[NGTM-1R]

because that's not what's happening, the extremists control the pit that you dump everyone right of center into when you ban them.

If you honestly believe that is what is happening here and now, then there is no having a rational discussion with you.

Because you are still here, and are demonstrably taking a right-of-center position, and nobody is banning you.

And you are arguing that there are no "mild" right of center outlets; that there is merely everything left of center as a spectrum (or do you believe that's also controlled by extremists? If so, my ideological apostasy about Bernie has remained unpunished) and then the extreme right as sources. This is obviously wrong; there is a spectrum in both directions. The Alt-Right is not the Right in general, and their name acknowledges such.

Trump might win.

In which case he is manifestly unable to work within the restricted-powers framework of the federal government, he will overstep his bounds and get impeached long before there's a civil war. You're arguing about polarization but it's a fool's errand because the polarization you're arguing for isn't so much about basic ideas as you want to believe; it's about particular cherrypicked political positions. Your scenario would involve many and sundry impeachable offenses, massive resistance from the federal courts (who have been arresting this exact scenario for the past two years), and the collapse of the Trump government in the face of an uncooperative Federal bureaucracy that won't do what he wants because it knows it'll get arrested if it does. Doing what Trump desires would require a massive, total turnover of non-appointed Federal employees; and that's just doing what Trump wants to do, not even accomplishing your nightmare.

[Bobboau]

were you here for Liberator?

I was giving that as an example, not claiming he was going to do exactly that. But if he gets elected, there is a good chance the Republicans take congress, then he gets to appoint some supreme court judges, then he decides to do some **** that's illegal, has enough power and allies to get somewhere with it, half the government supports him, the other half thinks he should be arrested... see where I am going?

[zookeeper]

because that's not what's happening, the extremists control the pit that you dump everyone right of center into when you ban them.

... Err, I'd struggle to view Maslo as someone who is simply "right of center".

I don't know, his views seem pretty mainstream as long as you look past the ignorant wording. When he says something genuinely facepalmy like "Wearing a burka is a huge red flag, it is as bad as wearing a swastika really" people get so hung up on the outrageous choice of words that they forget that the basic idea behind it is pretty standard: that people who see burkas as a good thing due to mainly islamic cultural-religious reasons have a very high likelihood of holding other extremely bigoted views (about women, society, sexual minorities, science, politics, ethics, you name it) as well, and thus seeing a person wearing a burka is a red flag that probably either they're a such a bigot themselves or someone else who compels them to wear it is.

[Scotty]

were you here for Liberator?

I was giving that as an example, not claiming he was going to do exactly that. But if he gets elected, there is a good chance the Republicans take congress, then he gets to appoint some supreme court judges, then he decides to do some **** that's illegal, has enough power and allies to get somewhere with it, half the government supports him, the other half thinks he should be arrested... see where I am going?

The fact that "can't conduct a civil argument" and "lean right of center" overlap with significant frequency is the moderation staff's fault, just so you know.

[Grizzly]

because that's not what's happening, the extremists control the pit that you dump everyone right of center into when you ban them.

... Err, I'd struggle to view Maslo as someone who is simply "right of center".

I don't know, his views seem pretty mainstream as long as you look past the ignorant wording.

Yes, but not amongst the people I consider to be "Right of center" - I have a rather dutch perspective on this (obviously), but Maslo's statements would not fit with the two centre-of-right parties over here. Both Democrats '66 and the Christian Democratic Appeal value religious freedom for their own reasons. The only party that matches Maslo's rhetoric is the Party For Freedom, which, although mainstream (whilst trying very hard not to be) is currently the party that is furthest to the right in Dutch politics.

[Dragon]

I don't know, his views seem pretty mainstream as long as you look past the ignorant wording. When he says something genuinely facepalmy like "Wearing a burka is a huge red flag, it is as bad as wearing a swastika really" people get so hung up on the outrageous choice of words that they forget that the basic idea behind it is pretty standard: that people who see burkas as a good thing due to mainly islamic cultural-religious reasons have a very high likelihood of holding other extremely bigoted views (about women, society, sexual minorities, science, politics, ethics, you name it) as well, and thus seeing a person wearing a burka is a red flag that probably either they're a such a bigot themselves or someone else who compels them to wear it is.

His view is frighteningly mainstream. Netherlands have always been liberal, but Maslo is not far from an average person in Poland. I suspect people France and certain regions of Germany would also agree with his views. Sure, it'd take someone further right to agree with his wording (which is typical of those who prefer people to react emotionally instead of rationally), but after you water it down to the crux of argument, it's not even a particularly uncommon opinion.

