/townhall/ - Townhall

>Why can't i talk about that?

Because this isn't a talk about stuff board, it's a debate and discussion board.  We have a talking board, where a variety of subjects are still frowned upon, and we have this board, which as it turns out also has some frowned upon topics, as well as hypothetically more stringent requirements for what a conversation is allowed to look like.

"We should hate half of the country and it's okay to hurt them." is not only not acceptable as a topic on either of our boards, by the rules posted on the front page of the site, but also it doesn't really invite any discussion of the topic here on the debate board.

>>16354
I didn't see the thread, but if we're talking about anger & hatred, I think you can be angry if you channel the anger wisely (if/to the extent that that is/may be possible), such as through activism, but hatred is never an appropriate response to hatred

>>16359
I'm assuming it's in reference to this, which isn't "appropriately" considering it's conflating a single image of dubious origin to the entirety of the right.

>but hatred is never an appropriate response to hatred
"Hate the sin, not the sinner".

>>16355
Here's a topic for you: if a nation is becoming increasingly violent towards a marginalized group I'm a part of, why can't I express fear about it here? The idea that I can't express this speaks enormously to whose feelings and values you will tolerate on this site and I have no issue saying you'd coddle the attitudes of gun-toting yeehaws before you would hear what I have to say about it. Not only that, but the most low-hanging fruit style of racist ragebait gets zero attention from the mods (see: >>16216)
The rules here make no sense, you're not interested in enforcing them, you're just reacting in accordance with your own biases and you deserve to be called out for it

>>16359
Don't moralize my feelings, thanks.

>>16355
>"We should hate half of the country and it's okay to hurt them." is not only not acceptable as a topic on either of our boards, by the rules posted on the front page of the site, but also it doesn't really invite any discussion of the topic here on the debate board.

And what about violence implied instead of directly stated? Cause you've had a lot of that here for years.

>>16359
>I think you can be angry if you channel the anger wisely (if/to the extent that that is/may be possible), such as through activism, but hatred is never an appropriate response to hatred

It's the default response to unjustified hatred against oneself.

>>16364
>racist ragebait gets zero attention from the mods (see: >>16216)
That post is neither racist nor ragebait.  It is a legitimate question worth investigating.

>>16364
>Here's a topic for you: if a nation is becoming increasingly violent towards a marginalized group I'm a part of, why can't I express fear about it here?

Because this isn't the express fear board where people express fear.  I think that's mostly Facebook and Twitter these days.

>you're not interested in enforcing them

I'm interested, but it would mean just deleting literally every thread on the board and I'm trying to ease us into that.

>>16369
>And what about violence implied instead of directly stated? Cause you've had a lot of that here for years.

Yeah, it's real bad, no question.  Again, the correct action by the rules would just be to delete absolutely every thread on the board, if not the board itself.  I have now begun to do things on the board, we'll see where that gets us.  I'm a tired jaded volunteer.

>>16371

So, it's technically a legitimate question, and indeed at least like a quarter of the thread involved discussing the topic.  It's a bit of a leading question, in that it's phrased in a way that traditionally almost challenges people to prove it isn't "because they're black", and the OP was fairly curt and direct about it, so it's not something that would pass a more rigorous examination, but I'm willing to let that one stay for now.  Perhaps I'll go clean up the thread itself a bit.

>>16374

>but I'm willing to let that one stay for now

And crap like this is why this place became a Nazi garden

>>16375

It's among the reasons, yes.

>>16375
Or perhaps people are just sick of those who aren't oppressed endlessly claiming their oppression, while those who claim to be oppressed declare half the country to be evil for challenging their fantasies and delusions.  "such oppression!  much evil!  nazi!  nazi!"

>>16377

Yeah, that's in there somewhere, as well.

>>16376

This board is mostly just bad faith leading questions and none of you fucks do anything about that. Delete /townhall/, please. These dishonest assholes need to leave ponyville

>>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.

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