "only a specific half" of the political spectrum, and not the other half, where videos of puppies and guys talking about Putin's cock-holster, aren't censored, but videos of graphic injuries and Trump talking about healthcare contain graphic content warnings asking if you're sure you wish to continue.

That's censorship, coupled with politically biased trolling with internet-community influences, a la Tatsu or Gorbles. If only we could somehow have some form of guarantee that censorship wouldn't be abused, like a national poll for a nation to censor something, without either side crying the outcome of the poll is a result of election hacking and that they had the superior numbers so poll be damned they should get it their way.

Perhaps, if we should censor anything, then we should censor the use of censorship. It's offensive to me, when I want to draw negative evidence from something negative, and can't ******* find a copy of the source. That's a suffocation of liberty, btw.

Either way, I'll continue to vote yes for no, and vote no for yes. End of. When you're able to do something and it's not illegal for you to do it (use internet proxies to bypass region-locking), you're welcome. If something mundane you do is illegal and you have to try and do it out of sight, then congratulations, you played yourself.

hahahahahahaha

@thetrophysystem I fail to see how what you quoted is being responded to in that block.

I've basically said "this topic isn't happening why are we debating this?"

And you basically conceded by not contradicting at all but sense and reason be dammed you'll spew out a bunch more on whatever anyways.

yeah I really feel you don't know wtf you're talking about trophy.

you get offended when we talk about america like we know it personally (and snappy reminder I do) but at least we have a clue.

Sounds to be like all of Europe's sore over it. Modern Germany is obviously not 1939-1945 Germany. That would be like blaming the Southern U.S. for the Civil War, when 0% of the southern population that was alive during the time is still alive. France obviously acts like they'll never forgive a country that's made up of 0% the same people that wronged them seventy years before.

If I don't see the point of sensitive nipples with the people against the Southern U.S., I'm damn sure not going to get it with people over Germany.

Trophy: Political Topic
Tatsu: Trophy's Off Topic, Divert to Question.
Trophy: Reason Topic Relates, Answer.
Tatsu: Trophy Remains Off Topic, Never Answered Me.

EVERY TIME! REALLY!!!! YOU ACT FRUSTRATED, BUT I'M HAVING TO LIVE, WHAT YOU ONLY ACT IS YOUR PROBLEM.

Topic Established.

On-Topic. Are you REALLY claiming it isn't? Really? REALLY??? REALLY!!!!!

This, my friend, is some random off-topic peppered-in liberal propaganda, just to remind everyone that they should think conservatives are evil. Smack dab in the middle of the conversation.

And this isn't some sort of evidence, this is simply "lol i gud, git gud trophy LOL git a ladder & git on my level", it's straight up piss-taking.

I quote you on this often enough for you to look dumb, you act like looking back on this will make you look better if you leave breadcrumbs of claims invalidating your opponents. Yeah, no, isn't happening.

I don't follow.

No I really really don't.

what in the hell are we talking about now: I've lost track.


Just an aside though : only a sith deals in absolutes.

Or pointing out that these same southerners where Democrats in response to today's accusations against Republicans.... yeah it would be stupid.

again ..... the comùparison pales to a point it just can't take place. apples and oranges.

now thanks to you I see how frogs = gay logic works.

All your bases are belong to us.

I'm not a native born american but uh... I'm pretty sure that's not english.

either way I'm going to need you to clear that up for me.

no it's an update on the situation.

you guys said Don Jr cleared it up. plus no real ties to russia. end of.

he didn't. he lied. there were more and more russians involved. it's looking more and more incriminating everyday.

So it's off topic and can't compare, but let me pepper in liberal propaganda so nobody can forget to love liberals and demonize conservatives.

You do realize Lincoln was a Republican, right?

History ITSELF doesn't make sense, if you don't realize bipartisan horseshit got shuffled up on what which side supports, once or multiple times, between then, and now. Which is exactly what I said. Not the same ******* charletons, as the ones that died long ago in what might as well be a different country entirely for practicality's sake.

So.

If you did know it personally OR have a clue, you'd not have proven you didn't just now.

Also, looking more incriminating everyday? Do you know when the last time Macron or his people communicated with Putin or anyone officially working for the Russian government including lawyers? Can you cite it? How about Obama or Hillary, when was the first time they communicated with a foreign government? During their Campaign? During their time in office? What about their communication with the Saudi government? China? Qatar? United Emirates?

Now, can you really for sure, tell me, that Trump has deeper, earlier, less transparent, and with criminal mal-intent and not just "negligence" (like Hillary's handling of emails were negligent without proof of intent), formed ties with Russia for the sole purpose of selling out the nation to him? Of course you can tell me that, because words make your lips feel tingly and that excites you. You can't admit that all governments and politicians communicate regularly though. You just want to make it illegal that "one certain" politician did so, because to hell with that one politician in particular.

Also, at this point I suspect, because Oliver said so, and if he said so, then you're on board.

actually it does if you study a little.

let's dumb it down a bit :
If we give property A : people change.

why is it so hard to admit property B : a large group of people changes.

In this instance over a hundred years not only did the democratic party change alot AND the republican party did too BUT both of them are also NOT comparable to the version of their opponent party from a hundred years ago.

crazy right?

not really I'm sure you'll concur.

