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.
"If you defend everything, you defend nothing." - Art of War
I would say this claim in a different way:
"If you try to solve all problems, you solve none."
I guess this is what taoism means when saying that thinking too much is harmful. "today, rulers rule with clever ideas, and the nations are cursed."
Helz is just female version of Grateful.
I dont really see anyone else other than her and Grateful making arguments that Europe will sue this site because someone said drunk drivers are worse than rapists.
Is it possible Europe sues this site? Sure it is. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Saudi Arabia could sue site for insulting Islam, which is also a crime in a lot of Europe. China or North Korea could sue site for insulting Communism. A lot of Europe and some other countries could sue the site on the basis of trans misgendering which some users do.
So yeah, I am looking forward to see how someone makes a debate site which respects laws of all countries in the world. I am guessing the only debates which remain possible will be "Is ocean a soup?".
I am not going to respond to all your yapping because it would take too much time on my part, however I will just correct the most obvious false statement:
"By their own words they go out of their way to rage bait and cause harm"
I dont remember Remy ever saying anywhere that he goes out of his way to cause harm. So I am not really sure why would you intentionally lie and make things up.
Rage bait isnt harm. Its just a way to increase response rate. I do rage bait too. Even you are doing rage bait by basically lying about what person said.
"Yep, this is all you’re able to see because this is apparently all your simplistic mind can handle."
No, it was all the arguments you mentioned so far. They were all based on "oh I don't like this waaah".
So yeah, I don't really see what else is there to your argument other than you not liking some posts.
Maybe there are degrees to disliked things, but it's still what your arguments are about.
I am not a crybaby like you, so I don't want to ban people simply because I really don't like what they post. Otherwise, I would argue to ban you.
I agree too. I don't really even know anyone who disagrees or at least strongly argues against it.
People who oppose term limits are usually minority who is at same time neutral on topic mostly.
I assume the only ones who strongly argue against term limits are judges themselves. I can't really imagine anyone else having interest in defending this specific side, other than some politicians maybe who want to gain favor of Supreme Court.
"No genius, the topic is decided by what the conversation was about at the time both participants entered into it."
The topic is really just bunch of people wanting to ban Remy because they don't like what he posts.
That's the topic.
Now, of course, you didn't know what the topic was so I had to educate you about it.
The problem here is really that those who argue in favor of ban seem to be entirely unaware of their own position.
"I’m conversing with two people who are too stupid to even understand that that is the topic at hand"
Well, there are two responses to this. One is that you seem to be living in delusion that you decide the topic in the first place.
The other response is that your post is offensive. It offended my sensitive feelings. So now I gotta ask for your ban so my feelings can heal.
"It's funny how you think Europe is the role model for the world"
Europe is role model only if you hate free speech and freedom, which grateful does.
You can't really take grateful's position seriously. I mean, just look at his vote. He is scared that Europe will arrest him unless he votes to ban you. Guy lives in fear because of Europe. He feels like citizens in North Korea feel. That's life in some parts of Europe.
Well, there is one more guy who is guaranteed to vote Pro, and with that, I think our enemies exhausted their voting pool.
So outcome will be decided by either current result or some votes appearing from those who didn't even yet give opinion on issue.
3 more days. This is getting tense. I really don't know how many more people could vote, but I do hope that free speech wins and this site doesn't turn into tyrannical dictatorship.
"But why will I if this is going to devolve into some reddit shitposting site?"
That still doesn't answer my question: Why didn't you show this much engagement at any other debate comments on this site?
It seems that rage bait works to gain activity, so Remy also gets credit for making other users more active.
I prefer an active community, and yeah, studies say rage bait makes social media more active.
You want "healthy community", and you say Remy has intent to cause harm, which is really nonsense to anyone, but I guess you were hoping rhetoric will win where logic doesn't.
I see that this is the only debate you are even active on, and you made more comments on this debate than on any other.
So rage bait is making you more active. That's good even if you don't understand how it works.
"You want people to be allowed to say anything they want with the burden of behavior placed on everyone else"
This is also a very weird strawman of my position, but whatever makes you happy I guess.
Sure, as I said, you can have your opinion. It's not a problem.
These votes so far are showing that just maybe, free speech will win, so it seems amount of amused people exceeds amount of offended people.
I know it must be entertaining to push for a ban on anyone who offends you, but I never really took that path myself. I prefer being offended, even tho that rarely happens. I don't really see how person can find entertainment without being offended.
However, I am not offended by Remy's posts, so I am afraid this argument about offensive posts only exists in your head.
I don't really even see what's offensive about Remy's posts.
