Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - mumblemumble

#16
General Discussion / Re: Animal farming viable?
June 28, 2017, 01:59:28 AM
Raising animals for meat isn't the best idea by itself, but combined with uses, they work well. Attack pigs for instance work good as you can eat ones that die, and they haul too, and breed easy enough you can keep cycling in new ones when other ones die off.

Add to that the using kibble to handle human meat being recycled into animal meat over time, and its viable to use them as meat, but I would recommend getting animals that can do something useful while they fatten up, otherwise the usage is a little dubious.

I like pigs the best because they are very easy to train, do all jobs, and are omnivores : pretty much easy mode animals, but they don't do any job super well either.

But they are good haulers, decent cuddle animals for mood bonuses, ok at attacking, and easy to provide meat. Plus, taming them is much easier than taming boars, or squirrels, or other critters.

Guess the big question is if you have a decent tamer, if so, go ahead, if not, just put the effort into growing more food. Though remember that human meat can be recycled into good meat using this approach, and if you have plenty, its worth it to get, effectively, free meat.

....Really depends on what the feed situation is for the animals, I guess.
#17
General Discussion / Re: Bionics in A17
June 28, 2017, 01:48:55 AM
Right, but determining how is the difficult part.

maybe keeping in mind the body part, if theres bone, how much bone, what type of damage, ect

To be honest this could be covered under an entire health revamp.
#18
Allow heavy base music. music causes hearing loss in colonists around it, but provides joy, particularly to chemical interest people.

Music increases chance of nearby machinery breaking down by 50%, due to the heavy vibrations rattling loose nuts and bolts.

also has a chance to make nearby animals go berserk.
#19
See, my problem with that is then it even gets into a MORE slippery slope, but with mass crevices of sharp rock along it as well : Then one could argue if any talk it relevant to rimworld, in a rimworld topic, about rimworld.

This is already an EPIDEMIC on ludeon, I've seen dozens on threads get chopped up, seperated, and moved around by mods because the intricate nature of rimworld inherinetly means a LOT of off topic discussion. if I had a dollar for every time a thread got spliced up, I could easily pay my phone bill with it.

SO WHAT THEN!?

What if theres a topic about say, a new faction feature, and discussion is simply removed entirely because its discussing finer details of things? Posts simply thrown away into the void because not only are they off topic to the topic at hand (but still relivant to the discussion, which is a big problem) but are political, so they are simply deleted?

Do we really want a iron fisted policy that limits our freedom? What if you guys want to bitterly complain if trump gets a second term?

I really think you guys aren't thinking this through at all, and are either only pushing this because of the immigration topic (because this is exactly why this thread was made) or because its just an apathetic look from people not weighing all the factors involved.

I should really make a list of all threads which would be removed under this rule, because it is absolutely ridiculous this proposal.

Beyond that, I struggle to take serious someone who makes an (I assume) awful joke like saying a father should give cookies to terrorist who blew up his daughter.
#20
Off-Topic / Re: Immigration discussion
June 28, 2017, 12:57:39 AM
Quotefree speech inciting violence
I asked how this applied to any of this. What I've been saying, and what people get arrested for is NOT an incitement of violence, nor lies : its simply disapproval and criticism of Islam.

You can go down the track of "that still incites violence", but then would you agree that YOU should be jailed for calling me a bigot? Slippery meet slope, and more importantly, such vague interpretations, if distributed equally across all populations would get everyone put in jail eventually for criticizing anyone : you couldn't call out a crappy restaurant without being arrested for hate speech if this was INDEED used evenly for all populations. Beyond that, being unable to vent frustration at all and resolve things peacefully with words is a good way to incite violence at all. I'd much rather face the angry mob I mentioned than get stabbed for being christian, and I'd much rather have a debate than people hate me for demanding censorship : this is one of the reason Islam and the LGBT have gained LOTS of contempt, because people who disagree feel completely silenced in many cases. And while I disagree with it, this is WHY many people turn to assault or murder, because they feel there IS no other option. "If speaking out about gets you a few years, why not spend a little longer and kill a few people to make a difference?". I don't ENDORSE that statement at all, but you gotta understand, this is how this anti free speech approach makes people think. The closer you end up punishing free speech in a comparison to violence, the more often people will ENGAGE in violence, because using words has literally no benefit at this point.

