Consept

No im 35 and thinking about studying something, i dont think its ever too late honestly

Well what I mean is that youtube is so wide and varied but each channel is almost like a forum in of itself. For example if I went to a pro trump channel on YouTube and criticised him, I would be insulted and could get blocked from that channel. So there isn't absolute freedom of speech on YouTube. You can post most things yourself on your channel but you're not free to just say what you want on other channels as that's up to whoever owns the channel. So I would ask again, and it's a very important question because you maybe asking for something that is not really possible. Can you give me any examples of a forum where you can say whatever you want without being at risk of being kicked out or at least dismissed?

Specifically a forum though, as a video sharing site is so wide in scope its not really the same thing

Can you point to any examples of a completely free speech forum, that follows the criteria you've set out?

To further extend your analogy its like if someone goes on a bodybuilding forum and is really pro-cardio and thinks that those that disagree are pushing a body building narrative. Then if they are banned or no one agrees with them, they complain that alternative viewpoints are not allowed on this body building forum

What would be an acceptable way to you, to criticise Trump?

So do you think it should be completely free here where anyone can discuss anything?

Of course but there has to the understanding of why relative truth is different from actual truth. If you mistake relative truth for actual truth it plays out like what we see day to day. Just thinking about it though it must be so easy if you see your relative truth as ultimate truth

@sholomar would you say a lot of people on here are extreme left?

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." - Socrates (allegedly) @Jennjenn this is such an important insight that you've had. Really when you think about it to have a strong opinion or pick a side on anything is to block out probably most of the truth and then fight for your partial truth against someone else's partial truth, it's a kind of insanity. We do it because the human mind likes certainty, we hate not knowing and uncertainty so in the inevitable absence of certainty, we hold onto some story whether it's true or not is not important. So it's scary but embrace your not knowing it really frees your mind. Very good, if we're truly honest this is the answer to nearly all questions

Can I ask, is there a reason you don't want to out right say the evidence points to there being collusion with Trump and Russia? For example I'd have no problem saying that if a Dem majority senate panel confirmed collusion between Obama and Russia, its a matter of fact thing, but you seem very resistant to give a straight answer. What would actually satisfy you that there was collusion and in fact that's not really a good thing regardless of party?

You could give a clear answer if you focused on this question. It's not a trick question and I'm not talking about media or Democrats or anything else, I'm talking about a republican-majority senate panel that concluded there was collusion. It's very simple this panel (majority of which are trumps party) said something which I've summarised for you, do you disagree with it or do you agree with it? Try answering without talking about the other side, let's just focus on this side for now. Again I have no strong opinion, I'm not from the US, its just a question

I'd disagree, there's plenty of statistics that show more rehabilitation focused policies are very successful. This is about a prison in Norway - "Norway’s humane approach towards prisoners seems effective: only 20% prisoners are reconvicted within two years, almost half the rate of many US states, even though only hard cases—which are more likely to offend—are incarcerated to begin with. Amidst a global climate where the number of prisoners is steadily rising, the drop in both incarceration and re-offending rates in liberal European countries seemingly proves that a less prison-focused justice system is effective in reducing crime." Full story here if you're interested - https://www.prisonersabroad.org.uk/news/rehabilitation-not-recidivism-norways-success-in-keeping-re-offending-rates-low But yeah the stats and studies more often than not show the effect of rehabilitation focus is much better than punishment focus. A big issue of why governments don't switch is that sometimes to be elected you have to be seen as 'hard on crime', so it takes a more evolved country to have this focus.

Keep in mind im only playing devils advocate here so just presenting something to think about. Is there an argument for trans-age? ie legally changing your age if you look and feel younger. Trans-gender makes the claim that if you are born a man and feel like a woman from birth you should be accepted in society as one, I understand this argument as of course we all have different hormones and body make ups and its entirely plausible that someone could feel this way and this is backed up by a lot of scientific data with regards to gender dysphoria. I personally dont have a problem with accepting anyone as such, but if we switch it to age i dont think you are legally allowed to change your age and it definitely wouldnt be accepted by society. In theory there would be a better argument to be able to change your age, you could physically have the body of a younger or even older person. Its common enough that say a 50 year old has a body of the average 35 year old. Mentally someone could be younger as well, its possible to test brain age. Also someone could genuinely feel younger or older internally the same way a trans-gender might feel they are a different sex. What we might say is that gender feels more central to who someone is than age, which is fair enough. But in general we can make the argument that grouping people together by gender doesnt make sense anyway because everyone feels slightly different than each other. I think the joint experience comes from being treated as a male or female whilst growing up, in the same way black people have a shared experience of growing up in a society that perceives you a certain way, so if a white person then says they identify as black its hard to accept that as they didnt have a similar experience. So if you are trans-gender you would have had a very different experience than someone is the gender youre transitioning to, however your experience is valid in and of itself its just not the same as a cis-gendered person. Anyway hopefully i havent caused any offence with this post and if i have, apologies i just thought it was an interesting and slightly taboo subject. It was sparked when I came across these two videos below, one was of someone who wanted to legally change their age and was ridiculed and the other is of a cis-woman debating with a trans woman over whether she should be accepted by society as a woman, in this case the presenters were on the trans womans side. Relatively speaking theres no difference in the argument apart from how the debates were framed.

