Stop spamming REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. Your posts should be deleted.
t*nkies have taken over
I really wish mods wouldn't delete post history when banning someone. They do that on Mark/v/ all the time and it's the fucking worst for following a discussion. Only reason they should ever be doing that is actual spam.
It was because of the "Hapas are superior" spam. It was done through Tor so all the other posts by Tor users were also deleted.
This. The minute flavour differences between the different brands of red fash trash are irrelevant, even though they fight one another over them passionately - as all religions do.
wait but arent Hapas actually superior?
I wasn't being able to post for some reason. It said "Flood detected. Post discarded" or something. That's why I tried several times.
Jew mods can’t take the heat. They want to destroy this board
Because nazi faggots keep spamming "fuck niggers" "niggers are subhuman" "J00S" Or some variation thereof as responses to other posts. They dont add anything to the conversation, they just shout about how this or that group or how lefties are subhuman. They are all people who post here without any other postinghistory before that and all they do is spam the same nazi shit a few hours. People on here rightfully report them and I clean it up.
The threads are shit and should not exist at all, therefore they are deleted t. not a mod
Agreed with that deleting posts (especially longer ones) which garnered chains of legit conversation in reply is annoying and disruptive, restrict deletions to spam and unremarkable low-effort flotsam. Just tossing out bans and maybe sassy edits is fine tho.
Go away Jim.
These fuckin' leftcoms, man.
Probably anarkiddies, leftcoms don't really use the red fascist moniker, they will just say the USSR wasn't really socialist
Kind of like how it's impossible to have a left-wing anything without authoritarian censorship.
And if you press them to describe what the USSR was instead of what it was not, they'll say it was authoritarian capitalism AKA fascism, drenched in a coat of socialist regalia and rhetoric, hence red fascism.
See also north korea for another example.
You have become what Zig Forums was. You’re ruining this board by being so censorious and overmoderating. This isn’t reddit faggot
He knows he's a mod, it says so in his trip
The disconnect here seems to be that you are under the impression that political discussion looks like what Zig Forums does. Bitching about niggers, jews, and cucks spoiling your chances of ever finding a white boyfriend-free girl isnot actually politics.
Critical support for mods in their struggle against nazbol imperialism.
Shitposting is a spook. It's an abstract concept, another man's trash…
The new blade runner sucked ass
That's not red fash, it's red feudalism.
thank you moder
Keep up the good work, it's a leftist discussion board, not a glory hole in the back of some dark seedy bar to dawb and smear ones inane ramblings and abuse on.
Are critiques of Islamization allowed? Is Zig Forums also cucked into the liberal existentialist view that Islam is inherently "progressive?" I ask because apparently Zig Forums bans for calling reactionary petromonarchy cults as such.
If anything it's some sort of absolutist fascism with chinese characteristics.
I'd rather describe them simply as "shithole".
I'd say it's more like that neo-monarchist route you can take in the HoI4 dlc, but with a thin veneer of socialist aesthetics
The one accused of being a "monarch" isn't even the fucking head of state, which is by definition the position of a monarch. His father and grandfather also held different positions than him which were not "inherited". And there are other republics where a son or brother took over the same position as the previous leader yet nobody calls them monarchies. This "shithole" has a much higher standard of living than any capitalist shithole would when faced with the same conditions. Unlike several other ML states they actually did away with one man management of the workplace and implemented a new democratic system called the Taean Work System.
The mode of production in which an aristocracy is the ruling class. Inb4 the Kim dynasty is not aristocrats.
Being elected or appointed to government positions by the Supreme People's Assembly and the party central committee hardly makes you an aristocrat. Never mind that 70 percent of the population are workers in the cities rather than small scale farmers, and that the landlords were either killed, expelled, or expropriated the 40s and 50s.
Being a dynastic ruler who lives parasitically off the labor of others by virtue of having an army of thugs certainly does.
Political families exist everywhere, even in USSR, Maoist China, Hoxha Albania, and present day Cuba. That doesn't make them aristocratic dynasties. Do you also consider Raul Castro who is still party leader to be an aristocrat? Unlike Kim, he actually holds the same position as his predecessor. Half of the work done by this "army of thugs" is farming and construction, and there are days in every month when government and party officials are forced to work in fields and factories.
