In general, yes, right-liberal gatekeepers love to have excuses to punch right and ban people to their right.
Gotta make sure there's a group of people that you can point at and say, "see? Those are the real bad guys that you should hate. We're better than them."
For you personally, I doubt it. In general, yes, right-liberal gatekeepers love to have excuses to punch right and ban people to their right.
That's the kind of person that unfortunately wants to become a moderator to begin with.
The only good moderators I was able to find were the ones who never expressed interest, but whom I asked because they seemed good members of the community.
I was banned from the subreddit a long time ago.
KiA2? Really? Permanently? That is a surprise. Was it a brand new user account?
It's all about the audience.
So it depends on the composition of the audience?
Here, you're beating me when debating the Jews. Anywhere else, I think I would be beating you. If that is the standard.
It's beyond reddit moderators, though. It's like this everywhere. I was banned on my established account that I had since 2015. I've since deleted it, though. I don't have a reddit account anymore.
When I said audience, I meant winning over the audience, not the pre-existing opinions of the audience.
It's beyond reddit moderators, though. It's like this everywhere. I was banned on my established account that I had since 2015. I've since deleted it, though. I don't have a reddit account anymore.
And to confirm, it was KiA2? Disappointing. Always thought I did a good job of distinguishing bad actors and those who at least have something positive to contribute. Unless you were going full tard on the sub, but that would be out of character.
When I said audience, I meant winning over the audience, not the pre-existing opinions of the audience.
Then you would certainly win, because it's easier to win over one out of 99% than one out of 1%. That is what I always found strange about the Intelligence Squared debates: if you favor the more popular view, you are at a disadvantage. Maybe that's good though.
Yes. I had a temp ban on half-KiA once but was unbanned at the time of my account deletion. It's kind of ironic that I was perma'd on KiA2 not half-KiA, but that's mostly due to me hardly being active on half-KiA.
Then you would certainly win, because it's easier to win over one out of 99% than one out of 1%.
I suppose the math checks out, but that's not the only thing in play. In open debates, we would be free to talk about what's best for white people and what would actually work to preserve our future. Instead, right-liberal "anti-idpol" frauds get trotted out to "defend" white people from attacks from POC idpol. They then equivocate the two. The strategy can work rhetorically when the alternative view point is POC idpol.
However, pointing out that the "anti-idpol" are supportive of Jewish idpol, presumably because that's a demographic whose future they actually want to preserve, and emphasizing that, even if for argument's sake the anti-idpol faction were operating in good faith, they aren't actually convincing Jews, blacks, etc. to abandon idpol. Even worse, they don't acknowledge how ineffective they have been.
I should probably take a step back here and point out that I don't think everyone who is an "anti-idpol" Zionist is some sort of scheming subverter. The high-agency people who drive a lot of discussion probably know what they are doing and are actively malicious. Random people just tend to repeat talking points without thinking about the implications.
For you personally, I doubt it. In general, yes, right-liberal gatekeepers love to have excuses to punch right and ban people to their right.
I was banned from the subreddit a long time ago.
It's all about the audience.
Gotta make sure there's a group of people that you can point at and say, "see? Those are the real bad guys that you should hate. We're better than them."
That's the kind of person that unfortunately wants to become a moderator to begin with.
The only good moderators I was able to find were the ones who never expressed interest, but whom I asked because they seemed good members of the community.
KiA2? Really? Permanently? That is a surprise. Was it a brand new user account?
So it depends on the composition of the audience?
Here, you're beating me when debating the Jews. Anywhere else, I think I would be beating you. If that is the standard.
It's beyond reddit moderators, though. It's like this everywhere. I was banned on my established account that I had since 2015. I've since deleted it, though. I don't have a reddit account anymore.
When I said audience, I meant winning over the audience, not the pre-existing opinions of the audience.
And to confirm, it was KiA2? Disappointing. Always thought I did a good job of distinguishing bad actors and those who at least have something positive to contribute. Unless you were going full tard on the sub, but that would be out of character.
Then you would certainly win, because it's easier to win over one out of 99% than one out of 1%. That is what I always found strange about the Intelligence Squared debates: if you favor the more popular view, you are at a disadvantage. Maybe that's good though.
Yes. I had a temp ban on half-KiA once but was unbanned at the time of my account deletion. It's kind of ironic that I was perma'd on KiA2 not half-KiA, but that's mostly due to me hardly being active on half-KiA.
I suppose the math checks out, but that's not the only thing in play. In open debates, we would be free to talk about what's best for white people and what would actually work to preserve our future. Instead, right-liberal "anti-idpol" frauds get trotted out to "defend" white people from attacks from POC idpol. They then equivocate the two. The strategy can work rhetorically when the alternative view point is POC idpol.
However, pointing out that the "anti-idpol" are supportive of Jewish idpol, presumably because that's a demographic whose future they actually want to preserve, and emphasizing that, even if for argument's sake the anti-idpol faction were operating in good faith, they aren't actually convincing Jews, blacks, etc. to abandon idpol. Even worse, they don't acknowledge how ineffective they have been.
I should probably take a step back here and point out that I don't think everyone who is an "anti-idpol" Zionist is some sort of scheming subverter. The high-agency people who drive a lot of discussion probably know what they are doing and are actively malicious. Random people just tend to repeat talking points without thinking about the implications.