The US is ranked as a 'Flawed Democracy', what needs to change?

[ConservagameR]

IvorEvilen said:

ConservagameR said:

I didn't think of the need to at the time as it seemed obvious to me. You misunderstood. So I gave more detail. Are we clear now?

You never explained what Elon said that was a problem. That was my best guess. I need more detail. Apparently we both do.

Maybe you should go look at my last post in the Official Politics OT, and try to explain how it led to me being banned from that thread.

The US Politics |OT| (vgchartz.com)

I'll save you some time. I had been using conversative viewpoints with that individual, which eventually led to that innocent final post I got banned for.

Yes, spreading misinformation can get people killed, like with the vax, but some others who weren't viewing or hearing misinformation, still were injured or died from the vax anyway, so how much of a roll does misinformation play with those deaths then?

Driving with a seatbelt could save your life, but could also get you killed. If your car flips and starts on fire and you're trapped due to your seatbelt, does that mean seatbelts are a problem and should be removed? Obviously not. Most of the time the seatbelt will save you from injury or death, so it's better to have them, but what should be optional is wearing them. Being forced to wear one could save you, or kill you. Just like allowing people to choose whether or not to get jabbed. Just like allowing what may or may not be misinformation on media.

I think Paatar would agree from earlier in this thread about minorities. Treated so poorly they quit posting. I found that quite sad.

You seem to be implying that Paatar no longer messaging in this thread is another form of silenced speech.  I have read through this entire thread.  There were people who disagreed with Paatar's posts and disproved parts of what Paatar were saying.  How should this have transpired differently?  Should the moderators have silenced the people responding to Paatar so that Paatar felt more comfortable posting here?

In your case, my understanding was that you were banned for how you were participating in the discussion, not because of what your positions were.  Nobody banned Paatar from participating in this thread (as far as I know).

It's important to distinguish between "nobody is listening to me" versus "they kicked me out".

It's also important to distinguish between "they kicked me out because they did not like what I had to say" versus "they kicked me out because I did not follow the rules".

Bandorr said:

IvorEvilen said:

You seem to be implying that Paatar no longer messaging in this thread is another form of silenced speech.  I have read through this entire thread.  There were people who disagreed with Paatar's posts and disproved parts of what Paatar were saying.  How should this have transpired differently?  Should the moderators have silenced the people responding to Paatar so that Paatar felt more comfortable posting here?

In your case, my understanding was that you were banned for how you were participating in the discussion, not because of what your positions were.  Nobody banned Paatar from participating in this thread (as far as I know).

It's important to distinguish between "nobody is listening to me" versus "they kicked me out".

It's also important to distinguish between "they kicked me out because they did not like what I had to say" versus "they kicked me out because I did not follow the rules".

"1)In your case, my understanding was that you were banned for how you were participating in the discussion, not because of what your positions were.  2) Nobody banned Paatar from participating in this thread (as far as I know)."

Both those points are correct.

Where did I say or imply that Paatar was silenced or banned? 

Are you saying that if someone says that another person was treated poorly, that must mean they were silenced?

That person was treated poorly = they were banned? 2+2=5 ?

"Hate speech against trans, gay, or other minorities gets people riled up."

I reply to that by saying they were treated poorly and I find that sad, and it's a problem?

How I was participating?

Like how I was apparently asking too many questions?

Some of which were clearly rhetorical, some of which were clearly statements, and some others that were actually inquisitive?

What about the questions everyone else was asking me? Nothing was said about that. My questions are problems but theirs aren't?

Or maybe because I was apparently spouting nonsense without evidence?

I wonder what those links were I posted with my points? Links that those others failed to try and use against me.

What about the few links they posted as evidence? Nothing was said about that being a problem. My links are all useless, but theirs are all useful?

The only real difference in the participation, was that my points were from a conservative viewpoint, and the others weren't.

Then when the conversation is ended, I basically shake hands and say good game like a good sport, and I get banned for it.

How is that not following the rules? 

And if you insist it was a failure on my part, then the others were guilty of the same things, minus the conservative view, so why only me?