He is the leader of the workers party and is considered a representative of the people. This includes writing political and ideological work, which suggests progressive measures and and policies which could be undertaken. And giving field guidance at workplaces and farms, which is also done by other party officials. Basically as described in the first image here: Either way, claiming that a modern industrialized country magically has a feudal mode of production because of one guy is simply retarded. There are no term limits and re-elections occur with every SPA session. Not surprising considering that even polls of defectors show that he is popular with majority of the population. There are plenty of communist leaders in other countries who were also "elected for life" as a result of this. pri.org/stories/2013-08-30/kim-jong-un-approval-rating-over-50-percent-poll-defectors-finds
It wasn't made by the government. It was made by a Korean American who went to Seoul and interviewed a lawyer who specializes in defector cases and also defectors who want to go back. Next you're going to call this report from fucking CNN tankie propaganda.
Y'know, on further examination I'd say this thread was DOA. It looks like tankies took a shitpost seriously and it spiralled out of control from there. You/some other juche was the first to imagespam like a Zig Forumsgoblin tho.
Nah man. The posts I'm talking about are clearly not spam. They are people who posted opinions that the majority of repliers disagreed with. And I'd like to read what was said but can't because moderators thought it wise to delete unpopular opinions.
I don't get. I just… I just can't. It's like people go out of their way to confirm the worst stereotypes about leftists being snowflakes who can't deal with dissent and disagreement.
The deleted posts I'm talking about are CLEARLY not spam. Worse, you know this but are pretending not to. People were addressing the deleted posts by quoting different points with greentext and so on. It's posts that a lot of people disagreed with that got culled. That "we just delete spam" bullshit may works with others who pay less attention or don't care about freeeze peach (and they call it), but I care… and I notice what you're doing. And no, I realize not only you don't give a fuck, you laugh at people who genuinely care about values and are not consequentialists.
All posts made through Tor are from the same IP. The spam was coming through Tor, and when the mod clicked "delete all posts from this IP" to clean up the spam, every other post made from Tor was also deleted, even those that were not spam.
Imagine basing your world view on anecdotes, obsolete tankie
Is this some kind of troll thread? Clutching pearls about a handful of one-line shitposts getting pruned while on the other board, posting anything critical of the Daddy Dictators gets you NKVD'd and your entire post history deleted?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.
In the anti moderator view it doesn't really make a difference what you're banned for per say, the point is to oppose bans in general.
Isn't being able to refute/answer common criticism part of having a valid ideology? Obviously threads that are just racial slurs can be defeated with self moderation by showing there is no argument, or by debunking racial realism. That would do so much more to extinguish these memes than banning or locking threads.
That shit is not criticism, just noise. At the heart of the problem is the plain fact that Zig Forumstards cannot tell the difference between reason and memes.
You can't reason someone out of a position that they did not arrive at by way of reason. Race "realism" has been utterly BTFO at every level numerous times here alone, yet the same retards keep throwing it out there daily. Unfortunately, debunking that shit every time takes a whole lot more time and effort than shitposting it does. That means that the same shit will constantly bury actual discussion regardless of often it gets shot to pieces.
Chains of retards giving each other low effort (You)s a la is not "refuting and answering criticism."
I think we're talking about different things, i agree that low effort posts should be banned (maybe not deleted). Even though banning can be circumvented with VPNs and poxies. When moderation becomes heavy handed it becomes reddit, this has happened to other boards on here, and it sucks for discussion as well. It's a balancing act, but i agree with you two that some posts are worth a ban, but self moderation is better.
Shitposting doesn't have to be answered with effort posting to debunked, for example.
There are memes that help with repeated posts from specific groups, like the bingo board.
yikes to be honest family "MRAs" point out a lot of actual problems that intersect with class. Dismissing them as trolls is ignoring an opportunity to class pill some niggas. This is maybe the worst way to "debunk" someone. "Your ideology has consistent and predictable points that it makes in arguments" is in no way a rebuttal. Neither is nitpicking, which is what most of the squares on these bingo card memes amount to. Doing this makes you look petty/dumb and your target look comparatively more legitimate. Any time you respond to a written-out argument with meme responses, it's not a good look to the casual observer.
ALL POLITICAL FORUMS AND PLACES OF DISCUSSION THAT BAN ANYONE EVENTUALLY BECOME ECHO-CHAMBERS THIS IS WHY BANNING FASHIES AND OTHER FAGGOTS IS A BAD IDEA YOU STUPID FUCKING NIGGERS
When they're not arguing in good faith, or when the argument has been used over and over again despite being debunked, a meme reply is concise. It doesn't look bad if it answers the argument. A written out argument would demand a better reply, but it's important for boards to move forward with established information.
