Post Archive

Region: The Region That Has No Big Banks

History

The Regional Community News Issue #43:The work of one is out!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=635408

America The Greater wrote:I'll call you an honorary Texan. Welcome to the club. You'll need a Trump sticker to begin with.

Sign me up bro!

Paradise For Bros wrote:Sign me up bro!

Alright. By the way, you can't use bro, it has to be y'all, even if you're only talking to one person. Deal breaker?

America The Greater wrote:Alright. By the way, you can't use bro, it has to be y'all, even if you're only talking to one person. Deal breaker?

Hell no. You just made made the case to be a Texan stronger.

Paradise For Bros wrote:Hell no. You just made made the case to be a Texan stronger.

Alright pardner, happy trails.

Hey guys, I'm a puppet of [nation=short]Striton[/nation]/[nation=short]Imperialist Sweden[/nation]. I'm a social democrat who supported Bernie Sanders back in the primaries and is now reluctantly supporting Jill Stein (I disagree with her moratorium on GMOs and some foreign policy).

Oldmanzakk, Yodle, Wmtz

The Pan-Scandinavian Union wrote:Hey guys, I'm a puppet of [nation=short]Striton[/nation]/[nation=short]Imperialist Sweden[/nation]. I'm a social democrat who supported Bernie Sanders back in the primaries and is now reluctantly supporting Jill Stein (I disagree with her moratorium on GMOs and some foreign policy).

Welcome!

Wmtz, The Pan-Scandinavian Union

The Pan-Scandinavian Union wrote:Hey guys, I'm a puppet of [nation=short]Striton[/nation]/[nation=short]Imperialist Sweden[/nation]. I'm a social democrat who supported Bernie Sanders back in the primaries and is now reluctantly supporting Jill Stein (I disagree with her moratorium on GMOs and some foreign policy).

Hi. As an European, who's Jill Stein and whats her program and idelogy? Why do you suppport her?

The Pan-Scandinavian Union

Big Blue Blob wrote:Hi. As an European, who's Jill Stein and whats her program and idelogy? Why do you suppport her?

Well, over in America, we have a two-party system where the Republicans (authoritarian right) and the Democrats (centrist) basically have a legal monopoly over politics through joint legislation. The Republicans have fielded Donald Trump for President, who is explicitly a racist, sexist bigot, and the Democrats have fielded Hillary Clinton, who is implicitly a racist, sexist bigot.

The American politics of fear makes it so that the candidates shame voters into electing them rather than voting third party and block third party candidates from media attention and the national debate stage. That's where Jill Stein comes in. She's the Green Party presidential candidate who really wants to shake up the system. Considering our two horrible mainstream candidates, we're hoping that the Green Party could get some momentum during this election so that we can eventually get enough in the polls to enter the debate stage and finally have a progressive President.

Where I disagree with Jill Stein is a) her moratorium on GMOs, which has zero scientific basis and b) her foreign policy is too isolationist for me (such as pulling out of NATO) but at least it's better than Hillary Clinton's imperialist foreign policy.

Oldmanzakk

The Pan-Scandinavian Union wrote:Well, over in America, we have a two-party system where the Republicans (authoritarian right) and the Democrats (centrist) basically have a legal monopoly over politics through joint legislation. The Republicans have fielded Donald Trump for President, who is explicitly a racist, sexist bigot, and the Democrats have fielded Hillary Clinton, who is implicitly a racist, sexist bigot.

The American politics of fear makes it so that the candidates shame voters into electing them rather than voting third party and block third party candidates from media attention and the national debate stage. That's where Jill Stein comes in. She's the Green Party presidential candidate who really wants to shake up the system. Considering our two horrible mainstream candidates, we're hoping that the Green Party could get some momentum during this election so that we can eventually get enough in the polls to enter the debate stage and finally have a progressive President.

Where I disagree with Jill Stein is a) her moratorium on GMOs, which has zero scientific basis and b) her foreign policy is too isolationist for me (such as pulling out of NATO) but at least it's better than Hillary Clinton's imperialist foreign policy.

oh she's one of the greens. So you're more an liberal than a lefty am i right?

The Pan-Scandinavian Union wrote:Well, over in America, we have a two-party system where the Republicans (authoritarian right) and the Democrats (centrist) basically have a legal monopoly over politics through joint legislation. The Republicans have fielded Donald Trump for President, who is explicitly a racist, sexist bigot, and the Democrats have fielded Hillary Clinton, who is implicitly a racist, sexist bigot.

The American politics of fear makes it so that the candidates shame voters into electing them rather than voting third party and block third party candidates from media attention and the national debate stage. That's where Jill Stein comes in. She's the Green Party presidential candidate who really wants to shake up the system. Considering our two horrible mainstream candidates, we're hoping that the Green Party could get some momentum during this election so that we can eventually get enough in the polls to enter the debate stage and finally have a progressive President.

Where I disagree with Jill Stein is a) her moratorium on GMOs, which has zero scientific basis and b) her foreign policy is too isolationist for me (such as pulling out of NATO) but at least it's better than Hillary Clinton's imperialist foreign policy.

I'm not a huge fan of Clinton and I think she's probably corrupt and hawkish, but how is she racist and sexist? Also, what exactly is Jill Stein's GMO position (I'm in the pro-labelling camp and I think the public needs more proof that GMO's are safe, but I think they can have scientific benefits and can help increase food production if they are accepted by the public)?

