ResurgetExFavilla

Not intentionally, no. But if everyone on your moderation team shared your views, I would think that discussions on where a line should be drawn would always shift leftward simply because you are having a closed conversation in which one side is not represented. Since this is a debate site, this would eventually lead to a narrowed scope of debate as members on that side got fed up and left. Which makes your site boring and unattractive, which leads to a circling-the-drain effect as far as membership quality goes (a feedback loop).

This is why I am glad to see that the CoC will be clarified. It is better to have these discussions in the open and set clear rules.

I love having RM unblocked. His compulsive need to tag me while rambling in a semi-comprehensible fashion is entertaining, especially in light of his having blocked me.

The CoC is dangerously ambiguous on many points, allowing moderation significant leeway in interpreting it and potentially banning statements on an ideological basis. Why should conservative or traditionalist members trust a forum mod team composed entirely of progressives to be ideologically neutral?

Me when I see carbs:

Because it doesn't signify anything. It isn't a system of thought, it's an absence of thought. The center moves, it isn't a solid position with an intellectual defense to it. The center 20 years ago was that marriage was between a main and a woman. The center 100 years ago (in America) was that interracial marriage was wrong. The center 200 years ago (in America) was that slavery was okay. To be in the center means that, intellectually speaking, you are a piece of diftwood being washed around by the waves, nudged this way or that by public opinion, by a consensus that's both manufactured and capricious. A moderate now transported to any other point of time and to any place on the face of the globe would not be a moderate in that time or place, he would be a radical incapable of articulating a defense for his radicalism. Yet in each of those time and places there is another large, temperamentally bovine mass of people that align along that era's and culture's 'moderate' ideology who would scoff at our anachronistic's friend 'extremism'. To say that you are a centrist is to say that you are non-political and reflexive.

It's those carbs, man. They're poison.

What about a hefty gentleman in a yellow shirt?

This is a flaw, not a feature. It means that the entire system is incredibly fragile.

This is an absolute travesty. How on earth could it continue? Your suffering... it must be beyond human imagining. I pray that you, young RM, can muster the strength to go on, to log on each day and type up your exquisite forum posts.

'Centrism' is perhaps on of the most thoroughly unimpressive ideological labels out there.

I'd also be down for playing a series as an experienced player.

The idea that this is 'political correctness' is too retarded to even be given consideration. What bsh did is ILLEGAL. It's illegal for a reason. It has nothing to do with whether the person who was the victim protests or not. When a 25 year old man, for instance, shows porn to a bunch of minors in his home or sends them illicit pictures, they may not protest but it's still corruption of a minor. These laws exist because kids below the age of majority lack the faculties to fully consent to sex, and so can be manipulated and abused by older people. The process through which this happens, which at the same time makes the victim compliant, is known as grooming.

In brief:

Kids can't consent to sexual activity of any sort, which is why we have laws against statutory rape and is why every child protective organization guards against grooming behavior. So whether the victim was 'offended' or not is completely irrelevant.

Political correctness has nothing to do with child abuse.

The fact that any of this needs to explained to a mod is pathetic.

Sex between a child under the age of 18 and a 24 year old is rape. Jesus Christ, do you really need that explained?

Any sexual contact with children under the age of 18 is illegal, as well as aiding, abetting, enticing or encouraging such activity. This isn't a free speech issue. If I told a girl I wanted to rape her, that would be a threat, not free speech. Similarly, talking to underage kids about 'bending them over' is a form of grooming and corruption of minors, not free speech.

The title of this thread turned out to be remarkably prescient.

The head mod can insinuate that he wants to rape a 16 year old, but Seventh is banned for not breaking a rule which no longer exists.

It's always been there, but it's certainly intensifying. Mass hysteria is interesting to observe.

My friend, we are well-acquainted already, as mutual disciples of a certain great mathematician.

It's a personalized short string of text which appears under every post a user makes, you can put quotes or whatnot in it. DDO restricted it to 500 characters.

Welcome borther.

On DDO, I was a fat cunt.

This thread was derailed by one of the most powerful blasts of autism that I've ever witnessed.

Are sigs for forum posts in the works?

It's from the Requiem mass, from the Lacrimosa of the Dies Irae. It refers to the earth dissolving into ash and the dead rising to stand before the throne of God in judgment. It's an image that I find beautiful and haunting.

I would have Biden, Warren, Tulsi, Yang, and Bernie, and have Trump on a separate podium. Use the format of a roast for them debate; let them each roast Trump, then he gets a shot back. Let them all get it out of their system.

5. REF

Yes, yes.... very good.

فإن حزب الله هم الغالبونالمقاومة الإسلامية في لبنان

It was quite the tragic affair, really. Overwhelmed by filial love, a certain user campaigned to get RM inducted into the Hall of Fame, while another campaigned to have the efforts of young Supadudz recognized. Doing so was forbidden, however, and both users were banned. There was also a travesty involving one of the site's oldest African American users being banned under suspicious circumstances 

My liege!

