The Democratic Marxists wrote:Qwertyuioplkjhgfd wrote:
Actually I believe it's the opposite. What is obscene, threatening, malicious, and defamatory is pretty much opinion. The rules intended to prevent flaming and trolling, so it's funny (to me, my opinion) how some people would find any discussion of homosexuality offensive (just like any discussion of Jews people think it's offensive) so it's banned. It's all human thought and relative.
You don’t think there’s a difference between “discussion”, more importantly intelligent, civil discussion, and calling for genocide? Wouldn’t that be an unacceptable view in our ideal world? NSG tries to maintain a respectful atmosphere, why are you against that?
I'm not against that, I'm just against not being able to talk about controversial topics that people think automatically mark it as non-intelligent or uncivilized. The Europeans sure thought they were civilized when they came to the Americas and indirectly causes mass genocide of the Native Americans. You think I am not having a civil discussion, so were the Belgians when they came Africa, King Leopold, anyone? It was common belief Africans were not intelligent or civil, and their genocide was actually intelligent and civil. Again, it's human personal thought and belief as to what is and isn't (that's my human thought). Just because a majority think the death of Jews is offensive, doesn't automatically make it offensive, especially if the Nazis won the war, NS would definitely not ban it. That's how society works (it is supported by sociology and anthropology but I'll just say, my opinion).
Also,
I am sorry, then Australian. I again say I do not plan on changing site rules, just discussing it. It's like if I was gonna discuss 4chan's rules on NS, except I'm just discussing NS's rules on NS.