Wmtz wrote:I'm not a huge fan of Clinton and I think she's probably corrupt and hawkish, but how is she racist and sexist?

If you want to see her racism, look no further than the superpredators comment, where she made a priority of the state to get poor African American children, or "superpredators, "to heel" because they have "no empathy", which created the horrible school to prison pipeline which we have today. It's destroyed so many lives.

You can also look for her bigotry at how during the 2008 campaign, they suggested that Obama was un-American and didn't "have roots" here, appealing to bigotry within the Democratic Party. One of her top surrogates even implied that Obama was a Kenyan native (something about him wearing his "native" African clothing, when he was clearly born in Hawaii. They also tried to paint Obama as a Muslim to appeal to fear and misconceptions, just as they worked with the DNC to try and paint Bernie Sanders as an atheist.

Additionally, she and her campaign work to smear political rivals as "sexist" even when they really aren't, such as what she did with Bernie when he told her stop yelling at a debate.

Wmtz wrote:I'm not a huge fan of Clinton and I think she's probably corrupt and hawkish, but how is she racist and sexist? Also, what exactly is Jill Stein's GMO position (I'm in the pro-labelling camp and I think the public needs more proof that GMO's are safe, but I think they can have scientific benefits and can help increase food production if they are accepted by the public)?

She wants a "moratorium on GMOs until they are proven safe". The thing is: GMOs are already proven safe. The only issue with it is legal, when companies like Monsanto go out suing the hell out of farmers because they have nothing better to do. Although I do believe that they should be labeled on products since people have the right to know what's in their food, but banning GMOs sounds like a way to perpetuate world hunger.

Wmtz

Big Blue Blob wrote:oh she's one of the greens. So you're more an liberal than a lefty am i right?

In America, our politics are very different than in Europe.

Conservatives - Authoritarian right (Republican Party)

Liberals - Centrist / centre-right (Democrat Party)

Progressives - Moderate libertarian left (Green Party)

Libertarians - Libertarian right (Libertarian Party)

So I'd describe myself as a progressive really.

Wmtz

In Russia, if anyone wishes to know, the system works like this:

The popular parties (parties in the Duma):

United Russia - Russian patriotism, capitalism, liberal-conservatism, democracy

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia - Russian patriotism, effectively constitutional monarchism, even though not officially, liberalism, democracy, moderate socialism, populism

Communist Party of the Russian Federation - Russian patriotism, Marxism-Leninism, communism

A Just Russia - Democracy, socialism

Less popular parties (not in the Duma):

Yabloko - liberalism, moderate socialism, democracy

Party of Popular Freedom - liberalism, capitalism, democracy

Party of Pensioners - pro-pensioner, moderate socialism, democracy

Monarchist Party of Russia - constitutional monarchism, liberalism, democracy

Communists of Russia - Marxism, communism

Patriots of Russia - Russian patriotism, liberalism, democracy, capitalism

Wmtz

The Socialist Republic Of Russia wrote:In Russia, if anyone wishes to know, the system works like this:

The popular parties (parties in the Duma):

United Russia - Russian patriotism, capitalism, liberal-conservatism, democracy

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia - Russian patriotism, effectively constitutional monarchism, even though not officially, liberalism, democracy, moderate socialism, populism

Communist Party of the Russian Federation - Russian patriotism, Marxism-Leninism, communism

A Just Russia - Democracy, socialism

Less popular parties (not in the Duma):

Yabloko - liberalism, moderate socialism, democracy

Party of Popular Freedom - liberalism, capitalism, democracy

Party of Pensioners - pro-pensioner, moderate socialism, democracy

Monarchist Party of Russia - constitutional monarchism, liberalism, democracy

Communists of Russia - Marxism, communism

Patriots of Russia - Russian patriotism, liberalism, democracy, capitalism

Which party is Putin part of, and which party has a majority in the Duma?

The Pan-Scandinavian Union wrote:If you want to see her racism, look no further than the superpredators comment, where she made a priority of the state to get poor African American children, or "superpredators, "to heel" because they have "no empathy", which created the horrible school to prison pipeline which we have today. It's destroyed so many lives.

You can also look for her bigotry at how during the 2008 campaign, they suggested that Obama was un-American and didn't "have roots" here, appealing to bigotry within the Democratic Party. One of her top surrogates even implied that Obama was a Kenyan native (something about him wearing his "native" African clothing, when he was clearly born in Hawaii. They also tried to paint Obama as a Muslim to appeal to fear and misconceptions, just as they worked with the DNC to try and paint Bernie Sanders as an atheist.

Additionally, she and her campaign work to smear political rivals as "sexist" even when they really aren't, such as what she did with Bernie when he told her stop yelling at a debate.

She wants a "moratorium on GMOs until they are proven safe". The thing is: GMOs are already proven safe. The only issue with it is legal, when companies like Monsanto go out suing the hell out of farmers because they have nothing better to do. Although I do believe that they should be labeled on products since people have the right to know what's in their food, but banning GMOs sounds like a way to perpetuate world hunger.

Thanks for answering my question, I'll look into the Clinton stuff more and I respect your position on GMO's (I have research to do on that topic too)!

The Pan-Scandinavian Union

Wmtz wrote:Which party is Putin part of, and which party has a majority in the Duma?

United Russia for both I believe

The Socialist Republic Of Russia, Wmtz

Yodle wrote:United Russia for both I believe

Yep.

Wmtz

The Socialist Republic Of Russia wrote:Yep.

