I identify myself as a homosexual.

I’ve heard homo being used in a derogatory way as an insult. That usage should not be tolerated.

Retarded is just a medical term, yet you can use it as an insult as well.

That is what this “specification of conditional” aims at. It’s fine to use the word in a descriptive way, you’re just not allowed to go around angrily calling people “fucking zionist”

From the link of this post that you could have clicked on:

Twitch specifies this is conditional: you’re allowed to discuss the political movement of that name, but not “attack or demean another individual or group of people on the basis of their background or religious belief.”

If you had looked at the link of this post, you would have read:

Twitch specifies this is conditional: you’re allowed to discuss the political movement of that name, but not “attack or demean another individual or group of people on the basis of their background or religious belief.”

I.e. nothing is masqueraded here as long as they keep to this. This seems to be a reasonable policy. I’ve seen a couple of instances of people being derogatorily called zionists just for supporting the people of current Israel not being pushed away out of their now decades-old homes, which is hard to still call Zionist if they don’t support any further expansion and any offensive military action.

There’s almost never anything gained to use “Zionist” on someone as if saying “asshole”.

What should happen to Palestinians if Israel is chosen? What should happen to Israelis if Palestine is chosen?

Most of Israel’s weapons come from the US. It’s very well possible for the US congress/government to say “no more weapons if you use them for agression”.

It’s naive to think the US is a democracy. It’s mostly an oligarchy with a few democratic features. The only choice is to vote Harris, but she is only barely less right-wing than Trump, from a European perspective. She will continue the oligarchy.

The only hope there is, is that all the people in the US start to understand they don’t have a democracy. The vote for D needs to become overwhelming. Then, R will die out and an alternative choice on the further left side may emerge as a serious contender. Then, this further left choice needs to become overwhelming.

Eventually, this will lead to real change.

Why this must work like this is because the US’ democratic system only supports 2 parties with its first-past-the-post system. Until a reform of this voting system takes place, towards a ranked choice style system, there can’t be good representation. While any organization into a limited number of parties inherently means that almost no one will be represented perfectly, the less parties there are, the more the average divergence of reprentation there will be. 2 is just an unbelievably small number of opinion groupings to choose from, much too little to get anywhere near good representation.

It’s not a democracy if the choices available don’t work for the common person, which they both don’t. Democracy means that what the majority says, goes. Which is clearly not what’s happening, because the majority wants to get rid of billionaires and do something about climate change and so on and so on.

Of course, but I’m talking about what was literally said. The further reasons, like you describe, are easy to deduce as well, but I was just responding to the comment that didn’t seem to understand anything, neither the overt nor the covert reasons.

I’m confused how you don’t see the logic. It says right there.

He claims that the lost “potential population” from teen parents will cost the state revenue and political representation.

A person pays taxes. Less people = less tax income. More people = more tax income.

It’s entirely idiotic, but it’s not hard to understand?

The good of the many outweighs the suffering of the few. Achieving perfect homogeneity is desired. Or something like that.