Leaderboard

The point I was trying to help you understand is - you have assumed FDR is over-regulated because you experienced issues posting. Your conclusion (FDR is over-regulated) was based on unknown posting issues. Your reasoning has holes. When I ask for your evidence to support your assumption and you cannot provide it, then why should we agree with your conclusion? Incorrect. You do not get to redefine terms. A donation is a gift given by physical or legal persons, typically for charitable purposes and/or to benefit a cause. A tax (from the Latin taxo) is a financial charge or some other type of levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or a legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state in order to fund various public expenditures.[1] A failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to taxation, is usually punishable by law. You're just saying stuff. What are the "goods"? How are they "undoubtedly limited by the admins"? You have not argued anything here. How do you know that people are using the reputation system the way you expect? Do you have a log of all reputation points and the reasoning behind them? The answer is no, nobody can provide the empirical evidence to support their argument that the reputation system here on FDR is being used to accurately rate member arguments. Making accusations of members misconduct without evidence and reasoning is a sign that you lack the integrity of being honest nor your capacity to understand the severity of your claim. I hope you can understand and make the necessary correction. I never agreed to this. I put forth the "likelihood". You did not read what I wrote. You're also reaching on your speculation which is significantly less likely to be true than the ones I provided. You have extremely limited time interfacing with the forum software. Perhaps the admins experienced some buggy behaviour and for them an upgrade was desired. Please take the time to read and understand - this question was not directed to you. Sorry to be abrasive but it is annoying knowing that some people do not take the effort. Me want your thoughts - what podcasts & book content & why?

I admire anyone who posts truth to social media instead of videos of teenagers testing the darwinian theory. However, I would not, and do not do that. Maybe you have a life that permits you to speak out, maybe the risk of retribution to you and your beloved is not as great as to someone in Germany. This is for you to weigh. I thonk you should contemplate over WHY you are willing to do this. Perhaps there is another way in which you could be much more productive. Posting controversial information on social media may do nothing but create an echo-chamber around you, since people very often simply unfollow those they disagree with. Again, your dilemma.

Free Speech is just available in the US. My country has free speech too but it's not the very first thing in its constitution, it clearly states censorship is forbidden aaaand also threats, inciting violence, defamation and so on are illegal. This is the case with most countries. "Free speech is a right" but all the amendments to it turn it into a very gray area so the authorities can still get you if they don't like you. The culture of victimhood is a clear-cut attack on free speech. I'm no legal expert whatsoever but a threat is illegal in most countries and I know in the US it's a questionable issue. A threat is a threat only if the person receiving it considers it a threat, i.e. they're "feeling unsafe". If the law allows you to claim a status of victimhood solely based on your testimony then practically speaking self-censorship becomes a duty of any law-abiding citizen. It's a pretty clever idea, you can't censor other people over something specific, but other people can censor themselves, therefore if you make it illegal for people not to censor themselves then you have effectively killed free speech.