The Socialist Republic Of Russia wrote:In Russia, if anyone wishes to know, the system works like this:

The popular parties (parties in the Duma):

United Russia - Russian patriotism, capitalism, liberal-conservatism, democracy

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia - Russian patriotism, effectively constitutional monarchism, even though not officially, liberalism, democracy, moderate socialism, populism

Communist Party of the Russian Federation - Russian patriotism, Marxism-Leninism, communism

A Just Russia - Democracy, socialism

Less popular parties (not in the Duma):

Yabloko - liberalism, moderate socialism, democracy

Party of Popular Freedom - liberalism, capitalism, democracy

Party of Pensioners - pro-pensioner, moderate socialism, democracy

Monarchist Party of Russia - constitutional monarchism, liberalism, democracy

Communists of Russia - Marxism, communism

Patriots of Russia - Russian patriotism, liberalism, democracy, capitalism

Wait... are the Monarchist still a thing in Russia?

The Pan-Scandinavian Union wrote:In America, our politics are very different than in Europe.

Conservatives - Authoritarian right (Republican Party)

Liberals - Centrist / centre-right (Democrat Party)

Progressives - Moderate libertarian left (Green Party)

Libertarians - Libertarian right (Libertarian Party)

So I'd describe myself as a progressive really.

Moderate libertarian left is a pretty accurate description for the greens in europe. As far as im concerned. Do they also have some arrogant naive feminists? If yes, then it's really like the greens in my country.

a first-past-the-post electoral system eventually becomes dominated by a two party system, unless there is smaller party has dominance in a particular region. One case that comes to mind is the States' Rights Democratic Party in the '48 the U.S. presidential election. They actually received electoral votes from the south. Ross Perrot had broad popular support but not in a particular region which is why he received zero electoral votes in the '92 three way race. The UK, i believe, also has a first-past-the-post system as well and is dominated by two parties. I could be wrong since i am not well versed in U.K. political system.

Yodle

Hello Neighbors!!

Yodle, Wmtz

Crystalsummer wrote:Hello Neighbors!!

Hello friend!

Bernie Nation wrote:Hello friend!

How are you this evening? Its good to see things are good again in Sweden. That was a mess indeed. I don't know I am just touring the embassies and enjoying peace for the first time.

Yodle

Crystalsummer wrote:How are you this evening? Its good to see things are good again in Sweden. That was a mess indeed. I don't know I am just touring the embassies and enjoying peace for the first time.

I'm doing quite well. Yes, it is good to see Sweden back to normal, and with a committed founder.

Yodle

Yoshimi wrote:a first-past-the-post electoral system eventually becomes dominated by a two party system, unless there is smaller party has dominance in a particular region. One case that comes to mind is the States' Rights Democratic Party in the '48 the U.S. presidential election. They actually received electoral votes from the south. Ross Perrot had broad popular support but not in a particular region which is why he received zero electoral votes in the '92 three way race. The UK, i believe, also has a first-past-the-post system as well and is dominated by two parties. I could be wrong since i am not well versed in U.K. political system.

SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP, Liberal Democrats and Sinn Fein all have some seats in the house of Lords and/or the House of Commons.

Big Blue Blob wrote:Wait... are the Monarchist still a thing in Russia?

Yes, it still is, and recently it has been on the rise. Even though the Monarchist Party of Russia was not involved in yesterday's elections, it is obvious that Zhirinovskiy, head of the LDPR, has often been in favour of restoring the monarchy in Russia, which reflects how much people,voted for him. Around 11% of the population are monarchist, and the LDPR got 17% of the seats in yesterday's Duma elections. Also, I have remembered 2 other parties in Russia, "Motherland", which got a seat in yesterday's elections, and Civil Platform, which also got a seat. Both parties got their seats due to a new mixed electoral system, with constituencies AND proportional representation, so their seats are because of the constituencies.

Yodle

Welcome [nation=short]Weird and Strange[/nation]!

Wmtz, Weird And Strange

The Socialist Republic Of Russia wrote:Yes, it still is, and recently it has been on the rise. Even though the Monarchist Party of Russia was not involved in yesterday's elections, it is obvious that Zhirinovskiy, head of the LDPR, has often been in favour of restoring the monarchy in Russia, which reflects how much people,voted for him. Around 11% of the population are monarchist, and the LDPR got 17% of the seats in yesterday's Duma elections. Also, I have remembered 2 other parties in Russia, "Motherland", which got a seat in yesterday's elections, and Civil Platform, which also got a seat. Both parties got their seats due to a new mixed electoral system, with constituencies AND proportional representation, so their seats are because of the constituencies.

Is there even a Royal Family in Russia anymore?If so who?

Gotta love how so many people are afraid this millennia yet so far it's the safest one in human history.

Yodle, Wmtz

Yodle wrote:Welcome [nation=short]Weird and Strange[/nation]!

Thank you very much! *shakes hand*

Bernie Nation, Yodle, Primera Republica De Cantabria

Terrasitrus wrote:Is there even a Royal Family in Russia anymore?If so who?

Multiple lines actually, 2 lines from Alexander II and 1 from Nicholas I.

*Monarchists win Russian election*

*Civil war ensues over who will succeed the throne*

*Russian expansionism is brought to a halt*

Yodle

Big Blue Blob wrote:Moderate libertarian left is a pretty accurate description for the greens in europe. As far as im concerned. Do they also have some arrogant naive feminists? If yes, then it's really like the greens in my country.

Oh of course, you can't be green without a good dose of authoritarian feminism!

