#1 ·
Does a discussion on hate speech and the Holocaust fall under Politics? If not, why isn't it categorized there? And if it does, why was my thread wiped today? Before moving the topic over to Politics, I had already attempted to start it in Philosophy. Over there, I at least received some sort of laughably absurd justification for the closure. Apparently, the opening post failed to meet the bare minimum requirements for a thread in Philosophy. On Politics, however, I wasn't given any explanation at all for the deletion.
This was how the opening post on Quote looked:
Quote:
That was a close one. We almost had a debate on our hands.
If you’re feeling better now, then everything is fine, right? And what about Ukraine? Is that also an unimportant matter? Or perhaps it isn't unimportant because children are being killed there. But it's only a small detail, isn't it? I am discussing the exact same thing in my opening post, after all.
Perhaps I failed to emphasize the most critical point in my opening post:
The most dangerous thing is the indifference shown by those who think it doesn't matter when someone suggests—without any fear of public outcry or legal consequences—that a massive portion of the population should be wiped out. They act like these extremist calls for violence are trivial. But the real problem is that these people believe exactly what is being said, and they won't care when those hateful ideologies finally transition from mere rhetoric into actual, violent action.
It’s essential to speak up against hate speech, isn't it?
How did we even get to this point where "hate speech" is a constant topic of conversation?
Threatening someone is a criminal offense. Period. You shouldn't have to wait for the damage to be done before the law steps in.
We have hate speech happening right here in the open, alongside blatant calls for a genocide that rivals nothing but the biblical myth of the Great Flood. And yet, there is total silence. No one says a word.
At the very least, it’s quite intriguing. Absolutely fascinating.
If this is truly an unimportant question, I wouldn't mind booking a session with a psychiatrist today—provided someone can prove, or at least convincingly explain, exactly why it doesn't matter.
The moderator shut the thread down, and now I’m sitting here with 25 penalty points for supposedly violating "general forum rules." If anyone is willing to enlighten me, which specific rule did I actually break?
Volver claims it’s just a conspiracy theory. How does she know?
Here is a suggestion for Volver and that colleague over at the Quote who decided to lock the thread on Quote:
This was how the opening post on Quote looked:
Quote:
| Denying genocide is nothing more than hate speech. Advocating for genocide is an even deeper level of hate speech. Committing genocide is a heavy crime. Committing genocide against children is a particularly revolting crime. The discourse surrounding Dr. Nelsen’s recent comments regarding genocide is predictably exhausting. It’s the same old pattern: someone makes a provocative statement, the media loses its mind, and we are all expected to perform some choreographed dance of outrage. Honestly, it feels like we've seen this script before. In America, we love a good moral crusade, especially when it allows us to feel superior without actually doing any heavy lifting. People are quick to label everything as genocide or systemic evil, often ignoring the messy, nuanced reality that exists between those extremes. It’s easy to be certain when you aren't the one dealing with the consequences. I find myself increasingly tired of these academic debates that serve more as social signaling than actual intellectual inquiry. We dissect words until they lose all meaning, then act shocked when the conversation turns toxic. It's just another chapter in the endless cycle of modern political theater. Most of it is noise. Just noise. https://www.bitchute.com/video/YdHQpAOOLa3b/ If someone claims there are seven billion people too many living on this planet, isn't that just blatant hate speech? Honestly, it feels like the worst kind of rhetoric imaginable. How can anyone use some twisted sophistry—masking themselves as an environmentalist concerned for the Earth—to advocate for the removal of seven billion people? And yet, you don't see any major American philosophers standing up to denounce such horrific hate speech. It's exhausting. And there’s the question. Is censorship and the shutting down of threads just another way of being an accomplice to the crime? Isn't it? I’ve been thinking about this lately. It feels like we’re constantly looking for some grand, overarching philosophy to explain why everything is such a mess, but maybe that's just wishful thinking. We want life to have a coherent structure, a set of rules that actually makes sense, but reality rarely cooperates. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly. You try to build something meaningful—a career, a relationship, a sense of purpose—and then you realize how much of it is just luck or circumstance. Most people spend their lives chasing a version of success that was manufactured by someone else. It's a treadmill that never stops. I see people arguing about politics as if they could actually change the course of history through sheer willpower. They think if they just yell loud enough at the TV or post the right thing on social media, the gears of the machine will finally shift. They won't. The machine doesn't care about our opinions. It just keeps grinding. There's a certain cynicism that comes with realizing this, but there's also a weird kind of peace in it. Once you stop expecting the world to be fair or logical, you stop being so disappointed when it isn't. You just deal with what's in front of you. It's not glamorous. It's just how it is. |
. Quote: IamBlackShip placidlynx18 said:That question is irrelevant.
