[ 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.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.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.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



 No.16356[Reply]

File: 1754033201440.png (574.85 KB, 1331x909, 1331:909, Pump.png) ImgOps Google

The more I think about recent news in the context of summer in the United Kingdom and the United States, the more I wonder whether or not things such as air, sunlight, water, or other "fuzzy concepts" should be commercial products that get bought and sold by both companies and governments.

There's an extremely convincing argument that basic human rights should include breathing air and drinking water alongside having sunlight shine on you.

There's also an extremely convincing argument that if the American and British legal systems don't treat the likes of air and water as commercial goods with some price set on them then usurping entities (such as literal criminals acting on behalf of foreign businesses and/or regimes) will make these worth nothing, artificially setting a price at zero, and destroy the public trust.

Do you view air as a product? What about water? What about sunlight? What about other such things?

 No.16358

>>16356
>Do you view air as a product?
No.
>What about water?
No.
>What about sunlight?
No.
>What about other such things?
Trees, land? No. Anypony who wants to make use of common heritage should have to pay everypony something of equal or greater or value in return (see Venus Project)


 No.16352[Reply]

File: 1754021203161.jpg (321.6 KB, 913x1072, 913:1072, Screenshot_20250731_211942….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

It's simply self-defense

 No.16353

This is not a discussion topic of any kind, and arguably a call to violence.  Locked.


 No.16312[Reply]

File: 1753613616175.jpg (74.6 KB, 1200x630, 40:21, 5_Epstein-Trump-At-Mar-A-L….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Well, seems like the party of protecting women and children and prosectuing human trafficking is guilty of all of these things and defending it when convenient. Is pedophilia legal now?
16 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16348

>>16343
It's the least surprising thing in the world. Trump is never in the wrong in magaland

 No.16350

File: 1754011878673.jpg (527.67 KB, 1080x805, 216:161, Screenshot_20250721_134424….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Whooooa is that trump sniffing a girls hair? Imagine if biden did such a thing!

 No.16351

File: 1754016216353.jpg (22.38 KB, 524x500, 131:125, FB_IMG_1754016147700.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google



 No.16331[Reply]

File: 1753914548536.png (551.64 KB, 949x989, 949:989, Trumps.png) ImgOps Google

Should members of the Trump family rule over the United States over the rest of this century?

Is this inevitable? Does this have to happen?
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16341

I'm gonna give a point to Trump here for the clickbaity ragefuel title.

There's nothing wrong with Eric Trump running for president and being elected.

It would be a big issue if Donald sets up the framework such that Eric inherits the Presidential role by default.

 No.16342

File: 1753962951778.jpg (6.83 KB, 199x253, 199:253, nodifferent.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>16331
Ah, I see. So this was their strategy all along -- get people to want a 3rd trump term and then endorse a family member when it's not possible -- how is trump different from other politicians, again?

 No.16349

I think we should give the united states back to the house of windsor


 No.16311[Reply]

I honestly find this worldview kinda juvenile.

 No.16313

Well it's childish to unquestioningly support authority. It's not like maga was ever interested in growing a conscience or do anything that doesn't spite what they think 'the left' is.


 No.16310[Reply]

MAGA culture warriors are fucking babies and they're losing


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