For example would be how whenever anyone wants to talk about communism or socialism, it's obvious (and common) that they don't have a good grasp of said social economic systems, but you don't spoon feed them quotes of entry level theory to show them that they don't know what socialism is.
You already turned Zig Forums into your hugbox, go back there.
That's fair enough, but meme replies don't do that most of the time. Take your pic. It's fine to post as a meme amongst ourselves, but to someone who doesn't know the context and argument behind it, it's just obtuse. There's no point in even replying to right wingers or liberals if your point only makes sense to people who already agree with you. That is exactly what you should do. That's what you said you should do in the quote above. If you're going to reply at all it should at least point people in the right direction. You don't need to reply to everything, and how much effort you put into replying should relate to how effective it is. Putting 10 seconds of effort into something that's not effective is wasting the effort, while putting several minutes into something partially effective isn't completely wasted.
This is just an anecdote, but I'm not a leftist. I don't know very much about socialism and communism, and the term "socialism is when government does stuff" is very Relatable to me about my limited understanding of said systems. I see your point, but Isn't it up to them to learn the jargon? That's why people are suppose to lurk the boards before posting. That is true, it's important to be efficient.
Agreed with your basic argument, but Absolutely disgusting, every single statement in your pic is wholly valid, have a better one.
And keep in mind that the purpose of bingo images isn't quite to "debunk" past statements (it's merely a repetition of them, after all), but to head off a predictable chain of future rote arguments, ensuring that discussion stays on track or trolls drop their precanned ammo and flee the field.
political forums that ban people =/= political forums that ban anyone. The point being, of course there will be bans but when you can get banned for too many unspecified reasons, then that is something else.
Would yo agree that there are certain positions that are foundationally flawed (or too unfavorable from an ideological perspective) from the beginning? Like defending censorship.
Lots of people legitimately think that socialism is when the government does stuff. Mockingly repeating what someone says doesn't say anything about why it's wrong, just that you think it's wrong. If nobody ever explains what socialism is instead of just mocking what it isn't, how is a lurker going to get that information? PIC RELATED
How does anybody think this is a good idea? If a position has a foundational flaw the point it out and undermine the position. If you just mock it instead of making an actual point it's like seeing an easy-to-win battle and just not bothering to show up for it. Arguments won't win themselves. The onlookers or even the person you're arguing with can't be swayed by arguments they never see. Just because the counterpoint is obvious to you doesn't mean they will figure it out for themselves. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
I agree that it's helpful to explain things to people (even though i feel like your picture contradicts your message of setting the truth straight for people), however i feel it's better to do your own research.You can often get ideologically filtered information. For example if you talked to a feminist about masculinity, and some one on the right wing you'd get obviously difference answers. In learning both answers your understand both sides better. learning information from any ideology, is often going to have some sacred science that only their side can teach or hasn't been altered. This sounds like centrist elitism, but the main point is that this is a good way to get a whole picture of the other ideologies together, at least i think so, even if it requires a lot of investigating and being wrong.
I wasn't saying that you should use shitty arguments. You're right that a good argument is clearly better than a shitty one, the problem is there are groups/people that won't listen to certain positions, so a precise magical response has to tailored for them. What is a good argument to you might not be to the person you're talking to.
Have you been here more than a day? Those arguments aren't worth any effort because they're going to be dismissed with some hand waving and doubling down. Just look at how challenges to race realism,.inceldom, or vulgar anti-imperialism have been responded to over the 5 years left Zig Forums has been a thing.
ftfy It's okay, we know what you meant.
The funny thing about that is that you get pretty much the exact same answer beyond the fact that one will couch it as a good thing and the other will couch it as a bad thing.
Part of masculinity is being honorable, getting drunk and beating up your wife is seen as masculine to certain people, but it's not a good definition of masculine.
Nah, that means there's no definition.
No, that means one is wrong.
The human being is something only as my quality (property) like masculinity or femininity. The ancients found the ideal in one’s being male in the full sense; their virtue is virtus and aretē, i.e., manliness. What is one supposed to think of a woman who only wanted to be a complete “woman?” That is not given to all of them, and some would set themselves an unattainable goal in this. She is, however, female in any case, by nature; femininity is her quality, and she doesn’t need “true femininity.” I am human, just like the earth is a planet. As ridiculous as it would be to set the earth the task of being a “correct star,” it is just as ridiculous to burden me with the calling to be a “correct human being.”