Community surveys: What's your take on off-topic political threads on the forum? (Page 2)

BinGOLD wrote on 27.02.2023 at 19:55: Well the Blubbo it here constantly on royal777 has aimed, is nothing new!!!

--- provocation/insult was removed by Caro ---

This post has been translated automatically

BinGOLD wrote on 27.02.2023 at 19:55: Well the Blubbo it here constantly on royal777 has aimed, is nothing new!!!

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

ruhrpott wrote on 02/27/2023 at 19:08: I selected in the poll that this should be banned on GJ.
Let's take the unbelievably bad war in Ukraine as an example:
There are some people crawling out of their holes here, if necessary, twisting the facts, wanting to put a (co-)blame on Ukraine, etc. . That is simply not possible. Here then partly completely abstruse comparisons are drawn and own opinions outward carried which are factually provable complete nonsense and in addition simply a country which is actually the perpetrator to the poor victim made.
In my eyes, you simply have to stop this beforehand.
It is already bad enough that outside on the street N**is and other Gesocks may give their deliberately false claims to the best unhindered, here it does not have to be.

This post has been translated automatically

Saphira wrote on 27.02.2023 at 21:46: I voted that political or off-topic discussions can also find a place, preferably in the chat corner. One wants to be allowed to exchange ideas, for example, if there were a zombie apocalypse or an alien invasion. Is a simple folding spade from the hardware store sufficient to counter the former and is the natural stone camouflage advertised on Amazon really suitable for being recognized by the aliens as a house wall rather than a Guinea pig?

But joking aside. The discussion culture of the last 3 years has degenerated into something unworthy of a democracy. Democracy lives on pluralism of opinion and mutual tolerance. You have to be able to put up with other opinions, no matter how nonsensical they seem to you. One should even do everything to ensure that the person whose opinion one disagrees with can express it as a matter of course. Not always easy, but that is how a healthy society functions. The unquestioned conformism that the broad masses have been living for some years now, and which they have been successively demanding even from those who have good reasons for avoiding it, is questionable in my view. But it is also comfortable, this conformism, because it prefers not to think for oneself, but to parrot content that is spread 24/7 by so-called "serious" media.

By now, everyone should have noticed that terms like "right-wing radical" and "N**i" are used in an almost inflationary manner and applied to everyone who does not agree with what the media and politics propagate as "right". Today, one is already a N**i if one speaks out for peace and wants negotiations instead of further senseless killing. What almost ridiculous proportions this has taken on can be seen well in today's example "Petition for Peace". Two ladies, who throughout their lives were politically on the left, are now being accused of being right-wing extremists because they stand up for peace negotiations.

I am aware that it is currently almost impossible to discuss sensibly the issues that have led to this massive division in society. Which is why I have withdrawn from the debates. It is pointless to argue against obedient conformism. But when something like today happens and people are called upon to exclude people, to silence them because they think differently, one should be alarmed and take this as an opportunity to think about whether this behavior is not precisely what one is accusing the other of: radicalism.

Perhaps it will be possible at a later point in time to discuss controversial topics again on an equal footing

This post has been translated automatically

Niroht wrote on 27.02.2023 at 22:04:

I don't see it that way. Freedom of speech does not only include one's own opinion but also includes allowing and respecting other opinions.

There must not be an area or topic, especially in the offtopic BANNED.
One sees itself times as an example forum of the magazine "Brigitte". Target group clearly the holde femininity, how many sub-forums there are.
I find a ban in a forum a NoGo.
A forum lives from its contributions and as long as all keep to the netiquette, what speaks against an exchange of opinions. And who is not interested, the topics just do not read.
Are we here in kindergarten, as soon as it becomes inconvenient to one's own opinion the cry for bans loud?
That is why I am clearly against "bans".

Your choice of words that "some people come crawling out of holes and distort facts" I find as a prefatory slur and in an opinion discourse absolutely off and inappropriate.

This post has been translated automatically

Saphira wrote on 27.02.2023 at 21:46: I voted that political or off-topic discussions can also find a place, preferably in the chat corner. One wants to be allowed to exchange ideas, for example, if there were a zombie apocalypse or an alien invasion. Is a simple folding spade from the hardware store sufficient to counter the former and is the natural stone camouflage advertised on Amazon really suitable for being recognized by the aliens as a house wall rather than a Guinea pig?

But joking aside. The discussion culture of the last 3 years has degenerated into something unworthy of a democracy. Democracy lives on pluralism of opinion and mutual tolerance. You have to be able to put up with other opinions, no matter how nonsensical they seem to you. One should even do everything to ensure that the person whose opinion one disagrees with can express it as a matter of course. Not always easy, but that is how a healthy society functions. The unquestioning conformism that the broad masses have been living for some years now, and which they have been successively demanding even from those who have good reasons for avoiding it, is questionable in my view. But it is also comfortable, this conformism, because it prefers not to think for oneself, but to parrot content that is spread 24/7 by so-called "serious" media.

