Well, somebody better fucking vote already because I have been waiting for months to get the last 2 votes. I dont care if its votes against my position, even I dont agree with my position. But I cant move to next round because of this vote delay, and whole thing is just stuck for months.
Voting is over. There is no sense crying about it anymore. People have spoken. If most people want Remy Brown on site, surely that makes it more likely for people generally to want him on the site, including new users.
Nope, I am just telling you that giving things to people doesnt work if what you give them sucks.
@GreatfulGoy
Oh, its not about giving as in "just give something".
Its about giving people what they really want.
Sure, someone can give me a present, but if that present sucks, I am not gonna be fascinated.
"Charisma is an extremely underrated skill that I lack proficiency in myself"
Its not just charisma. In fact, charisma itself on its own is irrelevant.
What you lack is actually "giving to others".
You always come with approach of "give nothing, take all", and you wonder why that doesnt work for you.
You have to give something useful to others.
If someone was extremely boring to everyone and gave nothing to others, who would be his friend?
If politician promised to give nothing, who would elect him?
If some business wanted to pay workers 0 wage, who would work there?
The idea that you can even function without giving to others, is absurd.
"not nearly as much as you've been doing in this thread and all over the website."
Yeah, but I am important to Satan.
For someone who is not important, you sure do a lot of talking.
Tho if we are already going to fight war, I want to establish some win conditions for this war.
I don't think win conditions such as "converting entire site to your religion" are even realistic, that would just make this war eternal.
I also don't think that having a mere majority counts as win, otherwise I already won. But I guess it is still possible for you to gain majority of masses or majority of moderation team, even tho I consider such possibility very unrealistic.
But there is one clear win condition which you were after for a long time, and that is to get me banned from the site. So I guess it does technically count as a win if you succeed in that.
My win condition is to merely preserve free speech and demonic rule. So I win as long as demonic rule is maintained on this site. You win if you establish rule of your Lord.
"We must be alert, the war within the website is only beginning. Can the site turn to the Lord before it is too late?"
Demon powers are rising. Against them, there is no victory.
"They will do everything possible within to corrupt you to think liberally."
Oh yeah, tho I am not a liberal. I identify as demon of Cult Venus. This debate was won by 66.6 % of votes. That's pretty demonic.
"For now, off the hook."
Yeah, but I do still recommend a variety in topics you post. As far as I know, this trial was mostly based on repeatedly posting same topics about women. It wasnt about topic itself, it was more about repeatedly posting same or similar thing which was offensive. Maybe free speech won now, but this victory means nothing if its lost long term, and its gonna be lost if masses get frenzy because they control what happens on this site. I am all for maximum free speech, but it entirely depends on willingness of masses here to enforce it.
I think you don't realize true power of free speech.
Let's say that the worst should happen. Let's say a nazi joins this site and starts denying holocaust.
We can ban him, true. But will that make world better place? No, that nazi will go somewhere else where he might even gain support for his views. And members on this site who lean towards his views will remain unchanged.
Now, let's say we didn't ban him. Let's say he presented his views, but instead of banning him, community united to argue against those views and show how absurd they are.
Now you get an entirely different outcome. Members who might lean towards nazi no longer do because they see how absurd the view is.
Even nazi himself might consider abandoning nazism after seeing how absurd his position is.
So what is the result? More people think nazism is absurd.
This is the difference between free speech and censorship.
Censorship protects absurd views by preventing debates to challenge them.
Free speech destroys any absurd views, because they are openly debated and their absurdness is exposed.
@GreatfulGoy
"Airmax owns this website and used to rule with a strong, firm grip that even disciplined me when I was a little shit back then."
Things have changed. Spanking is no longer a popular way of behavior modification.
This is a debating site. People have countless reasons to quit a debate site, one of major ones being losing debates.
Personally, I would quit if free speech was abolished, and I am sure a lot more people would too.
People come on this site to express, so I am fairly certain freedom of expression is necessary to begin with.
And we can't guarantee that if we ban all trolls and rage baiters, that we will still have a site which is even alive.
This site was what site before it was for years. A very small community.
Reducing that community further, in hope that some new people will pour in, yeah probably not a good idea.
All free speech within bounds of law? Sounds good, I hope you mean US, Japan, or Norway law. I can think of few other countries in Europe which have plenty of free speech, so I am hoping its their law which applies.
I dont see why temp ban would be necessary. Even if most members didnt ask for free speech to be upheld, Remy didnt really commit any offense in months.
I agree with your point on threats. Threats aren't protected by free speech, because they involve promised actions which would actually reduce free speech of person who is being threatened.
Remy wasn't threatening to harm anyone. Maybe his posts are offensive to some people, but being offended is pretty much a choice, and I realized that by seeing how same posts which offend some people don't offend me.
I don't really see how being offended isn't a choice, and really, no serious country bases it's laws on what offends people.
The only countries which base their laws on that are bad ones like Saudi Arabia or Poland.
But really, any country caring at all for freedom of its citizens has free speech protected in it's constitution.
