Makes sense considering everyone who is pro-blackout is not on the site…

He spit out a conspiracy theory and I called him out on it. Jesus Christ.

I’m in a forum where I am dominated by opposing viewpoints. To say that I’m unwilling to engage is laughable.

And the linked example is a back-and-forth with disagreement. Everything was completely civil. Are you saying that disagreeing with the established hivemind-narrative is “refusing to engage”? Disagreement and debate should be encouraged as long as it’s civil. I really don’t understand the point that you’re trying to make here. And I absolutely loathe the Reddit-like behavior of digging through someone’s post history with the ill-intent to smear them.

You haven’t defined the rules until you define ‘hate speech’ which is a core part of the so-called rules.

But you have not addressed my main concern regarding the definition of words. Here’s a perfect example from your comment:

Hate speech in response to hate speech is perfectly acceptable - calling Nazis out is cool and correct.

I already see based on the comments here that anyone who votes for a Republican is going to being considered a Nazi and therefore used as justification for the rules to be applied unevenly against certain political affiliations.

Do you at least see and acknowledge my concern? Because this is going to turn into another dead and boring echochamber extremely quickly if these questions are not addressed head-on upfront.

Thanks for your response, it’s very helpful. If a user asking a very legitimate question is “eyebrow raising” and at the limit of your ability to act in good faith then this community is probably not for me.

Peace out! I probably won’t be missed anyway. I just wish there was a single community online that was non-partisan and open to real debate and discussion.

Honest question: can you define ‘hate speech’? Because in theory I agree it should not be allowed however in practice it generally means ‘political ideas that I disagree with’ are banned under the guise of hate speech rules. There needs to be specific standards clarifying what the rule actually is.

Ah so you’re just a left-wing partisan conspiracy theorist. Considering neither Comey and Clinton dispute the fact that she had classified information on her server.

Or you’re a troll. Which is probably the case.

Communism is on the same level as Nazism. Evil and rotten to the core.

Are you disputing that Hillary put classified documents on a private server? A statement that Comey literally said happened during his speech a few days before the election? And saying that both Trump and Clinton should be in prison is a partisan talking point in your world? Partisan to which party, may I ask? Jesus Christ.

Please explain to me how hiding classified documents on a private server with the intent of shielding yourself from oversight and then deleting the evidence when investigators close in NOT enough to rise to the standard of criminality? Seriously, I’m so sick of every online forum being dominated by partisan-talking points. It’s abundantly clear that BOTH OF THEM BROKE THE LAW AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED. However the justice system is 100% broken when rules are applied unevenly. And our entire system is broken when partisan political figures actually cheer the rules being applied unevenly.

Because the FBI is very clearly politically motivated.

She willingly hid classified documents on a private server and wiped it with BeachBit so investigators couldn’t recover the evidence. Arguably that’s worse since she could also be charged with destruction of evidence. Come on now… either BOTH Hillary and Trump should be in prison or neither of them should be in prison. Any other interpretation is being willfully partisan.

Looking at this as non-partisan as I can… if Hillary wasn’t convicted for essentially doing the exact same thing (and deleting the evidence…) then I really don’t see any way for Trump to be convicted either.