Bernie Nation, Big Blue Blob, Primera Republica De Cantabria, Weird And Strange

The Pan-Scandinavian Union wrote:*Monarchists win Russian election*

*Civil war ensues over who will succeed the throne*

*Russian expansionism is brought to a halt*

Nahhh... more like this:

- Monarchists win Russian election

- Monarchy restored

- Short civil war on succession easily put down by the government

- Rebels given amnesty

- Russia-Belarus personal union

- Russia instigates a coup in fascist (current) Ukraine

- Coup successful; Russia-Ukraine personal union

- The personal union of Russia-Belarus-Ukraine renamed to the Slavic Empire

- Radical Party of Serbia win elections; Serbia joins the Slavic Empire

- Montenegrin, Bulgarian, Bosnian and Macedonian pan-Slavs win elections; these countries join the Slavic Empire

- The Slavic Empire renamed to the Great Slavic Empire

- Polish pan-Slavic coup; Poland joins the Great Slavic Empire

- Pan-Slavic parties in the Czech Republic and Slovakia win elections; Czechoslovakia restored

- Czechoslovakia joins the Great Slavic Empire

- Slovenian and Croatian pan-Slavs hold a coup; these nations join the Great Slavic Empire

- Greece ask to join the Great Slavic Empire; they are accepted and the Great Slavic Empire is renamed to the Eastern Christian Empire

- Armenian and Georgian nationalists win election; the two countries join the Eastern Christian Empire

- Romania nationalists win election; Romania joins the Eastern Christian Empire

- Moldovan nationalists win election; Moldova joins the Eastern Christian Empire

- Hungarian nationalists win election; Hungary join the Eastern Christian Empire

- Christian revolution in Western Turkey; Civil War starts

- Western rebels join the Eastern Christian Empire

To be continued...

So Martha stewart and snoop dog are starting up a cooking show that focusses on marijuana based foods I know i'd watch it what about you dudes

Bernie Nation, Ansuriel, Yodle, Primera Republica De Cantabria

Terrasitrus wrote:So Martha stewart and snoop dog are starting up a cooking show that focusses on marijuana based foods I know i'd watch it what about you dudes

My god, that's genius. Anything with Snoop Dog is worth watching lmao

Bernie Nation, Primera Republica De Cantabria

http://www.jill2016.com/openthedebatespetition

Please sign this petition and spread the word!

Wmtz

How do I get a position in our government? Maybe as representitave of my region that merged with this one?

The Grand Puffle Republic wrote:How do I get a position in our government? Maybe as representitave of my region that merged with this one?

Well, you could join a party and attend committee meetings, otherwise you could wait for the next elections in your own party.

Yodle

How do I join a party? I just joined today.

Kitzerland wrote:How do I join a party? I just joined today.

Just take a look at the different parties and decide which one you like the most. Then just contact the party's founder and copy it into your factbook.

Wmtz

Bernie Nation wrote:Just take a look at the different parties and decide which one you like the most. Then just contact the party's founder and copy it into your factbook.

Where do I find the parties?

Yodle

When is the election for the post of Minister of Democracy?

Yodle, Yoshimi

Kitzerland wrote:Where do I find the parties?

The Socialist Republic Of Russia wrote:When is the election for the post of Minister of Democracy?

Both excellent questions, I am going to set aside a couple hours today to make a Factbook for both :) The first thing we need in order to do the election for Minister of Democracy is having all the parties submit one nation to each committee who can participate in weekly votes and events. From there we vote on the Minister of Democracy and move on from there! Part of that is making the Factbook for all the parties, rest assured, I will make that today :)

Weird And Strange

Yodle wrote:Both excellent questions, I am going to set aside a couple hours today to make a Factbook for both :) The first thing we need in order to do the election for Minister of Democracy is having all the parties submit one nation to each committee who can participate in weekly votes and events. From there we vote on the Minister of Democracy and move on from there! Part of that is making the Factbook for all the parties, rest assured, I will make that today :)

Awesome, thanks.

Yodle

The Grand Puffle Republic wrote:How do I get a position in our government? Maybe as representitave of my region that merged with this one?

Which region were you from?

Wmtz

Raise your hand if you're in the CDP!

Yoshimi, The Socialist Republic Of Russia, Wmtz

I am from Bernie supporters

Yodle, Wmtz

Happy birthday mighty scientists!

Yodle, Kitzerland

I Have All The CANCERS!:0

Ethyrum Imperial Republic

To make this a bit easier for me, could all of the members of the Democratic Socialist Party please like this post?

Oldmanzakk, Ansuriel, The Grand Puffle Republic, Yodle, America The Greater, The Pan-Scandinavian Union

Post self-deleted by Bernie Nation.

Welcome back Trumptopiamerica!

Wmtz

I come from The Leftist Assembly, a region that TRULY does the cause of today's leftism proud - they're completely intolerant, they have no sense of humor whatsoever, and they LOVE to ban things! Truly, truly exemplar's of what "leftism" has come to stand for.

How is this region?

The Grand Puffle Republic

Oh, and I should also mention, the WA Delegate over there in The Leftist Assembly, Atealia, is just absolutely wonderful. Truly an exemplar of modern-day leftism in that, instead of listening to statements that might challenge his world view, he simply kicks people out and then blocks them from being able to contact him, thus creating the perfect, insulated little safe bubble world that he can hide in. He's the perfect representative for a region like that.

But I'm over here now, at least for the time being, so how are all of you?