But back onto what you said : you must give an example of something I said, or something someone arrested in europe said to remove someone ELSES right. I do not think an example of this exists, even for the man who said he wish he could "rent out tanks to kill muslims", he did not hurt anyone's rights : and honestly many people in europe already hate muslims as much as him, but are scared to express it. Expressing these does not remove anyones rights though...and what about peoples rights to safety from Islamic terrorism?

Quoteprotesters effecting my life
Really depends on how they approach. If they simply protest outside church for whatever reason, but do not block me, get violent with me, or shout at me (reminder that groups like antifa do this all the damn time) then I will have no problem : who knows, I might even see what they have to say, and they MIGHT convince me not to attend that church, PARTICULARLY if they allow questions, and ANSWER them.

If they get violent, or do other things, that's different, but THOSE are a crime anyway.

If you are saying that you would intimidate me by via standing there and maybe booing at me, it would make me a cowardly bitch to not attend if that was "intimidation". if there was ANYTHING more than this, you are already violating a law, and thus hate speech law is redundant at stopping it.

Quoteyou parrot arguments from alt right fundamentalists
So lets be clear : you say I am alt right because I agree with someone on the alt right. Do you like sunshine? Do you think vitamin D is good for you?

If you say yes, you are also alt right by your own logic, as alt right also argue vitamin D is good for you

This is where this kind of argument falls to shit : you say I am something because I have similarities to it. If you have issues with my POLICIES and OPINIONS, state them directly, don't make half assed arguments based on a "genetic" fallacy.

QuoteOn a side note, I'd like to point out that using mentall illnesses as a derogatory term is rather offensive.
Its a medical term, and I'm very much against moving the goal post and renaming things every 5 years. Retarded, mentally ill, brain dead, stupid, ect : all fit the bill for what is described, technically speaking. To make clear, not saying you ARE those, but its important to point out that these are technical terms in the mental health industry : and as for being offensive, so is calling me alt right, but adults tolerate offensive things, particularly if there is no intent behind it.

QuoteActually, it's a term coined to 'disguise' white nationalism
And this is another attempt to move the goal posts. Apparently people who are patriotic, are for free speech, and voted for trump are all "white nationalists" is this what you are saying? Because I know jews, blacks, asians, and other groups who voted for him. Can black guys be white nationalists?

Heres a better question : who calls THEMSELVES white nationalists? Because I don't give a rats if YOU call them white nationalists, I care if THEY call themselves white nationalists : because alt right, white nationalists, these are all LABELS, and rather than worry about labels, I'd like to know why you figure any group is white nationalist. Apparently any group of whites who express ethnic pride are white nationalists, from what I've read.

So I guess my question is what your arguments are for the following being white nationalist
-infowars
-brietbart
-louder with crowder
-lauren southern
-ben shapiro (remember, hes JEWISH  ;))
-any others you care to talk about

otherwise I will discard what you say about "white nationalists" as a damned goosechase.

Quotewhites want to dominate
Right, and I've seen nothing about this.

The most extreme stuff I can find that is serious is someone saying they are worried about the declining ethnic European population percentage, and the Muslim invasion of European homelands. But thats not anymore white supremacist than black people who want to visit africa and preserve it for blacks are BLACK supremacist.

As stated above, find me examples and I'll start denouncing them - otherwise your talk is going nowhere

Also, I acknowledged Asians have a higher IQ on average, though probably due to a much better education system and culture.

Quoteusing their language
And you are using the language of murderers who aren't actively murdering anyone at the moment. Big whoop, its a non argument, actually point out flaws in my argument rather than say I talk similar to some hypothetical asshole. Its stupid to try and debate this way.

