Total posts: 332
Posted in:
Trump Claims He is the Chosen One
Citations for this or it didn't happen.
Created:
Posted in:
There is no official definition for an "old thread". Is a thread old once it's a month old? A week old? A year old?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why are you reviving all of my old threads
Because they are interesting, and to get 100 posts so I can vote in debates.
And so, what dustryder said.
He's levelling up his necromancy skill
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Wait. Which source exactly did they use from the 1984's and which context of today did they apply it to? I was going to manually check each source myself to see which one was it until I realized that they used over 30 different sources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
@n8nrgmi
If you are working for me, and you are working 2 hours a day, and the minimum wage is 1 dollar an hour, then that means you are making 2 dollars a day. If the minimum wage then gets raised from 1 dollar an hour to 2 dollars an hour, I could simply reduce your work hours from 2 hours a day to 1 hour a day, in order to compensate for it, so you would still be making 2 dollars a day, and on top of that, you lose out on valuable work experience, which is something that a lot of people, especially young teenagers and young adults, need.
Raising the minimum wage didn't help you there, in that scenario.
If you are working for me, and I can only afford to pay you up to 2 dollars an hour, and that is the current minimum wage, and then the minimum wage gets raised to 3 dollars an hour, and I can't afford to pay you that much, then I simply fire you, so now instead of making 2 money an hour, you're making no money. Even if I didn't fire you, I would eventually go out of business due to not being able to afford to pay you that much, and you would still be left without a job and without money, regardless.
Raising the minimum wage didn't help you there either. In fact, it hurt you.
Human beings need food, water, shelter, and other basic necessities to survive, so let's say that each of these 4 things cost 1 dollar each (1 dollar for food, 1 dollar for water, 1 dollar for shelter/rent/mortgage, and 1 dollar for necessities). Let's also say that the current minimum wage is 1 dollar an hour and you work 5 hours a day, so you are making 5 dollars a day. After you make your 5 dollars for the day, you spend 4 out of those 5 dollars on the things that you need to survive, and then keep the extra dollar for yourself as profit. Now let's say that the minimum wage goes up from 1 dollar an hour to 2 dollars an hour. In that case, the company/companies that sell the food, water, shelter/rent, and necessities would all likely raise their price of each of those things in order to compensate for the minimum wage increase, so now you are paying 2 dollars for food, 2 dollars for water, 2 dollars for shelter/rent, and 3 dollars for necessities. Now you would be making 10 dollars a day since 2 times 5 is 10, but you would also have to pay a total of 9 dollars for each of those necessities instead of 4, since the price of those also went up, so at the end of the day, you would still be left with a daily profit of only 1 dollar.
Raising the minimum wage didn't help you at all, because you're now earning more, but also paying more too.
Raising the minimum wage usually leads to at least one of those 3 aforementioned outcomes that I have described (either you have your hours reduced like in outcome#1, you get fired because the employer can't afford to pay you like in outcome#2, or you just have to pay more for other things and not really have a big increase in profits like in outcome#3).
Raising the minimum wage does more harm than good.
Also, TheRealNihilist says to me:
That PragerU link you gave. Had a source from 1984.
but this comment doesn't actually refute any of PragerUniversity's actual arguments. Just that one statement about a source. In fact, what PragerU says about the minimum wage is pretty much what I'm saying: that if you raise the minimum wage, it usually leads to certain bad outcomes, like the ones I mentioned.
Looking at some of the other comments here, I noticed that TheAtheist said:
Higher taxes and minimum wages may give "the masses" more money in the beginning, but eventually, there will be no more money left to give to them. If your taxes are too high, businesses will close down or leave to other countries, which results in higher unemployment, which will make "the masses" even worse off. Same thing with deciding how much companies should pay their employees: in the long run, this will result in an economic disaster.
Isn't this exactly what happened in Venezuela, which resulted in their downfall? Why would you want something like that to happen here in the United States? Because that's pretty much what will likely happen when you raise the minimum wage so much, raise taxes on the wealthy so much, or try to make the poor rich by making the rich poor.
Created:
I do agree that it lends insight into why particular criminals act, but what can it do to prevent future crimes? We know the perpetrator was worried about a white genocide.
It isn't JUST white genocide that the perpetrator(s) thought about. Another youtube named Drift0r (with a zero instead of an O) made an interesting video talking about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04lwtktWa9U
Here are some of the interesting stuff that he said in his video:
At 6 minutes and 28 seconds in his video, he talks about how "He blames both political parties for facilitating the great peplacement for different reasons; for the democratic party it's primarily a moral one about helping minorities and also building up a huge and loyal spanish voting pool, and he blames the republican party for supporting immigration for actually supporting immigration because of their pro-business and pro-cheap-labor kind of setup"
At 8 minutes and 36 seconds in his video he says "There is 1 line in here that is super important that I don't think anybody on TV or news has picked up on yet, and one that really sticks out to me; it really kinda hits home and helps me understand this guy as a person; he says 'my whole life I have been preparing for a future that currently doesn't exist. This is a man who's lost hope. He has no reason for living."
At 11 minutes and 15 seconds he says "He clearly has mental health issues and is not getting help for it in any way; his friends and family could not or would not be there to help stabilize him"
Finally, at 15 minutes and 8 seconds he decides that the gun violence in the United States, especially most of these mass shootings, is mainly due to our country's poor health care, and poor access to health care. At 16 minutes and 6 seconds he mentions having low job stability and security, and a lot of stress, and cannot have easy access to good health care without ridiculous fees, and at 17 minutes and 48 seconds he reiterates that "we have a disaffected and stressed-out population; they can't realistically seek any form of mental health care" and "a political system that is kinda of designed against change".
