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.
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.
That is so weird. Must have been some sort of oversight. We never permabanned long-term users, only in exceptional circumstances. There was a case where a user with something like 10 earlier comments was permabanned, and when we noticed - he was unbanned with 'time served'.
Glad I don't have to do that anymore.
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.
I question why it is a good thing to debate what is 'good for white people'. In the rest of the world, no one goes around thinking like that. There are no Congolese thinking about 'what is good for black people', or Middle Easterenrs thinking 'what is good for brown people', nor Japanese etc.
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,
Explain how my position leads to the preservation of Jews and not whites.
good faith, they aren't actually convincing Jews, blacks, etc. to abandon idpol. Even worse, they don't acknowledge how ineffective they have been.
They have had successes. But if success means convincing the other side to abandon this tactic, that probably is not going to happen unless it becomes radioactive.
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.
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.
That is so weird. Must have been some sort of oversight. We never permabanned long-term users, only in exceptional circumstances. There was a case where a user with something like 10 earlier comments was permabanned, and when we noticed - he was unbanned with 'time served'.
Glad I don't have to do that anymore.
I question why it is a good thing to debate what is 'good for white people'. In the rest of the world, no one goes around thinking like that. There are no Congolese thinking about 'what is good for black people', or Middle Easterenrs thinking 'what is good for brown people', nor Japanese etc.
Explain how my position leads to the preservation of Jews and not whites.
They have had successes. But if success means convincing the other side to abandon this tactic, that probably is not going to happen unless it becomes radioactive.
Generally true, yes.