smackeddog wrote:

arkrud wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I always find it weird how people advocating the denial of rights and life quality to ethnic minorities, women and LGBT, are the first to cry that their own rights are being violated when people simply call them out on it.

All white straight man are the source of all evil in the world for sure.
But don't worry. This is disappearing ethnicity. Dinosaurs.

Weird how you decide to depict an attack on bigots as an attack on white straight men, but I suppose that's the requirement when trying to depict bigots as the real victims (oh, it's not their views that are being attacked, it's them as human beings!). I think I'm going to cry.

What my irony (you know I am not serious) is about labeling some group of population as racist, or criminals, or whatever.
This definitions belongs to specific person with last and first name and should be proved in court of law.
If not proven it is defamation.
If you think Trump is racist claim this in court and prove it or face consequences.
Same about people "advocating the denial of rights and life quality to ethnic minorities, women and LGBT".
Name this people personally and prove it. Otherwise you are not better that them.

TheGame wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Briggs was kicked off due to his "unpopular" opinions. I am old enough to remember when ideas were discussed even if there was disagreement. Now opposition viewpoits are shouted down as racists, mysoginists, white supremacists....etc. you name it. The discussion then turns to the accused "racist" on constant defnse about a claim he cannot possibly defend against as you cannot prove a negative. Additionally no one here knows anyone else well enough to make those claims but it does not matter.

The media sets the tone and many here follow along blindfully. I never will.

All i will say is that WE the people must stop allowing us to be divided by THEM. Together we are strong, divided we will lose.

This thread is divisive.

Politics is life. We should not be afraid to talk about it and if your views are against the majority, you should have the balls to express yourself. You seem to want to express yourself by trying to shutdown views that you do not agree with without providing any actual discussion of your views. BRIGGS was spouting some fairly radical racist stuff. He was essentially Fox News on steroids. Even then, I really did not care I BRIGGS participated.

So Briggs was expressing minority view (on this board) and was shoot down.
He was mostly wrong but instead of proving him wrong majority was throwing assaults at him (as majority usually does).
Briggs was feeding off it and did same. He crossed the line acceptabl by mods and was out.
Others took notice and stop talking about stuff which agitates majority of posters.
This is good example of how democracy works including its flaws.
Democracy without rule of law is just a mob rule.
Only following the law (even being not perfect as it always is) can prevent minorities from being oppressed.

newyorknewyork wrote:

arkrud wrote:

TheGame wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Briggs was kicked off due to his "unpopular" opinions. I am old enough to remember when ideas were discussed even if there was disagreement. Now opposition viewpoits are shouted down as racists, mysoginists, white supremacists....etc. you name it. The discussion then turns to the accused "racist" on constant defnse about a claim he cannot possibly defend against as you cannot prove a negative. Additionally no one here knows anyone else well enough to make those claims but it does not matter.

The media sets the tone and many here follow along blindfully. I never will.

All i will say is that WE the people must stop allowing us to be divided by THEM. Together we are strong, divided we will lose.

This thread is divisive.

Politics is life. We should not be afraid to talk about it and if your views are against the majority, you should have the balls to express yourself. You seem to want to express yourself by trying to shutdown views that you do not agree with without providing any actual discussion of your views. BRIGGS was spouting some fairly radical racist stuff. He was essentially Fox News on steroids. Even then, I really did not care I BRIGGS participated.

So Briggs was expressing minority view (on this board) and was shoot down.
He was mostly wrong but instead of proving him wrong majority was throwing assaults at him (as majority usually does).
Briggs was feeding off it and did same. He crossed the line acceptably by mods and was out.
Others took notice and stop talking about stuff which agitates majority of posters.
This is good example of how democracy works including its flaws.
Democracy without rule of law is just a mob rule.
Only following the law (even being not perfect as it always is) can prevent minorities from being oppressed.

I don't remember if Briggs initiated or was playing defense due to emotional responses going his way. I don't believe he was a victim at all though. He was banned because he agreed not to particpate in political threads and yet continued to particpate in political threads and state things that offended people. He was the only one that had somone campaign for him to be banned due to a belief that he sexually assaulted women.

