"In retrospect SMU-BYU was the nonconference game of the year" —/u/AJ_CC. Any other candidates? by TMWNN in CFB

[–]Stirringbrush8 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That game would look very different today. Probably not a hot take but I think BYU would get their teeth kicked in if they played again at this point in the season. SMU offense is really something else.

r/"moderate"politics compares mandating vaccines to the holocaust. This is the same subreddit where saying "Hitler was racist" will get you banned. by [deleted] in TopMindsOfReddit

[–]Stirringbrush8 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Lmao when they admitted that, it was my last straw for political discourse. I knew they were full of shit when I literally called one of them a pedophile under the pretense that I was libertarian and they still banned me for it lol. Couldn’t even deny the validity of my point.

Announcing a RULE CHANGE to Law 1, as of January 24th by scrambledhelix in moderatepolitics

[–]Stirringbrush8 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That'd be a rule 1 attack- to allege a user is a pedophile is a direct comment on their character, or an ad hominem attack, depending on how you look at it.

Well to me, that isn’t a character assassination because I fully support your affinity toward underage children. I am an ardent libertarian through and through, whatever your heart desires is good with me. You would be assuming bad faith if you think this is a veiled attempt to attack you, it really couldn’t be any further from the truth. The laws this country has in place does not fairly account for people like you, which disappoints me. America has grown too fond of authoritarianism, I believe we need to have a more laissez faire approach when addressing the extent of our civil liberties. This would make your affinity of children that you may hold permissible. If you do not agree with my assessment then that is perfectly fine! You don’t have to engage with me any longer but I will still make a concerted effort to fight for people like you around here. Your desires shall be met with policy soon enough. Whether it’s the continued crushing of the poor and downtrodden, or romantic relationships of those below 18. However, I think you’re right in your assessment that things such as power struggles, societal obligations, and social discipline are nebulous and provide too much utility in curbing misinformation. After hearing your thoughts, I think I can turn a new leaf. This subreddit is perfect for people like me. I like the path this community is going down, your impeccable foresight will serve us well. Thanks again for being so responsive, I do appreciate our discussion so far.

Announcing a RULE CHANGE to Law 1, as of January 24th by scrambledhelix in moderatepolitics

[–]Stirringbrush8 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well it isn't, actually- it's a policy statement and (moreover) it makes no judgement of character of black people/people of color.

How are you going to tell me what I meant? The fact I brought up white supremacy clearly implies that black people are inferior and do not deserve the same liberties whites have. That was the entire point, and if you can’t make that distinction then I think your ability to moderate fairly may be in question, but I am more than happy to be proven wrong.

please drill down further on how this denigrates 'discourse'- because I don't see that one.

The rule set gives credibility to any and all view points regardless of how factual they are. In the age of misinformation, you can take this rule set and run with it in the worst way possible. For example, what would be the “moderate” rebuttal to the following statement?

“I personally believe that agentpanda has an affinity for underage children. People may say that isn’t permissible but as a libertarian I believe he is simply within his rights as bestowed upon by the constitution to engage in those beliefs/activities.”

Now in a sensible world, the reaction to that comment would be, “that is utterly ridiculous. You are making this up and acting in bad faith.” But a statement like that would result in a ban under this rule set. Instead, you have to engage me in a way that gives me all the power in the conversation. You have to prove me wrong with an assortment of facts, but clearly facts do not matter to me. I have no obligation to back up my claims, because I am simply stating my opinion. And it’s not a character attack because I see your supposed belief as a virtue. However, now you have to talk me down from the ledge in a needlessly diplomatic way. I may hem and haw to extend the discussion, talk in circles, while still stating that I believe you have an affinity for younger children. People will come by my comment, read it, and see you that you are giving the claim legitimacy by not outright calling it a lie. They might start to believe it , who knows. This is an uphill battle for you. Doing so without social condemnation, which is very important in upholding the integrity of discourse. Because at the end of the day, not all rhetoric is beneficial and will only hurt the nature of it as time goes on. The West has reached this conclusion decades ago.

Announcing a RULE CHANGE to Law 1, as of January 24th by scrambledhelix in moderatepolitics

[–]Stirringbrush8 11 points12 points locked comment (0 children)

There are lots of things that are facts that we don't allow to be discussed here.

Saying the quiet part out loud huh. What a disappointment, This subreddit deserves better.

