Victor wouldn’t sully himself with capitalists.

We're talking about an alternate universe that you came up with, so I have no idea how income and other taxes work on your planet because you have not laid that part out yet.

Capitalism encourages people to do better cause they will get nicer girls with more money/status objects.

It’s our system with a few very minor changes


The govt mails you stuff

The govt loves cares and provides for you

Constitution is followed

Rich pay more in effective annual tax rates than the poor, by a wide margin.

So we are charging for the nicer ladies and the better guns but keeping a base level of shitty women and guns for free?

There’s govt provided sensual workers and then there’s girls you date that aren’t paid to be with you

Honestly I don't really hear about such things. But I cheer them in spirit.

Poor gets free food, free housing, free guns, free blowjobs, free healthcare, free schooling, etc.,

What are they paying taxes on? No income. No property. Nothing to buy.

When you spend your UBi you create tax revenue.

I deleted a bunch of posts filled with offtopic racist stereotypes. Victor has been tempbanned. If you replied and quoted the banned posts your replies were deleted as well even though there may have been nothing wrong with your reply in order to delete the banned posts.

Sounds like your plan would work better if they just gave UBI and made people pay for everything.

Was Victor the person making posts with a bunch of offtopic racist stereotypes?

Yes

Chillrob said it would be a positive if large groups of children in gangs were killed and Victor was banned for sarcasm?

Lol hall monitors.

Doesn't sound like Victor... Hmm.

Cliffs?

Makes sense.

Dear lord it takes 30 seconds to Google and find out that there are hundreds of books / movies / stories etc about people being born into gangs.

Agreed.

Sorry. I thought the connection btwn where I said I deleted a bunch of posts of racists stereotypes and then I said Victor was temp banned would be apparent. But to clarify Victor received a brief temp ban for posting racist stereotypes.

I actually meant that I agree with Luckbox that it sounds out of character for Victor. As much as I often disagree with him, I don't ever recall him saying something racist.

I understand. But the posts were clear. That's why I deleted them. Sometimes I'll leave up a post so others can see them, but in cases like this, I don't leave the offending posts on site. And as Ive mentioned before, we are not going to have a system where the community assesses every post involved in a deletion or ban to determine if the mod did their job right. Every rules assessment is a judgement call. And anyone banned has the right to appeal the ban and make their case to a higher level authority that the mods judgement was wrong.

Sometimes posters comment about all sorts of factors they think come into play when I decide mod actions, like whether it is a right or left leaning post, or whether that poster has criticized me in the past. Those assumptions are simply incorrect. I evaluate posts against the forum guidelines and go from there. Frankly, to think that I would delete posts or ban people over personal disagreements or criticism implies a level of interest in others opinions that just doesnt exist. Those are factors I just dont care about when I am making decisions. You have to have people with strongly held, but opposing viewpoints in order to have an interesting and lively discussion. And disagreement does not equal disrespect. My goal here is to help provide a place where people can have discussions and disagreements without the personal attacks or hurtful attacks on particular groups that often accompany political talks.

From my experience what a normal person deems as racist and what a 2+2 mod deems at racist can be two completely different things. I completely missed Luckbox's posts ITT and I have no experience with browser so I can't comment on this case though. However, the fact that browser has come in and claimed he made the decision to temp ban/delete posts and is backing up his opinion ITT leads me to believe there is a legit case against luckbox.

There was no case against Luckbox.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/dc...s/1879180.html

Interesting ruling where a Clinton judge over-rules a trial jury and gives a convicted drug dealer a free pass for having an illegal gun on the logic his girlfriend lives with him, so it could be her illegal gun. So by Democrat judge logic, as long as there is at least 1 person living in a house, having an illegal gun in the house isn't even a crime because we can never definitely prove whose gun it is.

And this is the political party that is going to bring us sensible gun control? LOL. LOL. LOL.

Seriously though, it would create a special kind of dystopia if Democrats manage to pass some national gun restriction laws that are only enforced in red states, because appointed Democrat judges worked against the very laws their party passed.

Eh, it could still be an improvement if it reduced the mass shootings in red states, where more of them seem to happen.

I agree this sounds like a bad ruling based on your summary, but of course I don't know the details and IANAL.