[ 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.16486[Reply]

File: 1757950488944.png (712.6 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, Fexa FosyRoxy.png) ImgOps Google

So, I was speaking with Moony and he has given me permission to made this thread.

As you all might have noticed by now, /Townhall/ has been officially closed and will not be returning. However, there is a concern that I brought up with Moony: the inevitable bleed through of politics within this community.

Ponychan.co/ef/ is our Everfree Forest board. It's purpose was suppose to serve as a place for politics as well as serve as a random board, but is leaning more towards the former. Think of Ponychan's /chat/ as to your /pony/, and /ef/ as Ponyville's /townhall/.

To get to the point, I wanted to extend a hand and offer a place for the former Public Servants of /Townhall/ a place to continue their discussions. The rules would essentially be the same, just more lenient: Discussion is allowed, whether I agree with you or not. (Or anyone else for that matter.) While I would encourage people to be civil and not throw mindless insults, things do happen and you're not going to be banned over it. If you want to make posts shitting on Trump all day, be my guest. If you want to tell me to go die in a fire because I disagree with you, go right on ahead.

While we've had our disagreements in the past, I feel it is important for people to talk about these things.

It isn't exactly in the best condition at the moment. I am going to be cleaning it up and culling old threads that don't really fit anywhere else, but, it is something.
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16489

>>16487
It's nothing like pol


 No.16485[Reply]

File: 1757908170645.png (532.85 KB, 967x1554, 967:1554, zecoraheart2.png) ImgOps Google

As I am fairly certain this board was supposed to be deleted over a year ago, I am simply going to lock all existing threads and delete every thread that gets made on this board.  Eventually we will figure out how to delete boards.  I ask that in the interim no one post here.


 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?
39 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16482

File: 1757899248386.png (343.28 KB, 744x802, 372:401, G0scWKMX0AAFTpB.png) ImgOps Google

>>16480
>Not what I said at all you dishonest asshole.
You literally described it as "defending themselves".
>>16459
>"people whose most basic rights are being advocated against by the right would in turn defend themselves with violence. "

You conflated it to armed resistance against state agents, and then insulted me for opposing it.
>"People like you are just too cowardly to acknowledge that fact in situations like this but probably would embrace violence to fight off a radical leftist takeover"

You gave an entire spiel on how I'm a disgusting right-wing narcissist for calling this shit out, that we need to stop "playing the victim" when leftists literally murder someone who is NOT in power, NOT creating policy, NOT passing law, and is instead just simply TALKING.
>>16463
>"MAGA is too fucking cowardly to acknowledge that they come off as would be tyrants to a lot of Americans and play the fucking victim over that rather than engaging in serious introspection."

You explicitly blamed Kirk for getting shot. Claimed he was morally culpable for spreading "lies", something again you yourself have explicitly done in regards to Kirk and certainly myself in the past.
>>16465
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.16483

File: 1757900058402.png (221.15 KB, 1200x1043, 1200:1043, 1623729274669.png) ImgOps Google

The fundamental problem at play gage is, most everyone on the right can easily see themselves in the shoes of Charlie Kirk.
Because those of us are capable of listening to what he actually says, and contrasting that with the narrative the left pushes.
More than that; We've experienced it, personally.

We've had discussions, arguments, disagreement, and so on with the same sorts of people like Cardinal here.
We know that claim about "hateful rhetoric" is something they'll throw around to anyone.
We've experienced it ourselves.

So when you have someone like Kirk murdered, and you're told "Well yeah, it's his own fault for saying such hateful bigoted things!"... We all know that could so, so very easily, be used on us, too. Despite not being hateful, that's the claim that'll inevitably be made.
Not only made, but spread. Shared to others.

It's why I ask the question in the OP. Because despite my engaging in it, I wonder if there's any point in debating with Andrea here about this.
If I get shot in some alley by some crazy lefty who somehow managed to track me down, why wouldn't she say the exact same thing as she did about Kirk, and blame it all on me and my "hateful" rhetoric?
And if that's the standard... What's the point?

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

 No.16484

File: 1757901389722.png (885.09 KB, 1600x900, 16:9, teletees_1757634614128.png) ImgOps Google

People who have no argument in the public debate resort to violence - terrorism designed to silence the opposition since they can't argue against it.

Those who are too cowardly to perpetrate the violence themselves engage in stochastic terrorism.

Encouraging others to engage violently on their behalf.  "I didn't pull the trigger" while celebrating the person who did.  Pushing others to do the same.  Providing post-hoc justifications to encourage the next act of political violence.  Or trying to "win" the debate by silencing the person who's speaking via cancellation.  Throwing a rock.  Or slinging a bike lock.  Or camping outside a person's house to let them know "I know where you live, and can harm you any time I want."  Intimidation.  Threats.  Fabrications.  Lies.

Cowardice.

Killing Kirk doesn't advance Leftist delusions.  It only makes the opposition against the delusions stronger.

Kirk was an annoying thorn in your side that you had no answer for.  And you've all succeeded in making him more powerful in death through martyrdom.  Congratulations - you played yourself.


 No.16406[Reply]

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

27 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.16473

File: 1757883461226.jpg (28.36 KB, 512x507, 512:507, FB_IMG_1757795960365.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>16469

>Except you treat being transgender as a political ideology, Andrea. You aren't sick of defending; you haven't had enough of offending. You over react to things and treat people horribly for even having a slightly different opinion than you. People are allowed to be civil and disagree with each other fundamentally.
>It's called civil discourse. It comes with maturity.

I am not the one who made my identity a goddamn culture war focal point right now. I didn't make my basic constitutional rights a topic of debate. God damn are you a disengenuous pearl clutching piece of shit! Jesus fucking christ, go die in a fire. You aren't on some moral fucking highground playing this fucking dumb about reality.

 No.16475

>>16473
>I am not the one who made my identity a goddamn culture war focal point right now.
That's kind of your thing. You're emotional, irrational, quick to anger, quick to call yourself the victim. You constantly talk about politics only to get mad when people don't agree with you.

>I didn't make my basic constitutional rights a topic of debate.
>God damn are you a disengenuous pearl clutching piece of shit!
I just entered the thread. Who ever you're talking about: that wasn't me. That was another anon.
>go die in a fire.
>You aren't on some moral fucking highground playing this fucking dumb about reality.
If I wasn't before, you certainly just put me on a hill.

Edit: that picture just sounds ignorant. If someone disagrees with you over you're perceived oppression, then that suddenly means they don't have a right to exist? Some race card after committing a burglary logic. Ashamed of nothing, offended by everything.

 No.16477

I think you owe me an apology. Telling me to go die is a fire is pretty rude.


 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



 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.


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