[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.2[Reply]

File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.

 No.3

1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.


2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.


3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.16434[Reply]

With recent events in mind, is it even worth debating with people who want you destroyed, who will gleefully call for your death, who will clap when you are shot dead right in front of your family?

It's not as though this is a recent thing, of course. It's been happening for a while. But for the longest time, excuses have been made. A desire to 'deescalate', to keep some modicum of decorum and compassion, even in spite of such obvious cruelty.
That clearly hasn't worked.
Things've only escalated.

How do you hold a dialogue with people who despise you so much they will not even condemn open murder on those guilty of nothing save speech alone?
Is the only solution to treat those who view you with hatred, regard you as their enemies, and long for your destruction, to hold the same view in return?
15 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16452

>>16451
If I could snag a clip of just the first bit and not the latter gloating portion, it probably would've been better. Though alas, I've not the ability to edit videos so cleanly.
I think he does a good job of describing the issue I am speaking of, though. Especially with the bit on how far they'll go to outright ruin your life, do all they can to destroy you, whilst holding their own to a separate standard.

Though I can understand how the superficial aspect of emotive language would get in the way of that, and as said the later half is a bit gloaty.

>>16446
The alternative seems to come to pass regardless, as it currently stands, though.
That's the larger trouble.
That by engaging with these ideas and people, all that seems to result is an escalation in the attempt to destroy you.

To be fair, I don't know of a better method to combat it, bar calling out such behavior and labeling it evil... But I don't really see that changing it. I suppose the current bit of reversing the weapon of cancel culture is something. And maybe that's the solution. But debate itself doesn't seem to work, as fundamentally, you only seem to end up debating your own principles and values against those who will use it against you as a means to destroy you using them as a shield...

To be quite honest, my outlook on politics had gotten bleaker and bleaker as of late. This had only added to it.

 No.16453

File: 1757793511556.jpg (1.17 MB, 1200x1539, 400:513, Tumblr_l_53186524802990.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

There's so much hypocrisy coming from OP here it's ridiculous.

Like it's really disengenuous to act like having the freedom of expression implies protection from social consequences like being 'cancelled' on social media.

It's also disengenuous as hell to think there's no moral differences between political opinions or positions. There's a huge difference between 'In my opinion I think we need higher taxes on the top 10% of earners' and 'In my opinion all these people I'm afraid of should have fewer rights than me or be exterminated'. It's really fucking dishonest to pretend like those target aren't also feared as potential tyrants precisely because of those opinions

 No.16454

File: 1757793956673.jpg (2.23 MB, 1297x1704, 1297:1704, Tumblr_l_53221888056206.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Also Tyler Robinson turned out to be a groyper. Charlie Kirk was murdered by someone who probably thought kirk wasn't extreme enough.

So OP can pretend to be neutral all they want but in the end it's just cowardly denial, as usual

 No.16406[Reply]

File: 1757133451783.jpg (2.23 MB, 1297x1704, 1297:1704, Tumblr_l_53221888056206.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms-justice-department-second-amendment

Thanks for helping make this possible, assholes.
23 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16431

File: 1757704621608.jpg (356.47 KB, 946x1200, 473:600, Screenshot_20250912_121522….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.16433

How much you wanna bet that the feds panicked and grabbed the first memelord who matched their APB of "white male"? I'm just saying, most of the evidence that I'm seeing is that he's edgy and weird and owns clothes.

 No.16436

File: 1757718763933.jpeg (251.46 KB, 1680x1436, 420:359, G0rIxjUXYAAPmpb.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>16431
Some are saying the shooter is left-wing.  I don't know if there is enough evidence available now to conclude confidently what his political views were.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/sep/12/charlie-kirk-shooter-suspect-latest-news-updates-donald-trump-utah?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-68c47b768f086519d327114d#block-68c47b768f086519d327114d

 No.15588[Reply]

File: 1749352167911.png (605.87 KB, 529x641, 529:641, white man's strongest sold….png) ImgOps Google

Folks act like Charlie Kirk is a genius and somehow forget he just does things like this
14 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.15872

File: 1750204159499.jpeg (9.52 KB, 275x183, 275:183, images - 2025-06-17T19425….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Дй ин Фйер. Дй дй дй дй, моθерфукер 🔥

Kill it with fire.

Dumbass duck.

 No.16429

Bump

 No.16432

The timing of his assassination was a really convenient coincidence for the president, at least. I don't think anything short of a manhunt for a political assassin or Russia bombing a NATO member could have distracted from the Epstein info that was coming out.