So it's as uninformative as it gets in today's context to bring up that :

I don't idolize lincoln nor do I think he in any way represents either modern day Republican ideals nor modern day Democrat ideals.

people really would do well to remember it was a really different time with really different mentalities and they didn't do any of the things they did for the reasons we'd like assume with our present-day thoughts and mentalities.

this harkens back to to the whole we're all an "ism" exposé I did where I made it evident people liberating slaves back then weren't doing it with the same motives we'd do it with if we were to do the same today.

He was also third-party, Lincoln. And yes, he definitely was quoted for not intending to "end slavery". Not his, nor the "Union"s, goal.

I figure I should post my photos of the Holocaust Memorial in the centre of Berlin, along with Checkpoint Charlie, the last remains of the Berlin Wall and any other bits and pieces I took photos of during my business trip there earlier this year.

"Germans want to pretend WWII never happened". Yep. That's why half of Berlin is evidence of it, and the subsequent reparations that followed.

you might as well

I think it's been too long now and people fail to get it anymore :

Are you sure those aren't tourists? Besides, a few pictures don't make all of Germany, or all of Europe for that matter.

It's hilarious, how the same people who censor, aren't against graphic content.

"We fully understand censorship. We just choose to ignore it for everyone else."

That was some messed up **** that happened in 1939. While we're censoring Mein Kampf so we can disassociate responsibility, let's tell everyone else they have no right censoring religious text for the same reason, because we get away with **** we don't want others to. /sarcasm.






I don't even agree with censorship, but between me, and you, we're making arguments for censorship, better than they are. At this rate, Republicans will have the Quran banned in no time. It'll be stupid because they'll still be okay with the 90% of religious text that all Abraham religions share, including Leviticus.

In the end, did posting so we'd all get to see a few corpses today, really help either of us?

I'm not trying to be insensitive about it, I'm saying invoking the "support" of the tragically slain for an argument on censorship, is a stereotypically condemning thing both "parties" tend to do. Hitler killed some people, better blame it on Reagan's inaction. Assad killed some people, better blame Trump's policies. Al-Quaeda killed some people, better blame Bush's administration. ISIS killed some people, better blame Obama's wife.

I wish censorship could have actually saved some of these lives. I'm still in full doubt censorship has ever prevented a genocide yet, which is why I'm not hopeful book-burning is the solution to prevent edgy holocaust images from being posted on my local forum. Pricks will find a reason to kill people. Pricks will find an excuse to post the dead on a gaming forum.

You're still equating censorship of A to censorship of B, (and then C through Z) without any effort at qualitative analysis of the respective cases.

You're doing yourself a further disservice by insisting that the only positive end goal is the prevention of genocide, instead of the prevention of any violence related to the censored topic. Neo-Nazis exist, in reality, and have a large amount of overlap with (and ownership of) white nationalistic beliefs, which also meshes nicely with what the alt-right are currently trying to make presentable via YouTube videos ("immigrants are bad" is often a dogwhistle for "whites are good" r.e American and Western European cultural sentiments).

Preventing Neo-Nazis from gaining a stronger foothold in society is good. Preventing them from being emboldened as to commit smaller, localised acts of intimidation and violence is also good. As is the same for any other extremist sect or grouping. As such, at some point, censorship of their ideas is required, because unchecked they are allowed to twist the narrative until it is stacked in their favour.

How, you say?

Well because it's happened at least once before. We don't have to reach genocide for the suppression of Nazi rhetoric to be good. It's too easy to make their ideas seem appealing. They don't have to look obviously evil, in order to perpetrate such. History shows us this. Ongoing analysis of white nationalist groups shows us this. The ongoing rise of hate groups in America - also documented and studied currently - shows us this.

"I don't think censorship will prevent genocide" is a bad argument, for the reasons stated above. At worst, it's an intentional misinterpretation of peoples' posts here.

Certainly, it's a complete attempt at diversion from your ridiculous statements on how Germany want to pretend WWII never happened. Which is why I mentioned my pictures taken when I was in Berlin. Which feature a grand total of zero dead bodies. Try harder.

It's funny, because none of your statements presented qualitative analytical numbers.

I believe their number is low. Not thanks to censorship, either. It's because, when society does a good job at empowering it's fellow man, they do a good job of recognizing horses**t on their own.

Hard to recognize it, when evidence of negativity is censored, so you have to "trust by word" the government. The same one that said "marijuana is deadly". Yeah, if we were lied to about one of those, then now it's "Trust yet Verify". Trust people to read the awful junk, so they can verify it's horses**t.

Third party voter numbers, consist of Libertarian, Green, Independent, and then PewDiePie, before it gets to "Neo-Fascist" voting numbers. Saying "oh they just vote Republican", is funny since last I checked they weren't a social-dependency liberal party that aligns with Fascism.

When does government regulation go too far? Censorship? Regulation? All for our safety? I mean, you never know when a little girl might go psycho and put arsenic in her lemonade. Gotta regulate this stuff, for... public safety. Right. /sarcasm

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...iveyearold-girl-150-for-running-a3592781.html

Believe whatever you want to believe. I'm not here to use Google for you.