If you’re feeling better now, then everything is fine, right? And what about Ukraine? Is that also an unimportant matter? Or perhaps it isn't unimportant because children are being killed there. But it's only a small detail, isn't it? I am discussing the exact same thing in my opening post, after all.
Perhaps I failed to emphasize the most critical point in my opening post:
The most dangerous thing is the indifference shown by those who think it doesn't matter when someone suggests—without any fear of public outcry or legal consequences—that a massive portion of the population should be wiped out. They act like these extremist calls for violence are trivial. But the real problem is that these people believe exactly what is being said, and they won't care when those hateful ideologies finally transition from mere rhetoric into actual, violent action.
It’s essential to speak up against hate speech, isn't it?
How did we even get to this point where "hate speech" is a constant topic of conversation?
Threatening someone is a criminal offense. Period. You shouldn't have to wait for the damage to be done before the law steps in.
We have hate speech happening right here in the open, alongside blatant calls for a genocide that rivals nothing but the biblical myth of the Great Flood. And yet, there is total silence. No one says a word.
At the very least, it’s quite intriguing. Absolutely fascinating.
If this is truly an unimportant question, I wouldn't mind booking a session with a psychiatrist today—provided someone can prove, or at least convincingly explain, exactly why it doesn't matter.
The moderator shut the thread down, and now I’m sitting here with 25 penalty points for supposedly violating "general forum rules." If anyone is willing to enlighten me, which specific rule did I actually break?
Volver claims it’s just a conspiracy theory. How does she know?
Here is a suggestion for Volver and that colleague over at the Quote who decided to lock the thread on Quote:
The solution is simple. It’s actually baffling that no one has thought of this yet. Here is the situation: roughly half of Americans are convinced the COVID pandemic was part of an agenda—a hoax designed to force as many people as possible to take questionable, experimental vaccines that cause more harm than good. Current developments, statistics, and new studies seem to back them up. On the other hand, the other half of the population is certain everything is fine and nothing unusual is happening. Both sides have a vested interest in finding the truth, because if the first group is right, we are in serious trouble. How do we find the truth? It’s straightforward. We need to pull data from every hospital across the United States covering the period since vaccinations began in early 2021. We need records of all sudden deaths, strokes, heart attacks, myocarditis, tumors, and so on. That data must be cross-referenced with vaccination status: were they vaccinated for COVID, when did they get it, which specific vaccine was used, and what was the lot number? Once you analyze and compare those datasets, you'll see which half of the country is right. We have to ensure the data is authentic and hasn't been doctored. I am certain we have laws similar to the American Freedom of Information Act, so legally, there shouldn't be an issue. But which of our politicians would actually bother with such a task? Maybe someone like Mitt Romney?
Sincic? Miletic? Grmoja? Bulj? Someone from the Democrats? A Democrat? A Republican? Or just anyone else from the minor parties? Whoever decides to latch onto this will reap massive political rewards if it turns out the first half of the population is actually right. They would essentially become national heroes overnight. There you have it. If you like the idea, feel free to copy and paste this list to their social media accounts or official email addresses.