You accuse me of Rage Bait on a vote you made where you simultaneously encouraged me to kill myself. It does not get more Rage Baity then that and it makes you a massive hypocrite. Is really such hypocrisy healthy for you?
Change your vote.
And you're the type of person who sees a road sign with a speed limit of 25 (but despite this, the majority speed on this road). I don't drive on the road to the extent where I'm doing 65; but I will drive on the road frequently at 30-40, you drive on the road less often (at 30); and you decide to try and get my license removed for speeding. Bud, everyone speeds.
Except the only reason this speed limit in particular exists is to prevent people from dying. In actuality, I could drive at 100 mph here and nobody ends up dying. But who wants to take someone else's license permanently over driving 40 mph? And the honest truth is if you drove on this road as much as I did, then you'd be hitting 40 mph often as well.
Fauxlaw WAS on your side (but because he has posted enough times, he learned that he would say things that are offensive to many; check out his most recent post titles and you will see what I mean). He has since changed his vote to avoid being a hypocrite.
So I would recommend you replicate that.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/wz/trump-will-be-removed-from-office-before-2029
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/w7/trump-corruption-thread
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/mh/we-we-have-a-child-running-the-white-house
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/ar/chicago-apartment-raid
In these posts, you refer to, "Republicans", "Democrats", "Trumper", "Immigration Hardliner". This is all identitarian rhetoric in 100% of your most recent posts.
You can't get me on identitarian rhetoric without being a hypocrite.
- > Then how do we stop bots? Or spammers?
Ignore genuine bots and spammers if you think they spam too much.
- > Or people posting threats and other illegal stuff?
The government will find out. If someone posts child porn (example) on here (which nobody is stupid enough to do as this is public and everyone for the most part is anti-pedophilia), then the government can track them down and prosecute pretty easily. FBI agents aren't mods.
- > Or remove votes that fail to meet the vote rubric?
Perhaps that's the only use for mods then; vote moderation.
If I wasn't on trial now, then I would be commenting on Living Cranky (Lindsay Clancy). But now, I'm refraining.
->I mean, this site worries too much about who to ban next.
That's just naturally what happens if mods exist. They get bored, they see themselves as all mighty and can do no wrong, they go abusive with power; they select me as a target. This website should have no mods.
The better one sees themselves, the worse they are to the world because they feel like god. There should be no mods. If they ban me, then your time realistically won't be far away. It's not a government (a necessary evil); government maintains life. What do mods do? Maintain a site? This site can exist with zero maintaining except for irrelevant things like domain registration.
It's tough bc on one hand, I want to comment on stuff and defend myself. On the other hand, I could say, "2+2=4" and the people that hate me will find a way to hate me for it. So I've been trying to comment less, but it's hard to resist. I've been splitting the difference.
->You reduce incredibly complicated issues into accusations of hypocrisy, which doesn't work as long as there are differences between the situations.
Part of me instinctively thinks the only difference is one situation impacts someone PERSONALLY.
->Also your posts tend to address an unnamed hypocrite who never actually ends up responding to the post
I would love to say their name, but I would get accused of making a, "call out thread" which goes against ToS. Others call me out and I don't report them, but if call out threads are fine, then I would rather do that.
->Instead of saying "it's hypocritical to support x and not y," either make a post arguing that x is bad or a post arguing that y is good on its own terms.
Lets say I were to make an argument of, "abortion is murder". I sort of know that everyone who is pro choice isn't changing their mind on that, so it would be a pointless debate. If I know I'm not going to change someone's mind on the merits of an issue, then the debate is pointless. So where do I go? Hypocrisy allegation; because if I can successfully convince someone that they're a hypocrite, then they MIGHT change their mind on an issue.
But it turns out, people don't care if they're being hypocrites either. I've had people say, "Aren't we ALL a little hypocritical?" implying that hypocrisy is just normal. That pissed me off, but I came to terms with it. All I have left is Rage Bait.
->Until you can convince a chatbot, you don't have a shot convincing a human.
I already can convince Chat GPT of my positions. If I talk too long with Chat GPT, then it tells me I have to pay. There are even people that have told me Chat GPT has gotten worse because of my input to Chat GPT. Edit: Chat GPT has gotten better (by my standards at least).
I think the reason why I tend to be inflammatory is because I notice that people put on masks and people are hypocritical, I've learned this with ppl, so I end up resenting them in advance because I've come to assume they're going to be hypocritical with what they say (and they don't care).
I don't view people as good; I view people as selfish (kind of like a Slav). They will pretend to have their principles and then abandon them the moment it becomes convenient for them to do so. They claim that human rights are important while choosing the bear (they claim it doesn't violate human rights).