QuoteIn your example, you're already making a value judgment about someones personal life - isn't that pretty much the definition you yourself just gave? You're also making wild claims about Europe (which, by the way, is composed of a few dozen independent states, each with their own laws and customs), without any proof or substantiation. I've linked you the FreedomHouse website earlier, which tracks precisely this kind of thing. European countries did equal or better than the US on civil liberties. A point you seem to have missed, but lets get back to that later.
Making a judgement is not bigoted

Bigotry is being completely UNWILLING to hear the other side at the debate table : I am here with you, debating aren't I? This is proof I'm not bigoted on this matter. However anti hate speech laws are very bigoted.

As for Europe, yes, I realize its many places, and its mainly a fault of the EU and merkel,  whos a terrible person not deserving of a roof over her head. Some countries are immune to this granted, but if you want me to name names, France, Germany, and Sweden especially have been fucked up. Reminder that Sweden has an immensely high rape rate which directly correlates to the Muslim immigration.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/sweden-on-brink-of-civil-war-police-begging-for-help-legal-system-collapsing/
you might say this is fake news, but please tell me about the footage of the rioting, and what you think... Its from a Swedish news station for FUCKS SAKE...

But to clear things up, bigotry is not judging someone

bigotry is refusing to even tolerate something. And this is something you've actively advocated for by asking for a ban on political speech : you are promoting bigotry.

Quoteyou ate fish
Damn right, salmon is delicious yo  :D

Quotenever directly called you such things
I do recall somewhere saying Europe was turning into a hellhole, so this would apply to me : at very least you unconsciously called me that. Well, how about this, SWEDEN is a hellhole, with the rape rate and the police and law system almost collapsing. Is that fair? or am I an alt right bigot for saying that? Or at very least, realistically speaking, sweden is going to shit.

QuoteFull report

Gotcha (and damn thats a handful!). The reason why I didn't look it up myself is simple : I find that when it comes to arguments, its up to the person arguing to provide the source of something : its to keep us both intellectually honest, I might say I never found this, or just been to lazy to find it, or you could do the same. Or you might tell me to look up something non existent, then blame me when I never find it. It just works better with people providing sources for what they argue.

From what I gather, they say areas like sweden have more civil liberties than the US,  and less corruption...but considering you cannot have free speech, and the EU is corrupt and putting immigrants before its citizens, I find this to be a fat joke.

QuoteI agree with your friend
Theres a distinguishment between a friendly joke between friends, and a jab at someone.

its fair to say I think, that you don't view me as a friend, and thus its not a joke between friends.

however, I think the title we all bestow on each other in this context would apply to you too, so we are all even then? Though to be honest, you aren't close enough to me this kind of behavior is acceptable.

QuoteOnly after they've bought the terrorists' family some cookies.
This better be a joke. If serious, you sound like the people who tell children to write letters to ISIS to show they are accepting of other cultures, despite the fact they have sex slave rings and burn Christians in cages. It almost seems to me like you are endorsing Islamic terrorism. If so, that is disgusting.

Even if it IS a joke, that isn't funny : people losing their family in a violent explosion because a muslim wants 72 virgins is not something to be joked about.

Are you OK with then aids jokes about gays, or depictions of Mohammad being sodomized?

Seriously, where is your line on whats OK as a joke..... or are you dead serious about a man making COOKIES for people who MURDERED his children?

I DO hope you take this back as a horribly TASTELESS joke, I'm giving you the chance to do that.. ... Revoke the statement.

QuoteTerrorism isn't so bad
Terrorism goes beyond the death toll : I'd much rather I die in a car crash than a jihad attack, simply because theres other effects BEYOND death.

Terrorism puts other citizens on edge, makes children have nightmares, makes people on edge around the group who committed the terrorism. It also forces the population to be more accepting of something, via force : car crashes don't do this

By the same logic why are you against the KKK? They only killed a few hundred black men, alcohol kills far more per year right?

THIS is the kind of ass backwards logic its using. And the fact is nobody feels terrified about beer, but they are terrified of the KKK, and muslims. Murder is VERY different than a freak accident.

Quotefree press
I'm not reading through another giant PDF. I have just 1 question : can free press then say that they think muslims are ruining the country? If not, how is the press free? In America different "press" (which I admit it used a bit shakily) have the right to say whatever the hell they like, as do citizens.

if not, you cannot say you are MORE free than America, end of story, at least not where it matters.