I even defended him on it claiming I don't believe he sexually assaulted women. What I didn't respect about him or his views though for example. Him saying something like "I don't even know what redlining is but African Americans aren't oppressed or havent been since slavery". When you state things like this then you don't have any credibility. So to say he held "oppositve views" is actually making his views credible. Or the lack of credibility displayed when Trump would say something foul that any decent human being should be like I can't get behind that. He would go out of his way to defend only because some of Trumps views aligned with his, moral conscious be damned.

Still my favorite poster on this board

arkrud wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

arkrud wrote:

TheGame wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Briggs was kicked off due to his "unpopular" opinions. I am old enough to remember when ideas were discussed even if there was disagreement. Now opposition viewpoits are shouted down as racists, mysoginists, white supremacists....etc. you name it. The discussion then turns to the accused "racist" on constant defnse about a claim he cannot possibly defend against as you cannot prove a negative. Additionally no one here knows anyone else well enough to make those claims but it does not matter.

The media sets the tone and many here follow along blindfully. I never will.

All i will say is that WE the people must stop allowing us to be divided by THEM. Together we are strong, divided we will lose.

This thread is divisive.

Politics is life. We should not be afraid to talk about it and if your views are against the majority, you should have the balls to express yourself. You seem to want to express yourself by trying to shutdown views that you do not agree with without providing any actual discussion of your views. BRIGGS was spouting some fairly radical racist stuff. He was essentially Fox News on steroids. Even then, I really did not care I BRIGGS participated.

So Briggs was expressing minority view (on this board) and was shoot down.
He was mostly wrong but instead of proving him wrong majority was throwing assaults at him (as majority usually does).
Briggs was feeding off it and did same. He crossed the line acceptably by mods and was out.
Others took notice and stop talking about stuff which agitates majority of posters.
This is good example of how democracy works including its flaws.
Democracy without rule of law is just a mob rule.
Only following the law (even being not perfect as it always is) can prevent minorities from being oppressed.

I don't remember if Briggs initiated or was playing defense due to emotional responses going his way. I don't believe he was a victim at all though. He was banned because he agreed not to particpate in political threads and yet continued to particpate in political threads and state things that offended people. He was the only one that had somone campaign for him to be banned due to a belief that he sexually assaulted women.

I even defended him on it claiming I don't believe he sexually assaulted women. What I didn't respect about him or his views though for example. Him saying something like "I don't even know what redlining is but African Americans aren't oppressed or havent been since slavery". When you state things like this then you don't have any credibility. So to say he held "oppositve views" is actually making his views credible. Or the lack of credibility displayed when Trump would say something foul that any decent human being should be like I can't get behind that. He would go out of his way to defend only because some of Trumps views aligned with his, moral conscious be damned.

Sexual assault is news to me. I missed it... Did he verbally assaulted another poster?
Oh he was on trial for this matter?
As far as credibility... if I would advocate for banning people because they deny oppression and genocide of Jews I would have to ban more that half of world population.
Talking about Trump, moral conscious be damned for at least half of US population. And Americans are not the worst culture of the world.
People need to talk even if it will move the needle a bit from bad to good.
As saying goes "Make good from bad because there in nothing else to make it from".
There is good in every person Briggs and Trump included so it is much better to try to bring it out not shut it down.

No, some people have ridiculous and dangerous ideas that need to be exposed immediately. I'm not talking about, who I think is a decent and misguided person. And he's powerless. I'm talking about our president, who has vocal in his support of the radical right and seemingly wallows in the stink of his ignorant racist, misogynistic views.

meloshouldgo wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

arkrud wrote:

TheGame wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Briggs was kicked off due to his "unpopular" opinions. I am old enough to remember when ideas were discussed even if there was disagreement. Now opposition viewpoits are shouted down as racists, mysoginists, white supremacists....etc. you name it. The discussion then turns to the accused "racist" on constant defnse about a claim he cannot possibly defend against as you cannot prove a negative. Additionally no one here knows anyone else well enough to make those claims but it does not matter.

The media sets the tone and many here follow along blindfully. I never will.

All i will say is that WE the people must stop allowing us to be divided by THEM. Together we are strong, divided we will lose.

This thread is divisive.