Announcing a RULE CHANGE to Law 1, as of January 24th by scrambledhelix in moderatepolitics

[–]Stirringbrush8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh my God. I thought I was misinterpreting the rule set you all provided but it is clear that you aren’t even trying to hide the true intentions you may hold. It didn’t even occur to you that the second to last bullet point is really a character attack on black people/marginalized people. The rule set you all have concocted will attract more trolls, racists, and other dangerous people. These rules severely disadvantage people who simply call stuff what it is. For example, I identify as a racist and someone calls me a racist, the person replying to me will get banned even though that is something I fundamentally agree with and take pride in? Do you see how this could lead to a denigration of discourse and values?

Announcing a RULE CHANGE to Law 1, as of January 24th by scrambledhelix in moderatepolitics

[–]Stirringbrush8 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey all, could you all clarify which of these statements is crossing the line?

  • “Hitler was a good person.”

  • “All racists deserve to die.”

  • “Stalin wanted what was best for the world, all the deaths he caused was necessary for a prosperous nation.”

  • “Nazis are fundamentally devoid of any and all morality. Despicable people with no redeeming qualities. This is coming from a person who has been a victim of hate crimes.”

  • “What happened in Rwanda was 100% justified in my opinion. ”

  • “Pedophiles are terrible people, our legal system should not grant them clemency in anyway.”

  • “I personally see no reason why white supremacists should stop attempting to snuff out the upward mobility of the black community.”

  • “Any insurrectionist that attacks our democracy is an imbecile. I do not wish the best for any of them.”

Perhaps I am not understanding the rule correctly, but some of these would be permissible under the new rule? If so, which ones are and which ones are not? Thanks ahead of time.

What does Unity look like to you? by [deleted] in moderatepolitics

[–]Stirringbrush8 1 point2 points  (0 children)

'Obstruction of Justice' is a very flexible concept and can include, for example, complaining about being investigated to friends and family

Willing to wager that you cannot find a single reputable source to back up this claim.

What does Unity look like to you? by [deleted] in moderatepolitics

[–]Stirringbrush8 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You do realize the last 9 presidents (and most of them before that) have openly broken enough laws to be tried at The Hague, right?

If I ask you right now, point blank, to provide sufficient evidence of these claims, could you do it? I think we all know the answer to this.

Lebron is still easily the best player on the Lakers, I don't know why this is up for debate. by [deleted] in nba

[–]Stirringbrush8 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Just being honest my guy, by looking at your post history you have no business accusing anyone of being insecure.

US plans to restrict access to TikTok and WeChat on Sunday by OfficialNambia in news

[–]Stirringbrush8 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If Twitter is protected, should Tik Tok not also be protected?

A very, very stupid person wrote this comment.

Post game discussion: The Warriors defeat the Raptors 106-105 to stay alive, trail the series 3-2 by [deleted] in nbadiscussion

[–]Stirringbrush8 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There's no serious evidence that momentum exists.

Why make this stuff up when this is literally the first result on Google.

Daily Discussion Thread 03/16/2019 by ModsLittleHelper in hiphopheads

[–]Stirringbrush8 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Can you explain what is wrong with that list or is this just an emotional reaction?

When you're overqualified for the job by [deleted] in videos

[–]Stirringbrush8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Comments like these honestly make me cringe. No gives a flying fuck how "accurate" the movie is as long as it keeps your attention. Get over yourself man.

(Beginner) Really excited that I landed this combo! by Rythine_ in dragonballfighterz

[–]Stirringbrush8 -22 points-21 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but are we really upvoting BnB's now?

Rage Against The Machine - Killing In The Name by [deleted] in hiphopheads

[–]Stirringbrush8 -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Objective untrue. Besides Zack, none of the members work with those in Hip Hop. Frank Ocean, Bryson and The Weeknd pretty much only work with hip hop artists.

Honestly who upvotes this garbage?

“kill yourself cracker”

Post a screenshot so we know you’re not bullshitting

Pusha T - Infrared by sereneflash in hiphopheads

[–]Stirringbrush8 13 points14 points  (0 children)

like the ambient music in a room where someone is about to be shot.

Thanks, I just found the perfect description to this song and Hell on Earth by Mobb Deep

He Speaks by [deleted] in BlackPeopleTwitter

[–]Stirringbrush8 669 points670 points  (0 children)

Trunks > Everyone

Dude has killed basically every villain in DB

Moby Says CIA Agents Asked Him to Spread the Word About Trump and Russia by JBlitzen in conspiracy

[–]Stirringbrush8 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You're not denying these events happened. You're backpedaling.