An uncomfortable conversation

Or most of the American south, or any very independent state like Texas or Montana

Please fill out a staff app with a link to that gif as every answer

Texas had a very impressive bernie following. montana... do people live there?

bruh, its a word. just a word. He didn't say he hates socialists. At first I figured this was just a geographical thing but really, it is a word.

Filled one out. When can I expect a link?
It is true, the south is Hillary's strong states. Also, Montana...

oooooh because the dems can use the dead voters they already had from previous elections in the south, now it makes sense xD I just have such a hard time believing hillary votes exist beyond like 1/1000th of the population. It's almost as hard to believe the trump votes but I see these people all the time, no matter how sad it makes me. lol

Bernie is ahead of Hilary, Is he even close to the republican winner?
Also, Saying Hilary is strong in the south is a stretch, alot of southerners would take Hitler over her until she runs against a socialist who makes them think U.S.S.R..

Most rational Americans think their affiliated party is the 2nd worst organisation in the country

I'm saddened that Trump's wonderful stance on PC has to come with the dumb stuff he says

*Democratic Socialist

I suppose it is people such as you who cause that confusion.

lmbo "socialist" implies democratic in the name. there is no distinction between socialism and democratic socialism. they both mean communal so democratic socialist is just a bit redundant. NOW national socialist isn't redundant.

The 'democratic' is there to show that a 'Democratic Socialist' supports the values and continued practice of democracy. Socialism has a history of being used by dictatorships (these were usually Communist but said they were Socialist because it implies some level of freedom to their people) and brings up negative connotations to some people. Democratic Socialists are also usually less extreme and don't want to nationalise everything - usually just healthcare services, some public transport, etc.

Bernie is not actually a Democratic Socialist - he's been called out on this by other countries and leaders who actually practice Democratic Socialism. He's very liberal for an American presidential candidate, but he is no where as left-leaning as he seems to think he is.

there you go then, democratic socialist is socialist and communist isn't socialist. I think that is what you were saying. no?

My understanding of socialism- property, utilities and corporations are owned AND maintained by the government. Which is how that whole tyranny thing comes about... because if its maintained by the public and not the government all of a sudden you have something eerily similar to anarchy.

of course in anarchy and a republic you have rights to personal property though which is something socialism seems to stray from. A lot of Americans have this weird idea that the US is a democracy too. of course its just an oligarchy but the form of government its supposed to be representative of is a republic, not democratic or a democracy or ran by the masses. probably what most people think that would define what they are participating in if they knew the difference is a republic but then people seem to have a really tight leash on this whole voting thing, because it's sacred or something even though no one seems to ever see any results from it, its still sacred.

I find politics ad a game of poker, can we fold fold and start a new hand?

Hillary is a crook and should be I'm jail

Bernie is just old, though makes some good points

Trump is a bully and makes great points, but probably won't live up to them

I'm not going to get into the politics themselves and I also know Arch has responded in the mean time, even so I still wanted to share...

First and foremost: the staff aren't robots, and I think that clearly shows (duh) when Arch responded up there. Did he make a mistake? I'm not too sure to be honest, he could have left out the first comment but yeah: isn't hindsight a wonderful thing, with hindsight everyone can be right Problem is that you never know how a discussion is going to turn out. Heck, I wasn't there so I don't know for sure but I can't help wonder what would have happened if you hadn't used the word 'hate' but presented your opinion in a less forceful way.

Major problem with these things, as mentioned by Arch as well, is that not everyone will be enjoying such a discussion. You can clearly see yourself that as soon as Arch mentioned that he doesn't play MC for political debates he immediately got support from a regular player.

That is not saying I don't agree with you, I do. And I also know that it's not exactly easy or fun when you're corrected while you got the impression that you're honestly not doing anything wrong (yes, I know about the rule regarding politics in public chat).

However, I cannot form a full opinion on this because I'm missing out on information. For example: it would make a huge difference for me if Arch was already there during these events, or if you were already discussing politics and at some point got reported for it.

First, I do agree that it might have been better if it were left out but that's talking behind the facts, and always easy. But most of all I do not perceive this as a personal attack, not at all.

In fact, since you like delicate subjects I'll address another one: I can't help wonder if the reason that you felt attacked is primarily caused by the fact that Arch corrected you and told you to stop the political argument. I've been there myself once and yeah Looking back that's exactly what happened to me.

But bottom line: you can also turn Arch' comment completely around "Not sure that you do" as in merely sharing his personal opinion that he's not too sure about it. I don't pick up any implications with that at all, and personally I think you only picked those implications up because of what happened next.

No, you were being kept out of public chat. You weren't silenced: if you wanted to you could have started said group chat with the people you were talking to (you could even have included Arch!) and asked them if they'd like to continue the discussion.

There is a difference here. For me being silenced means that you got muted. And that didn't happen.

Well... Normally it is, but that's not saying it never happens either. The major aspect to keep in mind is that you're not alone in chat. And although you may feel strongly about the need for discussions that doesn't mean this opinion is shared by others. And that can result in a situation where you might have a good time discussing while others may wonder "when they're finally going to stop?", only to get tempted to hit /ignore or maybe even /report.

So yeah... I don't think you're overreacting, I think you're sharing your frustration in a very calm, mature and respectful way and I like that. But I also don't agree with you, I think Arch did a very good job here by asking you in a friendly way not to continue and he even provided an alternative: group chat.

I honestly wonder what would have happened if you had started group chat and would also have invited him

PS: I didn't vote because I feel this isn't a yes/no kind of situation.

I like the balance the UK has worked out when we've had Labour governments in the past. Fund the NHS, the rail network, stuff like that, give as many worker's rights as you can, but keep people able to do whatever the hell they want with land and able to set up businesses. It's hard to explain, but it worked. We haven't had a government like that since the 80s, when Margaret Thatcher came to power and destroyed the country because 'Socialism is evil and we have to destroy the USSR', and Labour shifted to the right because of Tony Blair and his 'Liberal Socialism', which wasn't that at all and they were just less radical conservatives. He was even best friends with George Bush and put our soldiers alongside his in Iraq - a true Labour Prime Minister would never do that, they'd look for a peaceful and ethical solution. We didn't follow the US into Vietnam, they didn't follow us into the Falklands, we didn't have to follow them into Iraq. Labour were the ones to deny the UK going into Vietnam, they stuck to their core value of pacifism.

I'm hoping that Jeremy Corbyn can maintain his lead over the Conservatives by the time the next general election rolls around (which could be anywhere from next month to May 2020 depending on the EU referendum result) and turn the country back into the Socialist paradise we were shaping up to be. It works for the other Germanic nations (Sweden, Norway, Denmark), I don't see why it wouldn't work for us.

only awesome people do

I have sympathy for you on this one, and I think most of us reading agree on the mistake made, as unintentional as it probably was.

For me, it's uncomfortable when someone in authority (here a mod) expresses both a personal opinion and an authoritative action in the same sentence/line etc. Moderators have to be really careful to separate the player-hat from the mod-hat.

I'm also glad that our staff is aware of this and sensitive to it.

edit: ugh...necro'd, sorry thought this was a fresh thread