I applaud Carleas’s rational insights and opinions on free-speech.
This may very be the last free-speech designated online philosophy forum and given how old this place is that makes it very unique or special. My respect for you Carleas has only increased despite our more obvious ideological and philosophical disagreements.
Can’t believe how anyone can be this naïve…but since this may get me in trouble…I’ll let Zero-Sum explain it, with his more vulgar style.
You see nothing…no evidence of dominance anywhere?
Then, I will certainly not point it out.
Jews are not a race. So critiquing them is not “racist”. I am not a racists if I critique Islam, or Christianity or Marxism…or Buddhism.
Semites are tribes belonging to a race…and I never commented on Semites whether they were Muslim, Christian, Jewish…or atheists.
That Jews control a majority and lion share of United States wealth is an uncontested fact yet is never discussed publicly. 
A conversation for another time.
Call it a soapbox or stage or whatever you like. You’re providing it.
Google bots are scraping it.
I don’t agree with that. CNN is in a position to present various ideas and to provide an extensive context and fact check. They ought to do it.
OTOH, you don’t provide context nor do you validate any claims.
You are an individual running this forum. You can shut it down and you can boot off anyone that you want. Or you can provide them with a soapbox. It’s your decision.
Sure. The posts can be full of bad ideas. But once you make the decision to let them talk, you need to police them so that the posts don’t descend into insult and mockery. Which they do regularly. (Like those posts with a caricature of “eternal jew” superimposed on photographs of real people.)
A “report button” doesn’t cut it. Active moderation is required.
Of course you do. He lets you run around like a spoiled kid in a candy store.
Not entirely true, I was recently temporarily banned.
Have any arguments against me? Didn’t think so.
A ban which you mocked as a minor inconvenience.
Here again, I think you are using multiple definitions of the word “Jew”, which ever suits your present need. You claim that you mean an ideology, but I don’t believe you don’t have numbers for ideology, you have numbers for ancestry. I also don’t think Zero Sum is using the term in the way you mean it, because he’s overtly and happily racist.
Let’s call it “an internet backwater that isn’t even the top Google result for its own name.” Let’s not exaggerate what’s going on here: ILP gives the ideas barely more exposure than writing in a journal. Literally standing on a soapbox in the park would reach more people.
That’s surprising. What is your goal? CNN hosting Richard Spencer almost certainly does more harm than me hosting Zero_Sum, even if CNN does fact-checking and talking head rebuttals, and I let whoever feels like wading through ZS’s dreck respond. It almost certainly does much more harm. The best fact checking, the best rebuttals, is only going to be 99% effective, and 1% of CNN’s viewership is orders of magnitude larger than 100% of ILP’s audience.
So what’s the basis for the idea that ILP is wrong to give three racist teenagers a platform to share their ideas with ~50 other people looking to argue, while CNN would be right to give white supremacist Mr. Rogers an audience of millions?
Hey, if people don’t like my opinions, beliefs, or values I welcome an open debate.
You pick the spot and subject where I’ll hop on board.
Or, are you and others just going to complain calling for my immediate censorship where we need to call a wambulance? 
Unlike the rest of you anti-free-speech advocates I always welcome debate, discussion, and conversation. My door and windows are always open being completely transparent to all.
To have consistent free speech which treats everyone fairly. Not a free speech which I turn off when it displeases me.
If it turns out that when presented with context and an honest presentation of the facts, the people want to believe that stuff … then so be it. The people express the path that they want to follow.
The size of the audience is irrelevant.
“Free speech for me, not for thee.” - Phyllo.
What a crock of shit. I just said the complete opposite of that.
You did? That’s great, you have nothing left to complain about then.
So then it has nothing to do with platform, right? Audience 0 versus audience 1 million, the difference is whether the audience is “presented with context and an honest presentation of the facts” alongside the bad ideas.
I’m not sure what this means for ILP. I’m no better placed than anyone else to provide context and facts in response to bad ideas here, and any user can provide whatever context they see as appropriate. Is the claim that, so long as I am unwilling to guarantee that context and facts will accompany certain bad ideas, I should ban those ideas?
(Also, to clarify, purely insulting and incendiary racism is prohibited, and I will ban users I see doing it.)
Of course what makes threads of this sort particularly prone to controversy is that proposing a discussion [or even a debate] about what a member here secretly is can lead to all sorts of…mischief?
One might begin a thread called “is Zero_Sum secretly a homosexual pedophile?” or one called “is Peter Kropotkin secretly a member of the Trump administration?” or “is iambiguous secretly Satyr?”
Merely to raise it as a possibility is to suggest there are at least two sides.
That’s why any number of blacks might reject a discussion/debate of whether whites are of superior intelligence, or gays of whether homosexuality is a sick, unnatural perversion.
You drive away people who want to have a discussion when you are insulting.
Your rudeness needs to be kept in check.
You’re really stuck on that word ‘platform’.
Right.
You’re limited to policing rudeness.
And even that doesn’t happen here.
And you see it only if someone presses the “report button”?
What does “incendiary racism” mean exactly?
These days, the same people who reject those discussions also claim to be in favor of free speech. 
Here’s some interesting stats:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Income_Ranking_by_Religious_Group_-_2000.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion
Per capita, Jewish Americans are by far and away, the wealthiest Americans.
If you don’t think that in and of itself plays a major role in shaping America’s foreign and domestic policy, then I don’t know what to tell you.
But that’s just scratching the surface of their wealth and power, the tip of the Goldberg, err iceberg.
That’s true. Questions of this sort can become controversial in and of themselves. Chances are though that you are neither black nor homosexual yourself.
After all, once arguments that blacks are inferior to whites or homosexuality is an unnatural perversion do become open to discussion and debate, the slope can become really, really slippery, really, really fast.
Me? Well, even here “I” am no less “fractured and fragmented”. I’m not able to come down squarely on one side or the other, to insist that you are either “one of us” or “one of them”. There is simply too much complexity embedded in the mix of genes and memes.
All we have is the capacity to agree or disagree regarding what is in fact true. Zero_Sum either is a homosexual pedophile or he is not. But those who dislike him who know that he is not [if in fact he is not] may well succeed in raising the question as legitimate.
