Religion And Politics Discussions

Well I don't allow anyone to censor my legitimate speech - unless I'm using profanity or saying something obscene, no... let's see you enforce the rules, because I'll be continuing to discuss religion and politics on this site when the topic is relevant. The policy you just linked is fairly new, it was created 7/22/2024, so like... 5 months ago. What are the odds that overly broad, poorly worded policy was written by a brilliant legal mind and social scientist, vs. some random dunce mod on this site being paid 15$ an hour or something? 
It's a nonsensical rule - this conversation we're having now is political, within the context of this site. The posting of site rules itself is political. Almost every conversation is in some way religious or political. 
If you want to ban me next time I start talking religion or politics do it, you'll probably be doing me a favor in saving me time coming to these forums, but I will not be censoring my speech to conform with your ill conceived notions of how socialization ought to work. 
Carry onward!

That policy is not new but has been updated that recently. Those restrictions have been in place most of the site's existence.

...

Thank you Martin. That's the reason WHY I posted the rules at post 29. They were put in place in 2009. I have a pic for the OP & his friends. I can't take credit for it.... the source is from Al Czervick. This should be posted in all the kiddy threads.

Wait!..... you want religious & political posts?....here you go. Thoughts & prayers should go out to all the people of New Orleans for the tragedy that occurred 9 hrs ago. Thoughts & prayers go out to the people of Germany in which the same thing happened to them 10 days ago. Thoughts & prayers from all of chess.com goes out to the people of the most recent plane crash. WHY?....because all those victims probably played chess,....and many of them had Pets. Sometimes the best posts on religion & politics is to SAY NOTHING!

The "laissez-faire" parenting style (allowing kids to do as they please with minimal guidance or rules, essentially taking a hands off approach) has been studied. Children of these parents usually have problems with impulse control, make poor decisions, and don't recognize boundaries properly... Because part of the role of parenting is to set boundaries and instill discipline, which is just entirely necessary for learning to function in society... and infact even animals do this.

Now the opposite approach is authoritarian, being too overbearing basically... that's not good either, but I don't think I do that. Usually when I speak on these topics it's after someone has brought the topic up.

You can have your philosophy, but the evidence looks to me the approach you suggest is not actually ideal... yours an opinion at best, I'm not beholden to it. Keep trying though.

On another note... here is a prime example of how a regular conversation can easily diverge into other topics such as psychology, sociology, and politics / religion are 1 small step away from that. The rule as it's stated is not tenable, it's way too broad and just up to the random whims how it's interpreted or enforced. Not exactly supreme court quality stuff we're talking about

How many wars were fought in England, Europe, the Middle East, & the roman empire over religion, & politics?

If a nation-state forbade the discussion of politics and religion among its citizens, it would be seen as an egregious human-rights violation by an oppressive dictatorship. Only because Chess.com enjoys the protection of their freedom of speech are they even in a position to limit the speech of others. Chess.com didn't grow in an environment where their speech was regulated and censored, and neither can anyone ever expect to flourish in a place where their freedom is limited by some greedy corporations or tyrants or dictators.

For some reason, because Chess.com profits off of its users, it's seen as more legitimate for them to artificially limit our freedom of expression on its platform? Since they profit from us, shouldn't they be more concerned, not less, to ensure us the greatest liberality that can be granted under law, and not to impose arbitrary limitations against us in the very categories of speech that are the most essential to having a self-governed and responsible community?

GREEDY CORPORATIONS?

Somebody spelled hamster wrong

It's a meme. Are you going to say that "Can I haz cheezburger?" is also misspelled?

All your base are belong to us...

That's a ridiculous extrapolation. By that logic, let's extrapolate further...I should be able to visit your house, come in uninvited, and shout "Shadowtanuki hates kittens" incessantly without repercussions. If you do not allow this, you are not extending me the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment, and are ergo reprehensible.

It's actually a ridiculous analogy since
a) this international, public forum is a house only in the loosest sense one can possibly use that word;
b) the thing about kittens you'd be shouting is pointless, obnoxious, and there's no moral relevance to it or need for it - political and religious speech, on principle, are none of these... and the rule makes no attempt to distinguish whether the speech is any of these;
c) a person could still argue with you that you should allow certain forms of speech in your house, the mere fact you have the legal ability to do a thing does not automatically make what you're doing rational or justified, or give you some special immunity to rational argument, or obligate us to approve of it, nor is shadowtanuki making a legal argument - it's more of a moral argument that references the legal system (which itself is built on a moral foundation);
d) the people on this forum aren't uninvited, they are invited. 
e) we are right now discussing a rules legality, and referencing the US's legal system.... this conversation is a form of political speech... You can hardly avoid discussing these topics, they permeate everything. it is an absurd rule, which could only be enforced selectively at best. And that just leaves people having no idea where they stand / what the rule actually means in practice. And that's just a bad rule, technically. 
Keep trying

Both are private, not public. Shadow is claiming that entity X should give free speech rights because the government does and they should follow suit. What you are posting right now is pointless and obnoxious without a need for it...the analogy holds up pretty well.

The guideline is very easy to follow, which is why most posters here never run afoul of it. If you happen to be a poster with a religious or political agenda to push, then the guideline becomes difficult. The answer is simple, drop the agenda and save it for your arguments with Uncle Joe at Thanksgiving.

Your "keep trying" mantra is getting pretty silly at this point. Surely you can muster up some other catch phrase or something.

Another very shallow analysis, as usual. Again, it's an ongoing area of legal activity and contention whether social media sites and other large scale public sites are truly private property - they exist in cyberspace, for starters. But there have been a number of legal arguments and legislative committees formed to discuss this matter in recent times. It's not a closed matter. You keep repeating this like there's absolutely no reason question whether... the gathering of millions of people from around the world in cyberspace is really occurring on private property - I mean, where is the property? The internet is legally a public good, you are aware of that, aren't you? Infact, nowdays even the servers aren't located on site, i.e. not on company property, so....
But this is dogmatic and misses the point, the law must adapt to new circumstances brought on by technology - why did the government establish free speech law? It's not just an arbitrary and meaningless legality, it's justified by underlying moral philosophy. And Shadow can appeal to that underlying morality without even making a legal argument, that makes perfect sense. Though he could make the legal argument too, as plenty of people are.

So no, you fail.

Conformity with tyranny is not a virtue.

I'd like to point out that, at this very moment, you're pushing a political agenda - you're arguing in favor of a certain set of policies that govern users on this site. And to justify this you're appealing to self-interest (this ease you talk about) and social norms (what most posters do). What ideology values self interest and social norms? Well, atheism for starters.

Everything is in some way political and religious, there is no escaping that.

Keep trying!

PS - consistency is considered one of the most important principles in branding. I'm actually branding my pwnage into you, and based on your response I'd say it's working!

Lol. The only one you are owning here is yourself.

But go ahead and keep crusading against the horrible tyranny of chess.com. You sound like a typical wet-behind-the-ears community college student. The drama of it is laughable.

Given the absurdity of your thinking, you'll have to pardon me if I don't pay any attention to what you think "fails".