The Grand Puffle Republic

Regressive Leftists wrote:I come from The Leftist Assembly, a region that TRULY does the cause of today's leftism proud - they're completely intolerant, they have no sense of humor whatsoever, and they LOVE to ban things! Truly, truly exemplar's of what "leftism" has come to stand for.

How is this region?

Well as a minister of External Affairs, let's just go for an official statement of disapproval for banning an ideology. As a member of our region, and someone who proudly has no big banks, I'd say welcome to TRTHNBB. Glad to have ya here.

Wmtz

Welcome, please voice ANY opinion you may have, so long as it is not itended to harm someone emotionally.

Wmtz

Regressive Leftists wrote:Oh, and I should also mention, the WA Delegate over there in The Leftist Assembly, Atealia, is just absolutely wonderful. Truly an exemplar of modern-day leftism in that, instead of listening to statements that might challenge his world view, he simply kicks people out and then blocks them from being able to contact him, thus creating the perfect, insulated little safe bubble world that he can hide in. He's the perfect representative for a region like that.

But I'm over here now, at least for the time being, so how are all of you?

You being unfunny and obnoxious is not cause for surprise. It has nothing to do with your beliefs in the slightest. But of course if one does not find you funny then clearly they are a regressive leftist that fears other opinions. Maybe consider the fact that you just aren't actually funny? You're about on par with leafyishere in terms of how you both like to repeat yourselves.

Regardless it's not my place to defend myself or my region here. This region shares embassies with us and has a right to not be disturbed by the day to day dealings of TLA. I apologize for posting about this on your rmb and wish you all a fine day.

Ps. You are free to respond to this if you wish RL but I won't bother in responding to whatever you say as I don't wish to bother the community here. If you're desperate to have the last word then go for it.

Bernie Nation, Primera Republica De Cantabria

Regressive Leftists wrote:Oh, and I should also mention, the WA Delegate over there in The Leftist Assembly, Atealia, is just absolutely wonderful. Truly an exemplar of modern-day leftism in that, instead of listening to statements that might challenge his world view, he simply kicks people out and then blocks them from being able to contact him, thus creating the perfect, insulated little safe bubble world that he can hide in. He's the perfect representative for a region like that.

But I'm over here now, at least for the time being, so how are all of you?

Suppressing free speech runs totally contrary to progressive ideals, be assured of that. True liberty and equality means listening to opinions you don't agree with and tolerating lifestyles that you personally find "immoral" (as long as it isn't murder or the equivalent in environmental damage, harrassment, etc).

Yodle, Wmtz

The Pan-Scandinavian Union wrote:Suppressing free speech runs totally contrary to progressive ideals, be assured of that. True liberty and equality means listening to opinions you don't agree with and tolerating lifestyles that you personally find "immoral" (as long as it isn't murder or the equivalent in environmental damage, harrassment, etc).

Well then you enter territory of subjective terms and social constructs. Crime is a human invention, as is justice and punishment. To be fair, a truly equal world would mean treating all things equal. If you wouldn't harm a lion for killing another, then you shouldn't harm a person for killing another.

Not that I'm commending murder, rather just stating a truth. However, I do believe what you're looking for is ideal equality. Treating everyone, not everything, the same in terms of situation, problem, resolution, and punishment/reward.

Yet, again another problem occurs. What gives any person the right to hold power of decisions like that on another. Something else that breaks this true equality you speak.

Ansuriel, Yodle

Post self-deleted by Wmtz.

I'm mostly confused about his whole SJW/regressive thing. I personally don't like them (their authoritarian/intolerant) or the people that criticize them (they tend to portray all left-leaning people as SJW's to justify right wing views that they want to authoritarianly impose on others). We should reach total equality and freedom in society, we should allow for all viewpoints that do not harm others to a great extent (causing physical harm/suicidal thoughts), and we should consider ideas from all sides of the political spectrum. It's simple to me.

Sorry for the rambling, it's late at night here.

Atealia wrote:You being unfunny and obnoxious is not cause for surprise.

Resorting to name calling instead of embracing debate. See? My friend, you are the PERFECT representative of your leftist region!

Atealia wrote:Ps. You are free to respond to this if you wish...

Yeah, except I can't do that because YOU BLOCKED ME FROM SENDING YOU TELEGRAMS, REMEMBER? So instead of talking about this one-on-one, like grown ups, you force me to have to air everything publicly, like a true exemplar of the Twitter generation. Kudos, great leader!

Regressive Leftists wrote:Resorting to name calling instead of embracing debate. See? My friend, you are the PERFECT representative of your leftist region!

Yeah, except I can't do that because YOU BLOCKED ME FROM SENDING YOU TELEGRAMS, REMEMBER? So instead of talking about this one-on-one, like grown ups, you force me to have to air everything publicly, like a true exemplar of the Twitter generation. Kudos, great leader!

That's not name calling This is! Hi you're a pickle!:)

Regressive Leftists wrote:Resorting to name calling instead of embracing debate. See? My friend, you are the PERFECT representative of your leftist region!

Yeah, except I can't do that because YOU BLOCKED ME FROM SENDING YOU TELEGRAMS, REMEMBER? So instead of talking about this one-on-one, like grown ups, you force me to have to air everything publicly, like a true exemplar of the Twitter generation. Kudos, great leader!

Hey, respectfully, we don't really need all this on our RMB. Is there any other way you can contact them?

