Banning ideas and opinions is not banning fascism. But let’s start over. First, they banned me. All I did was say that banning people for having the opinion “Israel should exist as an entity” is authoritarian. I wasn’t even defending Israel, which, like I said, people should be allowed to do as part of normal freedom of speech.

Second, I didn’t even say anything extreme, like “you should be hanged for treason!” or some such nonsense. I said “you have the right to ban people for whatever you want since it’s your instance, but I think that’s fascist if you do so.” And they banned me. Do you think that’s even remotely normal behavior?

Banning people for their behavior and conduct is perfectly reasonable. Also, if some Israel defender comes in and says “I don’t care how many children need to be killed, it’s worth it,” then I think you have every right to ban them. Advocating murder is crazy shit. But simply saying “Israel has a right to exist” or something similar as being ban worthy? That’s absolute ghoulish authoritarianism. There’s no such thing as “banning fascism” because this is just a discussion forum.

Fascists. Authoritarians. Whatever you want to call them. I’ll explain. They submitted a proposal to ban all “Zionists or Zionist apologists” and I objected on the grounds that it is, objectively, the very fascism they were denouncing. They banned me simply for suggesting this. That’s what I’m talking about.

Since you do not understand even the smallest aspect of what I said, you are not in a position to make such a judgment.

“Strong left bias” is not bias, it is just a reflection of normal human decency. If you mean that fake leftists like the dbzero fascists are around a lot, I would agree and it’s a problem.

I cannot imagine wanting to spend time with children after being around for hundreds of years!

This is the most interested in Twilight I have ever been!

To check to make sure signs that look identical don’t have the numbers altered? Sure, I guess.

Not everything needs to be on the same scale of safety. I’m not saying that this particular rule was 100% perfect, just that it’s not up to individuals to undermine them arbitrarily, and just because no one noticed in ten years does not mean that it was ok to do it.

I’m glad it’s not causing a lot of trouble anyway…

I’m willing to hear you out. Your evidence for the sign being “wrong” is that it wasn’t discovered? Do you think that city workers would check to make sure the sign still said 07:00 and not 07:30? Why in the world would they check things like this?

It’s nice to see a few folks pushing back. This whole thing has the narrative of the ol’ incompetent state with its endless red tape and arbitrary nonsense!

Sometimes those things are true and it can be a pain, but it’s the same reason we don’t go out for vigilante justice. It wasn’t arbitrarily installed and no one noticed it because there’s no reason to check things like that.

Oh? That’s awful! Totally agree that this should either default to invisible or make it easier for you to block.

Crazy to see this accurate comment downvoted even though it explains it perfectly. That’s the difference. Liberals are race reductionist right wing capitalists who are occasionally sympathetic to limited social democracy.

How long until you last saw him?

Although I would say that the inability to contact moderators and have a formal process of requests is significantly worse. I agree about the material sense of transparency.

That’s why I’m objecting. Being fat isn’t a problem; it’s everything that can go along with it, like diabetes and so on. But being rich IS a problem. It’s kind of like saying “financial whiteness”.

No capitalist can. It’s definitional to the system.

Financial obesity makes it seem like it’s the same as being fat, which doesn’t make sense because being fat is not a specific problem in the same way that being rich is.

I’m sure you just mean it like “fat cat” but it’s a bizarre way to phrase it since it isn’t a good analogy.