They claim if a woman doesn't want pregnancy, then she shouldn't have sex, but they will still want to fuck her. They claim we should love your neighbor unless it's a drag queen reading to your kids. They will claim that love is love unless you are indifferent about identity and prefer practicality to identity, then they think you're a Nazi; they will claim it's important to protect free speech unless it's Colin Kapernick kneeling or someone telling them that men can get pregnant and breastfeed. A lot of people are snowflakes on the Israel issue while they endorse free speech (Pro and Anti Zionists both do this).
People are hypocrites and people are liars. I would rather have someone tell me that they don't support free speech and that all conservative speech is hate speech; at least I don't have to pretend to like them. But most ppl don't do that; they want to protect their image while claiming to be thick skinned. People who support law and order support Jan 6; people who hate pedos don't boycott James Charles and Trump.
Why would I want to put effort into being nice with them? I would rather be honest; and the truth is inflammatory if we're being truthful. But at least it's the truth.
Your post was less inflammatory, but it was a lot harder to read.
Things like, "women making a greater sacrifice in childbearing, men being more violent, men committing more crimes, women being more risk-averse, etc.", there are definitely correlations, but I think you can find many more exceptions to the rule than (ex) a sample woman being stronger than a sample man.
Why I wouldn't bring things like that up is bc I don't really care if men are stronger than women; it's not their fault they're weak. Men are more violent, but if .1% of women are violent and .5% of men are violent, then I wouldn't comment bc 99.9% and 99.5% of each gender is safe, so why would I care? You can sacrifice as much or as little for your kids as you and your partner agree too; it's not my kid, not my business. Women are more risk averse, but I'm indifferent as to how risk averse ppl are in general, so I don't see the need to comment on it. Some risks I'm willing to take; others I'm not.
Violent crime is bad but rare among both genders. Risk aversion is more common among women than men, but it's irrelevant bc it's not wrong to be risk averse or risk seeking. But "choosing the bear" (as well as the women who endorse Lindsay Clancy, this type of stuff is both common AND bad. I don't hate women for being weak; I hate women for choosing the bear and defending Lindsay Clancy.
The women who choose the bear, I don't want to rape them, I just don't want to be around them. But many will claim that I'm identical to a rapist for hating the majority of women so much for choosing the bear that I don't want to be around them. I also know there isn't changing any of their minds because they value their leftist identity and changing your identity is very painful for them. But they should adopt a more logical identity.
What's my only option for engaging with them? Pointing out their hypocrisy (and not expecting them to change) but they've called it Rage Bait when I've pointed out their hypocrisy in a way they can't really deny, and that's why this trial exists because the prosecution wants to be able to ban me because I threaten their leftist identity (but can't say that upfront because they know it makes them look stupid) so they have to use very broad language that sounds scary and is hyper fluffed (as well as a very arbitrary way of bolding things) to TRY and make a good point when the truth is, they are arguing to preserve their identity because a leftist admitting they're wrong is too painful for them to do. They would rather be illogical than change their identity.
->you would know that hate is not in my lexicon.
You seem to be hateful to me.
Lesson I've learned: No matter how hateful you actually are, just deny it upon accusation and you'll be fine. Zero personal attacks present in this post. Zero contentions about your mother (per example). But everyone here is an adult; why should I talk to you like you're juveniles?
Thanks for the solidarity Savant.
I understand why some may want me to be less inflammatory, but if I claim, "I'm sexist because I don't want to date men; I do gender discrimination; most ppl are sexist", then how would I make that euphemistic? I just think using euphemisms is unethical; euphemisms can have a father murder his daughter and they just say, "A father took out his kid". Murder is wrong, and euphemisms make ppl FEEL better about doing worse stuff.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/ok/mayor-mamdani-is-causing-the-homeless-to-die-and-this-is-a-good-thing is made by Wylted. Not only is Wylted not banned, but Kohai freely has him as a friend. I wouldn't ban Wylted for saying this, but I want to read his reasoning, maybe counter it.
->It is as if entire humanity has secret desire to watch someone be put on trial and burned as a witch.
Well, Mafia culture has overtaken Craft; Mafia is a way more popular thing to do on here than to debate. Call the site, "MafiaCraft"; then it's honest.
Read post 154. Stakes increase if I get banned; you got to ban Satan Lucy as well.
->I have made the commitment to stop gutter-snipping
Define, "gutter-snipping". Is it just a synonym for, "Rage Bait", "Offensive speech", etc? You just hate that I don't use euphemisms. They're too sugary for me to enjoy using.
Post 141: I was calling you a hypocrite. Post 149 was with the knowledge that many ppl wanted to ban me, nobody wants to ban you. I don't want to ban someone for being a hypocrite.
-> Taxation is theft. Abortion is murder. Words are violence. Political speech is rage bait. It’s all the same mindless garbage, except the latter is particularly absurd.