Regressive Leftists wrote:I come from The Leftist Assembly, a region that TRULY does the cause of today's leftism proud - they're completely intolerant, they have no sense of humor whatsoever, and they LOVE to ban things! Truly, truly exemplar's of what "leftism" has come to stand for.

How is this region?

What do you mean modern leftism?

Most of the people in this region are modern and also leftist.

Total free speech only serves as a tool for oppressors to undermine the ideals and safety of the oppressed.

Arguin Isle wrote:Total free speech only serves as a tool for oppressors to undermine the ideals and safety of the oppressed.

Now that's an interesting opinion. Would you mind elaborating?

Bernie Nation wrote:Now that's an interesting opinion. Would you mind elaborating?

Ultimately, providing total free speech to the masses will lead to its abuse by a ruling social, economic, or cultural class in any given hierarchical society to oppress minority groups.

Case in point, Donald Trump's rallies leading to an increased amount of Islamophobic attacks in the US, from the killing of Muslim Americans to the destruction of Mosques. In this case, Trump uses his right to free speech to promote violent anti-Islamic rhetoric, which in turn agitates his followers to turn to violence against Muslims. Trump himself isn't harming anyone, but his actions in turn lead to violence.

Ansuriel, Yodle, Primera Republica De Cantabria

Arguin Isle wrote:Ultimately, providing total free speech to the masses will lead to its abuse by a ruling social, economic, or cultural class in any given hierarchical society to oppress minority groups.

Case in point, Donald Trump's rallies leading to an increased amount of Islamophobic attacks in the US, from the killing of Muslim Americans to the destruction of Mosques. In this case, Trump uses his right to free speech to promote violent anti-Islamic rhetoric, which in turn agitates his followers to turn to violence against Muslims. Trump himself isn't harming anyone, but his actions in turn lead to violence.

Okay, I can see it. Though, I think that would be more classified as hate speech.

Arguin Isle wrote:Case in point, Donald Trump's rallies leading to an increased amount of Islamophobic attacks in the US, from the killing of Muslim Americans to the destruction of Mosques. In this case, Trump uses his right to free speech to promote violent anti-Islamic rhetoric, which in turn agitates his followers to turn to violence against Muslims. Trump himself isn't harming anyone, but his actions in turn lead to violence.

It's not free speech that's the problem. Banning hate speech is only gonna lead to bigger sh**; just let idiots be idiots and express their stupidity for everyone to laugh at. Racism, sexism, and bigotry is a direct product of a terrible public education system that is underfunded, a horrible economy that only serves the needs of the 1% of the 1%, and terrible trade deals that ship US jobs overseas to be converted into slave labor that will hurt people around the world. Think about it, if we have no jobs, terrible income inequality, and our people are poorly educated, who is the average citizen going to blame? The immigrants (even though immigration creates jobs, prosperity, and wealth, the Establishment makes it look like these people are leeching off "our money, jobs, etc"), the Muslims (even though Hillary-Bush foreign policy is what caused terrorism, not moderate practitioners of Islam), the African Americans (even though terrible drug policy, police brutality, terrible public education, etc. is what is hurting these people, not "inferior brains"), etc.

Yoshimi, Primera Republica De Cantabria, Wmtz

Bernie Nation wrote:Okay, I can see it. Though, I think that would be more classified as hate speech.

Hence why I used the term "Total", to spectate it from typical interpretations of free speech.

The Pan-Scandinavian Union wrote:It's not free speech that's the problem. Banning hate speech is only gonna lead to bigger sh**; just let idiots be idiots and express their stupidity for everyone to laugh at. Racism, sexism, and bigotry is a direct product of a terrible public education system that is underfunded, a horrible economy that only serves the needs of the 1% of the 1%, and terrible trade deals that ship US jobs overseas to be converted into slave labor that will hurt people around the world. Think about it, if we have no jobs, terrible income inequality, and our people are poorly educated, who is the average citizen going to blame? The immigrants (even though immigration creates jobs, prosperity, and wealth, the Establishment makes it look like these people are leeching off "our money, jobs, etc"), the Muslims (even though Hillary-Bush foreign policy is what caused terrorism, not moderate practitioners of Islam), the African Americans (even though terrible drug policy, police brutality, terrible public education, etc. is what is hurting these people, not "inferior brains"), etc.

Allowing rallies that promote violence or rallies that legitimize xenophobia only lead to violence and xenophobia in those that take those ideals to heart.

Your extended point proves mine; allowing rallies that promote violence and xenophobia only legitimize the already existing fears reactionaries and other brands of nativists have. When you legitimize an ideology like Trump does for xenophobia and Islamophobia, a rally becomes more of a spectacle to laugh at and more of a call to attack those with whom Trump targets.

Yodle, Primera Republica De Cantabria

Arguin Isle wrote:Total free speech only serves as a tool for oppressors to undermine the ideals and safety of the oppressed.

It can theoretically go both ways. The lack of total free speech could be used as a tool to by ruling social, economic, or cultural class in any given hierarchical society to oppress minority groups and lead to abuse of these groups. Those in power could legislate what is acceptable speech and outlaw language that threatens to disrupt the status quo.

Bernie Nation, Primera Republica De Cantabria, Wmtz

Yoshimi wrote:It can theoretically go both ways. The lack of total free speech could be used as a tool to by ruling social, economic, or cultural class in any given hierarchical society to oppress minority groups and lead to abuse of these groups. Those in power could legislate what is acceptable speech and outlaw language that threatens to disrupt the status quo.

They very well could, they could also very well separate hate speech from what liberals typically define as free speech.