 No.16385[Reply]

File: 1754272011336.jpg (9.14 KB, 462x331, 462:331, Debating-Your-Way-to-Caree….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

My grandmother (or aunt or I don't even remember how we're related) posted a thing about Oliver North predicting Osama Bin Laden publicly, if only people would listen, but wouldn't you know it he was denied this opportunity thanks to Al Gore.  Which had a bunch of obvious red flags, but I wasn't doing anything so I looked it up.  FactCheck had a post about it.  The Senator he was talking to was not Al Gore, the terrorist he was talking about was not Osama, North himself explained this in 2001, which is when the post was from, which makes sense because I have no idea why people would still be talking about Osama or Al Gore.

And as always, I think briefly about commenting.  Being like "Hey, I'm not sure that's right."  But what would be the point?  To change their mind about Al Gore?  To 'cause them to doubt media sources even more than they already do because all of these posts are about how you can't trust the media?  Would they even believe me?  Should they believe me?  All I did was fucking Google it to some other huge media website, is that really a trustworthy source?

And realistically do either of us have any real knowledge here?  This happened in 1987, so I wasn't even alive.  There's a fair chance she wasn't watching every bit of coverage of the Iran Contra affair, much less the actual hearing.  Even if they did they probably legitimately wouldn't remember the name of the terrorist by now (Abu Nidal, who I imagine none of us have heard of, still, also he's probably dead by now).  It's possible neither of us had even heard about anyone actually involved, ever, nor will we again.  The only knowledge either of us have is not just secondhand, but like third or fourthhand, and the impact of this knowledge is just as far removed, as is our ability to impact the situation (which, as a reminder, was 38 years ago).

And yet despite all this, we're expected to engage with and discuss this because that is human nature.  For the safety of the tribe, we have to communicate all of our knowledge about how to keep each other safe, which includes arguing about which of us are right.  This is an innate biological drive for the majority of humanity.  It's what drives a significant amount of engagement on all of the biggest sites, and also some of the smallest sites, like this very board.  And because I am here, posting this on this board, I would liPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.16387

File: 1754344770507.jpg (1.74 MB, 1898x2913, 1898:2913, Tumblr_l_452242842546908.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>16385

>when is it worth it to debate anything?  Should we be here?  (Here including any other site where you might get into arguments.)

It's rarely worth debating things that would be better discussed.

Framing something as a 'debate' creates the assumption that one debators views must be 'correct' and all other debaters views are 'incorrect', which is narrow minded. There is always the possibility of no one being correct, or two or more being partially correct, or everyone is partly correct.

Ideally having constructive discussions is best had in spaces that are specifically designated for non-competitive discussion with participants who sincerely respect that the space is non-competitive and have the humility to accept that they could be mistaken about [i]anything[/i[ and thus open to having their beliefs challenged in the process. Unfortunately you're not going to get that on the internet anymore so long as these interactions are monetized by social media corporations where the algorithms that curate content increasingly favor content that drives engagement with the platform thus increasing ad revenue, and that's usually something that drives outrage with moral outrage being particularly effective and driving engagement given human psychology ... regardless of any factual accuracy of the information presented, especially if it confirms one biases, validates a tribal identity and strokes the ego for those involved.

This has the added effect of increasing polarization as moral outrage can lead to beliefs, that can be critically re-examined, being integral to the tribal identity of which 'side' one takes in response to that moral outrage (real or fabricated) and becomes protected from critical re-examination.

That's why, at this point I don't think there's any point to online debate spaces anymore, not in the past and especially not in this post social media hellscape of custom built narrative realities built from cherry-picked facts and influencers acting as our personal sycophants helping us feel like we've never been wrong about anything ever.

I'm pretty sure people really can only have constructive discussions in physical space where we're constantly aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.16393

They're lying, you're lying, we're all lying.

Use you're head.

 No.16405

File: 1756967693220.jpg (164.63 KB, 1171x985, 1171:985, b38d8692ca99ea6d693bee1283….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Well structured debate made in good faith is generally highly effective. The problem is that on the internet most of the people who revel in debate learned everything from half assing trolls who are dishonest, unknowledgeable, or who have nothing meaningful to contribute but who feel compelled to be seen as authorities on any given topic. Internet debate tends to be dominated by, for lack of a better term, "losers". Because of that, debate quickly devolves to focus less on achieving anything even remotely useful and more towards stroking some random "loser's" ego. One would note that in more useful, exploratory debate, who "won" is of minimal importance and is typically both impossible and pointless to ascertain. So debating or even acknowledging losers is a waste of time. That is not to say that assisting the chromosomally deficient in achieving climax cannot be considered to be of any use to society at all, but most people who have been spared from the burdens of NPD would not find it to be a prudent nor entertaining use of their time.

 No.16403[Reply]

File: 1756952302019.png (208.44 KB, 1000x867, 1000:867, hotdog.png) ImgOps Google

Is a hotdog a sandwich?

 No.16404

Moved to >>>/pony/1198572.