Politics is life. We should not be afraid to talk about it and if your views are against the majority, you should have the balls to express yourself. You seem to want to express yourself by trying to shutdown views that you do not agree with without providing any actual discussion of your views. BRIGGS was spouting some fairly radical racist stuff. He was essentially Fox News on steroids. Even then, I really did not care I BRIGGS participated.

So Briggs was expressing minority view (on this board) and was shoot down.
He was mostly wrong but instead of proving him wrong majority was throwing assaults at him (as majority usually does).
Briggs was feeding off it and did same. He crossed the line acceptably by mods and was out.
Others took notice and stop talking about stuff which agitates majority of posters.
This is good example of how democracy works including its flaws.
Democracy without rule of law is just a mob rule.
Only following the law (even being not perfect as it always is) can prevent minorities from being oppressed.

I don't remember if Briggs initiated or was playing defense due to emotional responses going his way. I don't believe he was a victim at all though. He was banned because he agreed not to particpate in political threads and yet continued to particpate in political threads and state things that offended people. He was the only one that had somone campaign for him to be banned due to a belief that he sexually assaulted women.

I even defended him on it claiming I don't believe he sexually assaulted women. What I didn't respect about him or his views though for example. Him saying something like "I don't even know what redlining is but African Americans aren't oppressed or havent been since slavery". When you state things like this then you don't have any credibility. So to say he held "oppositve views" is actually making his views credible. Or the lack of credibility displayed when Trump would say something foul that any decent human being should be like I can't get behind that. He would go out of his way to defend only because some of Trumps views aligned with his, moral conscious be damned.

Still my favorite poster on this board

Thanks

newyorknewyork wrote:

arkrud wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

arkrud wrote:

TheGame wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Briggs was kicked off due to his "unpopular" opinions. I am old enough to remember when ideas were discussed even if there was disagreement. Now opposition viewpoits are shouted down as racists, mysoginists, white supremacists....etc. you name it. The discussion then turns to the accused "racist" on constant defnse about a claim he cannot possibly defend against as you cannot prove a negative. Additionally no one here knows anyone else well enough to make those claims but it does not matter.

The media sets the tone and many here follow along blindfully. I never will.

All i will say is that WE the people must stop allowing us to be divided by THEM. Together we are strong, divided we will lose.

This thread is divisive.

Politics is life. We should not be afraid to talk about it and if your views are against the majority, you should have the balls to express yourself. You seem to want to express yourself by trying to shutdown views that you do not agree with without providing any actual discussion of your views. BRIGGS was spouting some fairly radical racist stuff. He was essentially Fox News on steroids. Even then, I really did not care I BRIGGS participated.

So Briggs was expressing minority view (on this board) and was shoot down.
He was mostly wrong but instead of proving him wrong majority was throwing assaults at him (as majority usually does).
Briggs was feeding off it and did same. He crossed the line acceptably by mods and was out.
Others took notice and stop talking about stuff which agitates majority of posters.
This is good example of how democracy works including its flaws.
Democracy without rule of law is just a mob rule.
Only following the law (even being not perfect as it always is) can prevent minorities from being oppressed.

I don't remember if Briggs initiated or was playing defense due to emotional responses going his way. I don't believe he was a victim at all though. He was banned because he agreed not to particpate in political threads and yet continued to particpate in political threads and state things that offended people. He was the only one that had somone campaign for him to be banned due to a belief that he sexually assaulted women.

I even defended him on it claiming I don't believe he sexually assaulted women. What I didn't respect about him or his views though for example. Him saying something like "I don't even know what redlining is but African Americans aren't oppressed or havent been since slavery". When you state things like this then you don't have any credibility. So to say he held "oppositve views" is actually making his views credible. Or the lack of credibility displayed when Trump would say something foul that any decent human being should be like I can't get behind that. He would go out of his way to defend only because some of Trumps views aligned with his, moral conscious be damned.

Sexual assault is news to me. I missed it... Did he verbally assaulted another poster?
Oh he was on trial for this matter?
As far as credibility... if I would advocate for banning people because they deny oppression and genocide of Jews I would have to ban more that half of world population.
Talking about Trump, moral conscious be damned for at least half of US population. And Americans are not the worst culture of the world.
People need to talk even if it will move the needle a bit from bad to good.
As saying goes "Make good from bad because there in nothing else to make it from".
There is good in every person Briggs and Trump included so it is much better to try to bring it out not shut it down.