QuoteYou're again saying that freedom of speech is somehow hampered, and yet again you give no evidence of this actually being the case.
In the US I can say "fuck xyz group, they are ruining America" and not face criminal charges.

In some European countries, police would arrest me for saying this if its directed against the LGBT or muslims.

Quoteopinions based on facts
Still opinions, thats the key word bud. And if you expect me to read 188 pages through entirely just because you think there might be something, no. If YOU want to expose text I'm missing which is crucial to your argument, go ahead, but I'm not seeing it.

Go ahead, post it in a quote, and I will use ctrl f to find it in the document.

Otherwise, I have no reason to believe its anything more than an agency spouting its opinion. And why should I believe you in such things being in the document if you can't find it yourself?

QuoteFreedoms, with a capital F, are fundamental. That means they apply to everyone
not CITIZENS freedoms no, those are for CITIZENS, nobody else. And people give up their freedoms when they break laws, or do any action really, if a bunch of immigrants get on a raft to illegally immigrate, that is a crime and they give up their rights to freedom, and right to safety. No rights give you freedom from consequences under law.

You cannot blame people for removing your rights when you yourself break rules.

Quoteless than human
no it implies the people broke laws, and thus gave up their rights

think of it this way, if a whackjob starts stabbing people at random, does he have a right to safety? NO!!!

your rights END where mine begin, and where laws begin : this is a fact of how low and humans work. Don't be concerned about your rights while messing with others or breaking laws.

QuoteThe fact of the matter is that most cases that appear before the supreme court in the US
specifics or don't even talk to me : you are equivocating far too much. Do me a favor, do not bother to respond unless you have CONCRETE things to say about YOUR beliefs and YOUR position, equivocating all day is a deceitful thing to do, and wastes everyone's time : if you have beliefs, express them without shame. If you don't then lurk the forums. Simple as that

QuoteBeing critical is not just a right, it is a civil duty!
Unless its against the LGBT or Islam, correct??? This is exactly what I meant, you say be critical, but you don't want any criticism towards YOUR things. Enough that you, after this thread was opened, demand a ban on political discussions. Disgusting. And don't tell me to be critical of my own beliefs : I am, thats why I distinguish sunni from shia and all those things : still doesn't mean that everything else is incorrect. Rather than tell me to be critical, make ACTUAL CRITICISM of my own statements!!! and no, that doesn't mean saying I sound like an "alt right" person.

QuoteCensorship is a targetted act of limiting free speech by people you don't like or agree with so that only your message is heard
You are targeting an act at limiting my freedom of speech on ludeon. You don't like, and disagree with me. You also have no message at all, short of that you disagree and want this shut down

You are attempting censorship of my views of which you disagree with.

QuoteWhere is critizicing jihad (or islam) illegal?
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/18116-new-swedish-law-criminalizes-anti-immigration-internet-speech

Quote
There is an argument to be made for not treating all muslims as terrorists, for they might actually become one, but that is a completely different proposition. In addition, you're conflating jihad and islam. There are hundreds of millions (give or take a few) muslims around the world, most of which just want to life a peaceful life like you and me. Then there's a small group of extremists, which want to kill you, me, and most of the other muslims to boot.
Fair point

To which we then need to take actions

actions like halting immigration, deporting people, and getting paperwork done for immigrants to ensure they are NOT isis soldiers, and also have a VERY firm crackdown on shia and wahabism forms of islam. Is this fair? Because you would still be disagreeing with much of the EU govt by agreeing with that. And this isn't even touching the massive issue of taqiyya which puts all of "Islam" in a seriously DANGEROUS basket unless you keep a monitor on it.

Quote
You haven't shown me any sources of a case (in a western country) were criticizing islam was illegal, or anyone has been convicted for criticizing islam
Sweden and Germany are not western???

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/sussex-police-imprison-man-speaking-radical-islamic-hate-violence/

QuoteDoesn't mean that using racial slurs is therefore OK
Its ok in terms of the surrounding context : or should be. If someone murders your daughter, I think you get a free pass for at least 3 days to use racial slurs minimum.

And my point was you shouldn't be arresting folks for racial slurs while doing NOTHING about murders or rape, which is a bit of an issue since swedens police is unable to stop many issues.