 No.16398[Reply]

File: 1756083706820.jpeg (96.67 KB, 851x1140, 851:1140, random_39.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Should there be greater disclosure requirements for restaurant practices known to produce toxic aldehydes, such as keeping high-PUFA deep-frying oil at high temperatures for prolonged times?  E.g., should restaurants be required to provide written notice (such as on menus) of the type of oil used and their practices to limit toxic peroxidation products (such as how long the oil may be kept above 300°F or max TPC before oil is discarded)?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16400

This is probably the least concerning thing i could imagine and I've worked in restaurants

 No.16401

File: 1756171816630.png (390.97 KB, 1000x1412, 250:353, random_54.png) ImgOps Google

>>16399
In many European countries, there are enforced limits on total polar compounds (TPC) in frying oil.

>>16400
What are some of the worst health-code violations you've seen?

 No.16402

>>16401
I'd say that restaurants are disgusting and generally unclean due to not having the budget to pay for the staff to do regular cleaning

 No.16394[Reply]

File: 1755026104853.jpg (7.43 KB, 320x180, 16:9, Was all that he could seee.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

"All my niggas nazis. Nigga heil hitler"

I keep hearing this phrase over and over again. Is this the new right winged movement?

 No.16395

A cynically exploited mentally ill celebrity expressing a toxic edgelord sort of narcissism in response to people calling him an asshole?

Pretty much the entire core of MAGA, bunch of worthless narcissist.

 No.16396

Not really a topic for a discussion board so much as something you could look up on Google if you really needed to.  Locking the thread.

 No.16277[Reply]

File: 1753132231874.jpg (109 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, 2025-04-16T162632Z_1881750….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So, RFK Jr announced the ambitious project to map and study the causes of the great autism epidemic this year.

While nobody knows yet what the outcome will be, what do you expect the results will be like?

> We found some brain chemistry stuff that nobody probably understands properly, but it may help us a bit more to identify what causes autism in the future.
> We found and identified the exact cause of autism and will work on a vaccine / medication that will cure patients.
> It's vaccines all along. Wakefield was right and we're gonna stop the mandates and the development on new dangerous vaccines, while we look to mitigate the damage done to society by years of malpractise.
> Autism can be fixed by a strict military disciopline, instead of feeding our kids pills and giving them unbridled access to therapists and disability checks. People with autism looking to be cured can report at the nearby wellness therapy session to work and live under military discipline.
> Autism in the most cases is a perpetuated scam made up by big pharma. Except for the extreme cases, the average person on the ASD spectrum is willingly or unwillingly defrauding or system. Handouts to support people on ASD financially, or programs to adapt to people on ASD are now scrapped indefinitely.

The september deadline is getting closer.
11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16304

>A post saying "Republicans aren't terrorists and aren't Nazis, and they don't want to Holocaust the opposition." generates Republicans whining that terrorists and Nazis as well as trying to Holocaust the opposition are all not that bad and not that much of a problem.

>Saying that Republicans don't hate gay people and don't hate disabled people make them go "How dare you!" as they bring up that both hatreds are supposedly great ideas.

Are we now at the point where you guys can't even let yourself fucking recieve compliments? Compliments aren't allowed now? Agreement isn't allowed now? You're not allowed to be agreed with?

Can I say "Republicans oppose child molestation."? Or "Republicans oppose cannibalism."?

If you guys aren't even able to let me agree with you and complement you, then what the fuck do you expect? What do you even want?

What the fuck do you guys even believe? Are gay people evil subhumans that should die? Or are they not? Are disabled people evil subhuman that should die? Or are they not? Why do Republicans hate people saying that they're not bigoted? Shouldn't that be a positive thing? Right?

Why is it so fucking hard to just say "hating people is stupid"? Why is that so fucking impossible? Why is that so fucking offensive?

Why aren't I able to even fucking agree with you? Why do you even oppose people that agree with you? Why is that so fucking offensive to you?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.16315

>>16304
Because the entire point of maga is to spite liberals, this has been obvious for more than a decade

 No.16391

>>16278
Andrew Wakefielde has been so thoroughly debunked, that I hope even our staunched Republican supporters here will call out that bullshit were it to occur.

I keep hearing ridiculous and even dangerous takes on vaccines coming out of this administration, though...

 No.16354[Reply]

File: 1754026590915.png (278.65 KB, 492x708, 41:59, hf9okuxwy3ud1.png) ImgOps Google

Apparently acting appropriately towards threats of violence is bad :(

Why can't I understand that people wanting to kill me is wrong? Why can't i talk about that?
14 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16388


 No.16389

>>16375
More likely, the visceral reaction to such posts is why you get more of them.
I think it pretty obvious it was meant to get under your skin while technically being valid.
And it looks like it worked.

 No.16390

>>16381
This whole thing very, very obviously needs to be deleted. Yes.