So to answer your question, blamonkey, about "what can it do to prevent future crimes?" the answer to that is that manifestos give us an idea of how criminals think and act, so that youtubers like Drift0r can talk about it, and then help lead us towards some of these solutions to prevent future crimes, such as improving our health care!
At 19 minutes and 55 seconds he even says that "with better cheaper or free mental health depending on how you want to cut it, we could catch a lot more of these people falling through the cracks of society; this wouldn't end mass shootings, it wouldn't fix the entire nation and all of our problems, but it's just another filter that'll catch more people that are struggling"
So yeah, he admits that his solutions aren't perfect, but he still comes up with a pretty good one... all thanks to him being able to see the shooter's manifesto. Lastly, he says, after 32 minutes, that "one good friend to either of these shooters; somebody that stepped up to make them happy, to give them a reason to live, to show them a new way, to do anything, could have stopped these mass shootings. These mass shootings are because you have hopeless despondent people getting sucked into violent ideologies, and the best way to prevent that is to give them something to live for!"
Since the shooter also talked about immigration, we can also find more and/or better ways to cut down on illegal immigration so that you don't have as many people thinking that they are being "invaded" or whatever, which could also catch more of these potential shooters from becoming actual shooters.
THAT is "what can it do to prevent future crimes".
Created:
-->
@Wylted
@blamonkey
but I can raise doubt of the program's success with a 4-letter acronym:D.A.R.E.
What does this stand for?
They just swatted a guy who had dirt on them as well and he could have easily died in that situation.
When and where did this happen?
Other than that, I agree with both of your statements. One thing I want to add is that a youtube channel called Prager University made a video talking about how "A publisher chooses the content that resides on its site. The New York Times is a perfect example. You can’t write a story and just expect the New York Times to publish it. The Times chooses what appears on its pages or website. And if they publish a story that contains a malicious lie, or violates copyright law, they can be sued. PragerU is also a publisher. It decides what material gets placed on its website.
Most sites are publishers.
In contrast, a public forum—which can be a physical location, like the classic town square or a shopping mall, or a virtual location, like a website—is a place that must allow individuals and organizations to exercise their free speech rights. YouTube is an example of a public forum. In fact, YouTube describes itself as a public forum. You make a video. YouTube hosts it. And anyone with an internet connection can watch it. Facebook is also a public forum, and so is Twitter.
Here’s why this is so important:
A public forum under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a law co-sponsored by Democrats and Republicans and passed by Congress in 1996—is not subject to liability for content placed on its site. If someone posts a video about how to build a bomb or writes a threatening comment, the public forum website cannot be held legally responsible for that content.
That’s a good thing. It gives YouTube and other public forums the chance to host a wide variety of material, from nature videos to political diatribes, without fear of being sued. And it worked. And then, it didn’t.
A few years ago, the social media giants—Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter—started to behave not like public forums, but like publishers.
They stopped following Section 230, which specifically requires that these websites promote “a true diversity of political discourse,” and began to judge content by their own political and social criteria.
In other words, the social media giants want it both ways: They want the protections of a public forum and the editorial control of a publisher. We’re fine if they’re a publisher, and we’re fine if they’re a public forum. They just can’t be both."
A few years ago, the social media giants—Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter—started to behave not like public forums, but like publishers.
They stopped following Section 230, which specifically requires that these websites promote “a true diversity of political discourse,” and began to judge content by their own political and social criteria.
In other words, the social media giants want it both ways: They want the protections of a public forum and the editorial control of a publisher. We’re fine if they’re a publisher, and we’re fine if they’re a public forum. They just can’t be both."
Their video about this can be found here. https://youtu.be/d6C6_NVj964?t=181
This information can also be found on their website. https://www.prageru.com/video/prageru-v-youtube/
In other words, if what they're saying is true (and by "they" I mean PragerU), then that means that both Google and Youtube are trying to be something they're not - a "publisher" (by "they" I refer to Google and Youtube, whereas the other "they" refers to PragerU).
If this is the case then this would technically mean that they (google and youtube) could also be sued for trying to be politically correct towards 8chan, but I'm not entirely sure.
Created:
The 8chan site is being crucified, New Zealand is literally punishing it's citizens with fines, as well as months worth of jail time simply for sharing, and, also, these manifestos are also being censored. Without them, we won't have an idea of how bad guys think and act, and thus it will be harder to people to figure out how to deal with them. Even LiveLeak, a site that normally allows violent graphic and gory content to be shared, is trying to be politically correct and censor this. https://i.imgur.com/XweFwpX.png
Let's say someone is bullied and tortured, and then they take it out on some school and shoot that place up. If we hear their side of the story and learn that bullying and torturing played a role in this, we can then use that information to educate each other about how bad bullying is, and how we should respect each other more, which could prevent future mass shootings due to bullying. If we don't hear their side of the story, we won't know that bullying played a role in this, we wouldn't be educated about this, and we would just keep bullying each other until more and more people commit mass shootings due to bullying, because we didn't learn from our previous mistakes.
Let's say someone commits a mass shooting because of drugs. If we can hear their side of things, we can understand how drugs played a role in this and educate each other more about drugs to encourage each other to avoid such drugs, which could also prevent further mass shootings.