QuoteI'm much more worried about the actions of Putin and Trump.

If I'm completely honest, an annexation by either one over Germany, Sweden, and others would be less bloody and harmful than letting the current immigration fetishist government of the EU continue to bleed Europe dry via rape and terrorist attacks.

Oh and a reminder....
Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on June 27, 2017, 08:54:41 PM
   
Quote from: mumblewhat if someone had say, their children killed in an islamic extremist bombing : are they allowed to say this makes them unhappy?

Only after they've bought the terrorists' family some cookies.

Take that disgusting shit back. I don't care if it was a joke or not, but that is disgusting even if it IS a joke. And if you are serious, I cannot state how I feel without guaranteeing a ban from ramsis.
#21
You might say that fluffy, but honestly I care not what you say, I care about what rule is put in place

If it was indeed a blanket statement, would you then not agree your statement about corporations being people would ALSO be a political statement that should be banned? What about calling it ridiculous?

These are both political statements too, and would fall under your ban you are proposing. Yet you aren't even leading by example.
#22
Off-Topic / Re: Corrupt-A-Wish
June 27, 2017, 06:00:37 PM
Wish granted. Your corruption is very bad. Nobody criticizes it though. Its just bad, and ignored, kinda like that one kid in grade school who was annoying and dorky but you  treated nice because you had to. Its still bad though, but, I never said this... I'm not criticizing it.

I wish more games were less watered down and had more meta-game physics to learn that took a long time to master
#23
Off-Topic / Re: Immigration discussion
June 27, 2017, 05:57:11 PM
@ fluffy

Limiting my free speech does not protect any rights of others WHATSOEVER.


I will provide you a hypothetical scenario.

Lets say you think I was a racist bigot for attending a church, for some reason...this is your right to think so, and even if wrong, you have the right to do so

You have the right to PROTEST me going to church if you want, along with signs, any friends you want to gather, ect : this is 100% in your right

however, how does this possibly remove my right to go to church? it does not, not in the slightest.

And this is a core problem : how would it limit anyones rights EVER me talking?

And don't you find it extremely ironic that you can call me a bigoted alt right fundamentalist?

how is this better than me calling you a "mentally ill pervert" or something similar?

Its not, both are ad homin unless you explain how exactly you fit the definition : and I know nothing of your mental health or sexual proclivities so neither mentally ill nor pervert would be applicable at all, and beyond that, they are ad homin which do not pertain to the particular debate

Likewise, you call me an alt right bigoted fundamentalist : lets break this down

Alt right : a phrase coined to define the farther right movement which is further than mainstream right, particularly in America.

Particularly it means nazis, white supremacists (please note that white preservations groups and white supremacists are different) bible thumping cultists, ect.

now, I'm not a nazi (i believe in capitalism rather than socialism) and I am not a white supremacist : even looking at inteligence levels, asians boast a higher IQ than whites on average, and I think all races can have high IQ WITH a proper upbringing and diet.

So, I would not call myself alt right.

Bigoted : someone who is intolerant of other views

I am more tolerant than your countries in europe are, generally speaking : I've had debates on this very forum with women who engage in beastiality, which I find awful, but still allow them to speak without harassment. Yet Europe will ARREST people who express opinions they disagree with. Those governments are pretty objectively more bigoted.

so I wouldn't call myself bigoted, or at least less than European countries governments right now (Poland, Hungary, and others excluded)

Lastly is fundamentalist : which means strict interpretation of scripture. This might very well apply to a very small extent, as I am christian and follow the bible, but I also eat fish : so this is also wrong

In short everything you said about me is incorrect

But beyond that, you STILL removed no rights from me : so how can any of my speech remove rights, unless its via policy? Because policy is not free speech, policy is policy.

Beyond that, lets examine your stats

your happiness survey is dubious : what questions did they ask and how did they qualify it?

