Despite my current account being new, I've been around TDW and the .win communities since the start. This is just like my 40th account or so. I get banned often.
KA2 was always a community I visited but not one of my primary communities. I remember years ago, KA2 seemed to have a very diverse community group with a lot of women also. I'd say the politics of KA2 was very bluepilled but with a realization that woke in video games is problematic.
I used to joke that KA2 was full of horned up teenagers that just wanted to see big anime titties and were upset feminists kept censoring their video games.
When I used to post on KA2, I usually got downvoted significantly, had people reply to me very angrily and I'd usually get banned.
Now it seems like through IMP1's nonstop barrage on the community, KA2 has almost become some MGTOW/KA2/ConPro hybrid and it's not even Imp1 anymore posting nonstop anti-women (not just crazy feminists) articles. Even the mods seem to have given up with a lot of stuff they'd have previously banned over.
Now arguably, any "redpilled" community if not constantly censored will kind of divulge into what KA2 has become because as people start to open their eyes to what's going on, this progression might be inevitable but I feel like Imp1 has had a major impact himself entirely that might have ensured the community didn't naturally progress itself but it just driven off a lot of previous members.
How does the KA2 community feel? Everything all good? Or not really as good as it was a couple years ago?
I actually wanted to keep the ban on politics, just weaken it to ban outright political advocacy, but then suspended that because it was impossible to enforce in a fair and reasonable way. Most advocacy posts are not "GO TRUMP 2024" but more subtle.
You can't expect Reddit-style growth here. For one, people have to find it. On Reddit, it's easy, and we get dozens of subscribers each day. Here, it's harder.
For your part, yes. But there are some people who are absolute retards. If you know the 'German cat' anecdote from Yarvin, there was a guy who said that he hoped that Jew was caught and gassed. And that was upvoted.
About your 'German cat' story... let me try to explain.
KIA2 is a very civil and friendly board. I'm mostly a lurker, here since the beginning of the 'win', and I really consider all of you my 'internet buddies'.
So... I'm sure you remember 'mattress girl', famous for her histrionic false rape claim. Personally I would consider it perfectly civil for a buddy to say: "I hope that bitch gets violently raped so she knows what it's like to have her life ruined." Sure, I wouldn't say that at work, especially if I were a politician. But I think that you would accept that as an appropriate response to the story -- if we're among buddies.
Getting back to Yarvin... there are some people here that are on the fence about the 'Jewish Question'. There are also people, like me, that are 'stormfags'. Now the difference between 'on the fencers' and 'stormfags' is that... we stormfags know (know, not think) that the holocaust didn't happen.
Now -- I'm not, at all, trying to argue that point, I'm just asking you to accept it at face value. We may be stupid, deluded idiots, and I'm sure you think we are. But I will ask you to accept one thing: all of us were either (a) jew-positive; or (b) 'on the fencers'... until we found out that the holocaust didn't happen. Then we became stormfags. It didn't happen the other way around. Please just accept that as a 'thought-experiment'.
So if I were to say something storm-faggy, like 'Yarvin should be gassed and burned', I'm just expressing my exasperation at the continuing (myth) of the holocaust. I'm not being uncivil.
Similarly, when you call us stupid stormfags, you're effectively expressing your exasperation at the fact that we're too (racist, stupid, misguided) to accept the holocaust as FACT.
Unfortunately, this is a chasm that can't be breached. I would love to sit down with someone like you, face to face, and tell you my thoughts and then have you say 'ah, but here's where you're wrong'. I would, honestly, tip my hat to you. But every time that I've tried that, I just get: 'you're a stupid racist etc...' This despite the fact that all I ever talk about are the floor-plans of Auschwitz/Treblinka etc, and logistics. I'm just genuinely astonished that the (myth) is accepted as truth.
Anyway, we're all brothers here (except Bulbasaurous!!), and it's sad that there's no real way to put this issue behind us, one way or another.
How exactly do you 'know' rather than 'think' that?
I'll gladly accept it arguendo, but my own suspicion is that it nearly always go the other way around. I hate these Jews, how do I take away what I think they use as their victimhood card? I know, deny it!
The difference between this and your earlier thought experiment is that Yarvin hadn't done anything. Also, the original poster wasn't even talking about Yarvin. He was talking about a random Jew in Nazi Germany, and he seemed to be a proper Nazi who actually extols in the murder of people because they are Jews.
