This discussion thread is for the following thread and aims to keep the other thread clean and just for voting.
Stochastic terrorism MEEP discussion thread
Posts
Total:
31
There seems to be a pattern in who is voting for the MEEP proposal. Those voting against the meep proposal with the exception of 2 people are those who would have criticized Trump for stochastic terrorism just 3 months ago. Not to say they would ban stochastic terrorism but by it's nature it is a left wing term not usually found in right wing circles.
I vote Wylted for biggest hypocrite.
-->
@TheUnderdog
You should be allowed to hate Bernie Sanders so much you want him dead. I don't hate Sanders this much. You should even be allowed to advocate for me getting assassinated (a random nobody on the internet with no political power). Other people have enough common sense to not come to my home in Arlington, VA and murder me.
I don't think that will lead to a healthy discussion atmosphere.
There is a huge difference between calling for the death of the Brooklyn 5 and actually murdering them. You hero, Trump, called for the death penalty for the Brooklyn 5 because he believes they did something horrible. He is allowed to do that. It would only be illegal if he acted on this belief and murdered them (although if the Brooklyn 5 was actually rapists, then I don't think he would do anything wrong; it is because they were found to be innocent that I think what Trump would hypothetically do should be illegal). Trump believing the Brooklyn 5 are rapists, believing rape is horrible, and merely calling for them to be killed for something obviously bad if true is free speech.
They are not innocent BTW. They may have not directly rape her but were part of the criminal group that took part in the events that night. It's like when a gang surrounds you and only one is beating the shit out of you. The one's surrounding you are also at fault because you know what will happen if you attempt to defend yourself.
-->
@Sidewalker
I vote Wylted for biggest hypocrite.
Maybe next week we can create a MEEP for that
@wylted
I don't think that will lead to a healthy discussion atmosphere.
It's better than the alternative; censorship. This is why we have menus at resturants; one food option may taste horrible to you, but other people may like it. Some people like talking about Trump, other people like talking about guns. If you don't want to talk about whether the Trump shooting was justified, then you don't have too. Other people like it. This is why we have menus (Trump said this btw, and as much as I hate Trump, he is right here).
They may have not directly rape her but were part of the criminal group that took part in the events that night. It's like when a gang surrounds you and only one is beating the shit out of you. The one's surrounding you are also at fault because you know what will happen if you attempt to defend yourself.
You can believe that if you disagree with the NYC court ruling; but the NYC court found them not guilty. When it's whether person X did something everyone believes should be a crime, but the guilt status is in question, I consistently trust the people who actually sat through the trial. The court found Andrew Tate innocent of rape charges, I believe them. Same thing with Kyle Rittenhouse, same thing with all 3 of Trump's trials, same thing with the Brooklyn 5 and OJ Simpson.
Such debates about past events are pointless because they are unchangable.
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's better than the alternative; censorship. This is why we have menus at resturants; one food option may taste horrible to you, but other people may like it. Some people like talking about Trump, other people like talking about guns. If you don't want to talk about whether the Trump shooting was justified, then you don't have too. Other people like it. This is why we have menus (Trump said this btw, and as much as I hate Trump, he is right here).
Most of us agree we should have some level of censorship. It's why if I post some instructions on how to make pipe bombs or get away with rape on this site, Barney would ban me in an instant.
I consistently trust the people who actually sat through the trial.
Well the people who sat through the trial of the central park 5 found them guilty and a judge later on overturned the conviction due to lack of DNA evidence, an incorrect decision. So glad you agree with the jury here
-->
@Owen_T
In any future meeps, please feel free to reach out to me so I can calmly explain to you, the proper way to vote
It's why if I post some instructions on how to make pipe bombs or get away with rape on this site
But instructions on how to make bombs isn't speech that's the slightest bit political. Me personally, if someone got away with rape and posted it online, then I would want them to accidentally reveal themselves to authorities, so it doesn't make sense to ban even that speech.
Well the people who sat through the trial of the central park 5 found them guilty and a judge later on overturned the conviction due to lack of DNA evidence, an incorrect decision. So glad you agree with the jury here
I didn't know that was even legal; I thought if the jury found you guilty, then the judge sets the punishment if you are guilty.
-->
@WyIted
From the opinions I've read, I feel pretty confident
Is it just the norm?
-->
@TheUnderdog
I didn't know that was even legal; I thought if the jury found you guilty, then the judge sets the punishment if you are guilty.
It's rarely done but a judge can overturn a guilty verdict if he disagrees with the jury. Also if new evidence is brought forth that could have influenced the jury decision, the prior conviction could be overturned and retried, but after that many years they usually just let the criminal go. The lack of DNA evidence was considered new evidence in this case. I can't recall if there was a second trial, but I assume there wasn''t and am too lazy to google and confirm
-->
@WyIted
A current line in the CoC:
- You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.
How do you feel the two would work together? If not, what is your suggestion?
-->
@Owen_T
From the opinions I've read, I feel pretty confident
So the rule would ban me from makeing the following statement. Tell me if the following statement should be allowed
Biden is a threat to our democracy and at 4 pm on july 18th, you have a clear shot to the lincoln bedroom where he will be sleeping, if anyone wanted to kill him. But nobody should do that at all ever
Does the above statement really belong on this site?
-->
@Barney
ou may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.
So the COC I got passed in a MEEP excluded this but kept it nearly the same. The amended version looks like as follows I believe
You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism likewise prohibited.
The issue is the political nature of the SPLC and the fact that extremists themselves should be welcome, though they should not be allowed to recruit on the site or use the site for recruitment.