I've had some people argue if someone swears in my presance that its a symptom of "abuse" but I call my best friend a dumbass all the time, and he does the same for me : this said, I love being around the dude. So I would take it with a grain of salt, and beyond that, what if someone had say, their children killed in an islamic extremist bombing : are they allowed to say this makes them unhappy? this is VERY important considering what you said above, how anyone who thinks its a hell hole is a right wing bigoted fundamentalist, because it implies only fundamentalists don't like being blown up. This is important to consider.

Freedom of press is an assinine point : press is inheriently COVERED under free speech, and if you limit free speech, you ALSO limit freedom of the press. AND AGAIN, can people report that they are not free to do the press they want, if expressing that they are not free is illegal? This might indicate on paper that press is great there, but in reality its an iron fist. Remember, press is pointless if speech is silenced.

For "general freedoms", I'm not even sure what you are on about : how about specifics? what SPECIFIC freedoms does say, germany have that america does not?

In america I can carry a gun, knife, and have freedom of speech, which is 3 (maybe 2?) that germany DOES NOT have. So what does Germany have that America does not? Because I could not find information there specific to european countries freedom being higher than america : I did look at comparisons of Germany and the United States, and germany scored higher but did not explain why : and civil liberties were rated good in germany, despite freedom of speech being hampered? This Seems bias and inaccurate.

In short your articles are just a bunch of agencies DECLARING something without explaining data behind it, as far as I can see : and I don't care what the agencies opinions are, I care about hard facts.

Plus immigrant freedom should NOT be a factor in a countries freedom. Immigrant freedom is not the freedom of its citizens, its the freedom of outsiders which is 100% up to the countries discretion how they handle it.

As for your statement...
Quotetldr; your rights end where those of another begin.
Tell me where someones rights begin that I would end up limiting?

If you say "a right to not be criticized" or similar : this is not a right, and the same policy you say applies to THEM : their rights to that are stomping on MY right to speak.

Also, its sad you resort to begging for censorship : is this because you do not feel confident having a civil debate? If you feel confident, debate me on it till I am crushed, or you give up, whichever happens first.

Beyond that, do you realize the hipocracy? People say not to criticize islam to prevent bombings, but then hold europeans to another standard : jihad is normalized while fighting back against islam, or even criticizing it is vilified and made illegal

Call me a bigot but I find rape, child molestation, be headings and bombings much worse than every racial slur in the book.

I also hope we can AT LEAST agree that ww3 is not far off whatsoever, and the immigration issue is CERTAINLY a factor in aggravating it.

....Beyond THOSE, if you believe islam and immigrants ARE NOT destroying europe, then why are you against TALKING ABOUT IT to PROVE they are not a problem???
#24
First off for my answer : absolutely not. Banning free speech of ANY sort is what leads to larger amounts of speech being banned, and this is the BEST way to force an agenda : you cannot fight back against totalitarianism if you cannot FIRST call a spade a spade

There's a lot of talk about disinformation and smearing campaigns, and while this is an issue, I think this should take a methodical approach for addressing, taking each individual claim and seeing if there is any merit behind it, any truth, if its ad homin, fallacy, or if there is any logic behind it : and this cannot be merely accused, this must be explained carefully WHY it is invalid, as baseless accusations are just as bad, if not worse than the disinformation itself. Likewise, the accused should have an opportunity to defend allegations.

Another thing I would have to say is with the global climate, there is a WAR on freedom of speech : you see it in Europe, in Canada, in universities : where if you state opinions which are skeptical of certain "protected groups" you are metaphorically lynched : fired, arrested, assaulted, banned from the college you payed for ect : its an effort to silence any and all criticism. This is what fascist, totalitarian governments did in the past : if you criticized the head honcho, you got your head cut off, got drawn and quarted, or some other vile act. Except rather than 1 person, its trying to push an agenda.

Another thing to keep in mind is frankly, I think it SHOULD be allowed here BECAUSE this is not expressly a political site : politics and other subjects often have the approach of "do not bring it up anywhere ever", except they are brought up, just in private, and often breeding more extreme views, since it being in public would otherwise moderate certain views.

Beyond that we must ask "what is political?"

Well, its anything involved with public policy : and this is the scary thing.

If we ban discussion of "politics" you effectively ban anyone from discussing any opinion that a moderator determines as "political".

