As they said of Superman, "[He] fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American Way."

This site is candy ass and bans people who state about greedy Jews. Sure is to chicken to allow true debate of black vs whute

"What beliefs do the IDW promote that seem controversial?"

IDW (or any group of people) promote might making right as a standard rule, as if the software loaded into each individual is loaded with this virus. The controversy is nearly absent, but that does not mean that there is no controversy. Might does not make right, the opposite is true, so those (in any group) who promote the false narrative don't "seem controversial" among themselves. The controversy is only visible to those who have identified the virus and have killed it, so as to then allow the true software to emerge from the dark web of deceit.

1. Ubiquitous parroting of the Might Makes Right non-principle as if it were the governing law of human beings.

2. Almost completely absent Golden Rule principle failing to inspire controversy because the false narrative is so ubiquitous and internally defended by it's promoters.

"Do you think they uphold these principles for all of their beliefs or are they still limiting the clarity of their statements so as to not be canceled? If so, which beliefs are they hiding?"

"They" (those who promote Might Makes Right: a non-principle dependent upon deception and other criminal means) will be canceled as so often is demonstrated for any failure to promote that narrative. If "they" are hiding any beliefs I suppose they could be hiding the belief that they are promoting deception: self-deception. What would they need to hide from those who know about the nature of their non-principle? If they admit that they are promoting deception internally, yet they still promote deception externally, it looks the same from outside the deceiver. If they admit externally (stop hiding the fact that they know they are in the business of promoting a deception), then they stop hiding the "secret."

"How can the IDW convert an intellectual discussion into activists who are willing to engage with those who peddle false narratives?"

Those in or out of the group called IDW are obviously going to have a hard time "converting" or convincing other people to disengage a false narrative if they themselves promote (peddle) a false narrative. People who are infected with the Might Makes Right non-principle virus share the same devious methods required to maintain the deception internally as well as externally. Honor among thieves is a strict set of rules, and no one is allowed to defect. A fellow deceiver attempting to convince another fellow deceiver to "engage with those who peddle false narratives" is to put it mildly: insincere. To put it bluntly "they" first ignore facts that unmask their dogma, "they" then resort to changing the subject from the data that unmasks their dogma when ignoring it does not work, and routinely the subject matter introduced into the flow of data is called a personal attack, also known as an ad hominem attack, changing the subject from the facts that matter which expose the dogma, to made up fictional personal faults of anyone who dares to expose the false narrative. So, how does that work, do as I say not as a do? Who in IDW ever tries to convert an intellectual discussion into activists who are willing to engage with those who peddle false narratives? Where is this ever attempted? Having an example of this happening could help reach the stated goal, so as to see why it fails, how it fails, or how it succeeds, and why it succeeds.

"If the IDW is a prototype of something to come, what does it need to embrace to have meaningful impact"

The facts that matter in any case of any controversial phenomenon, religion, science, medicine, education, government (law), etc. can only have a meaningful impact if the facts are discovered and acknowledged as facts that matter in the case.

Case in point: What is meant by "meaningful impact?"

If it is hatched from a Might Makes Right perspective (the dominant perspective) then "meaningful impact" must be defined by those in that group.

If it is instead defined by someone in the group that has discovered, acknowledged, and shed the Might Makes Right dogma, then "meaningful impact" means in no uncertain terms an increase in the number of people shedding the Might Makes Right dogma.

"As the Progressive Left has advanced their ideology in the past year, has the IDW kept up with the challenge of presenting an alternative view?"

Why not present a viewpoint that will effectively defend against the criminal Marxists whose Might Make Right dogma, combine with the Conservative Right Might Makes Right dogma, and deter further criminal acts perpetrated by both sides of the same coin, acts that are thinly hidden behind a cloak of fraudulent legality?

How can the IDW convert an intellectual discussion into activists who are willing to engage with those who peddle false narratives?

Ive just started a discussion on this..
[slug.com]