The reason why free speech is necessary in the first place is, because silencing opposite views backfires really hard when those opposite views turn out to be correct.
Just make this site for 18+, and make a disclaimer that site can contain offensive posts. That should cover all the legal issues, because one who entered site was informed adult (or assumed to be).
Sort of like reading 18+ book. Sure, you can't sue a book because it offended you with it's content.
I don't really support banning those under 18 from this site, and that doesn't need to happen. We just need to pretend it happens.
"Free speech is not all the same in every place and there are laws on things you can and can not say"
This site should be based on maximum possible free speech, both legally and functionally.
Until someone comes up with a better principle which isn't "ban this, it's offensive", I am afraid free speech is here to stay.
And as I said before, I don't even consider Remy's posts that offensive. I mean, saying that drunk driving is worse than rape isn't really something which should even offend anyone. In fact, a lot of people who lost family members due to drunk drivers would probably agree. And there is a point to that argument as well, about society's bias.
And Remy didn't really even post any topic about rape for past 3 months. He has even toned down a lot over time.
I support maximum free speech, because different principles really don't work. I take after example of USA and Japan, which have high focus on free speech.
And this is coming from me.
Remy Brown has said worse things to me than he did to anyone else on this site, especially on Dart where he at some point even told me to kill myself.
So should I get fussy and ask for his ban? No, I don't care what people say to me. Their words only have power I choose to give them. However, I care for free speech as a principle, and I am not gonna try to take away someone's free speech just because they say something considered offensive.
In fact, I often encourage people to insult me so that I can build more mental resilience.
I think trying to protect yourself from offensive posts is harmful, because your resilience drops and then your mind can't handle pressure.
Fully agree. I consider this trial itself as contrary to what this site says it's about, but given that result of this trial is victory of free speech, then it produced positive result in the end.
And yeah, "where every opinion matters"... Until it's opinion which offends enough people so we have these trials which are basically bunch of people saying "this is offensive, ban it". Poland by same logic exterminated free speech.
20 more hours. I know there is one more person who wants to vote Pro, but so far didn't. Other than that, I don't really see outcome changing much.
The problem is really you pretending there is something more to your argument other than "oh waaah I don't like this post womp womp".
Germany literally has blasphemy laws. If we are going to obey those laws, I am afraid a lot of religious debate will perish on this site.
I mean, if we are already going to enforce laws of Europe here, then I should prefer that we enforce laws of countries in Europe which have more free speech.
Cuz if we enforce laws of Poland or Slovenia, then we might as well close the site, and this trial itself becomes pointless if laws of few countries in Europe are destined to override it.
"if I lived your life I'm sure I'd be toxic as well."
there is no need to feel bad if you feel like you are not being sufficiently toxic to those around you. Dont worry, you are toxic enough, even tho you had way more privileges in life, but you make up for it by being insane.
"and i am 100% sure im more likely than you are to risk my life if i was really faced with a life and death situation with no guaranteed way to safety. you'd cower under the bed. i'd fight the intruder."
this sentence makes no sense. Life and death situation is by definition risking life. Claiming that I wouldnt risk my life in a life and death situation? How is that even possible?
How does one not risk his life when safety is not an option?
I really wonder what kind of drugs do you smoke when you write these fantasies.
"Masculinity is being very vigilant. That is a masculine trait"
Oh yeah, nothing speaks of masculinity more than a guy who fears everything and everyone around him, scared of every shadow like "a real man".
"Let me ask you, if heaven and hell are at all real are you afraid of the hellfire?"
No, my purpose is to burn forever in the blessed fire of Hell. Its the heaven I am worried about. If I end up in heaven, I will have to listen to brainless Christians yapping their Bible nonsense for all eternity. I assume thats what got Satan to rebel too, because no person with brain can withstand being in heaven. Listening to Christians yapping is literally a mental torture. I am alergic to stupidity, and judging by Bible, no smart person goes to Heaven.
"Calling someone the female version of me is high praise to her in general."
It sure is, tho she is an actual female.
"The problem is a lot of what I am is masculine"
Oh yeah, nothing speaks of great honorable fearless warrior like these words:
"Screw you trolls. Now tommy robinson is gonna kill me"
"As long as the trial is heard in the US then there is nothing to worry about."
When it comes to political warfare, teachings of Mao say:
"So we may lose 300 million people. So what?"
And teachings of Roman Empire:
"No sacrifice, no victory!"
People who try to play life perfectly safe are those who end up not being able to play it at all.
Price of safety is freedom, and safety itself is a lie to begin with. Even if you gave up all your freedom, you still wouldnt achieve 100% safety.
"Tbf, Europe hasn't even banned 4chan because it's hosted in the US. So they have bigger fish to fry before they go after us."
the only law you really have to worry about is Australian law. I dont know if this site counts as "social media", but Australia pretty much promised to sue all social media sites which let those under 16 make an account. Now, that didnt really happen either, Australians under 16 are still pretty much using social media and there is really no way of stopping it. the idea itself was retarded and born in the mind of an idiot, but such is Australia.