What if genocide ended up occurring? Is that political? its a banned topic

What about if war is erupting and a user is on the brink of having their family killed? Is this a political topic? Banned too.

What if theres a significant problem facing a community? is that political?

At very least if we are going to do that, we should make a DAMN CLEAR definition of what is political, and DOES NOT have bias on the left or right : except I feel this would be impossible without people seeing how ridiculous it is. Because LGBT rights, Islamophobia discussion, and other elements can ALSO be determined as "political" if they are ever involved in politics : does this mean we will ALSO ban these?

But thats my main problem : IF you ban political discussion, have a VERY clear definition which applies EQUALLY to all people : meaning if one were to be banned for bringing up immigration which endangers others, one could also not bring up LGBT rights, Islamophobia, and other issues, because those are ALSO politically involved terms.

See the problem with this? its up to the moderators discretion if they indeed CALL something banned or not, and any mod can ban any person if they see fit, because anything could be described as "political" and one could simply throw that title on something they personally disagree with to remove it.

Not saying that WILL happen with the mods here, but its a very real possibility, and we should have accountability and fairness, and I honestly DO worry about a severe left wing bias on this forum being made worse IF this happens. I've already seen cases in discussions where I may post cited examples of things which are "politically incorrect" and others will result to straight ad homin, and I will get more scrutiny from users and mods alike : which is a bit concerning.

This is only made worse when you consider the logistics behind things : I'm American personally, and the supreme court determined hate speech is still FREE SPEECH, meaning no words, talk, ect, can be banned at all.

However, I'm also aware Tynan is based in Canada as far as I'm aware, and several moderators are from Europe : which provides a very distinct conflict

I come from a country where freedom of speech is still upheld, and other countries are having freedom of speech is compromised in favor of protection of certain groups: Thus I see it one way, and others see it another.

I can even understand that people from these countries might have discomfort : after all, what I can say FREELY, without risk of prison or jail, would get tynan or milon perhaps thrown in jail : this is true (depending where they are of course) and I can see why this might make a bit of discomfort, hearing someone say what you would be jailed for, but then you must ask what your course of action would be.

Would you :

A : Allow freedom of speech to spread, potentially even allowing it back into your countries which have revoked it

or

B : Use your platform to further destroy freedom of speech for others because it does not fit with you not being able to do the same

I DO feel sympathy over the frustrations of people in such countries, but remember : your frustration would be better placed on your government than myself. Remember, your right to speak as you wish is being outlawed, I'm merely speaking my mind : which is more immoral?

@darius wolfe : if your argument is bandwidth, why not remove old pictures, old posts, and remove the drunkard thread / the post to 9000 before tynan posts threads? Seriously that seems like more of an excuse than anything else.

I admit i must of missed the comment about free speech = murder, but thats obviously silly : words don't kill, idiots, the emotionally fragile, and the primitive do.

Rather than ask why we should KEEP political discussions, ask yourself why you want to GET RID of political discussions?

My guess is because this offends some people : Which is fine, people have a right to be offended, but the offense does NOT give the right to silence someone else.

But if you have any other answers, let me know.

@mistervertigo : you bring up an interesting concept with anonymity, except this is actually very reliant to points I stated above : if people cannot voice opinions in public for fear or murder, arrests, stalking, assaults, ect, why bar them from a place where they CAN do it anonymously? You might even tell people to post on places like stormfront or whatever, but would you REALLY rather push people you disagree with to the fringe where they are made more extreme, rather than allow discourse and keep them more moderate?

As a final statement, I think we ALL need to keep in mind a few things

1 : we are NOT all from the same places, backgrounds, beliefs, religious background (if any) creed, world views, or culture, and just because someone is somemthing which is JUST outside our "norm" does not mean we should refuse to accept them because of it. This goes both ways : if you wish to criticize, please do, but the argument should consist of more than simply "you aren't the same as us, therefore get out", there MUST be some solid reasoning behind it. If you don't understand something, or something makes no sense to you, ASK. If you are asked such things, ANSWER. If you cannot answer, consider that you might possibly be incorrect, or must find answers. This applies to EVERYONE, be them LGBT, muslim, european, christian, conservative, liberal, chemical interest, teetotaler, ect. NOBODY should have an excuse not to do this, and if you don't you shouldn't be involved in the discussion.