Banning stochastic terrorism would add the definition listed and We would have to remove the ability to say "all politicians should be shot" . Let me copy and paste the new COC which was tough for me to retreive since I deleted my evernotes notebook when I went to obsidian
-->
@Barney
Here is the updated COC and if we updated after this point than the data is lost unless you can find it
DebateArt.com Moderation Policy
DebateArt.com is committed to promoting an environment where users can engage in open and thoughtful debate on any topic, no matter how controversial or offensive it may be. Our moderation policy is designed to encourage free speech while ensuring that all users are treated with dignity and that our community remains safe and constructive.
Respect for other users
Users must treat other users with dignity and refrain from personal attacks, insults, or language that is harmful, degrading, or offensive. We do not tolerate any form of harassment, bullying, or threats of violence. All users are encouraged to engage in productive and respectful debates, even if they disagree with the opinions of others.
Constructive debate
Users are encouraged to present well-reasoned arguments and avoid logical fallacies. We do not permit the worst forms of trolling, such as spamming, posting irrelevant or inflammatory content, or engaging in personal attacks. However, we do allow more borderline forms of trolling that are intended to provoke thought or stimulate debate, as long as they are presented in a respectful and thoughtful manner.
No plagiarism or cheatingUsers must write their own arguments and not copy or plagiarize content from other sources. Cheating, such as using multiple accounts or vote manipulation, is strictly prohibited.
Doxxing and impersonation
Doxxing (the posting of personal information of others without their consent) and impersonation (pretending to be someone else) are strictly prohibited on DebateArt.com. This includes impersonating the site owner, moderators, or other users.
Renaming of threads or debate titles
Moderators have the right to rename a thread or debate title if it is deemed to be offensive or inappropriate. This includes any title or thread that is harmful or offensive to a particular individual or group.
Reporting violations
Users are encouraged to report any violations of our policies or guidelines to the moderators, who will investigate and take appropriate action. Please include specific details and evidence to help us address the issue quickly and fairly.
Moderator actions
If a user is found to have violated our policies, the moderators may take a range of actions, including issuing warnings, suspending or banning accounts, removing content, or renaming threads or debate titles. Our goal is to maintain a dignified and constructive community for all users, while also promoting free expression and constructive debate.
By using DebateArt.com, you agree to comply with our moderation policy and any updates or changes to it. We reserve the right to modify our policies at any time to ensure the continued safety and integrity of our platform.
This did not replace the whole COC, the portion it does not effect I will copy and paste below
-->
@Barney
I have to try to scrap this together. When we did the new COC I kept the useful parts of the old one in after this. I think which consists of the first few sections of the prior COC and the part about how moderators punish and how they operate at the end of it
Notice the new policy allowed mods to be fluid with it so it is a living document, so long as that was balanced with trying to create an evironment that creates a respectful and free speech environment
-->
@WyIted
Unlike the cite you sent (which has millions of votes), your poll here will likely have less than 2 dozen votes. All the votes are counted.
Trump was saying we should kill Mike Pence over what he did Jan 6.
If a leading POTUS candidate can call for the death of his VP, then anyone can call for the death of anybody.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Trump was saying we should kill Mike Pence over what he did Jan 6.
False some protestors were chanting hang Pence. Trump was not at the protest. He was at the Whitehouse.
Besides this is a piss poor defense that this site should engage in the same behavior.
The mail in ballots are starting to come in. I might wait until the last minute to add them to the totals
-->
@WyIted
There seems to be a pattern in who is voting for the MEEP proposal. Those voting against the meep proposal with the exception of 2 people are those who would have criticized Trump for stochastic terrorism just 3 months ago. Not to say they would ban stochastic terrorism but by it's nature it is a left wing term not usually found in right wing circles.
Is that where the impetus for this is coming from?
Stochastic terrorism isn't something anyone on this site can engage in effectively. There are two ingredients that make it notably dangerous: reach and influence. No one in this site is going to engage in violence because Wylted or Double_R on debateart told them to. But when you're the president of the United States and you have a cult following, your words become especially dangerous which also means you have a greater responsibility to use them appropriately.
As usual, you throw context out the window so you can pretend it's all the same. It's not.
-->
@Double_R
We both agree that Trump has more influence than me. Now you know there are unstable people on this site, so maybe ask yourself before you vote whether there is a place on the site for the senior members to say things that could set off the occasional schizo that visits the site
-->
@WyIted
ask yourself before you vote whether there is a place on the site for the senior members to say things that could set off the occasional schizo that visits the site
This kind of logic is like me deciding to stay home because there's always a possibility that if I get in my car I'll die of a car accident.
Anything *could* happen, every choice we make in life is a risk vs reward ratio. The point of this site is for its (very small) member base to be able to speak their minds freely and defend their positions. The idea of banning someone because they said something that could be interpreted as a call to violence that will not in any plausible reality inspire anyone to do anything cuts against all of that.
-->
@WyIted
And BTW, since you seem to have found a whole new appreciation for the danger of words that could be interpreted as a call to violence... Have you changed your mind on Trump telling the crowd at the elipse to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore"?
-->
@Double_R
And BTW, since you seem to have found a whole new appreciation for the danger of words that could be interpreted as a call to violence... Have you changed your mind on Trump telling the crowd at the elipse to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore"?
Yes
-->
@Double_R
To clarify the words fight like hell aren't a problem. The insinuation that the countrybis doomed if half the electorate doesn't get their way is the problem