I have to keep bitching, I don't mean to be outright disrespectful to you in a personally attacky sort of way but separately I very much mean to treat your arguments that way.

Feel free.

("First") I'm not actually insinuating that they use double-speak, but they normally do, it's just not super relevant to most removals. I know the regulars opinions on certain issues, and I also know when they are intentionally clouding their language to appear more moderate. So yeah, it happens, but when they moderate, it doesn't typically violate the rules.

Hell, for some reason ConPro et all still come here and say "they" and (((them))) as if they can't just say jews. It's a little goofy.

("Next") No, but I can see your confusion because you're probably not understanding what I mean by an applied Marxist metanarrative. There's a structure to it:

• There's an omnipresent cabal
• The cabal encompasses an entire demographic of people
• This demographic is united in a single collectivist mentality
• That entire demographic is innately evil
• That entire demographic is the direct cause of most or all of your problems

Rule 16 is designed to hit most if not all of those simultaneously.

More over, those last four are literally always false. They are never true. No cabal encompasses an entire demographic, no matter what demographic you are using: race, age, ethnicity, religion, nationality, class, wealth, sex, etc. No demographic is united under a single collectivist mindset. It can't be, people are simply not mental slaves to inter-temporal and abstract collectivism: a rich man in Nigeria today, and rich man in 14th century England do not think the same. They do not have what the left calls "class solidarity". No demographic is innately evil. Pick any demographic, no demographic exists which is inherently morally repugnant. Being a billionaire is not immoral. That demographic is not the cause of your personal problems. You're car didn't fail to start this morning because of The Patriarchy.

It is objectively true that wealthy people exist, and that each person has an identity, and that people within identity groups express in-group preference.

And none of those meet that meta-narrative. For example, even though white Americans have the lowest in-group preference of any American Racial demographic, there are still whites that hate themselves and do not want the white race to continue. The White Supremacist Cisheteronormative Patriarchy is the cabal those whites are accused of supporting. It is not true, but the accusation is made that they are racist, well past the point of their death. Simultaneously, black Americans have the highest in-group preference. But this is not evidence of a black cabal. Even black racialists themselves engage in in-fighting and target black 'race traitors' who are not succumbing to a cabal that they are trying to create.

("Even More Nextly") Leftism seeks conquest and changes itself to fit new environments. Imp would be welcome in a Leftist environment if they had one that worked like that at the moment. In previous decades, and in other areas, his attitude was much closer to the normal. There was an ad for a candy bar in Romania (which under Communism was the only candy bar allowed). They had a woman dressed up like Misty from Pokemon, and all of the sudden Nicolae Ceaușescu walks in and condemns her dress for being counter-revolutionary. She is abducted by the state, forced to dress in Communist Youth clothing, and thrown into the street. Leftism is in favor of acting like a slut in our country, and in our time, but that will change. There is no consistent principles within Leftism.

My last bit of bitching is: does left wing thought exceed the limits of free speech on KIA2?

Only such that it does not violate Rule 16. It's a fucking major stumbling block to their argumentation. It's 4"x4"x10' strip of concrete in the middle of the walkway. They're forced to argue around their claims, but their central claims would very likely violate Rule 16. Rule 16 means they can never argue the White Supremacist Cisheteronormative Patriarchy, or even just The Patriarchy. They are forced to argue only at topical levels about 'men needing to be taught not to rape', and having those specific topical issues challenged directly. They can't defer to The Patriarchy as an avenue of escape when the conversation doesn't go their way, and they can be called out for being the bigoted trash they are with an embarrassing removal.

We don't see it here on Scored that much, but I have had to do it on Reddit, and it really throws them for a fucking loop. Their fundamental presuppositions are axiomatically rejected, and they typically don't have any counter. Even if they did, the counter is not tolerated. So, they channelized back into the topical argument, or they have to abandon the whole thing altogether. When given that choice, they typically just give the ground and don't come back. It actually works. All that's left are the Haterjuiced style trolls who continue to operate within the rules, and make for excellent engagement with opposing views because they are constantly stuck on-topic.

And to be clear, I hold the losest opinion on "Id Pol" than basically anyone who's done anything with KIA. The old moderators on half-kia would have fucking purged the place going anywhere near one-tenth of what I allow. So, this is a departure from what KIA and KIA2 allowed because it's more lenient.