By now, everyone should have noticed that terms like "right-wing radical" and "N**i" are used in an almost inflationary manner and applied to everyone who does not agree with what the media and politics propagate as "right". Today, one is already a N**i if one speaks out for peace and wants negotiations instead of further senseless killing. What almost ridiculous dimensions this has taken on can be seen well in today's example "Petition for Peace". Two ladies, who all their lives were politically on the left, are now being accused of being right-wing extremists because they stand up for peace negotiations.

I am aware that it is currently almost impossible to discuss sensibly the issues that have led to this massive division in society. Which is why I have withdrawn from the debates. It is pointless to argue against obedient conformism. But when something like today happens and people are called upon to exclude people, to silence them because they think differently, one should be alarmed and take this as an opportunity to think about whether this behavior is not precisely what one is accusing the other of: radicalism.

Perhaps it will be possible at a later point in time to discuss controversial topics again on an equal footing

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

ruhrpott wrote on 27.02.2023 at 22:21:
I am explicitly concerned with sensitive issues such as the current war.
There can be with a common sense no 2 opinions on. Neither on who is the aggressor, nor on the fact that Ukraine has every right to defend itself and not to lose his country a millimeter to Russia.

Who comes with this topic then with any pseudo peace demonstrations etc. around the corner has them simply no longer all. And such people must not be given a stage. Neither here nor anywhere else.

This post has been translated automatically

Niroht wrote on 27.02.2023 at 22:52:

I agree with paragraph 1.

Paragraph 2
I do not see so. With "pseudo peace demonstration organized by such people, do not give a stage" you denigrate again. That sounds like parroting, phrasemongering.

EVERY attempt to achieve peace should be used.
The otherwise biggest pacifists with the campaign slogan "No arms deliveries to crisis areas" are now screaming the loudest for more and more weapons.
Completely insane and out of control.
There is a fine line between humanitarian support for Ukraine and support from ever more and heavier war machinery. And suddenly we are in the middle of it and are seen as the enemy.
And I don't want to have to go to war for the current policy.
You can achieve peace not only with war but perhaps also
with diplomacy and negotiations.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Blubbo33 wrote on 27.02.2023 at 22:57:

And what do you think diplomacy and negotiation should look like!


That everyone wants negotiations should be clear, but has not just Russia excluded negotiations, and that although China would have advocated it!

Therefore, it is easy to call for negotiations, but can not offer a solution.

This post has been translated automatically

Niroht wrote on 27.02.2023 at 23:15:

Sure it's an easy one to call for negotiations and the desire for peace. Perhaps there are still far too few. If all countries are pushing for peace, how can Putin sell his war to the Russian people?


What then is the solution approach? War, total war?
I feel better than calling for more weapons, more war and all of a sudden we are all in World War 3.

This post has been translated automatically

ruhrpott wrote on 27.02.2023 at 23:00: That is exactly what I mean, why discussions are wrong and not purposeful.
With such statements as from you is made subliminally from the aggressor the poor victim which sees itself at the end not differently in the situation than against the complete bad West to lead war because the West wanted that so.
The Ukraine was attacked, completely without reason! Since the Russian pack around Putin tries to annex a country which does not belong to them!
And that with flimsy arguments which are completely groundless.
But what is the consequence of some Germans from it? Oh no, we could become a war party from Putin's point of view and yes, sorry, then we leave Ukraine to its fate, because we want to help somehow, but when it comes to our own prosperity and whatever else, that's it.
And among other things, such nonsense let the AFD, the aunt Wagenknecht and how they are all called constantly from the pile.
That's just too stupid for me, with such people I do not entertain myself and such a thing has also earned no platform.

This post has been translated automatically

ruhrpott wrote on 27.02.2023 at 23:00: That is exactly what I mean, why discussions are wrong and not purposeful.
With such statements as from you is made subliminally from the aggressor the poor victim which sees itself at the end not differently in the situation than against the complete bad West to lead war because the West wanted that so.
The Ukraine was attacked, completely without reason! Since the Russian pack around Putin tries to annex a country which does not belong to them!
And that with flimsy arguments which are completely groundless.
But what is the consequence of some Germans from it? Oh no, we could become a war party from Putin's point of view and yes, sorry, then we leave Ukraine to its fate, because we want to help somehow, but when it comes to our own prosperity and whatever else, that's it.
And among other things, such nonsense let the AFD, the aunt Wagenknecht and how they are all called constantly from the pile.
That's just too stupid for me, I don't talk to such people and something like that doesn't deserve a platform.

This post has been translated automatically