1943 Communist Party Directive: "label obstructionists fascists"

The reason blackface is considered racist is because in the past it was used to maliciously mock black people. However, the fact that it was once used for such a purpose does not mean any future uses will also be malicious.This leads to a broader point, is jokingly mocking race and/or culture actually racist? Banter is a way to bond and has no ill will behind it, merely a desire to be witty and funny (if actual banter rather than mean-spirited insults, which is a fine line that some would argue is subjective). Someone who identifies with something that is being mocked in good spirit may be upset by being mocked, however they misunderstand the intent and why people find it funny.

In Marx's essay "On the Jewish Question" he states the following: "What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible."Given the current political climate, do you think Marx's modern followers would condemn or excuse his words and why?

The U.K. government has announced plans to tackle "content that is harmful but not necessarily illegal." This will include trolling and disinformation. In other words, if the government decides that what you are saying is false, they will force social media companies to remove your content. This gives the government nightmarish powers to decide what is and isn't true and what can and can not be discussed. Moreover, social media which does not comply with these regulations will be blocked in Britain.https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/the-uk-is-going-after-big-tech-over-harmful-content.html

Western liberal society has changed and removed a great deal of the natural selection and sexual selection pressures on our species. How have the natural selection and sexual selection pressures on humanity changed and what effects could this have in the future?

People from more authoritarian states tend to skew more towards authoritarian side of the political spectrum. This is in part simply because the acceptable parameters of debate; the "Overton Window", skews authoritarian. As such, does an influx of immigrants from more authoritarian regimes move the political build-up of our voters in the direction of authoritarianism?Note: I mean liberal in the English sense of the word; libertarian, egalitarian enlightenment values. I do not mean the "Liberal Democrat" political party.

To be clear, I'm not condoning their use, I'm merely investigating the concept.

Females generally can't meet the male military standards for fitness. Is it fair then, to assign the females that cannot meet male standards different military roles to males which require less fitness? What military roles might these be? Should less fit men also be able to undertake these roles? (edited because I was wrong about U.S. army fitness standards differing by gender, they only differ for the Marines, and even this is being stopped)

If you could create a society of any kind, how would it be? What would differ from our society and what would stay the same?

Many radical life extension technologies have been proposed; genetic modification through CRISPR, nanotechnology, mechanical enhancements etc. What are the potential benefits and costs of such extensive modification of the human organism?

Presently, the U.S. is the dominant power in the world, arguably even the global hegemon. Would things be better if Russia or China were the dominant power? How would things be different and why?

World government means uniformity of governance; everywhere would be ruled by a single government. This removes the ability for diversity of governance; different methods of rule under different leadership can not exist simultaneously. Both homogeneity of governance and diversity of governance have their advantages and disadvantages, which do you think is preferable and why?

Some information on the stages of development can be found here:https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth

What qualities make a good debater? What does a good debater do that a lesser debater doesn't?

The idea of this thread is to practice devil's advocacy: the practice of defending a view that you don't hold.The first poster makes an absurd proposition and then those that reply to it will argue for why the preposterous view is correct. Feel free to make as many threads and reply to as many threads as you wish.E.g.User56: Devils advocate: All pregnancies should end in abortion.FromWithin: You're right, humans are destroying the environment and killing all the wildlife. Once we are gone another race, perhaps crab-people, will evolve that actually properly look after the environment. Furthermore, did you know that childbirth results in 18 years of suffering?

Imagine that the mainstream parties didn't exist in your nation. What kind of political party would you like to replace them? What values would they hold and what policies would they implement?

Which value do you hold above all others? Examples of values might include freedom, order, equality, utilitarianism, scientific progress, spirituality and so on.What would a society that holds your highest value as it's highest value look like in practice? Can you think of any possible problems with such a society?

Is it possible to perform proximately evil acts in order to achieve an ultimate good? Are there any issues with adopting such a position?

I was thinking, it might be interesting to have debates using voice chat. This doesn't need to be a site feature (though it'd be nice!) we can simply use the below link (or a similar service) to create online audio recordings and share the URL in the debate. Would anyone be interested in trying this?https://vocaroo.com/

Does facial recognition technology contribute to an Orwellian surveillance state or is it a convenient new security feature?(I am aware that this is not the first implementation of facial recognition technology)

Do countries need to have border protection in order to prevent uncontrolled population growth though immigration? Is freedom of movement more important? Are there any negative effects to unfettered movement? Are there any negative effects to enforcing borders?

For certain jobs (e.g. military and police) candidates need to meet a certain fitness level. In many cases these requirements are different for men and women, for example in the British military, Canadian military and Australian police. Does it make sense that a man at a greater fitness level than that of a passing woman is rejected by the recruiter due to their fitness level?

I've often seen this idea pushed in SJW circles: that it isn't possible for minorities to be racist against whites, nor is is possible for women to be sexist against men. Usually the reason given is that women and minorities are oppressed and hence lack the power to be racist/sexist. What do you think?