Because liberals need to use euphemisms to FEEL better about their actions. But words aren't violence. It's impossible for me to do violence to you on the internet, but I can use words to you on the internet.
-> you continue the same behavior regardless
The behavior is brutal honesty. Are you allergic to brutal honesty? Because if so, then you should change that about yourself because the power of euphemisms are scary. If I kill someone, then it's not, "murder", it's, "taking out". Euphemisms are unconditionally unethical.
You may say I'm offensive, but not a LIAR.
What separates me from Fauxlaw?
->You’re also trying to equivocate people being offended over political views expressed that they disagree with, with deliberate rage bait
All political opinions are Rage Bait to those who disagree. I'm just honest enough to admit when I Rage Bait. Anytime you say, "Abolish the death penalty!", that's Rage Bait, you want a MURDERER to get to live? I'm honest about my Rage Bait; the left can't be honest with theirs.
->target identity groups which attack, unprovoked, large swaths of people
MAGA is an identity group. You've targeted them via insults. Targeting for insulting is fine; but targeting for violence isn't.
->Being offended over someone’s views and being offended over the way in which one delivers their views are totally different things.
This is like getting a 5 course meal and being upset bc the plate is ugly. Delivery is irrelevant; only the meal is relevant.
->You on the other hand violate every area of concern for a site like this, and you do so in the extreme.
EVERY AREA; that's just cap and vague. But the left can't be specific because the moment they do, they rightfully turn people off.
->you’ve even managed to unite me and Fauxlaw against you.
Because Fauxlaw is hypocritical; https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/current-events/posts/11t/woke-1-woke-2-metastasis is some Rage Bait from Fauxlaw; he called "Sloppy Joe" (his words not mine) cancer. On this website, ppl are defined by their ideology; attacking the ideology is the same as attacking the person. I would think Fauxlaw is a hypocrite, but bc he's very set in his ways (while he's conservative, he's also very old and religious, and these ppl tend to be very pearl clutchy), I don't expect him to change his mind.
->I don’t know how old you are, but you either certainly have a long list of job terminations or you will, because you’re incapable of self reflection.
I don't get fired from jobs; I just hide my opinions at work and it's fine. I think I self reflect more than you do.
->Everything is everyone else’s fault. You’re always the victim.
Not EVERYTHING is someone else's fault, but I say points to the left that they can't refute because they're original.
I know you have short term memory, but you referenced that I said, "DUI is worse than rape". You're free to argue against that point. Instead, you want to try and get me banned. YOU need to do the self reflecting; not me. Original conservatism the left can't handle (until it stops being original conservatism and just part of the national dialogue). That's why in 2016, the left called Trump racist over immigration and in 2022, the left copied the same immigration policy with nicer sounding language (but the core policy was identical).
Left wingers are right wingers from 5 yrs ago; ironic because they call themselves progressives.
->The entire point of this debate and our discussion here has flown way over your head.
The fact that you can't repeat your talking point is proof that your reason is indefensible. All conservatives who bluntly and honestly show their conservativeness to you are people who you would want banned.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/current-events/posts/11t/woke-1-woke-2-metastasis
Would you consider the poster here to be ban worthy if they posted a lot of very similar stuff wrt offensiveness?
->Do you really think there is no difference between "You are stupid," and "you did a stupid thing?"
People here call me retarted (not that I said something retarted, but that I'm retarted). They aren't on trial. I'm on trial for things like saying, "The Jews need to do better" (not even saying they back something stupid, but they should improve).
Calling people woke is similar to calling them stupid as what you have done:
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/current-events/posts/11t/woke-1-woke-2-metastasis
You act hypocritically and your religion is against it.
Magicman identifies as right wing, but he doesn't do politics on here. He does Mafia. I think he's one of those apolitical people who calls themselves right wing because of parents, but ask him political questions, he goes to the left.
Grateful Goy's quote never got said. I've never advocated for the Age of Consent to be 0. Loss of conduct point. That's defamation on Kohai's part.
->supported by the fact that no person on this site would think it appropriate to advocate for my permanent removal while Remy’s conduct has sparked a debate trial to determine exactly that.
->Remy pisses people off by spamming the website with offensive click bait threads. I piss people off by arguing views some people here don’t like and either can’t refute or just give up on because they no longer wish to continue.
Satan Lucy posts a lot as well. Should we ban him? No. I find your leftist political views very offensive. In general, conservatives find leftist views offensive. BUT we don't bother to bring that up because we know that the left finds our views equally offensive as we find the left's views.