It should be revealed in a live google hangout streamed to youtube, with community-elected leaders leading the interrogation. I nominate RM.

Jobs are not created or destroyed in any sense, as they aren't 'real', but are rather a product of a specific economic and political structure.

Wealth (or 'value') is created through labor, and price is set through an interplay of supply and demand.

This is a good video, and really explains how Trump words things strategically. The idea that people who appear stupid are stupid is something that's been ridiculed for pretty much all of human history. We have little sayings like 'he's not as dumb as he pretends to be'. It's in literary tropes; look at Hamlet: 'I essentially am not in madness, but mad in craft.' 'How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself, as I perchance hereafter shall think meet to put an antic disposition on.' Being underestimated by your opponents offers a distinct strategic advantage.

I have it on good authority that he's received a valid N-word pass from Thett's friend Tyrone.

I would be really nice if someone with at least a room temperature IQ replied to my post.

Look at what Trump has done with the news cycle thus far. The Democrats have been hilariously denying the rank corruption of Hunter Biden, have been supporting the wildly unpopular (especially among independents) involvement in Syria, have been supporting immigration policies which middle America balks at (the candidates in the primary who raised their hand for giving medicare to illegal aliens). The other party has become completely reactive against Trump, presenting their position as the not-Trump instead of standing on their own independent policy. If Trump walks out in front of a rally and crows that the sky is blue, you will have eight talking heads making the nuanced argument that it is green the next day. Because they need to believe that Trump is a complete idiot, they don't pay heed to the fact that this means that Trump, by tailoring his own message, can move the Democrat party line to exactly where he wants it. I guess it's just a coincidence that they're vociferously advocating for policies which will lose them the rust belt again and stir up internecine conflicts between anti-war, anti-corruption progressives and establishment Democrats.

"In general, supporters of both major political parties were fairly in line with each other, with Republicans slightly more in favor of military action than Democrats — more than half of Republicans (53 percent) favored sending ground troops in to fight extremists, for example, whereas just 42 percent of Democrats and 32 percent of independents agreed."

I wonder why Trump abruptly pulled out of Syria right as the Democrat primary kicks into top gear?

As I already linked, CIA interventions into Syria were directly aimed at weakening government forces. Assad is an ally of Russia, and we launched multiple efforts to undermine Russian allies in the Middle East during this period (most famously, in Libya).

As an independent voter, Warren's donor shenanigans and ties to Raytheon leave a bad taste in my mouth. The only candidates I would cross the aisle for would be Tulsi, Yang, or Bernie. Warren would be a big stretch. I think that Democrats have trapped themselves; candidates that are moderate within the Democrat Party, and command the center of that party, have little appeal across the aisle, and if elected will also dampen turnout among the party's progressive base. The right in America is presently dominated by a populist movement which establishment Republicans are tepidly going along with. The center is largely economically populist, and supports progressive economic policy, if not the social justice element that they also push. But the 'middle' of the Democrat Party is completely detached from that: they're neoliberal, they're increasingly hawkish, and  they're culturally progressive. This is why I think that opening up primaries to independent voters is good; otherwise, you can get dominated by a minority of the electorate who locks out the influence of the very people who will decide the election once it's time for the general.

By the time these doddering morons come to a decision this will have already played out; this region of Syria is very rich in oil and fertile to boost, so both countries will want it. Turkey mainly, IMO, wants to prevent an independent Kurdish state and would probably be less peeved by a return to the status quo ante than by the Kurds seizing power in their own right. All in all, it goes to show how colossally stupid this intervention was from the get go.

Was going to vote for you, but it looks like they closed it early. Congrats man.

Users: Supa

Debates: Firing Squad

Thread: Minimum Wage

I will vote for you if you rename your position General Secretary of the Politiburo's Central Secretariat.

Pretty decent guy given the era. Great navigator as well.

I disagree with this because the fixation of AR-15s and 'assault riffles' is retarded. Handguns are by far the most dangerous guns when it comes to homicides, statistically. AR-15s and other scary-looking guns are a footnote, which is why countries like Portugal make it harder to buy handguns than rifles, requiring additional licensing. Trying to swap out guns that are statistically used in very few shootings in order to flood the market with weapons responsible for the vast majority of gun deaths just seems like the worst policy imaginable to me, regardless of its political appeal. I would support stricter rules on handguns and less stringent ones on 'scary' weapons.

Why would I need to coordinate? I know Wylted and coal, they are great, talented users. Tyrone was the most memorable user of this year. I read the thread before voting, and most of my friends voted for similar people, so I thought it seemed pretty justified for me to do the same. I did that for debates and threads as well, because hey, maybe I forgot something that someone else remembered.

If you want the nominees to be just be picked by moderation then fine, do that, but if you want a vote then just let people vote.