I don't think it's a question of stupidity, although Stormfags often do make stupid arguments for their claims. After all, the most stupid person repeats the claims of the powerful, and at the moment, the powerful say that the Holocaust did happen. But a little knowledge is dangerous, and I guess that's where the midwit meme comes from.
You hear that the doors of the gas chambers in some concentration camps did not even close shut. Why haven't they asked questions about this? Could it be a conspiracy, considering that the most powerful are the people who profit most from the idea that a Holocaust occurred? See, the problem is that it takes orders of magnitude more time and effort to debunk BS or even legitimate questions, than it takes to ask them or make up BS.
I think that's rather stupid. And I think that this sort of attitude is what helps Holocaust denial. Hell, if I knew they throw historians in jail for questioning it, and I didn't know anything about it myself, I'd think that it probably didn't happen!
Here's the issue. Even in such a discussion, I could cite you whatever you want, but I suspect that the answer could very well be dismissal of the so called "official story" (even though this is the story of historians who have dedicated their lives to it, not from any sort of government office) and that they're lying, or that the evidence is fabricated or whatever. So the problem really is with premises. Since there's not world enough and time to go verify everything for ourselves, we'll have to rely on the work of others - which can be dismissed as part of a Jewish conspiracy, or bribed by the Jews, or whatever.
Anyway, I don't really mind if someone does deny the Holocaust. It's your right to be wrong. I would prefer it if people don't post uncivilized, low IQ posts with 'Holohoax' because that makes the place look bad.
Are you surprised? Most people have no clue of the matter. They can't refute you (because they are too ignorant), but they can't downplay the crimes of the Nazi regime, as the modern Western regimes have their legitimacy in opposition to 'Nazism'. So name-calling is all that's left.
That said, if you are really interested in the truth, then you would read as much as you can, rather than assume that you miraculously stumbled some truth that somehow no one but hardcore neo-Nazis thought of before. If I found some discrepancy that suggested to me that the Norman Conquest occurred in 1067 and not 1066, I wouldn't badger random people to explain themselves about why they believe it's in 1066, I'd look into it more and try to see if there is any literature addressing the matter.
You seem sincere enough. What you say may be true for you. But you may have a more optimistic view of Stormfags than is justified. For one, if I somehow came to be convinced that the Holocaust didn't happen, my immediate reaction would not be to start hating Jews.
Disclaimer: this is a bit of a meta-comment; it's not at all trying to convince you of anything. And sorry for the length -- read or not as you see fit. But please read it!
Ah... but this is the problem. I mostly lurk here because I'm not interested in badgering randos about 1066! Here, consider the following...
I'm sure you're familiar with Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' wherein, as a counterpoint to positivism, he posits that Science (and Academics, really) advances from one paradigm shift to another, and scientists trapped inside a paradigm can rarely see outside of it. Another way of putting it is that science advances one funeral at a time...
Well, the dominant paradigm of holocaust scholarship is that (a) the holocaust happened and we require no proof of it. This is supported by the letter in Le Monde in the 70s where a few dozen holocaust scholars said that (paraphrasing) 'we will not investigate the technical feasability of the holocaust -- its technical feasibility is proven by the fact that it happened'. It's also supported by the fact that...well... they never talk about it. Okay... so much for objectivity. The 'scholars' simply look into camp conditions, train schedules and, obviously, the 'psychology' of the NatSocs etc.
My paradigm is: I don't care if Hitler ate babies, all that I care about are the technical details. And I've not uncovered 'one' discrepancy... it's that there is not one part of the holocaust that is feasabile in any way except the disposal of the ashes at Auschwitz. I've spent years reading about this and only about this (I mean, I read other things, like Manga etc). I only have a basic general knowledge of the Beer Hall Putsch or Reichstag Fire etc... so I have nothing at all (cogent) to say about whether Hitler or NatSoc were good/viable.
This is why I don't engage randos. A paradigm shift requires a combination of a slow build-up and a kind of Zen moment. Once you understand that the technical feasibility of the event has to be established, at least in broad lines before the Hannah Arendt stuff can be validated... then you're forced into the same conclusions that I came to. Otherwise you're back to the 'Hitler hated people schema' which... well, whatever.
It's like when I explain Quantum Field Theory to people. I have to say: 'okay, but I really have to start a few decades back, so this will take a while. Just accept everything for the next hour, and it will all make sense'. The people that stick with it appreciate it.
And, by the way, I don't hate individual Jews at all. As an engineer, I know tons of them. For me, they're a bit like Italians and Greeks -- phenomenal people, but way too social for me. I'm better off with the northern folk or Americans.
I never said it was always civil.