I really wish people got hung on wording less and focused on the real sense of what is being said. How something is said is logically irrelevant (though it may convey nonexplicit intentions on speaker's part), we should focus on what is being said. Maslo's way of presenting his opinion makes it seem ridiculous, but if it was said directly it'd suddenly merit discussion and if one sugarcoated it enough, half the board would've probably agreed with it (at least until someone pointed out what's under the sugar). This problem is far too common, not only on this forum. It's very frustrating when an otherwise valid, if unorthodox opinion is thrown into the "unacceptable" bin just because of a bad choice of words.

Indeed, I believe people paying too much attention to how things are said is the entire reason Trump has come as far as he did. Just look at him, he can say two different things in a very short time span and people still follow him instead of calling him a filthy liar and hypocrite (and those that do call him that get ignored).

You know, if you dislike the community guidelines actually being enforced that much, you're free to leave. If you honestly believe that banning someone for unacceptable behavior is a bad thing, I can guarantee that I won't miss your contributions.

I dislike them being selectively enforced, which was what this line referred to. Direct insults to other forum members are just as prohibited as racism, yet the former seem to be easier to get away with on this forum. If anything, it should be the other way around, since racism can sometimes be reasoned with (not only that, it's an easy opinion to argue against due to overwhelming evidence), while childish insults can't.

See, this is where you're wrong. Only yesterday I told him to calm down when he insulted Goober (and I felt Goober was as wrong as anyone could possibly be) and I pointed out to the other moderators that I couldn't see any reason why we're letting PH get away with as much as he does.

Well, it's good to see him finally getting a comeuppance. Still, having an "unacceptable" opinion seems to attract moderation much faster than being a rude jerk. See above for why I don't consider this a proper order of things.

[karajorma]

I really wish people got hung on wording less and focused on the real sense of what is being said. How something is said is logically irrelevant (though it may convey nonexplicit intentions on speaker's part), we should focus on what is being said.

I don't care how Maslo says "Pakis go home!"

I don't care how he sugar coats it.

That sort of opinion has no place on HLP.

[zookeeper]

I don't know, his views seem pretty mainstream as long as you look past the ignorant wording.

Yes, but not amongst the people I consider to be "Right of center" - I have a rather dutch perspective on this (obviously), but Maslo's statements would not fit with the two centre-of-right parties over here. Both Democrats '66 and the Christian Democratic Appeal value religious freedom for their own reasons. The only party that matches Maslo's rhetoric is the Party For Freedom, which, although mainstream (whilst trying very hard not to be) is currently the party that is furthest to the right in Dutch politics.

Yeah, but... I believe that was my point. His statements and rhetoric are obviously not mainstream, but a pretty straightforward good-faith interpretation of the underlying ideas (such as the one I gave) is.

I'm not saying one shouldn't get hung up on rhetoric (because rhetoric still matters), only that one should remember that what they're getting hung up on is often (not always!) just that: rhetoric.

[Bobboau]

I don't care how Karajorma says "kill all Americans"

I don't care how he sugar coats it.

That sort of opinion has no place on HLP.

[karajorma]

If I'd said that, you might have a point.

The difference is that I don't know what the ethnic insult for Lebanese people is. I'm quite happy about that fact.

[Bobboau]

if he'd said what you said You might have a point.
Forgive me if I missed something, but we are still talking about him saying that the Burka is a symbol of Islamic oppression, right? or in his less eloquent wording, something like "burka = nazi flag", right? just want to make sure he didn't say something else stupid.

also, apparently its "Leb" or "Lebbo" according to the Racial Slur Database, but it's only really used in Australia because they had a bunch of Lebanese immigrants in the 80s for some reason.



[edit]
Wait, it just occurred to me, you are accusing him of being racist against Labanese (and I'm assuming Syria and Iraq and Turkey) people? off the top of my head, and do fact check me if you think I'm wrong, but neither the burka nor the nikab is particularly historically common there, with ISIS being largely responsible for what is there now. Those are more Saudi/Persian/Pashtun (you know, the kinda Nazi-like cultures of the Ummah) associated artifacts.[/edit]

[karajorma]

Did you even bother to figure out what he got banned for before telling everyone that I was wrong to do it?

If she wanted to swim covered head to toe, she should go live in Lebanon

The point where you're spouting **** like "If they don't like it, they should go back to where they came from" is when you are basically a racist. When you're talking about someone who emigrated at the age of 2, it's pretty much indefensible.

[Bobboau]

ah, yeah, that's a lot less strawmany than I initially thought.