If the post is still up linking to it can’t be considered against the rules.
Just don’t add any commentary to be double safe and you’re fine
Questions for future threads
Started by Nortysosig [2996500] on in Politics & Law.
Posts archived: 86 / 86 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Yeah. You know who the person is. You can go search for “cultural norm” posts by then. Remember the old forums too.
I don’t unfortunately. If you’re this worried about posting me the link DM me it and I’ll post it. Or DM me the name and the rough time it was posted, cause we all know forum search is trash
It's an IQ test, you have to figure out what you can say without getting banned.
A reasonable debate won’t cause offense unless you are attempting to convince others that denying the rights of someone based on their race, religion, orientation, abilities, or gender is justified.
Other people living differently than how another likes, if it’s because of any protected status is not really debatable. Their rights to live their life without fear of discrimination is as valid as any other person’s. If you can handle that then you should have no problems debating.
You’re allowed to have opposing views. You’re not allowed to let your opposing views permit you to be hateful towards others.
Hope that helps.
Your last paragraph is where all the roulette happens.
Hateful is subjective. Some people think that pointing out facts about world religions is hateful, because those facts don’t make the religion look faultless in society.
I think that trafficking child brides at age 9 is not ok. Discussion of that will get you zipped up quick, particularly if you make posts pointing out multiple instances where people posted justifying it as a “cultural norm”.
Things in P&L are not as academic as you hope.
As you can see, there's no rule against talking utter bollocks.
But here you are able to express yourself without being offensive about it. Perhaps where you err is attacking a person attempting to explain their point of view?
I don’t know. Sadly, people in some countries do not have the luxury of childhood until 18. That’s a privilege of having an economy that allows parents to support children into early adulthood.
When children aren’t even afforded an education unless it’s privately paid for in some countries, it’s difficult to expect the tween or teen pushed out in the work force won’t also be considered old enough for marriage. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating it. It’s disgusting. However to judge people living in that society based on first world country norms is unfair if you aren’t willing to advocate aid to those countries to support the lifestyle children in first world countries enjoy.
That’s the challenge we face when we want to impose our norms and values on to other countries. We have to be willing to support those changes financially. So if we value health, education, childhood until 18, which I honestly feel all children of the world deserve, then we should be willing to financially support it too.
Simply stating that the person posted multiple posts justifying that criminal behavior has gotten me jammed. Meanwhile the posts justifying it remain intact, and span a decade.
It isn’t a poverty thing. It’s very specific to a demographic whose belief is that a girl is eligible to be sold into (forced) marriage and all that is entailed subsequently after her first period (colloquially around 9).
Respectfully, this is not a safe space. There are two notable demographics which get wide latitude to say what they want and not receive criticism without that criticism being shut down. One of those demographics would not be an issue with a more adept community manager who could head stuff off before it starts. For instance, it doesn’t take a genius to realize the whole Gaza thing is going to go off the rails. Why wasn’t that shut down on October 8, 2023?
Asbestos is actually correct here. This is not a safe space.
For example Asbestos has his ass spanked on this forum so often, she had to buy a standing desk.
Correct. Because there has been a clear staff bias in favor of some prominent demographics which prevent spotlighting posts which contain awful acts.
by "awful acts" he means "pointing out all the bollocks he talks".
He never did DM me anything.
No. I mean normalizing selling and human trafficking of nine year old innocent little girls (below any reasonable age of consent) to dirty old men as child brides. And you very well know it too. You should be very careful about how you proceed.
Yes. I told you I’m not going to. You can go back and search if you like. I’ve given you plenty of search terms that should get you what you’re looking for.
You’ve given me one search term, with no user name and no date.
Gonna be straight with you here. I recon the post itself isn’t a what you’re claiming it to be and that’s why your being so obtuse about all this.
You’ve been around P&L long enough. There is no doubt in my mind that you have seen this stuff.
Your laziness is not my issue.
Yeah, everyone knows that when someone actually has the evidence, they cannot wait to rub your face in it.
If Asbestos had the proof, he'd link dozens of items.
Everyone knows a screenshot, shorn of url and date, is the liars move.
I'm talking about the usual bollocks you come out with. And as for "ou should be very careful about how you proceed." Forgive me if I'm not shaking in my boots.
It’s entirely possible I know them but without knowing who you’re on about I have no idea what to check.
That’s why I asked you to do me the name to have an idea where to start. I’m literally offering to do the work for you and you’re calling me lazy lol.