See where I'm getting with this? These are just some examples of how this information can help us and how hearing different sides of things can help us greatly. Censoring everything on every website would ultimately make it harder to deter and prevent future crimes like this, because, then, we wouldn't be learning from our mistakes, IF we were making any to begin with, and we would likely keep repeating said mistakes, resulting in more disasters such as this.
To this day, I hardly understand why the September 11 2001 World Trade Center attacks happened because I didn't get to hear the criminal's side of things; everyone was too busy focusing on ONLY the victims' side and/or censoring other sides.
Here is an article stating that "Manifestos play a vital role in clarifying motive Prohibiting access to terrorist tracts also confuses the public debate over what these acts of violence mean and what to do about them." https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/07/after-el-paso-vital-keep-shooter-manifestos-available-public-column/1931628001/
Brenton Tarrant's one can be downloaded and viewed here. http://archive.fo/2dpB4
This is the archive of the 8chan thread where he declares that he is going to "make a real life effort and" "carry out the attack against the invaders". https://web.archive.org/web/20190315030049/https://8ch.net/pol/res/12916717.html
You can see people cheering him on, and you can even find a few people saying "HEIL TARRANT" in all capital letters, which shows that there are people out there, who do have a lot of hatred within them.
This is Patrick Crusius's manifesto. http://archive.is/btujl
I checked the "Rules and Code of Conduct" of this site before linking these manifestos. I know other popular forums like Reddit will ban for doing so, but I didn't see any rules on this site prohibiting me from sharing a criminal's side of things. I'm not linking to any porn, viruses or malware, just archived documents and stuff.
There IS a rule that prohibits "Adult Content" which says "Posting adult content or links to adult content, including pornography, is strictly prohibited."
but I don't believe that a couple of harmless documents of some random criminal falls into this category, and I don't believe that an archived message board full of random immature losers, worshiping and glorifying a random dude, falls into this category either. If it does, though, then I guess a moderator will have to take whatever appropriate action needed....
but yeah, like I said, these countries are trashing The First Amendment right now in 2019 and censoring even small things as well as the big things. We've reached a point where "LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP" people get OFFENDED because you didn't refer to them as "their preferred gender pronouns" even though they wanted to sexually identify as an attack helicopter or whatever.
Created:
Several countries, even New Zealand itself, is blocking 8chan, and also it is being made more vulnerable to Denial of Service Attacks.
Created:
Posted in:
I watched the video and I decided to subscribe to freedomtoons :P
Created:
Posted in:
I think there are different types of intelligence, as explained here. http://www.institute4learning.com/resources/articles/multiple-intelligences/
- Linguistic intelligence (“word smart”)
- Logical-mathematical intelligence (“number/reasoning smart”)
- Spatial intelligence (“picture smart”)
- Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence (“body smart”)
- Musical intelligence (“music smart”)
- Interpersonal intelligence (“people smart”)
- Intrapersonal intelligence (“self smart”)
- Naturalist intelligence (“nature smart”)
I would say that Conservatives have higher Intrapersonal, Naturalist, and Logical-Mathematical intelligence than Liberals, while Liberals would have higher Interpersonal, Linguistic, and Spatial intelligence than Conservatives, while they both have about the equal amount of Musical and Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence.
I wouldn't say that Liberals are stupid in general, but rather that they make poorer political decisions, and should be trusted with different things.
Created:
Posted in:
I thought Africans were all black. Didn't know a white African-American could exist.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know what that is, and if I don't know what something is, it's going to likely be boring.
Created:
1 - Whats the most specific policy in your platform to fight against climate change that could be passed by Congress in your term?
Pretty sure climate change was formulated to make United States manufacturing less competitive/non-competitive.
Created:
Posted in:
What is a "disapproval rating"? Who is in charge of approving/disapproving of Donald Trump? 'Cause I know I APPROVE of Donald Trump :P
Created:
Posted in:
Remember: A minimum wage does NOT guarantee jobs. It guarantees ONLY that those who get jobs will be paid at least that minimum, and that leads to two bad outcomes: Unemployment and Higher Prices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j01L69eXdI
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
They can and most likely will be able to "erase" millions of guns if they acquire enough power and authority to do so.
It's just that criminals will still keep those banned guns instead of turning them over, thus making the gun-violence problem worse as you are now leaving many good people defenseless, like in Chicago which has very strict gun laws and is still violent. Other countries have banned Assault Rifles, then, a few years later, semi-automatics, then a few more years again, handguns, and then they even ban most knifes that are longer than like 2 or 3 inches too. Most of the gun violence in this country is from handguns anyways, not rifles.
They may not be coming after our guns, but they sure are TRYING to, and even if they can't ban guns directly, they will simply try to do other things like restrict the amount of rounds per magazine, restrict people from taking their gun outdoors, raise the legal age to purchase a gun higher and higher, force people to use "smart" guns with fingerprint-detection triggers, restrict people from possessing a gun at specific times, restrict certain kinds of attachments such as the bump stock, make background checks more and more strict and tedious as if they aren't already strict and ridiculous enough, and find other little ways of getting around the second amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
Why is this thread exploding all of a sudden?
It's exploding because you keep making childish troll comments instead of actual arguments, against your opponents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@DBlaze
Competition is extremely important to an advanced economy.
Sure, competition can be a good thing, but, like with all good things, too much of that good thing is usually a bad thing. Remember that. Obviously having competition can motivate people to work harder and boost the economy, but, because we have so much of it, it's starting to get way out of control, backfire on us, and do more harm than good.
Illegal immigration is causing this issue as well.
