truthbomb

That sounds like you would base it on somebody's subjective feelings of how disgusting something is, correct me if I am wrong. Honestly, I think there is a lot of value in being exposed to radical belief systems (If they are well supported anyway), it allows you to either strengthen parts of your own ideology you have not fully fleshed out, or change your mind on something you happen to be incorrect about.

For example I find female genital mutilation to be disgusting, but I recently talked to a woman who had it and referred to it as a "female circumcision", and learned a lot from the conversation. I still feel it is unethical, but I learned that several different forms of FGM exist, some are extremely brutal and other forms leave some permanent scarring but are relatively safe and don't impact sexual pleasure much if at all.

I wonder if that same woman would be banned here for advocating for the legalization of FGM, and if the entire community would have missed out on that learning opportunity.

Basically anything you can thing of whether it be sexual like beastiality or incest, political like advocating for women not to have the ability to voter or social such as making claims of IQs being influenced by genetics at least partially. Honestly pretty much anything you can think of.

I have not been a part of the community long enough to vote on this, but I think the problem would be for potential to abuse the definition, and not neccessarily intentionally. Particularly in a debate site, you atleast want some members who are willing to advocate for not just mildly offensive things, but for extremely offensive things. If a member of greenpeace wants to come here and debate that commercial fishermen should be physically attacked it should be welcomed. You want a chance to attack certain radical ideologies anyway, before they become strengthened by having the premises go unchallenged, because once somebody has enough confidence in their beliefs, that is when they will act on them. (right or wrong).

I also wonder if the rule would apply to me. For example if that rule is implemented, should I leave the site? While I am not a part of any hate groups, I do believe that Germany is and should remain a white country. I also wonder if the rule would be appliedd evenly. For example if a zionist Jew were to advocate for a racially homogenous Israel, would he be subjected to being forced off the site, like a white person advocating for the same thing (I don't advocate for that BTW, despite that seeming contrary to my prior statement)?

Centrists whether right wing or left wing, honestly don't have much variation of beliefs. Hillary Cllinton and Jeb Bush would basically have the same policies as president, but some cosmetic differences, for example. It just won't be a succesful site or even interesting if outliers who take extremist positions are excluded because that is considered "advocating for a hate group".

I will not be voting in the MEEP out of respect for site veterans like I said, but I would encourage anybody who is, to give some push back against any policy that allows wiggle room for interpretation or that may lead to censoring people with fringe beliefs.

I don't. Nor have I indicated I do anywhere. If black and white is a referance to skin tone, I also brought up instances of non blacks and non whites who engage in the same behavior. If by black and white you mean no grey areas, you are incorrect as well, because the entire premise of the article is that race is becoming more and more of a grey zone.

The program seems very costly. I don't know how to come up with a number but it seems pricey. I also seem to remember hearing not all vasectomies are reversible. So it is russian roulette as to whether you would permanently shoot blanks.

We also have another fact to contend with. Abortion is unethical because it denies a chance at life to a baby. Not getting pregnant also seems like it would deny a chance at life and be equally as unethical.

A lot of this is just personal observations, but it appears that race is becoming more and more of a social construct. Rachel Dolezal is just one obvious example of somebody choosing what race they belong to, and I have no problem with her identifying as non white, and in fact prefer she continues to do so.  It seems though that people are identifying as white when they feel they are intelligent. Be around a group of black adolescents much and you will see them rag their smart friend with being white, because he like to stay on top of his school work. Eventually this kid starts adhering to white culture. At first it may just start with him eating mayonnaise, but then he starts watching comic book movies or playing Pokemon card games, maybe he marries a white woman, goes to a white church and eventually obtains a good credit score.

On the other hand, if you are around enough white youth, you will see people like Rachel Dolezal are pretty common. A white young man may start to wear his pants in a way that exposes his rear end. Perhaps he will listen to rap, and involve his self in hoodlum behavior. He will consider himself black. He may grow up to marry a black woman, have black kids and engage in other activities his shallow view of blackness decides is appropriate such as playing dice games or whatever black persons do. 

As this self selecting continues, with the dumb whites identifying as black and the smart black continuing to identify as white, the differences between the races will grow. It's not just smart blacks identifying as whites. A lot of Asians are doing it as well. Many hispanics who view themselves as too smart for their race identify as white now, such as Ted Cruz. Anyone who is following smart Jewish people on Twitter, like I am will see many of them start to claim to be white because they are ashamed of their race. (true some of them claim to be white as an excuse to bash white people while having a white pass, but it is not universally true).

This is obviously good for the white race. The white race is made stronger through poaching the best of every other race. It prevents a problem though. How does the world respond to the fact that after this divide is so big enough it will be undeniable that the white race is superior to all other races. (superior in terms of adaptation to "the machine of industrial society" not actual superiority).

How should the world respond to a race living side by side to other races clearly inferior, and no longer close enough to even be deniable?