Contraversial opinions

↩  Folfy_Blue its not that moderating itself is bad, its that what’s “acceptable” has been narrowed down. pre-2016 there was still moderation, it just wasnt as strict and one-sided as it is now

russia should bomb some eu/nato members just to make a point

↩  darwin does that mean you support russia?

↩  darwin because everyone loves escalation and eventually mutually assured destruction

↩  darwin There's no other way to say it: What a fucking retarded thing to even think

↩  darwin Your reply was so fucking stupid it should be made the poster-child of this thread and threads to come.

Quote

↩  darwin russia should bomb some eu/nato members just to make a point

do u like violenc? russia doesnt support violenc (althrough some of u think otherwise).
that was such an unbased thing to say…

Quote

↩ @'Freenom' russia doesnt support violenc (althrough some of u think otherwise).

💀

↩ @'Kad' And where does this happen?

i see now why this thread is called "contraversial opinions"

↩  Miwojedk Twitter.

↩  darwin To put it bluntly, that's a terrible idea. Bombing members of NATO would result in retaliation by pretty much every nation in it, resulting in World War III.

↩  videogamesm12 Everybody has things they are sensitive to. What you have just cited as evidence for your claim that the internet is too policed, is a matter that is incredibly sensitive for specific communities - which you are not a part of.

Now I would have no issue with you using that as evidence, but you are being a hypocrite. There are certain subjects that you yourself are sensitive to, and you have policed people heavily for calling out what you are sensitive to. Do you want me to go in detail?

Whether Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty or innocent has no bearing on the lives damaged and ruined by that night, the families left without fathers or husbands, and the impact it had on an already damaged community. So the same way you are obviously sensitive to things, other people are too. So unless you are someone who does not take anything seriously, and you are not sensitive to any matter, it is very hypocritical to get upset at other people being sensitive to things and policing them - the same way you do.

There are probably much better examples of the internet being too policed, but the one you have provided is stupid.

This thread was a mistake

Quote

↩  RedEastWood Now I would have no issue with you using that as evidence, but you are being a hypocrite. There are certain subjects that you yourself are sensitive to, and you have policed people heavily for calling out what you are sensitive to. Do you want me to go in detail?

Can you back this claim up that Video is a hypocrite?

↩  Telesphoreo I don’t think Video would be comfortable with me explaining in detail why, but if he agrees I can.

Quote

↩ @'frontinside' Is this not discriminatory towards men? Anti-abortion advocates such as myself are against abortion because we believe that abortion is murder. Whether or not men can get pregnant is irrelevant. This logic is silly, it’s the equivalent of letting the Holocaust continue because you’re not a follower of Judaism because it doesn’t affect you. Nobody should have the right to vote on matters of human mortality or to democratically pass legislation that sets the standard for what is or is not a mortal being.

When does a human achieve personhood?

Quote

If it was unintentional or unplanned, it’s her fault. Responsibility should be taken and a fetus shouldn’t be murdered just because the mother accidentally had them. There are lots of ways to prevent pregnancy during consensual sexual intercourse - if the woman can’t take proper action to prevent one, she shouldn’t murder the baby.

Do you want to ban abortion even in cases of rape, since you find it morally reprehensible?

Quote

Kyle Rittenhouse killed a serial drug addict and child fiddler, someone who strangled his brother and injured a burglar who committed domestic violence.

Why do the victims' backgrounds matter in the slightest? Are they more deserving of death?