Wouldn't having E-Verify fix the whole problem with immigrants stealing jobs? After all, it would allow employers to ensure that those who work are working legally. It seems to be a much easier alternative to having to search the entire country for 2000+ immigrants and deport each and every one of them, one by one. Perhaps that would reduce the incentive to come here illegally in the first place.
real companies are having a hard time staying in business because they cannot compete.
Like Greyparrot said, having business compete is perfectly normal and is a good thing, but, like I SAID, the competition is growing at too high of a rate and is getting out of control and doing more harm than good because of these companies going out of business, result in less jobs overall.
Created:
Posted in:
What's so idiotic about Donald Trump? What about that tweet shows that he is an idiot?
Created:
What phallic monuments are you talking about?
Created:
I worry that we may be getting closer and closer to war. I discussed this issue about Iran with someone else, here. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2257/is-trump-blowing-it?page=4
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Omar2345 and I had a discussion about this very issue. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2257/is-trump-blowing-it?page=4
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
@Yassine
@DBlaze
@Mopac
@disgusted
Once you solve the problem with the job market being over-competitive, there can be more available jobs overall, which would result in less stiff competition, which would result in less people needing to have 4-year-or-higher degrees just to get an entry-level job, which would result in those people having more time to develop real valuable skills since they don't have to spend so much time in college, which would result in less college-degree-inflation, which would result in less student loan debt and a reduced student loan crisis, overall.
The second issue is tests. Throughout all of middle school, high school, and college, a lot of what you do involves memorizing/test-taking. This is due to George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act policy, as well as Barack Obama's Every Student Succeeds Act policy, both of which force learning institutions to focus more and more on teaching to the test. For many classes, tests count for like 40 to 70 percent of your grade, and we do tend to forget most of what we memorized after the test is over. In other words, a lot of time is wasted in both school and college - time that could be used to teach students valuable things that they aren't simply going to forget within a few weeks. So, yeah, those two are also partially to blame for this crisis that we have.
The third and final issue is that people often graduate even though they haven't fully learned the material. In college, I have/had classmates who could barely write a decent 2-paragraph essay, even though they should have learned to that, back in like 6 or 7th grade. So many people have to take "remedial classes" in college (which end up costing them more and more money, thus adding more to the already-existing crisis) because they haven't fully grasped what was taught in high school, and a youtuber named Raging Golden Eagle made a video explaining this in further detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZOQmWVuI14
Fixing these issues would fix the student loan crisis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
@Outplayz
@Greyparrot
@thett3
@Levi
People like Bernie Sanders believe that making college free for everyone would be the answer. The reality is that it would actually make college more expensive for the wealthier people.
Let's say that a college currently costs 3 dollars to attend and I have 21 dollars, so I pay my 3 dollars to attend that college and keep the other 18 dollars for myself, but my other 9 friends can't attend that college because they each only have 1 dollar.
If you make college free for all students in this scenario, then all 10 of us could attend the college.
However, the college still needs funds to fully function (30 dollars to be exact, since 10 times 3 equals 30), so where would it get it's 30 dollars from? Taxes, obviously. So where would it get the tax money from? Us citizens, obviously, and since I'm the one among my friends with the most money, that means I would be paying the most tax money. My 9 friends would each pay 1 dollar in taxes, making a total of 9 dollars, and then I would be forced to pay the remaining 21 dollars in taxes to make that 30 dollars that the college needs.
See? You've just made "free" college more expensive for me - 7 times more expensive, to be exact!
Bernie Sanders also suggested cancelling "All $1.6 Trillion Of Your Student Loan Debt". https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/06/24/student-loans-bernie-sanders/
This too is flawed, and here's why.
Let's go back to my previous example with my 9 metaphorical "friends" who each had 1 dollar. They decide to each borrow 2 dollars so that they can each combine it with their current money in order to meet the 3-dollar cost for college (2+1=3). Meanwhile, I'm stuck paying the full 3 dollars for college out of my own pocket.
Now, when you "cancel" all student loan debt, that basically means that my friends got to pay much less for college while I had to pay 3 dollars. That wouldn't be fair to me at all, nor would it be fair to all the hundreds of other people who had to pay large sums of money out of their own pocket for college. My friends legally stole a combined total of 18 dollars, and do not have to worry about being penalized for it, or having to pay it back.
Not only that, but, what would eventually happen is that NOBODY would be willing to lend money to students for college, because, why would you lend thousands of dollars worth of money to thousands/millions of people, each, when you know that you aren't going to get paid back at all? You're basically being legally robbed. When I lend money to people, I want to lend it, KNOWING that I most likely will be paid back.
So now you will end up with people who can't afford to pay for the 3-dollar college since they only have 1 dollar, AND can't get any loans to be able to pay for it either, since nobody wants to get robbed of millions of dollars.
So, yeah, by cancelling all debt, you've actually made the problem worse.
To fix the whole "student loan" crisis, we need to first fix a couple of other things.
First of all, the job market is WAY TOO competitive. When you have hundreds of people all competing for the exact same entry-level job, and only 1 person gets picked for that job, that's a problem, especially when hundreds of job applications don't even get looked at, since employers usually use ridiculous algorithms to "filter" out most applications, that would otherwise be great to at least look at.