Theoretically speaking, if a theoretical regime had within its deepest desires the instinct to suppress free speech that it viewed as anti-national unity or anti government, (I.e. a regime of a semi-authoritarian Catholic country outlawing LGBT movements) they'd likely be able to do so regardless. On the other hand, a pluralistic democratic regime would have more difficulty doing so; Say the US government were to separate hate speech (promoting violence against marginalized groups, holding rallies on the basis of racial supremacism), from free speech (marching or otherwise speaking out against the government), there wouldn't be a path for legislature, much less the President, to promote laws that would ban anti-government free speech due to the nature of the political organization of the US. Firstly because it would require broad support, something that is unlikely to be seen with laws in regards to a pluralistic democracy of the sort.

The issue with your point is that you're saying: "Government X bans anti-LGBT rallies in the name of banning hate speech to prevent violence against LGBT people, ergo, Government X will also clamp down on political freedoms because hate speech is a part of free speech." While it's possible to support social progressivism but be against democracy, it's not common in modern society, and it's especially not popular among the masses, to legislate anti-free speech laws that have their basis in protection of the state and regime, rather than the people.

Your theoretical idea of "Gov X bans the KKK in banning hate speech but then bans political opposition in banning free speech because banning free speech is an extension of banning hate speech" works in the context of an authoritarian regime that has oddly both the means and desire to promote social progress and the means and desire to oppress political opposition. I say your concept is weird because I've yet to see an regime in modern times that promotes social progress in the manner most western democracies do, yet practices political authoritarianism.

Primera Republica De Cantabria

Arguin Isle wrote:They very well could, they could also very well separate hate speech from what liberals typically define as free speech.

Theoretically speaking, if a theoretical regime had within its deepest desires the instinct to suppress free speech that it viewed as anti-national unity or anti government, (I.e. a regime of a semi-authoritarian Catholic country outlawing LGBT movements) they'd likely be able to do so regardless. On the other hand, a pluralistic democratic regime would have more difficulty doing so; Say the US government were to separate hate speech (promoting violence against marginalized groups, holding rallies on the basis of racial supremacism), from free speech (marching or otherwise speaking out against the government), there wouldn't be a path for legislature, much less the President, to promote laws that would ban anti-government free speech due to the nature of the political organization of the US. Firstly because it would require broad support, something that is unlikely to be seen with laws in regards to a pluralistic democracy of the sort.

The issue with your point is that you're saying: "Government X bans anti-LGBT rallies in the name of banning hate speech to prevent violence against LGBT people, ergo, Government X will also clamp down on political freedoms because hate speech is a part of free speech." While it's possible to support social progressivism but be against democracy, it's not common in modern society, and it's especially not popular among the masses, to legislate anti-free speech laws that have their basis in protection of the state and regime, rather than the people.

Your theoretical idea of "Gov X bans the KKK in banning hate speech but then bans political opposition in banning free speech because banning free speech is an extension of banning hate speech" works in the context of an authoritarian regime that has oddly both the means and desire to promote social progress and the means and desire to oppress political opposition. I say your concept is weird because I've yet to see an regime in modern times that promotes social progress in the manner most western democracies do, yet practices political authoritarianism.

i don't see how one could legislate or enforce hate speech laws unless one is promoting and organizing genocide. I see that the media and the corporate elite are using Donald Trumps hate rhetoric as a distraction from the economic and social injustice that the U.S. faces. But do you really believe suppressing free speech will solve anything? Without open dialog it is unlikely for there to be any progress in changing the minds of those who already believe these things. The former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 'successfully' suppressed hate speech among the many ethnic groups but that all ended with the death of Josip Broz Tito. The ethnic tensions were never properly dealt with and the hate amongst these ethnic groups were worse off than before and eventually it resulted in the the Yugoslav Wars. You can not force social progress though suppressing speech. I find it to be an oxymoron.

Primera Republica De Cantabria

[nation=short]Arguin isle[/nation], you're absolutely right. When people make bad speech, the proper way to deal with that isn't by making good speech but by smacking them in the mouth and not letting them talk anymore. Because fighting bad speech with good speech only requires people to use their minds and apply their critical thinking skills, and as regressive leftists, WE CAN'T ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN! The proper course of action, as always, is to BAN. If somebody says something that makes you feel uncomfortable, don't allow them to speak anymore. Just like my good friend Atealia, the delegate over in The Leftist Assembly, understands very, very well!

Yoshimi wrote:i don't see how one could legislate or enforce hate speech laws unless one is promoting and organizing genocide. I see that the media and the corporate elite are using Donald Trumps hate rhetoric as a distraction from the economic and social injustice that the U.S. faces. But do you really believe suppressing free speech will solve anything? Without open dialog it is unlikely for there to be any progress in changing the minds of those who already believe these things. The former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 'successfully' suppressed hate speech among the many ethnic groups but that all ended with the death of Josip Broz Tito. The ethnic tensions were never properly dealt with and the hate amongst these ethnic groups were worse off than before and eventually it resulted in the the Yugoslav Wars. You can not force social progress though suppressing speech. I find it to be an oxymoron.

I'd say allowing speech that promotes and leads to violence against minorities is closer to genocide than the opposite.

Also, the situation in Yugoslavia in regards to relations of ethnic minorities was completely different than the situation in America. The United States didn't put Mexicans or Muslims in death camps like the Fascistic Independent State of Croatia did to Serbs during the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia.

