President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Look maybe, but it's very funny to hear former mods complain about this place becoming a cesspool after years of ignoring concerns from users. As if any of us ever had the power to fix this place. My brother in Christ, you made the sandwich. Also, have you considered that letting a bunch of bigots spew hate speech 24/7 makes this place unpleasant and thankless for the users Any
Whatever, dude. I was a mod for a relatively short period. I did the best I could given the time that I had available. I don't recall knowingly permitting hate speech. It seemed like you wanted every conservative to be banned. Admittedly, I didn't think that was the proper way to moderate.
I never knew posting the hypocrisy of the democrats which yes is a whataboutism was not permitted . Its very clear that what side your on liberal or conservative enhances your chances at getting banned. I guess calling folks rapists consistently has no repercussion but supporting Trump gets you banned . WE live in a time were your no longer allowed to offend someone especially
Oddly enough, it turns out that you were one of the people who inspired one of my examples, which I didn't remember.
I'm definitely not gonna bother to look for examples, but you've talked about how x person or y group is going to burn in Hell for eternity because they don't worship their sky fairy in the same way that you do, or because they don't believe in any sky fairy at all.
You probably do not regard this as "hate speech"; in fact, many Christians say that they talk about these things out of love, or out of a desire for nonbelievers to see God's love, or whatever. I forget exactly how that's supposed to work, but in any case, many people view this as hate speech (truly incredible how people can think "you're going to be tortured for eternity" could possibly be hateful speech, I know.)
Look, I like you as a person and I appreciate that this is a problem that has been the result of many years and many mods, and you were probably one of the most competent. But if this forum is going to be a daily cesspit of unvarnished bigotry, you're going to have to deal with occasional people complaining that this makes the place unpleasant and thankless.
Like,
Yes. In Singapore in the 70s and Britain today, Muslim tribal sectarianism makes jury trials increasingly corrupted.
this shit is okay, but me complaining about it is rude to you? seems odd to me.
His trolling is pretty benign. More benign than trolly, but trolly will throw in a legit post 5% of the time.
Agreed.
However, HN was poking a mod so no surprise he ate a ban. Banished to a Canadian thread I never pop into, and thus can't call him a tardo when he posts tarded stuff, is excessive, though.
Agreed
If there were a pie chart drawn where each sliver represented a poster responsible for chasing her off, would your slice be >50%?
For sure <50%.
Bro, you literally just called him emotionally unstable or feeble-minded.
I firmly believe two things can be true at the same time:
1. Coordi is an excellent moderator.
2. Coordi sometimes reacts emotionally.
Snap, Hunter Biden and Candace Owens shot a podcast interview together. What an iconic meeting of the minds! Sounds like part of a sick blunt rotation.
I appreciate Candace Owens. She's got some real hustle. And she pisses off various right-wingers about as hard as any liberal does. She seemed to be genuine friends with Charlie Kirk, unlike the rest of them. I think she's my favorite of all the right-wing lunatics.
Look, I like you as a person and I appreciate that this is a problem that has been the result of many years and many mods, and you were probably one of the most competent. But if this forum is going to be a daily cesspit of unvarnished bigotry, you're going to have to deal with occasional people complaining that this makes the place unpleasant and thankless.Like, this **** is o
You aren't complaining to me any more.
I'm definitely not gonna bother to look for examples, but you've talked about how x person or y group is going to burn in Hell for eternity because they don't worship their sky fairy in the same way that you do, or because they don't believe in any sky fairy at all.
Please try harder, Mr. Strawman.
You probably do not regard this as "hate speech"; in fact, many Christians say that they talk about these things out of love, or out of a desire for nonbelievers to see God's love, or whatever. I forget exactly how that's supposed to work, but in any case, many people view this as hate speech (truly incredible how people can think "you're going to be tortured for eternity" could possibly be hateful speech, I know.)
I suppose it's "hate speech" in the same sense that when your doctor urges you to eat less fat and eat less sugar so you won't die prematurely is "hate speech."
Expressing a desire for someone to spend eternity in Hell would certainly be hateful.
I suppose it's "hate speech" in the same sense that when your doctor urges you to eat less fat and eat less sugar so you won't die prematurely is "hate speech."
More like a physician condescending to a patient: "Hey, you fat piece of chit, don't you know how you're eating is going to put you in an early grave, or are you retaaded, too?"
I'm quite sure that you've mentioned your belief that nonbelievers will go to Hell, and on more than one occasion.
I suppose it's "hate speech" in the same sense that when your doctor urges you to eat less fat and eat less sugar so you won't die prematurely is "hate speech."
Expressing a desire for someone to spend eternity in Hell would certainly be hateful.
People will find it hateful when they are told that they're gonna burn in Hell for eternity, even when the person telling them that goes with the angle of "well, I'm just looking out for the well-being of your soul!"
All I'm doing here is answering your question "what hate speech have I committed?" There it is. Many of us find "repent or eternal torture" to be hateful. Deal with this fact however you want. Denial seems to be in front at the moment.
Lagtight: Soul Doctor
I'm quite sure that you've mentioned your belief that nonbelievers will go to Hell, and on more than one occasion.
Well, except for trump.
Oddly enough, it turns out that you were one of the people who inspired one of my examples, which I didn't remember.
Yes something that was true got me a week
I'm quite sure that you've mentioned your belief that nonbelievers will go to Hell, and on more than one occasion.
Yes, that is correct. Thank you for not strawmanning this time.
People will find it hateful when they are told that they're gonna burn in Hell for eternity, even when the person telling them that goes with the angle of "well, I'm just looking out for the well-being of your soul!"
Yes, many folks are offended by the gospel (which in the original Greek literally means 'good news'). And many hear the gospel and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The Cross is offensive to the unrepentant sinner.
The preaching of the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing.
All I'm doing here is answering your question "what hate speech have I committed?" There it is. Many of us find "repent or eternal torture" to be hateful. Deal with this fact however you want. Denial seems to be in front at the moment.
Somebody thinking something is hateful doesn't necessarily mean it is hateful. DUCY?
Many Zionists think folks who oppose the genocide in Gaza or the Iran War are hateful (i.e. antisemites). Do you agree that opposing the war in Iran is hateful against Jews?
That's certainly not MY approach. Nor is it the approach of anyone I ever evangelize with.
So you evangelize differently in person than online?
I more-or-less addressed this in my second most recent post:I would agree strongly with a contention that "normie" Republicans still hold plenty of influence within the party. That doesn't render my quoted assertion untrue; that there are two separate groups of significant size that represent two disparate factions within conservative thought in America. The Groypers et. al h
It's real in the sense that most of them, excluding bots, are humans, but like I think AMplify just said somewhere, people are definitely different inside the political sphere than when they are away from it - which is still where the overwhelming majority of people are.
But the issue with the content is essentially everything is published for money. Tucker made about 100K for himself just for having Nick Fuentez on his show. Secular Talk makes about 2K a youtube video. So naturally, he uploads about 4 videos a day of almost the same stuff regurgitated to keep folks on edge. He isn't genuinely venting his concern about anything like is customers are.
It obviously doesn't mean that none of this doesn't matter, but the online derposphere is heavily orchestrated and commercialized on who can hold the attention span the longest of someone else.
A concept you're clearly comfortable with. You voted for Trump three times.
Ah, so you use vinegar to catch flies rather than honey?