One way to solve the issue of the competitive job market would be to have more low-skilled/entry-level jobs available to begin with, so that more people can get employed and potentially pay off their debts much faster. This can be achieved by LOWERING the minimum wage as opposed to raising it. Having a lower minimum wage means that more people can get employed since employers, especially ones who can barely afford to pay their current workers under high-minimum-wage laws, will be able to hire more workers under lower minimum wages. This makes it so that people don't have to compete as much just to get a basic job to gain valuable work experience. Here are 2 great youtube video by Prager University explaining this in more detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j01L69eXdI
The job market is so competitive that most applications, even for jobs that don't require a 4-year-or-higher degree, won't even get looked at unless the applicant has at least that type of degree. Making the job market less competitive makes it so that not as many people have to have a 4-year-or-higher college degree just to remain competitive in the job market, and this would result in less people having to apply for such high student loans, that they can barely pay off, to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
He would unify the country and would send us to space.
Aren't we already unified and sent to space?
Created:
Posted in:
Being pro-life and being pro-"murder" are both problematic in their own way.
You can't be pro-life too much, because eventually we will just keep breeding, which would result in the earth being overcrowded.
You can't be pro-murder too much, because eventually we would just keep killing each other off.
Having some life is good, but sometimes we have to reduce that amount of life to ensure that the earth isn't overcrowded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
It's funny how people debate this topic. What are you going to do? What is the end goal?
The end goal is banning and banning until there is barely anything left to ban..... and the criminals will still find ways to acquire access to these weapons since they don't care about laws.
Colion Noir, someone who strongly defends the second amendment, make several interesting videos about this.
They're all very short interesting videos, and can be listened to while you're doing things.
Created:
Posted in:
I know the money could go to the poor....... but I prefer that it go to the wall :P
Created:
I guarantee you, at least half of those shootings listed on Wikipedia could have been stopped had there been a good guy with a gun to stop the bad guy.
Created:
Posted in:
There are a lot mixed opinions about Universal Basic Income. Some say it isn't worth it. Some say it is necessary to ensure that people do not go homeless and broke when robots steal our jobs years from now.
Here is a youtube video explaining it in more detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XjHXYt8wQ
Created:
Posted in:
Who is this guy? What makes him special? Why should he be voted for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Oh my sweat, tl:dr
If you find that too long to read, you're lazy.
Here's bsh1's comment, shortened and summarized:
"Right-wing extremism tends to be characterized by xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, capitalism/corporatism, revanchism, and/or hyper-individualism/exceptionalism (a la Nietzsche). Left-wing extremism tends to be characterized by hyper-egalitarianism, militant socialism/trade unionism, ultra-globalism, anti-nationalism/xenophobia, and/or ecoterrorism."The right tends to adopt an us-vs-them mentality, which results in an urge to either isolate "us" from "them" or to control "them" for the sake of "us." The left tends to adopt an all-of-us-together mentality, which results in an urge to bring together groups of people as equals.Both of these urges can be carried to dangerous extremes. The violence of Hitler's fascism is an excellent example of the us-vs-them mentality resulting in catastrophe, while Pol Pot's communism is an example of the all-together mentality resulting in catastrophe. Both of these urges can also be beneficial. Protecting the rights of "I" and "us" is an important part of checking government and ensuring the general welfare, as is the need to break down artificial and xenophobic barriers which foment hostility between peoples.
What he is basically saying, summarized in ONE sentence, is that both democrats and republicans alike have various strengths and weaknesses, and that neither side is perfect. Simple as that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did anyone pick Bernie Sanders? Or is he simply the worst pick?
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
I like Google. I just don't like what they're doing. It's the actions that I'm against, not the company itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Aren't republicans generally for free speech as guaranteed in the constitution?
I don't think promoting "Violence Against Donald Trump" is protected by free speech.
Created:
If I had to pick a democrat, I would go with maybe Andrew Yang?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The main problem with large companies and countries censoring whatever they want (legal or not) is that it makes it easier for them to brainwash people and control what they think, by limiting the kinds of information they have access to. Not only that, but it also makes it much harder to hear different sides of the same story, like with those people who share their manifestos and their sides of the story.
Back when slavery was still legal, most slaves weren't allowed to even read, out of the fear that they would get smart and then get organized to the point where they would be much harder to control.
Countries like New Zealand China and North Korea heavily control what kinds of online information people can have access to, and because of this, it is easier for them to brainwash those people, by keeping them from the harsh truth about things.
Many terrorist organizations such as ISIS and the Taliban, as well as those countries that willingly harbor those various terrorist organizations, teach their people that Americans are the bad guys, and it is easier for those people to be controlled, since they are restricted from hearing different sides of the story.
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis limited the information that their people had access to, making it easier to fool people into thinking that the jews were the inferior race, without allowing different sides of the story to be heard.
History has shown us, more than enough times already, what can happen when you allow politically correct countries, as well as corrupt third-parties such as Google Facebook and Fake News CNN to freely cherry-pick what kinds of information is available and prevent people from hearing different sides of the story.
Thanks to the first amendment, the United States censors as little as possible compared to other countries, unlike all those other corrupt groups. This allows different sides of a story to be shared and allows people to be educated better, based on what both sides said, and form their own judgement.
If you post your entire manifesto before engaging in a terrorist act on a website that refuses to censor or report you to the authorities, that website is scum and deserves to be wiped off of any decent search engine. that is one of many examples of the neglectful nature of 8Chan's administration.
There is nothing scummy about having a website that lets different people, even criminals, share their different sides of the story so that people can be educated better. In fact, you should be GLAD 8chan's administration is this neglectful, because censoring criminals from sharing their side of the story only makes sensitive butthurt people and politically correct people feel better, as well as promote abuse and corruption, since they can abuse their powers to censor things, and start censoring whatever else they don't like, just like history has shown us.
