RemyBrown

In Side Walker's mind, anyone right of center is an incel.

In your mind, Incel = Someone who wants rape to be legal.

In his mind, Incel = Someone who is right of center.

In my mind, Incel = Someone who wants sex and can't get it (doesn't rape, doesn't want to rape). But I'm an InNob; Involuntarily Non Billionaire. I don't want to steal from billionaires, I'm just annoyed that I'm not one.

Post 14:

His quote: "I thought it said "Rapes by Debatecrafters". Figured it was a thread about RemyBrown."

Side walker does defamation by accusing me of wanting to rape women (I don't).

The Coc says, "Use of Debate Craft to conduct criminal activity" gets you banned. That's really one of the only sentences you need in the banworthy section; doxing is illegal (so criminal activity), as is using malware, incitement of terrorism is criminal activity. You can have things like, "multi accounting" as ban worthy even if it's not illegal, but you don't have to ban people for speech that you would mark as offensive; you can just let it slide.

So then if you remove the sentence, then all accounts become marked as unoffensive. What would be the issue?

Post 24, Post 27 he calls me an incel; I just scrolled for this; didn't take long. Incels (in his mind) want to rape women but don't because of the law.

Even though I never raped anyone, never want too, and believe rape should stay a felony, anytime I get mad at women for choosing the bear, Side Walker claims men like me are the reason why because he assumes I want to rape women (when I don't).

You can always remove the sentence from the CoC; there are dozens of other sentences on there.

I don't consider Rage Baiting to be bad as long as it's done by those that can take what they can dish. Side Walker and you can't.

Image 1 or Image 2. Who has it worse?

No, as Kohai said that if I won the trial (which I did), then I would be cleared of all charges.

The official RemyBrown Trial | Resolved: RemyBrown ought to be permanently banned from debatecraft | DebateCraft (post 324)

->If he said something like "the bear is better because men stink and are inferior to women" that would be explicit sexism. Otherwise, the sexism is at most inferred and that's not sufficient.

He says worse than that. He says, (the bear is better because men are assumed to want to rape women and are therefore inferior to women). This is the opinion of left wing women as well.

Stinking isn't illegal; raping on the other hand, is a felony (as it should be).

->Basically we would decide on a case by case basis by majority vote using our own interpretations of "reasonable person."

The majority of mods are left of center, so it's going to be biased against conservatives. Also, lets say the mods were 55/45 left vs right (I don't know the names of all of the mods). Right wing mods don't mark left wing speech as offensive; left wing mods mark right wing speech as offensive. Left wingers report right wingers; right wingers don't report left wingers.

The system has it so SideWalker would never get marked as offensive while I would (even though he's made fun of me for being a virgin; to the best of my knowledge, I've never made fun of him for anything).

I define the left as people who prefer kindness to honesty and they advocate for rehabilitation absolutism.

Why these 2 combinations are bad:

1. People who aim to be honest tend to be both more honest and more kind than people who aim to be kind.
2. The right endorses treating Person A like Person A treats them (eye for an eye). The left (endorsing rehabilitation absolutism) realizes what happens when a conservative says, "You can't identify as a woman and become a woman.". They realize they can't change him, and they can't legally prosecute due to the 1st amendment, so they just cancel and ban from private platforms and jobs. Conservatives don't do that (they operate on eye for an eye and honesty is the best policy).

The CoC has 2 prohibited sections; merge them.

But what I found was:

In gray areas, a post would be considered a personal attack if a reasonable person would consider the post primarily motivated by an attempt to offend or attack the target user, rather than an earnest belief that may happen to also be offensive.

Define, "reasonable person" or eliminate this sentence from the CoC.

Japan and the US are allies.

Satan Lucy should be marked as unoffensive.

Solidarity (libertarian edition).

What's wrong with that?

I know that content can be offensive without being prohibited, but the CoC states:

Discussions about those topics are permitted provided that they do not stray into advocacy for illegal activity. Such topics would be marked as offensive by the moderation team.

While users are permitted to advocate for changes to the law or defend the morality of past crimes or hypothetical actions in the abstract, incitement or encouragement of specific criminal activity is prohibited.

Inciting is prohibited, defending in the abstract is offensive. The offensive stuff (unless you add more bc it's not a comprehensive list) is:

1. Hardcore or softcore pornography.

I don't do this.

2. Advocating for sexual assault, rape, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, or other sex crimes.

I don't do this.

3. Advocating for violence against groups of people or individuals.

I advocate for violence against murderers (execution) and being pro death penalty for murderers shouldn't be

4. Incitement of terrorism or terrorist activities.

I don't do this.

5. Direct calls to violence or direct threats.

I don't do this.

6. Anything that infringes on another person’s intellectual property.

I don't do this.

#3 should be off of your list. Even #1 should be legal provided it's of adults only and it's in a porn section.

See above.

The CoC:

Prohibited Content:

The following content is prohibited (note this is not a comprehensive list):

Hardcore or softcore pornography.

Advocating for sexual assault, rape, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, or other sex crimes.

Advocating for violence against groups of people or individuals.

Incitement of terrorism or terrorist activities

Direct calls to violence or direct threats

Anything that infringes on another person’s intellectual property.

Discussions about those topics are permitted provided that they do not stray into advocacy for illegal activity. Such topics would be marked as offensive by the moderation team.

While users are permitted to advocate for changes to the law or defend the morality of past crimes or hypothetical actions in the abstract, incitement or encouragement of specific criminal activity is prohibited.

The only items that can justify one's content being offensive is on this list.

I do nothing on this list. Therefore, my account should be labeled as, "Not Offensive".

They go for a long time, but we go easy mode on these nations; otherwise, Kabul would have been nuked.

Define "the left".

To you it is. Just pick an option and explain why.

What about that is Rage Bait?

You have more posts than I do (so does Debby), so it seems it's more projection from people that equate verbal pain to physical pain (bad to do btw; physical pain is way worse).

We engage in wars on super easy mode (otherwise, Tehran would be leveled). We don't even try in the wars that we lose.

I wouldn't expect it too; you're too biased for the left to want to hold yourself to the same standard as the right. When you have left privilege, equality feels like oppression.

-> For me to mark him he'd have to post a slur or say something racist or something on that level. 

He's said all the time that women are justified in choosing the bear over the strange man (so that's sexism).

Anyone who posts online wants attention (including you).

I'm anti double standard between liberals and conservatives. If my content is marked as offensive, then so should yours. You can still post here; I'm not trying to get you banned like you were to me. But I think your content should be marked as offensive and Rage Bait because mine is and you're way more offensive than I am (if we're being objective).

My ideal is no comments get marked as offensive. But if mine are marked as offensive, then so should SkyWalkers, so should yours, so should Sargent Lynch.

I want a consistent standard more than I want free speech absolutism for whoever can get it, just as I prefer a world where nobody gets punched, but I will punch someone if they punch me first.

1. -> For me to mark him he'd have to post a slur or say something racist or something on that level. 

I've never used any slurs on here and Define, "racist".

Part of the mystery.