2 : ludeon IS an international community : and international relations are inherently a little messy of course. This is the nature of having multiple cultures, peoples, religions, ways of life bumping into each other : there will be disagreements, there will be conflicts. But this does not mean we should bar conversations about differences. Instead we should hold every person accountable for how THEY act, and THEY respond. If someone is spewing slurs or adhomin, sure, punish them,  but if someone reacts nastily to comments they don't like, they should ALSO be punished.

The rules on ludeon are to be respectful of others, but respect does not mean you cannot criticize someone. Disagreements are a good thing, a chance to sharpen others or yourself : what we need to look out for is NOT controversial topics, but people who do not properly engage in polite discussion, and resort to personal attacks or try and stifle discussions.

....I also want to point out nobody cared about this AT ALL when they were mad about trump being elected, and this is only being pushed because there's a discussion on European immigration that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. and if this is enforced as a rule, I would hope there would be EQUAL punishment for right AND left leaning political comments. Theres a LOT of hostility against right leaning comments, and I fear this topic is only a symptom of it.
#25
General Discussion / Re: Bionics in A17
June 26, 2017, 04:08:06 PM
Bozo raises a good point, but more about amputation than anything - currently limbs are too easily ripped off, when in reality a bunch of punches would NEVER rip your arm off (unless you were the hulk or had razor blade knuckles) but would instead leave your arm so bruised you couldn't use it.
#26
At least your death will be noble : its better to die valiantly to spiders than hilariously to chickens.
#27
Funny - isn't that kinda an argument for the benefits of ""internalized homophobia""? That you can have good male friendships without having to worry as much about sexual influence? Granted, might push away some people, but its impossible to make everyone happy.

as for broke back mountain, I honestly wouldn't consider them "straight", but this brings up a great discussion of "what is straight, bi, homosexual, ect". I personally view it as they are what they DO, as doing also shapes what you will do in the future : its also good to note that the characters of BBM did not have internalized homophobia enough to prevent such a relationship : either way I would consider them bisexual at best, they obviously are not straight or they would not willingly be entering such a relationship with each other.

I can understand where someone might ask about homosexual FEELINGS, without actions (ie, in the "closet") but I honestly figure actions, or influencing factors in life would feed such impulses. Certainly "coming out" would not make the impulses less by any means. Feelings can come and go, actions are pretty concrete : though feelings are also caused by things, and hold a pretty firm influence ON our actions.

If I had to define it in game terms, I think chemical interest and teetotaler would be very good comparison : one is extremely open minded to (concept) and one is extremely closed minded to (concept). As applied to homosexuality I figure it could be similar, where one who was very accepting would have a higher likelihood to do it, more than a normal pawn, and a normal pawn would have more likelihood to do it than someone who was critical against it. This would allow for more strict straight characters, and for more potential division among pawns, which is always fun.
#28
Because while I THINK it wouldn't be useful in the long run, I would rather have a sticky than an entire subforum collecting dust, and would rather have a forum once it actually gets more frequent.

Just my opinion, really I think tynan would be the best person to ask considering hes planning whats up next in development.

and I'm not even against a subforum in the future, just for right now its a little lacking...

EDIT:Upon further research, consideration, I actually changed my mind : a subforum would be a good idea.

even if it DOES collect dust for a few months, it may be benificial in the end. And a sub forum isn't a huge waste of anything, really.
#29
General Discussion / Re: Great Rimworld Bakeoff
June 24, 2017, 01:03:24 AM
I'm very curious how this fire happened then, 300 c doesn't just come from nowhere.

Meltdown sounds interesting, except it would be a real kick in the colony jewels to have your ship blow apart randomly...
#30
Ideas / Re: Bridges?
June 23, 2017, 11:47:20 PM
I gotta agree with this : while there IS a mod, and it works, currently rivers are a bit of a pain. You cannot really do anything around a river construction wise which is a bit of a pain. Even if the process for making something over a river was difficult, it would be handy, compared to having a strip of land that can never be altered.