What makes it different? Ill give you im not very good with terms. Can someone who was born a male for example, become a woman with or without physical sex changes? This would include being accepted by society as such both legally and otherwise

No although that is a relevant question as well, I guess i did mean gender in a way. I mean can someone who is assigned male or female at birth change their gender legally, so be known and accepted as the opposite gender they were born as with or without having undergone a sex change. The changing physicla sex characteristics is hot topic in terms of whether the process should tart early in childhood, which i havent got a clear answer for but it would be along the lines of what youre saying. Do you think you dismissing trans-age is similar to those who thought of themselves as progressives, dismissing trans-gender a few years ago? The point being you may not know the full scope of information and of the issues facing someone who maybe trans-age the same way a lot of people didnt about trans-gender

True but if they didnt have any nuance in their view i wouldnt necessarily consider them to have an 'evolved view', this is seen all the time on social media and although i dont see them in the same way as a trump supporter, i would feel that if i did add a nuanced comment to their view i would be attacked in the same way. No one is really on this forum just saying 'feminism is important' if they were the conversation wouldnt really get far. I take your point but like i said i dont necessarily have an issue with someone supporting Trump, i will maybe enquire as to why more than i would if someone said 'racism is bad'. But the issue is more the lack of nuance or lack of critical thinking, you can see many threads on the forum where a Trump supporter has popped up and speaks in soundbites that every other Trump supporter uses and then doesnt consider any opposing views. This dynamic is completely pointless as it doesnt lead to anything, its the same as if a fundamentalist Christian popped up and did the same with creationism, at what point do you say this is not going to lead anywhere? I guess this would be the case if i went on a Trump forum, of course it would be frustrating to not be heard if you believe in something. I got into a couple of these over youtube comments, at the start of the pandemic a lot of people were putting out anti-vaxx videos and after looking into it i saw how off base they were, i presented a few arguments and was called an idiot and whatever else, but then i realised belief is very strong, if someone believes something dogmatically there is no changing their mind, not instantly anyway. I feel like this forum is not dogmatic, at the very least you can present your case, someone might agree or disagree. If your point is just a dogmatic belief that will get found out and thats what tends to stop discussion dead not people just shutting you down for thinking the wrong thing. There was a far left guy who was dogmatic in his beliefs on here and it was the same questioning a far right guy wouldve got. So its not unique to one side, forget the content its the structure of belief thats more the issue

I havent really got a strong opinion on it, im just interested in whether people would disagree with a Republican-controlled senate panel on the issue. Would you disagree with them?

I agree i think the stereotypes will collapse and it all will become irrelevant, it will most likely take a while though My bad, birth sex OK thanks for answering. I will say yes then because i cant see an argument that someone can change their gender but someone else cant change another thing that may define them, if they felt strongly about it. As in why do we get to pick and choose what someone can and cant do? I get the argument that there are hormones and theres a spectrum and theres a condition of gender dysphoria, but there could be different but also affecting reasons why someone might want to change their age. The mainstream narrative is that trans-gender people should be accepted and this is of course how it should be, no one should be persecuted for how they are or choose to be. But just as i thought experiment imagine if we heard a lot in mainstream media about how trans-age people should be accepted and we learn about the psychological issues they have and reasons why they would like to change their age, maybe how theyre persecuted for being old, do you think that people will eventually accept that this is a thing and let people legally change their age?

"A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Kremlin officials and other Russians, including at least one intelligence officer and others tied to the country’s spy services. The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, drew to a close one of the highest-profile congressional investigations in recent memory and could be the last word from an official government inquiry about the expansive Russian campaign to sabotage the 2016 election. It provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary." This is from the New York Times, basically giving a summary of the findings, would you disagree?

Im gonna be annoying and answer your question with a question - Should we allow people to change their birth gender at will?

Do you disagree with the findings of the bi-partisan senate panel?

It seems like just looking at a chair and saying thats a chair to you, but obviously its not the same for everyone. When you show someone a chair and theyre adamant its a tv you have to let them just get on with it lol

I guess this applies more to the politics sub, the thing is if people are pushing an agenda what is the point in that discussion? Its not coming from a place of intellectual honesty, in that the person would be willing to change their mind if presented with counter evidence. The thing is most people on here can see it a mile away, their goal is to convince us that theyre neutral and theyve come to this conclusion that Trump is fighting evil or whatever but its so obvious what the intention is. Its easy for others to bite including myself as the assumption i that they are just missing something but its absolutely not the case.

Lol didn't know that but it does make sense, I'm in the UK and Obama was basically a hero here. But either way I don't think there was a senate investigation into it, funny though