Here's a youtube video about a man who almost became a mass shooter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azRl1dI-Cts
Now imagine if he HAD ended up becoming a mass shooter? In that case, we wouldn't get to hear his side of the story about how his family was having a hard time coping with drugs and addiction, how he lacked clean clothes, how he was constantly transferring schools, how he was tormented by bullies, how he was made to believe that he was worthless, how he cut himself, how he was homeless at age 15, or how he tried to seek help but was betrayed by social services and resorted to seeking help from gangsters, thus making things worse as he was now hanging out with the wrong crowd.
We wouldn't get to hear any of this, nor would that youtube video likely even exist, because it would all be censored, and the only thing we would pretty much know about him is that he was just.... another stinking pile of "pure evil"!! That's all the politically correct media would say about him. We likely wouldn't know any of the horrifying details that we knew now, and we wouldn't be better educated if his side of the story was heavily censored and blocked from most people, like with the manifestos of the ACTUAL mass shooters.
You can say whatever you want, you are defending something very dark and demented. DuckDuckGo when used via TOR Browser, is only used for one purpose; to search disgusting things that no one should legally be allowed to see the results of.
If you find 8chan dark and demented that's fine. If you find the manifestos, and other valuable information that other criminals and/or potential criminals share, dark and demented, that's fine too.
What's NOT fine is people like you, forcing your delusional standards of "dark and demented" on others and claiming "that no one should legally be allowed to see" these different sides of the story and educate themselves about what goes on in the minds of criminals.
Why else are people going to such lengths to hide who they are and to see results Google has taken off?
Because people do not, and should not, fully trust that these companies and countries know what is best censored and what should be left alone, due to their corruption and insecurities.
We've reached a point where it isn't even just these sites like 8chan getting censored, but rather, other random harmless phrases and words getting censored too, in certain places. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt_Oe3IvWvE
You don't know that because you haven't seen how much crime has been reduced thanks to Google and Bing actively refusing to show some things on their searches.
So you've proven my point then, which is that Google and Bing can't be fully trusted to censor what the best things to censor are. It makes no sense at all to censor data that would show reduction of crime thanks to 8chan being censored.
The fact that you even HAVE to use heavy-duty VPNs to get around such asinine restrictions to see potentially valuable and vital information also proves this point.
Like I've said before, what "does deter crime" is good guys who can stop the bad guys.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
When you said that you were "referring to slave trade, hiring hitmen, child porn and other such things," I thought you were simply talking about researching and educating oneself about these things, and then forming a decent opinion. I didn't know you were talking about people actually looking to trade slaves, hire killers, and share child porn. My bad.
I don't think DuckDuckGo's claim that they keep you private is "propaganda". The thing with privacy is that there are different levels of it. It's not just a black-and-white matter of whether you have privacy or don't. You can have different LEVELS of privacy. You can have no privacy, some privacy, more privacy, a decent amount of privacy, a high amount of privacy, or maybe like absolute privacy. Certain search engines do help with privacy. It's just that they usually still have to make sure they follow laws, and some search engines will give more privacy then others, while other search engine will very rarely give absolute privacy. Also, unlike google, duckduckgo isn't trying to be politically correct and censor 8chan.
I guess duckduckgo doesn't give ENOUGH privacy, and, for some people, duckduckgo isn't what they expect it to be. https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/813un1/duckduckgo_is_not_safe/
No, I don't "think Google is oh so evil." I'm just saying that these companies, countries, and media outlets are very misguided in their efforts to censor what they don't like. It doesn't deter crime and It doesn't properly preserve history. It just makes them feel better. It's like putting a band-aid over what they think is the problem instead of addressing the real problem, which is the fact that too many innocent people are unable to defend themselves in the event of an attack that does not involve waiting for police to arrive.
Looking at the "darkweblinks" article that you shared, most of those "18 True Horror & Creepy Deep Web" things aren't actually against the law, nor are they actually that scary. Numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 16 are just what you would expect from trolls, especially number 11 where it says "The site warns everyone of its viewers to not take or save these images the dead girl’s ghost will haunt you forever." Really? I'm gonna be forever haunted by a ghost over some stupid images?? Yeah... a lot of it is clearly not real, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Most of it is just to scare you and give you nightmares. Number 8 even talks about how you get charged 10,000 dollars for.... some random videos? Why would anyone fall for a scam like that? Even number 12 admits that "It could be a hoax or it could be real since the users who got this message closed the deep web immediately." Yeah, it probably is a hoax. They're probably all hoaxes.
If criminals can use the dark web to to illegal things, then why can't the government simply use those same websites to catch them and/or stop them? If terrorists can use the dark web to discuss how they plan to terrorize or shoot up a place, why can the good guys go to those websites to see what they are planning and have a better understanding of how they think, so that maybe they can educate themselves and/or prepare for the threat?
Although I haven't yet read the entirety of the other article that you linked, it does specifically state that:
THOSE IN CHARGE of running 8chan have maintained that because N.T. Technology is a US company and the data center is located in the US, American laws are the only ones applicable to 8chan. A warning at the top of the site telling users of potentially offensive or adult material posted to some boards carries a disclaimer reading, “In the interest of free speech, only content that violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) or other United States laws is deleted.”
