Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Approved: The only part of this comment that gets to this is the last part of "It makes me happy to see them in pain".
In this case, given the context of the rest of the comment, Kaarous is referring to emotional pain, and is not glorifying physical violence and suffering.
Post Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Post Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Vast, world-wide, racial conspiracy argument where jews are behind all actions of all peoples everywhere, and are bad.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Do not declare that jews are inherently degenerate.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Saying that jews exist does not necessitate an identity attack.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Do not declare Indians to be inherently immoral.
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
This appears to be more of an opinion via stereotype that explicit disinformation.
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks & Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Yes killing civilians is a war crime, even if they are being used as a human shield. You can't actually shoot the hostage like you saw in the first Speed movie. No, you can't assert that Arabs are inherently morally inferior.
Comment Reported for: Rule 9 - Prohibited Content
Comment Approved: No, but it's a completely fucking retarded comment. Whole swathes of Eastern Ukraine have been leveled from consistent fighting for the past 10 years. Both sides have engaged in indiscriminate shelling from time to time.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
What the hell, Cato? You seem further than actual Cato.
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
If you want to argue for executing groomers, try arguing for judicial, rather than extra-judicial means.
Rule 16 is different from Rule 2.
There is a difference in discourse between the passions of argument and screaming for someone to "kill yourself". There is no discourse in arguing that your opponent should be murdered. It is, in fact, the appeal to ending an argument; not in exposing the truth in an argument. The argument is an explicit argument from violence, which is (by definition) an argument from power. There is no discourse in an argument from power, this is the basis of the Melian Dialogue. No debate can be had, no argument can be made, no counter-argument can defeat it. It is a demonstration of imminence in violence, meant to end the argument and intimidate the opposite side.
It's old now-a-days, but I remember the championship debate team arguing that white people should kill themselves under the topic of "should the US adopt a renewable energy strategy". They won the debate, because it's not a debate. It is, in fact, an appeal to power. It is "might makes right" which is neither a defeatable, nor debatable, nor falsifiable argument.
So no, Rule 2 stays, because an argument to violence is not anti-passivity; it's an argument to power to end the conversation and engage in violence.
Rainbow symbology comes from the Queer Revolutionary Movement, which derives from Queer Theory, which originates from the French Intellectual movement. Almost the entire thing originates among only a handful of Frenchmen.
"Can't help who you love' is a point of rhetorical warfare by the Queer Revolutionary Movement, in order to get around the claim that sexual attraction was inherent, and was therefore unfair to regulate, in order to do an end-run around anti-sodomy laws using 'Equal Protection" doctrine, specifically within the US.
"Miscegination" is a completely different concept, and had different arguments against it. Particularly was the fact that 'miscegination' was not the abnormal position, particularly in the US (or soon to be American territories). Marriage laws were typically religiously set, rather than legally set, and most marriages allow different race marriages, but set stricter guidelines along religious differences. Conversion may be required, or the children may have to be raised under the religion to recognize it. This is why American pioneers, French settlers, and Spanish conquerors had effectively no demand to restrict marriages outside of race. It was actually an importation of Anglo Supremacism and Anglicanization doctrines that were adapted into the US. Segregationism was the imposition, not the default.
As such, the argument for why inter-racial marriage should exist has been a counter-argument: "Why should it not?". It's not "you can't help who you love", that was never really part of any argument leading up to Loving v. Virginia. That argument resides within the Queer Revolutionary movement. The primary argument for marriage integration was that there wasn't any valid justification to forbid it, let alone imprison people for it, and further harm children for it by imprisoning their parents and destroying families.
Are you aware of what an "unfalsifiable conclusion" is?
But of course, I am but a mere faggot.
I'm supposed to believe that the "It didn't happen but it should have" crowd is going to know or care about the difference?
To undermine fed-posting primarily. Secondly because mass murder, or specific murder, is not part of a reasonable discussion. Thirdly because it poisons conversations. Fourthly because you shouldn't be treating each other with such hostility as it promotes flame wars.
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Rationalizing mass executions
Comment Reported for: Troll User
Comment Approved: The vast and sweeping majority of this forum is not anti-porn, and certainly the anti-porn movement has basically no significant power nation-wide. It's mostly an issue on the internet. Beyond that, the government has been aggressively targeting right-wing speech since LBJ with basically no pushback up until 2018 or so.
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
The "in season" comment is what did it.
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Your criticism of Islam has to focus on Islam, rather than Muslims particularly, especially how you worded it as an inherent moral failing among Muslims, rather than claims of over-representation.
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Reported for:
- Troll user
- Rule 3 - Harassment
Comment Approved: That being said, most of the racists spend their time defending white women from criticism by the incels. It's quite a hilarious back & forth.
Most of the actual people here, don't care.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
That whole 2nd & 3rd paragraph.
Point taken.