Title, as he hasn't posted in 3 days and the man almost lives on the site
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (75)
sorted by:
On the one hand, the site is almost always far better quality with him gone. On the other hand, the reasons he gets banned are idiotic.
I have been so rude to him I feel it's meaningless to say I agree. But the answer among friends is to let time and debate serve as a crucible for truth. If that starts getting people banned then it suggests that the truth is a violation (say, hypothetically, of rule 16).
Whether Imp is right or wrong that women are mustache twirling villains, or further, at the center of a unifying conspiracy, is not relevant. At the root of it, he got banned for suggesting that ANYONE of ANY identity could HYPOTHETICALLY be up to ANYTHING bad. Newsflash: that rule applies to 99% of discussion in all the big wide world because every single person (A) has a personal identity and (B) is affected by the actions of others.
The rule is totally ubiquitous and therefore meaningless. It can only be imposed unfairly and at whim, because a fair and evenhanded enforcement would shut down the forum, or, at scale, the entire internet. It's everything you ever hated about the response to gamergate- INSIDE the GAMERGATE forum lol
I've never been able to get a clear answer as to why we have all those rules ported over from reddit. It makes me suspect that those who imported them are actually our enemies.
Dom just has a hard on for being a censorious faggot. He's a creature of the pedo site and operating outside the parameters of that sick culture is beyond his imagination let alone capability.
So never actually speak for fear of being prevented from speaking, huh? That's fucking retarded or more likely dishonest.
Would better with fewer rules. Something simple like no porn and nothing explicitly illegal.
I went from, "you're not wrong, you're just being retarded about it" to "ok, I can't take this shit any more. Please stop."
It's never good when you drive even people who agree with 95% of what you have to say crazy.
It would bother me more if I thought he were some interloping and deliberately subversive figure, but he is a "real guy" and believes what he says. I feel the abuse I've given him is more of a sin than his passionately attempting to advance his personal opinions with others. It can be a lot but the onus is on the mods to makes rules that are honest and functional instead of serving as pin-the-donkey mcguffins for frustrated jannitors
I feel weird going on an Imp-defense posting spree, but the dude amuses me, and his bans are always bullshit.
Yeah, it doesn't really matter what he says, I agree with you. Imp gets banned for being passionate. (He, or at least his reasoning, is wrong, in my opinion, but that's beside the point.) He's not banned specifically for his beliefs; we've all probably said similar things toward someone at some point; like you said, it applies to 99% of discussion. I know I've said some edgy fucking stuff that could be considered identity attacks. He's banned because he's consistent and stands by his belief system, however warped we may think that system might be.
That's pretty gay, if we ban people for being consistent. We've all Imp-posted at one time or another. Let's just do the free speech thing here.
No, he got banned for declaring that women (an entire demographic) were working as a cabal to control the world. Not just one, not just feminists, not just female teachers. All of those would have been fine. But, he didn't choose to do that, and focused on declaring an enemy class as an enemy cabal.
It's easy not to violate the rule, plenty of people know exactly how to avoid it because they do it all the time. In fact, Imp knows exactly how to do it, and actively refuses. That's his choice.
If he said 99.9% of women were in such a cabal, or 99.8%, or 99.7%... when does that go from violating this """""""""rule""""""""", to being in the clear?
If it's so important and so dependent on his naming ALL women, specifically every single woman, then lets ask him if my mom is not involved. If he says no, would you not either have to unban him, or else, admit to at least some degree the utter gatekeeping foolishness of the rule?
I say this knowing full well he might condemn my mother, but you understand the point I'm trying to make
I do understand the point your trying to make, but this isn't about perfect quantity, it's about declaring women to be a bourgeoisie, and the need for a sectarian class war against them.
That traps people in the identitarian framework which perpetuates the Leftist metanarrative. Sticking to specifics, rather than an applied historical dialectic means no rule gets violated, and you stay out of they hyper-reality of ideological sectarianism that the Left always exploits.
But why the fuck is it the rule? That's the reason people are complaining. Honestly, we should have a weekly stickied thread where rule 16 doesn't exist and it's a free for all
Because a right-wing space is either explicitly right-wing, or it subverts to left-wing.
Rule 16 denies the application of a Marxist historical dialectic as part of an argument. The Left have always blamed some enemy class "bourgeoise" for the "oppression" of some victim class "proletariat". This manufactured hyper-reality generates the necessary sectarianism for a forceful revolution against the standards. The fundamental purpose of that narrative is to overthrow the order to establish a new Leftist one in it's place.
The Left uses it against any chosen group: the rich, the kulaks, the peasants, the rurals, the whites, the men, the jews, the blacks, the christans, the foreign, the indigenous, the whomever. It doesn't matter how, but as long as the dialectic is applied, it allows for the sectarians to howl that there is oppression, and such oppression must be met with violence and the imposition of a new socialist standard that brings "justice" for the victim class that are represented by the vangaurd, whom assume the role of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
This happens 100% of the time.
It's not going to be a free for all. And it's also not going to be containment of Leftism. It is going to be a thread where anyone who doesn't agree with the narrative, will get berated out, and then they will complain horrifically that the thread is an evil containment vessel.
The purpose of rescinding Rule 16 is to attack the users and forum slide until this forum is also kept as the personal container for Leftist racialists. They have their own forums, and I've explicitly refused to engage in any sort of tit for tat with them on their turf. They do not want to leave anyone alone. They want conquest. They have no intention of an honest dialogue. Frankly, I suspect that a good portion of them are Useful Idiots of the Left, if not Leftists LARPing as Nazis anyway.