The SA Politics Thread Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Galactica said:
I'm talking of a situation where a clear breaking of the rules is reported and a mod rejects the report and adds a sarcastic comment to the rejection.
Click to expand...
Okay. So you are trying to be the Karen. Yeah, I cannot support that. Good on the mod .
 
rietrot said:
Yes
Yes

If you still support the ANC or EFF you deserve it if people ridicule you.
Click to expand...
Ok I got you, If a person holds View point A (unpopular) the forum rules don't apply, they can be attacked personally. But if another person holds View point B (popular) attacking them will see the rules being enforced.

I think you clarified it for me than any Mod could, thank you.
 
Galactica said:
Ok I got you, If a person holds View point A (unpopular) the forum rules don't apply, they can be attacked personally. But if another person holds View point B (popular) attacking them will see the rules being enforced.

I think you clarified it for me than any Mod could, thank you.
Click to expand...
No. If you hold a legitimately stupid viewpoint. Th has been proven to be stupid over the last 30 years and you are still trying to defend it, then people will call you stupid.

It is not just some unpopular viewpoint A or some nonsense.
 
So the rules are applied depending on what side of the spectrum your philosophy is and whether the forum majority and moderation are on your side or not.


Religious- Atheist
DA - ANC/EFF
Christian - Muslim
Dem - Republican
West/NATO - East
Black - White
Progressive - Verkrampte
Liberal - Conservative
 
rietrot said:
No. If you hold a legitimately stupid viewpoint. Th has been proven to be stupid over the last 30 years and you are still trying to defend it, then people will call you stupid.

It is not just some unpopular viewpoint A or some nonsense.
Click to expand...
No, you are oversimplifying it. Apartheid for example has been proven to be bad for many years now yet defending it on here is tolerated and opposing it is frowned upon.
 
Galactica said:
No, you are oversimplifying it. Apartheid for example has been proven to be bad for many years now yet defending it on here is tolerated and opposing it is frowned upon.
Click to expand...
Apartheid ended in 1990. I have not seen anyone defending Apartheid. Obvious factual statements like the NP was more competent at running things and did a better job at delivering services is not defending apartheid or the bad aspects there of
 
rietrot said:
Apartheid ended in 1990. I have not seen anyone defending Apartheid. Obvious factual statements like the NP was more competent at running things and did a better job at delivering services is not defending apartheid or the bad aspects there of
Click to expand...
I "arrest" my case. :giggle:
 
:unsure: :cautious:

The Office of the Public Protector has cleared President Cyril Ramaphosa of wrongdoing in the Phala Phala burglary scandal, finding that he fulfilled his obligations to declare his interests in his farms and report the matter to the police.

Under Acting Public Protector, advocate Kholeka Gcaleka, a report was circulated to all parties for their final inputs this week, News24 has established.

While the report is a significant victory for Ramaphosa, who has maintained his innocence in the affair, it does raise serious questions for the head of the Presidential Protection Service, Major General Wally Rhoode, who Gcaleka found abused his position in launching an off-the-books investigation that utilised police resources.

www.news24.com

Public Protector clears Ramaphosa of wrongdoing in Phala Phala burglary scandal | News24

President Cyril Ramaphosa fulfilled his obligations in declaring in a confidential register his interests in Ntaba Nyoni Estates – the company that owns his Phala Phala farm – and has satisfied requirements to report the crime by informing his head of security.
www.news24.com www.news24.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X