I mean I pretty much broke down Briggs banning multiple times this thread. He even knows the mods here outside of this forum. I don't believe it was an easy decision and soley based off him having "opposite views or unpopular views".

I dont recall him verbally assaulting people. More so verbally offending people. He wasnt particpating in order to gain or create understanding. As the example above provides.

Briggs is a grown man who made his choices and was accountable for it.

I don't really follow the comment you made about Jewish people? Doesn't seem to match what went on with Briggs though.

I was referring to Briggs denying the oppression of AA people being similar to people denying Holocaust and 2000 years of oppression and killing of Jews in all countries of the world. Both are well documented but still a lot of people claim that this never happened.
There are to many of them to ban them all... Better educate whoever we can.

arkrud wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

arkrud wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I always find it weird how people advocating the denial of rights and life quality to ethnic minorities, women and LGBT, are the first to cry that their own rights are being violated when people simply call them out on it.

All white straight man are the source of all evil in the world for sure.
But don't worry. This is disappearing ethnicity. Dinosaurs.

Weird how you decide to depict an attack on bigots as an attack on white straight men, but I suppose that's the requirement when trying to depict bigots as the real victims (oh, it's not their views that are being attacked, it's them as human beings!). I think I'm going to cry.

What my irony (you know I am not serious) is about labeling some group of population as racist, or criminals, or whatever.
This definitions belongs to specific person with last and first name and should be proved in court of law.
If not proven it is defamation.
If you think Trump is racist claim this in court and prove it or face consequences.
Same about people "advocating the denial of rights and life quality to ethnic minorities, women and LGBT".
Name this people personally and prove it. Otherwise you are not better that them.

Ah, so we're back to 'calling someone a bigot is worse than expressing bigotry'- please explain how/why? It's a completely non-sensical position. Oh, murder is terrible, but calling someone a murderer is far, far worse! People should allowed to murder (freedom!) but calling someone a murderer should be banned. Absolute Gibberish.

I'm fine adopting your 'only call someone racist/ bigot in a court of law providing you have the proof', if the same applies to expressing racist/bigoted views.

smackeddog wrote:

arkrud wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

arkrud wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I always find it weird how people advocating the denial of rights and life quality to ethnic minorities, women and LGBT, are the first to cry that their own rights are being violated when people simply call them out on it.

All white straight man are the source of all evil in the world for sure.
But don't worry. This is disappearing ethnicity. Dinosaurs.

Weird how you decide to depict an attack on bigots as an attack on white straight men, but I suppose that's the requirement when trying to depict bigots as the real victims (oh, it's not their views that are being attacked, it's them as human beings!). I think I'm going to cry.

What my irony (you know I am not serious) is about labeling some group of population as racist, or criminals, or whatever.
This definitions belongs to specific person with last and first name and should be proved in court of law.
If not proven it is defamation.
If you think Trump is racist claim this in court and prove it or face consequences.
Same about people "advocating the denial of rights and life quality to ethnic minorities, women and LGBT".
Name this people personally and prove it. Otherwise you are not better that them.

Ah, so we're back to 'calling someone a bigot is worse than expressing bigotry'- please explain how/why? It's a completely non-sensical position. Oh, murder is terrible, but calling someone a murderer is far, far worse! People should allowed to murder (freedom!) but calling someone a murderer should be banned. Absolute Gibberish.

I'm fine adopting your 'only call someone racist/ bigot in a court of law providing you have the proof', if the same applies to expressing racist/bigoted views.

Expressing racist/bigoted views should be challenged in court.
If Law is not provided for this we need to change the Law.
I only believe in power of Law agreed by the society because ALL people are flowed and driven by emotions.
We all are listening to our mind which is perceiving reality not in the way it is but in the way it is acceptable and comforting.
Our-days in Russia or China and in many other countries of the world this cartoons of local president will cost one job, education, money and freedom if not life.
In America there is freedom to express any opinion in any form which we should appreciate.
Unfortunately all views can be expressed freely - the one you like and the one you don't.
So pick the poison... or obey to the Law whatever it is set by US to be.