 No.16379[Reply]

File: 1754182423022.jpg (222.62 KB, 850x932, 425:466, ju_fufu_733083c14135fe6021….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Suppose (1) you were in charge of the FDA and (2) you could get any relevant legislation enacted.  If you want to decrease the cost of regulatory compliance (for bringing a new drug to market) by a factor of 10, how would you do so?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16383

Wasn't there something about forcing other countries to abandon socialised healthcare as it creates unfair playing field?

Sure, it doesn't do shit to decrease the actual pricing but at least you'ld no longer be the sole king of having shitty health care.

 No.16384

File: 1754237972421.jpeg (82.8 KB, 768x1068, 64:89, fef.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>16383
I don't recall anything like that.  Closest is Trump's proposal about preventing charging Americans higher drug prices than Europeans, which would decrease prices in America and increases prices in Europe.  But this is a zero-sum game.  I'm looking for positive-sum proposals, where we decrease costs for everybody by eliminating excessive regulatory costs.  There is a lot of low-hanging fruit for decreasing the costs of clinical trials.

 No.16386

>>16379
If I was up to me, I'd eliminate all trade restrictions that exist whatsoever between the United States and all of the countries of the world with the singular exception of evil dictatorships that're adversary nations to humanity itself and enjoy killing innocents for fun (such as China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia as well as some other countries).

All trade restrictions.

You want Canadian pills? French wines? German cars? Japanese sex toys? Mexican snack foods? Polish sausage dinners? Anything else?

Go for it. Fuck big government shitheads and fuck their restrictions of individual freedom as well as of personal economic liberty.

 No.16216[Reply]

File: 1751729134339.jpg (183.84 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, GRIFFITH.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


Why is is that majority black owned regions have the most crime?
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16231

>>16218
I wouldn't call burning down your own communities 'manly.'

>I would speculate that masculinity is inherently illogical and violent, and the more masculine somebody is the more of a chance of them not just being a criminal but also being a violent predator.

There are toxic shades of both masculinity and femininity. Neither are inherently evil. Just as you claim that masculinity could be seen as illogical and violent, it could be argued that positive masculinity is that of the stoic and logical thinker, and one who uses violence as a form of protection. The guardian. It has also been historically and traditionally seen as the active trait associated with intelligence, the thinker, and reissuance man.

To be honest it sounds like you've gotten the traits of masculinity and femininity mixed up. Femininity when positive takes for in its own intelligence, as well as nurturing and empathy. Though even those can't be strictly defined to femininity. As for violence, women are very much capable of violence and are only limited by physical weakness in many cases.

In truth as one unknown anon said: each are two different instruments that play the same notes. They simply have different frequencies.

 No.16362

File: 1754081467587.jpg (39.38 KB, 343x384, 343:384, gtryytt.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Why is is that majority black owned regions have the most crime?

classic poverty + decades of urban neglect.

blame whoever was cutting budgets and disinventing.

 No.16382

File: 1754189752245.png (487.78 KB, 711x740, 711:740, image-11.png) ImgOps Google

>>16220
Most murder is intra-racial (i.e., perp and victim are of the same race).  So, you can use murder victimization rates to test your hypothesis.  It turns out that your hypothesis fails to explain most of the difference between black murder rates and white murder rates.

 No.16370[Reply]

Here we go.

 No.16373

I don't want to sit through a 20 minute video to be sure, but this video doesn't seem to be asking a question, it's just saying Trump is dumb.  Hypothetically we could debate if Trump is dumb, but I think we've done that dozens of times and we've gotten very efficient at it, so I'm just gonna lock the thread as it seems to offer no other question.

 No.16368[Reply]

File: 1754153743964.jpg (466.53 KB, 1232x2631, 1232:2631, mirror02081825.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

this guy is hot af!

 No.16372

This isn't any kind of debate topic.  This does not belong on this board.

 No.16346[Reply]

File: 1754010826912.jpg (481.9 KB, 750x1126, 375:563, Screenshot_20250731_191123….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

California gop governor candidate posts this. This is why I know republicans are nazis. People here will attempt to deflect and whatabout, and remain blind to what's right in front of them
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16360

>>16346
>california
I could not possibly care less.

 No.16363

>>16346
The core, nightmare thing for me is that some Russians living in Russia will talk positively of Stalin's Soviet Union same as how some Japanese individuals will talk nicely of the old fascist Empire and even some Germans speak nicely of the Nazis.

When it's a matter of the original countries in which the militaries exterminated countless innocents, it's pretty dark stuff.

A lot of seemingly decent organizations have horrific issues regarding bloody histories, like with Japan once again you can look at this recent-ish news story: https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01143/

And this recently-ish happened in Germany: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/25/afd-readmits-two-politicians-excluded-over-nazi-related-remarks

 No.16365

>>16357
Nazi

>>16360
Nazi

[]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]