In other words, 8chan does give quite a lot of freedom as to what people can say, compared to most other sites. The fact that some criminals will use it to talk about crazy things is merely a side effect of that, and still doesn't justify censoring the entire site. The site (and even 4chan too) also warns users that they can and most likely will run into some content that can be extremely offensive, and that if they continue to browse the site, they are browsing at their own risk. If some sensitive person ignores that warning and is shocked by the offensive stuff that they see, then it's on them, not the site. If anything illegal is posted and/or shared on that site, then that illegal thing should be taken down, not the entire site itself. It just doesn't make sense to punish an entire site and a bunch of innocent people because of some criminals, especially when it completely ignores the real problem regarding crime: that innocents are often too vulnerable and helpless to stop criminals so the police don't have to.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
When I say 'disgusting' I am referring to slave trade, hiring hitmen, child porn and other such things.
What's wrong with trying to educate yourself about slavery, or about hitmen? Of course people will search for those things. They will also search for things like the Holocaust and other mass murders because they want to learn more about what happened and be educated.
Child porn is illegal thought. Not gonna defend that.
Severe bullying and cyberstalking etc, yeah that's a big issue. I don't think you know what these criminals were sharing or doing on 8chan since you're defending them so proudly.
I know exactly what they were sharing. They were talking about stopping the "invaders" from "replacing" them and whatnot, and linking to their manifestos, which I, and several others, were able to get a hold of and read before it too got deleted or would get deleted. Some people were even cheering them on, saying things like "yeah good luck! don't die lol!"
I'm not defending criminals. I'm defending those sites. They're being censored and shut down, as if that's going to stop crime, or bring all the victims of those shootings back.
enlighten us to what things are being unfairly oppressed.
Again, how can I do even that when they're already being censored and hidden? The best thing you can do is see if you can find the archives/screenshots of what was said, since that is all that's left of it.
They were mostly bragging about how great the shooter was, glorifying them, and cheering them on. Leaving them uncensored allows people to break out of their mindset that the internet is all safe and happy, when in reality, there are crazy people that exist on the internet too.
How can history be properly preserved when things that certain people don't like are being censored, even though they aren't actually breaking the law, simply because they don't like them? How can history be properly preserved when companies like Google and Cloudfare, as well as countries like North Korea and New Zealand, are cherry-picking what to preserve, instead of preserving all of the legal aspects of it, simply because they don't like this or that?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
a thread that wanted 8chan and 4chan to become uncensored by search engines despite 8chan regularly having criminals posting on it sharing threats and information.
"8chan regularly having criminals posting on it sharing threats and information." - yeah, this is precisely why I'm against censoring the site, because the site allows anyone, even criminals, to share their knowledge that most strict websites wouldn't allow, so that we can have a basic idea of how they think and act, which can help us form better educated opinions and/or make better life choices. I read the manifestos of both Brenton Tarrant (the one who shot up ChristChurch in New Zealand back in March 2019) and Patrick Crusius (the one who targeted El Paso Texas). It was interesting hearing their sides of the story, about how they believed that their race was slowly being "replaced" and how bad certain countries were, in certain ways. This has given me a decent understanding of how criminals think and feel. If all these people get censored, I won't know anything about their motives or what really drives them to do what they do. All I will end up knowing, if all those people get censored, is that they're all just "pure evil" with devils in their hearts/souls, because that's all the media outlets will say about them, without providing any more details.
Having criminals share their side of the story is vastly different from having some media outlet like WashingtonPost, CBS News, or Vox give a brief, biased, and sugarcoated summary of what happened. These media outlets will simply say that the shooter was a domestic terrorist who is of pure evil and whatnot and leave it at that, without going into much more detail than that https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/06/what-happened-el-paso-is-not-about-mental-health-its-about-evil/ while the criminal himself can write a manifesto and give a more detailed explanation of what was going on in his mind.
Do you agree that censorship, even for severe bullying, is necessary and good?
To properly answer this, we need to first determine what exactly constitutes "severe bullying". Is it severe bullying if I call somebody a loser? Is it severe bullying if I steal their lunch money? Is it severe bullying if I say something they don't like, or something they don't agree with? Is it severe bullying if I talk bad about someone behind their back?
Censorship is necessary and good in certain instances, such as to prevent illegal activity like doxxing, but where do we draw the line? Do we start doing what North Korea does and heavily censor the internet/media so that very few people know the truth about important things, to make it easier to brainwash them into thinking that Kim Jong Un is their god? https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/kim-jong-un-god-north-korea
DuckDuckGo, the search engine that the guy in that thread was glorifying, is used on TOR Browser to search disgusting things.
So what? If people want to search disgusting things, let them. People are free to search at their own risk if they want to, or maybe those "disgusting things" may only be disgusting to you, but not to someone else. Different people will have different preferences, and they aren't breaking the law by searching for things on the internet as far as I'm aware.
Looking at the thread that you linked, I also see that you said this:
I don't see them on other websites and I see those websites heavily prosecuting or muting/banning them. 8Chan does not, are you still going to defend them?
Like I (and Dr. Franklin) said, sites like 4chan and 8chan are meant to serve as a place where there are much less strict rules/regulations so that people, especially ones with thoughts/ideas that are too scary for the regular nicer sites, can share them freely without worrying about being prosecuted. In a way, there's something for everyone. Nice sites with strict guidelines can exist for those that prefer them, and the much less strict sites can exist for those that prefer them.
There is a reason why Google tracks and censors, it's for the good of the people.
What is "the good of the people" supposed to mean, exactly? Is it supposed to mean doing what North Korea does and twisting/altering history/facts to suit agendas and/or control what they think? If so, then that would be BAD.
People should be taught HOW to think, not WHAT to think. Censoring certain sides of a story allows people to control what others think. Leaving them uncensored allows people to have a better understanding of how to think, based how different people think. If you censor the bad guy's side of the story and only allow people to hear the sugarcoated child-friendly side, you can then control what they think, rather than allowing them to hear both sides in an unbiased manner and then form their own opinions and judgement based on what they heard from each side.
