Why you should not vote for Airmax

Author: ILikePie5

Posts

Total: 25
Topic's author
#1
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
I will not be voting Airmax because I don’t believe he will be a champion of the people.

Where was he when all the people were being being banned unfairly including Wylted, Mesmer, and BrotherD. Where was he during the voting processes for Hall of Fame or MEEPs? Where was he during forum fights and mafia games?

Why should I as a voter believe that AirMax would uphold my views and free speech beliefs when he has done nothing on this site to promote it. Why should I believe that only the Presidency will allow him to attract users to the site. Why couldn’t he have done this before? Why does he have to show up to a site he hasn’t been active on for at least a year?

I know Airmax has experience from his days on DDO. I also know that he has good relations with the current mods. But why should I believe that my interests in free speech will override his relationships with mods that he’s had for years? Both Wylted and RM have been victims of bans. They both have skin in the game. What reason does Airmax have?

He says he will bring activity. Why couldn’t he do this before? Is it because of over-moderation? Well then name people he has brought to this site that have been banned? He nor his supporters have cited any examples of such users. 

Why should I believe that Airmax will care about this site for the next year when he hasn’t even posted a word in a year prior to his nomination? Let’s be honest with ourselves. This is a popularity contest for him. He’s already called his contacts — some who also haven’t posted in months.

Why should I believe at all that he cares about this site. The answer is that I shouldn’t and neither should you.


#2
sui_generis
sui_generis's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 191
0
2
5
sui_generis's avatar
sui_generis
0
2
5
I'm back here to vote for him so I'm at least one data point 
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Exactly and Wylted is likely going to drop out to back him. Shows you where loyalties lie and how things really work.
#4
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@sui_generis
Do you plan on sticking around. The site is worse without you
#5
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@ILikePie5
You bring up some fair points he should probably address. I'll wait for his response before finalizing any decisions.
Topic's author
#6
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Wylted
You bring up some fair points he should probably address. I'll wait for his response before finalizing any decisions.

To be Frank, nothing he could say would change my mind. I’m a believer in actions. And in this case, his inaction speaks louder than his words.
#7
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I think the religious section is better off without BrotherDThomas, who I'm doubtful 'hasn't deserved a ban at times.
Nor am I surprised that Wylted, has been banned in the past, who I'm doubtful 'hasn't deserved a ban at times.
Though I am unsure if some of their posts have been 'intentional trollings, or social dysfunction and insanity.

Of Mesmer, I couldn't say, as I didn't really pay him much attention,
Topic's author
#8
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Lemming
That’s your opinion. In terms of free speech though, none of them should have been banned.
#9
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Lemming
I was banned for exercising free speech. Thank you for joining the Navy, because you agree with the principles laid out in the bill of rights.
#10
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Wylted
@ILikePie5
I'd say I believe in limited and variable free speech, rather than unlimited.
#11
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Lemming
Do you believe it should be illegal to deny the holocaust?

#12
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Wylted
No but you'd be a moron 
Topic's author
#13
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Lemming
I'd say I believe in limited and variable free speech, rather than unlimited.
These people were banned for logically arguing their controversial viewpoints with facts.
#14
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Vader
No but you'd be a moron 
Really? Do you think you know more about the holocaust than somebody who obsesses over holocaust denialism 12 hours a day and can defeat them in a debate? 
#15
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Wylted
Depending on the parameters of the debate yeah but I don't debate like I used to anymore
#16
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Wylted
@ILikePie5
@Wylted post #11
I am unsure, and will say I think it depends on the circumstance.

That may be true, having not followed their activities and bans with close scrutiny, I could not say.
My blurred view on the situation though, is that they were not 'just,
"banned for logically arguing their controversial viewpoints with facts."
Topic's author
#17
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Lemming
That may be true, having not followed their activities and bans with close scrutiny, I could not say.
My blurred view on the situation though, is that they were not 'just,
"banned for logically arguing their controversial viewpoints with facts."
Mesmer was banned for racism, but if you read his posts, they are backed up with facts or logic.
#18
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Lemming
We're you really in the American Navy?


It seems odd when you ask a veteran if they believe in maintaining the freedom our founding forefathers gave us, and have one respond with

"Well that depends"

#19
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Wylted
@ILikePie5
Of Mesmer I don't know all the details, glancing at his profile, the reason for banning mentions racism and possible multi-profiles,
I am unsure of DARTS 'current stance on freedom of speech, looking back in time,

you cannot use the n-word but you can debate "that Black Americans have lower average IQs than white Americans and at least a few of those IQ points can be attributed to genetics."

Perhaps the mods believed that Mesmer  went beyond argument, and engaged in hateful content, without knowing the particulars, I could not say.

I was in the Navy for five years, yes.
I think the freedom of speech given to us by our forefathers, is more nuanced than 'anything 'goes.
Freedom of Speech 'has limits, sees more and less use depending on the circumstances.
If I say I am unsure, it's because I'm 'thinking about it.
#20
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
We're you really in the American Navy?


It seems odd when you ask a veteran if they believe in maintaining the freedom our founding forefathers gave us, and have one respond with

"Well that depends"
Actually, it makes perfect sense. The military are some of the harshest 'get in line and shut your mouth' type people on the planet. They don't care much for 'freedom' as much as 'discipline'. Even if they themselves died for others' freedom, it's not in their own personal code or important values.
#21
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Wylted
I don't think it should be illegal to deny the holocaust,
I think it's of value for people in the USA to make public claims or criticisms without fear of retaliation by the government.

I think statements that the speaker 'knows is false, causes malicious or reckless chaos and destruction, 'should be addressed.
“with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

One worries, I suppose, that a false and harmful belief can become too widespread,
But the world 'is full of different beliefs, that often conflict.
Most one can do perhaps, is speak the truth as one see's it, hope that the public is good enough to 'recognize the truth, regulate what is taught in schools, spoken by authorities sources in history, health.

Of private websites, my first instinct is that websites have the right to regulate speech on their site, more or less.
Though depending on the site policy, I may or may not prefer to use it.
My second instinct, is the difficulty caused by how much online life is integrated into the modern experience.
#22
sui_generis
sui_generis's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 191
0
2
5
sui_generis's avatar
sui_generis
0
2
5
-->
@Wylted
potentially yeah; I've been kinda specifically wanting a place to exercise my brain outside of personality typology recently. 
#23
sui_generis
sui_generis's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 191
0
2
5
sui_generis's avatar
sui_generis
0
2
5
tbh I don't see how to technically vote yet lol is it a thread or… 
Topic's author
#24
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@sui_generis
Voting hasn’t began yet. It’s the campaign stage rn lol
#25
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@sui_generis
not for another 10 days or so