Regressive Leftists wrote:[nation=short]Arguin isle[/nation], you're absolutely right. When people make bad speech, the proper way to deal with that isn't by making good speech but by smacking them in the mouth and not letting them talk anymore. Because fighting bad speech with good speech only requires people to use their minds and apply their critical thinking skills, and as regressive leftists, WE CAN'T ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN! The proper course of action, as always, is to BAN. If somebody says something that makes you feel uncomfortable, don't allow them to speak anymore. Just like my good friend Atealia, the delegate over in The Leftist Assembly, understands very, very well!

So how do you feel, then, about allowing rallies that could be seen as hate speech?

America The Greater wrote:So how do you feel, then, about allowing rallies that could be seen as hate speech?

You're asking ME?

We need to ban those things, of course.

(Didn't I make that clear?)

Regressive Leftists wrote:You're asking ME?

We need to ban those things, of course.

(Didn't I make that clear?)

Don't take me for a regressive leftist but I just have to say that you're annoying, and that circumstances make me side with Atealia on this.

Regressive Leftists wrote:You're asking ME?

We need to ban those things, of course.

(Didn't I make that clear?)

I'm asking you to please participate honestly in some discussions with the region. It seems like you're here to be sarcastic and while we appreciate that, I think you should get into some serious discussions and open your mind a little.

Yodle, Wmtz

Post self-deleted by Bernie Nation.

America The Greater wrote:I'm asking you to please participate honestly in some discussions with the region. It seems like you're here to be sarcastic and while we appreciate that, I think you should get into some serious discussions and open your mind a little.

I agree. This is a region of free, open and respectful debate. Keep in mind this are all out of character discussions, if you are RPing then you should go discuss in a RP region's debate.

Arguin Isle

I have changed my smelly google translate motto to a new one ,a better one ,a Latin one! Manebimus donec advocaverint nos domum Dei.

Ansuriel

Terrasitrus wrote:I have changed my smelly google translate motto to a new one ,a better one ,a Latin one! Manebimus donec advocaverint nos domum Dei.

What does that mean?

Wmtz

Bernie Nation wrote:What does that mean?

Something like: We advocate (for your) home, I may be completely off, as my Latin skills are far off.

Bernie Nation wrote:What does that mean?

Manebimus it's like "we stay here" or something like that, the rest is "call/summon us at the house of God/Gods (most likely the last one), or even the gods summon us to our house. Domus is the nominative, so I guess, maybe, domum is the accusative

Primera Republica De Cantabria

Terrasitrus wrote:I have changed my smelly google translate motto to a new one ,a better one ,a Latin one! Manebimus donec advocaverint nos domum Dei.

But yeah, the gods calling us home sound Roman/ancient age af

Yodle, Primera Republica De Cantabria, Wmtz

Ansuriel wrote:Manebimus it's like "we stay here" or something like that, the rest is "call/summon us at the house of God/Gods (most likely the last one), or even the gods summon us to our house. Domus is the nominative, so I guess, maybe, domum is the accusative

It's "We stay until the Gods call us home."

Bernie Nation, Yodle, Primera Republica De Cantabria, Wmtz

Alright guys, so this is for whoever watched the first presidential debate, what are your thoughts on it and who do you think won it? Personally I think Hillary destroyed Trump

Wmtz

I regret that I must leave as that my friends have created the cult of boo the dog and I will join them. Please stay in touch through telegram and add me to your dossier. Bernie nation, please send me the text that you want me to put in my factbook and I will do so, goodbye friends. I will get a embassy established if I can.

Yodle wrote:Alright guys, so this is for whoever watched the first presidential debate, what are your thoughts on it and who do you think won it? Personally I think Hillary destroyed Trump

For me Trump destroyed Trump, Clinton had it quite easy thanks to that. Plus she was a bit more direct in answering the questions, while Trump was just repeating himself all the time

The Pan-Scandinavian Union, Arguin Isle

The Grand Puffle Republic wrote:I regret that I must leave as that my friends have created the cult of boo the dog and I will join them. Please stay in touch through telegram and add me to your dossier. Bernie nation, please send me the text that you want me to put in my factbook and I will do so, goodbye friends. I will get a embassy established if I can.

We will miss you, my friend. Best of luck on your future endeavors.

Wmtz

Yodle wrote:Alright guys, so this is for whoever watched the first presidential debate, what are your thoughts on it and who do you think won it? Personally I think Hillary destroyed Trump

I agree that Clinton crushed Trump on the issues (especially the social and economic ones, I'm not a huge fan of her foreign policy as a non-interventionalist), but I feel that the moderator asked more about Trump's personal issues than Clinton's and this hurt him.

It honestly sounded like a game show the way it was set up.

Also, I'm a Jill Stein supporter and both my parents (I'm 16) are voting for her.

Yodle

I'm tired of this two party system in this country. Other great candidates don't get the recognition they deserve. Vermin Supreme should have been allowed to debate Trump and Clinton. He has policies that no other candidates have even thought of.

Bernie Nation, Ansuriel, Yodle, Wmtz, The Pan-Scandinavian Union, Arguin Isle

I'm finally at 1% in a category: cheese export! to reach world benchmark in civil and political what do you have to get up to 82 out of a 100?

Wmtz

Yoshimi wrote:I'm finally at 1% in a category: cheese export! to reach world benchmark in civil and political what do you have to get up to 82 out of a 100?

I love cheese

Sometimes, I dream about cheese.

Yodle, Primera Republica De Cantabria

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.