Leftists advocate for banning conservatives because they seem to be blissfully unaware that 50% of the nation has views THEY find offensive (but because they aren't mind readers, they can't see everyone's thoughts). Everyone that Kohai cited that finds me offensive is on the left. The sole reason the left denies it is bc they are afraid of pissing off conservatives, so they have to resort to emotional language (like, "offensive") when the truth is Double R, your opinions are equally as offensive to me as mine are to you and liberal opinions are equally as offensive to conservative opinions as vice versa. BUT conservatives don't get you banned for them.
THAT is the moral difference between me and you. Conservatives don't try and get liberals banned for left wing offensive speech. Liberals try and get conservatives banned for right wing offensive speech.
-> Social media thrives on flame wars. The purpose of a site like this is to maintain a higher level of dialog.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics
https://www.debatecraft.com/mafia/c/active-games
Over 4x the # of replies are on the CURRENT Mafia section vs ALL of the politics section. The endgames has less.
This website has turned into Mafiacraft and it's name should reflect that. The reason? People have largely gotten bored of politics because nobody here is actually willing to change their minds politically besides me and SatanLucy as most people value their identity above logic. People who don't like me see me as similar to how a man may see a girl who tells him to put on nail polish because it's good for his health. I would look at that girl and say, "I get why you're saying it, but I'm not wearing nail polish". Not wearing nail polish is part of male identity.
Debate craft is Mafia craft and it's name should reflect that. Ban political talk in the CoC if you want (and enforce it consistently), but only do this is you change the name to Mafiacraft; there are websites like https://lobbychess.com/welcome that are just dedicated to one game (and maybe they ban political talk). But they come as advertised; will Debate Craft do the same? They only deserve respect if the answer is, "yes" and all of the content related to politics is removed because it would violate the CoC. Yall hate talking politics anymore (as will the whole nation after the 2026 midterms because who would care at that point anymore?).
-> First, it isn't merely occasional "offensive" speech, but repeated to an extreme.
Extreme is vague. 100% of your most recent posts are extreme to some.
-> Second, not just random offensive, but directed specifically to a member[s] by argument to belittle them.
People belittled me back. I didn't try and get them banned.
-> There is a difference between "You are stupid," and "you did a stupid thing."
People called me stupid as well. I didn't try and get them banned. Stupid is a form of belittling.
Offensive speech is among the vaguest concepts out there. I believe your speech to be offensive; I don't want to ban you. But you seem to want to ban me. If offensive speech gets banned, then left wingers can easily find your forum posts as offensive.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/current-events/posts/11t/woke-1-woke-2-metastasis seems pretty offensive. So does this:
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/11v/insurrection-democrats-still-cry
And this:
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/current-events/posts/121/murder-by-illegal-immigrant
And ... this:
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/11m/peggy-flanagan-whacko-candidate
I think you're being incorrect when you claim you've had respectful conversations with conservatives.
Take an issue (abortion):
You: Abortion should be legal.
Conservative: Abortion should be illegal. It's murder.
You: Well, would you punish abortion?
The conservative would say yes; and that alone is probably enough for you to think that they are crazy (even though all anti-abortion ppl want to punish abortion; otherwise, they would want it legal and would be pro choice).
You should go to political sections on TikTok, you will find whites using the N word (even hard er which the blacks don't use). I'm very tame by comparison.
A problem with you is everything you accuse me of doing; you do yourself and you break your own rules. You would never put yourself on trial. You're too proud and egotistical to admit your own hypocrisy.
If that's how you define it, then I'll call myself a Tik Tok style right winger on Craft. If you don't like that title, then make a new one (but let me know what it is in advance).
BTW, your name has "goy" in it; that's identity based rhetoric.
Every single person who doesn't like my content and reported it to you is a leftist. Very biased.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/k6/why-gay-men-are-better-than-liberal-women. It's just generic anti abortion content. If you think this is Rage Bait, then all anti-abortion rhetoric is Rage Bait.
->it wasn’t super obvious what the point about site integrity really means in the grand scheme of things
Pattern recognition would be a useful skill for you to pick up on. An example being the left uses the power of connotations to their advantage whereas the right tends to ignore the power of connotations and they focus on the substance.
When you realize that, "murdering your brother" has a euphemism such as, "using the human touch to rapidly accelerate the passing of your brother", you start to hate euphemisms because they are makeup to disguise horrible actions. The sole difference between "preference" and, "discrimination" is one is a euphemism and the other isn't. But the concept is identical.
When you realize that euphemisms can make MURDER seem acceptable, you start to really hate them. But the left uses euphemisms because they have too; without them, their points are indefensible. That's why when Kohai says that I, "violate the integrity of the site", he HAS to be vague; you drill him on specifics, then he won't ever admit to it, but he will deflect to more euphemisms and dysphemisms.
The truth is being a vocal and bold conservative is enough to violate the integrity of the site in Kohai's mind.