It's also to get information to advertise more relevant and enticing adverts to you, but even that is not actually a negative thing
My problem with online ads is that they slow down browsers and are often intrusive, so I use Adblock Plus, browsers with built-in ad-blocking mechanisms https://www.google.com/search?q=brave+browser and also youtube ad blockers... so yeah, it actually is quite negative.
Anyways, like I said, the absolute best thing that censoring these sites will accomplish is that it would only make some sensitive butthurt people feel better about themselves. Both the ChristChurch and El Paso shootings could have been stopped had there been armed people at those locations, ready to give those shooters a run for their money and give them a taste of their own medicine. That is how you can deter crime, not by censoring sites which are not at fault.
Created:
As of right now (August 2019), you can't find 8chan on Google (literally have to use a different search engine such as duckduckgo or qwant), and Cloudflare is terminating it as well, simply because a lot of criminals like to use the site, especially within the past year.
It doesn't make sense to do this. The site/owner isn't the one carrying out all of those shootings/attacks - the criminal is, so the criminal is who needs to be punished, not the site itself. Some good people use that site too, not just criminals/extremists.
Even ISPs (Internet Service Providers) have been blocking people from accessing these sites, which, again, doesn't make sense, since you could just use a VPN (Virtual Private Network) to mask your IP (Internet Protocol) address and still access the site.
If these media outlets don't like 8chan, then don't use it. Plain and simple. Why censor it simply because you don't like it, or because bad people use it? Bad people use sites like 4chan and reddit too, and they also use discord and WhatsApp, yet nobody is hating on those sites and censoring them like crazy, although those sites may have more regulations on what you can post. I don't like the "boobie streamers" that plague Twitch TV, but that wouldn't mean that I could just call for that site to get censored, or a porn site.
I can understand censoring something that is straight-up illegal, such as child pornography, or doxxing, but as far as I'm aware, there has never been either of those on either 4chan or 8chan. The worst thing was only criminals talking about crime.
As scary as these websites are, I like them for the fact that you can read what real criminals and bad people have to say, understand their point of view, understand their side of things, understand the hatred that they have and how they feel, understand where their coming from, understand the kinds of things they say in their manifestos and how they make the choices that they make, understand why they do what they do and/or think what they think, and/or have some decent information from the criminal's perspective in order to form a solid and more accurate conclusion/opinion. It's good to have a basic understanding of how criminals think and act, and these sites allow people to have just that. Not only that, but websites like these are great for helping people understand the harsh nerve-racking truth about this world - that it is not a nice, happy, fantasy land - that it has a lot of scary things to it, and that many people have such dark and scary thoughts. These sites, however evil they may seem, allow people to write down their hatred and share it with those who are interesting in hearing their side of things.
Not all sites need to be like this, obviously. Most sites, even this one, will have strict rules on what you can post, in order to promote a friendly environment, and that's great. There are people that like themselves a little friendly environment, so they go to websites such as this, and at the same time, there are also people who may either find those friendly environments boring, or may be experiencing so much pain, hatred, and suffering in their lives that they need a site like 8chan to express their hatred without having to worry about getting immediately punished for it due to strict rules. Either way, there's a community-like site for everyone, and people are free to choose what kind of online environment they want to be in, whether's it a nice one with strict rules, or a much harsher one with less strict rules.
Instead of figuring out some more realistic ways of dealing with mass shootings, they're blaming random online forum websites, which are literally just large complex assortments of various "!DOCTYPE html" codes and programming. Censoring these sites most certainly will not deter these forms of crime in the slightest. Crime has existed for centuries, even before the internet became a thing, and it will continue to exist.
A better method of deterring crime is to have armed people there, ready to take the criminal down when he attacks. Police have proven to take way too long, way too often, to arrive during an attack, and by the time they get there, a bunch of people are already dead, so it's just better to have trained people who can deal with the criminal without having to wait for police. Most of these shooters are cowards who will only target people who they know are defenseless. Most of them want free, easy kills, and not fair fights against other armed people.
The absolute best thing that censoring these sites will accomplish, is that it would make a few butthurt people feel better about themselves.
I purposefully wrote this in the "Education" section of this forum and not "Politics" because we can learn something and potentially be educated about something, based on understanding criminals, and understanding their point of view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you lived where you worked and dispensed with the notion that you always want to be somewhere else. Then you're feet or even a bicycle would be adequate.
I agree. If I lived where I worked, then I wouldn't need advanced transportation, and simply walking would do.
It's just that most people DON'T live where they work, and they have to rely on advanced means of travel. I know a guy that has to travel across the state to get to my college to take his classes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
With self-driving cars, we wouldn't have to worry about reckless/drunk drivers and traffic jams.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
He was banned for supposedly having multiple accounts, although I'm not sure if it's true or if there is enough solid evidence for it.
Created:
I would suggest loosening the already-strict gun laws in places like California and Illinois, not making them stricter and throwing in "more comprehensive background checks" and more "gun control".
Whether you ban guns or not, determined bad guys will still find a way to obtain easy access to guns, so it's only fair that good guys also have easy access to guns too, so that they can defend themselves and their families.
Here are some videos by Colion Noir where he supports letting people defend themselves with guns.
Here is one video, from 2016, by the NRA explaining the value of having something like an AR-15 to protect yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OhBBC_Cyeo
It was also reuploaded here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cg0lE5kZrQ
Created: