362
posted ago by DomitiusOfMassilia [M] (edited) stickied +374 / -12

I've created a list of rules as below, they will likely change later, but they are here for the purposes of establishing a base level of social order:

ONE: Do not post Illegal Activity. Also, do not post any manifesto's done by terrorists, active shooters, serial felons rationalizing such things, or promoting such things, even if your content does not endorse the message.

TWO: Do not engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence.

THREE: Do not threaten, harass, or bully users; and do not encourage others to do so on or off-line; nor make per se defamatory states at users.

FOUR: Do not post ISM. Involuntary Salacious Material means NSFW material of a manner that was not intentionally made public. This is the "upskirt", "revenge porn", and "private intimate photos" rule.

FIVE: Do not post Porn

SIX: Content that contains nudity, pornography, or profanity, which a reasonable viewer may not want to be seen accessing in a public or formal setting such as in a workplace should be tagged as NSFW. Any material of a titillating nature must be marked NSFW.

SEVEN: Do not post Facebook accounts, individuals who's twitters are less than 500 followers, private/personal information that is not publicly available, addresses, or participate, encourage, or engage in any doxxing campaign.

EIGHT: Do not intentionally deceive others by impersonating another. This does not apply to satire.

NINE: No person shall use communities.win sites (including kotakuinaction2.win) to solicit, facilitate any transaction, or gift including: ... ATF defined firearms or ammo as defined by the ATF, Bump-stock type devices, Explosives, 3D printing files to produce the aforementioned, controlled substances, Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco, Stolen goods, Paid services involving physical sexual contact, Personal Information, Falsified Official Documents, Falsified Currency, Fraudulent Services, Pharmaceuticals

TEN: No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features.

ELEVEN: Do not post spam. If you are self-advertising, you must have sufficiently engaged in the sub prior to your post, and you must engage with the users when they comment in your post. Spam will also include repeated messages and comments that are done with no effort to add to the conversation.

TWELVE: Do not post intentional falsehoods or hoaxes. Yes, the Elders of Zion and other such intentionally fabricated documents fall into this. If your POST is arguably false by the user-base, it may be marked as either misleading or unfounded based on it's factual assertions, particularly in the title.

THIRTEEN: If you have reposted something, it will be removed

FOURTEEN: Do not post more than 5 posts a day to this sub.

FIFTEEN: Do not direct particularly egregious identity based slurs at users. A list will be provided

SIXTEEN: Do not attack entire identity groups as inferior, subhuman, inherently morally deficient, biologically/evolutionary mongrel, or participating in a vast conspiracy to take over the world, ala ZOG-NWO / The Patriarchy.

I've created a list of rules as below, they will likely change later, but they are here for the purposes of establishing a base level of social order: **ONE**: Do not post Illegal Activity. Also, do not post any manifesto's done by terrorists, active shooters, serial felons rationalizing such things, or promoting such things, even if your content does not endorse the message. **TWO**: Do not engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence. **THREE**: Do not threaten, harass, or bully users; and do not encourage others to do so on or off-line; nor make per se defamatory states at users. **FOUR**: Do not post ISM. Involuntary Salacious Material means NSFW material of a manner that was not intentionally made public. This is the "upskirt", "revenge porn", and "private intimate photos" rule. **FIVE**: Do not post Porn **SIX**: Content that contains nudity, pornography, or profanity, which a reasonable viewer may not want to be seen accessing in a public or formal setting such as in a workplace should be tagged as NSFW. Any material of a titillating nature must be marked NSFW. **SEVEN**: Do not post Facebook accounts, individuals who's twitters are less than 500 followers, private/personal information that is not publicly available, addresses, or participate, encourage, or engage in any doxxing campaign. **EIGHT**: Do not intentionally deceive others by impersonating another. This does not apply to satire. **NINE**: No person shall use communities.win sites (including kotakuinaction2.win) to solicit, facilitate any transaction, or gift including: ... ATF defined firearms or ammo as defined by the ATF, Bump-stock type devices, Explosives, 3D printing files to produce the aforementioned, controlled substances, Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco, Stolen goods, Paid services involving physical sexual contact, Personal Information, Falsified Official Documents, Falsified Currency, Fraudulent Services, Pharmaceuticals **TEN**: No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features. **ELEVEN**: Do not post spam. If you are self-advertising, you must have sufficiently engaged in the sub prior to your post, and you must engage with the users when they comment in your post. Spam will also include repeated messages and comments that are done with no effort to add to the conversation. **TWELVE**: Do not post intentional falsehoods or hoaxes. Yes, the Elders of Zion and other such intentionally fabricated documents fall into this. If your POST is arguably false by the user-base, it may be marked as either misleading or unfounded based on it's factual assertions, particularly in the title. **THIRTEEN**: If you have reposted something, it will be removed **FOURTEEN**: Do not post more than 5 posts a day to this sub. **FIFTEEN**: Do not direct particularly egregious identity based slurs at users. A list will be provided **SIXTEEN**: Do not attack entire identity groups as inferior, subhuman, inherently morally deficient, biologically/evolutionary mongrel, or participating in a vast conspiracy to take over the world, ala ZOG-NWO / The Patriarchy.
Comments (268)
sorted by:
72
Killroyomega 72 points ago +73 / -1

Rule 12 is bad because it's incredibly subjective and biased. Please just get rid of it and let the userbase decide without a heavy-handed ban excuse built in. We're smart enough to downvote virgin flat earthers and upvote chad hollow earthers.

Rule 16 is incredibly bad and shuts down discussion. Without needing to care about cucked Reddit admins we don't need it.

Rule 4, 5, and six are the same thing.

Rule 2 is dumb when it kills memes like giving commies helicopter rides, or real discussion on advising people of their legal right to shoot looters.

The part of Rule 1 forbidding discussion on the manifestos/posts of notorious shooters isn't needed now we're off Reddit. Some of them contain very interesting discussion topics, like Ted Kaczynski's.

Rule 15 should just be a part of Rule 3.

23
Elvis 23 points ago +23 / -0

Agreed, fully agreed!

3
AntonioOfVenice 3 points ago +11 / -8

Rule 12 is bad because it's incredibly subjective and biased. Please just get rid of it and let the userbase decide without a heavy-handed ban excuse built in. We're smart enough to downvote virgin flat earthers and upvote chad hollow earthers.

I agree conditionally. We do need such a rule, but it might need some improvement so that it will only target demonstrable falsehoods. I've been on the receiving end of abusive Rule 7 removals on KafKiA far too often to believe otherwise.

But also keep in mind that it won't be enforced by giant idiots.

Rule 16 is incredibly bad and shuts down discussion. Without needing to care about cucked Reddit admins we don't need it.

My interpretation: note that it talks only about talking about people as 'inferior'. This does not prevent talk about characteristics that one group may have that is better or worse than another group, whether it's blacks being better at basketball or average IQ scores of Koreans vs. white (or any other group).

"Group X has a lower average IQ" is OK.
"Group X is subhuman/inferior" is not.

Rule 4, 5, and six are the same thing.

This is absurd. Banning revenge porn does not 'shut down discussion'.

Rule 2 is dumb when it kills memes like giving commies helicopter rides, or real discussion on advising people of their legal right to shoot looters.

Perhaps it could be rephrased as 'illegal violence' or 'illegal acts'.

The part of Rule 1 forbidding discussion on the manifestos/posts of notorious shooters isn't needed now we're off Reddit. Some of them contain very interesting discussion topics, like Ted Kaczynski's.

It might make us a target, so the mods definitely should have the discretion of banning manifestos.

11
Killroyomega 11 points ago +11 / -0

We do need such a rule, but it might need some improvement so that it will only target demonstrable falsehoods. 

Like I said, my issue here comes from bias and available information.

You look at things like the Trump-Russia conspiracy, Wuhan Coronavirus origin, or even just environmental issues and it's often split hard on "fact or fiction."

Something is probably wanted, it should just be something that's part of another overarching rule.

My interpretation: note that it talks only about talking about people as 'inferior'.

I agree with that idea, I just also think in that case it should be more considered to be part of a general harassment rule. Basically it's fine to criticize and argue, just don't be a massive dick about it.

Banning revenge porn does not 'shut down discussion'.

I didn't say that to be about shutting down discussion, I'm just noting that those three rules are basically the same thing and all fit pretty snugly under the "No porn." rule. Why do we need three separate rules for that?

Perhaps it could be rephrased as 'illegal violence' or 'illegal acts'.

That'd be a good general rule. "Do not advocate for illegal activities."

It might make us a target, so the mods definitely should have the discretion of banning manifestos.

I get that. There's been a lot of contention, especially after the NZ shooting where the government went crazy and went after a ton of sites and individuals for hosting the manifesto.

I just personally feel there's often merit in discussing what people claim leads them into committing such massive acts of violence.

Also I will never get tired of laughing at Randy Stair.

8
evilmathmagician 8 points ago +8 / -0

Perhaps it could be rephrased as 'illegal violence' or 'illegal acts'.

This begs the question: illegal where? Even just clarifying that we're not stuck being bound by California laws (or their "laws") would be a relief. You know the kind of bullshit I mean, like not being allowed to say negative things about polygamists or cuckolds.

Maybe I'm just too beat up from my time on reddit, but I reflexively recoil from what should be plain and normal regulations because I'm so accustomed to it being misinterpreted on purpose. I've seen how you and Dom act as mods, so I'm not very worried, but we may have caught a lot of refugees that aren't familiar with you two.

5
AntonioOfVenice 5 points ago +5 / -0

This begs the question: illegal where?

Wherever the powers that be can put enough pressure on the people making such decisions.

So Facebook bans anti-Islamic content in Pakistan, because Pakistan can pressure it to do that.

6
somercet 6 points ago +8 / -2

inhaaaaaaaaaaaaale

THE MODS ARE FAGS! FAAAAAGS!!!!

Exactly how egregious are these identity-based slurs (you forgot the hyphen, you illiterate twats) you speak of? I'm bi, and I don't give a shit about the word "fag" in normal use. I don't think I can define "normal use," but I can define unacceptable use:

  1. the harassment of good faith users, and
  2. the use of the sub to promote two particular ideologies: the Nazi and the Bolshevik.

good faith user, n. A person who games and doesn't want those games subsumed by Political Correctness, IdPol, or SJWism. (Or the Moral Majority, but I find it hard to believe they will try banning games anytime soon, what with America suffering an attempted Cultural Revolution.)

promotion of certain ideologies, n. Well, let's face it: a significant minority of our users are political freaks. I know a lot of KiA's Lefty users hate (what they think of as) capitalism enough that they would qualify as old-line Marxists. We also have a group who think Mussolini was a right-on dude, and even some who think "Uncle Adolf" was misunderstood.

Thanks to the origins of GamerGate, we tend not to have Commies. (Yes, we're about ethics in journalism, but let's face it, the ethical violations we were protesting were all coming from the Left. And yes, the mainstream media (MSM) donates 85–90% to Democrats, so them, too.) But we do have the latter. I do not want to ban them from the conversation. Also, I think tribalism is an important subject. (E.g., I'm not mad at Jar Jar Abrams for Star Trek or Star Wars. I'm mad that he portrayed the American military as murderers in Super 8, and I suspect very strongly that if I made a similar movie with a similar portrayal of the IDF, he would call me a Nazi.)

Now: I have seen some of the Nazi-posting (as opposed to satirical, 4chan-ish "swastika-posting") in KiA2. Their messages tend to follow a format (the actual content seems to be tailored to the individual receiver):

  1. One bad thing (MSM URL)
  2. Another bad thing (another MSM URL)
  3. It was all the Jews (another URL to a shifty website where the most alarming and accusatory information is all unsourced).

This style is attested by Vox Day's posting of The "Andrew Anglin" style guide:

What should be completely avoided is the sometimes mentioned idea that "even if we got rid of the Jews we would still have all these other problems." The Jews should always be the beginning and the end of every problem, from poverty to poor family dynamics to war to the destruction of the rainforest....

I think once you see a few examples of the style, it should be very easy to distinguish the bad faith propagandizers from the few KiA2 oddballs who actually are "good faith users," loyal to the sub and its mission. I think it would help them to be among a motley crew who do believe in well-attested once-hidden groups with secret agendas and NDAs. (GameJournoPros, anyone?)

3
AntonioOfVenice 3 points ago +4 / -1

THE MODS ARE FAGS! FAAAAAGS!!!!

Say no more, you're an approved submitter now.

I'm bi, and I don't give a shit about the word "fag" in normal use.

Same for me on both counts (it's amazing how many bifags there are in GG). But the admins have nuked comments calling people who weren't even on the site faggots...

1
somercet 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ugh. It's the same here?

What is the mothership of the .win sites?

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not here, I was talking about Reddit.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-4
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] -4 points ago +11 / -15

Rule 12

I think a line needs to exist somewhere because if I don't draw one there will be a serious problem with people spreading open disinformation, even without them knowing it. Frankly, when there are concerted propaganda efforts, dissent is downvoted to oblivion in order to stifle it.

Rule 16

I do not intend for this place to be a foothold for Stormfront. When you mix this with rule 12, repealing both exists for the purposes of advancing propaganda offensives.

4,5,6

No they're not.

2

I'm using the real definition of those words, not the reddit definitions of those words. Meme away

Seriously, where's my Ken & Karen memes. Those were great.

1

It's reasonable to discuss historical documents, but I'm more worried about people posting "hot off the presses" shooter manifestos because we've seen major international action taken against sites that allow for it.

15

Rule 15 & 3 are different things, though.

13
Killroyomega 13 points ago +14 / -1

I think a line needs to exist somewhere because if I don't draw one there will be a serious problem with people spreading open disinformation, even without them knowing it.

I get that you need to have the ability to shut down crazy shit if it for some reason starts to pop up, due to astroturfing or some campaign.

That's fine.

My big issue is the rule as stated can directly be used to shut down conversations. I mean the example given is the Protocols, which can be a great platform for discussion going in many different ways. I've never met anyone who thinks it's 100% factual telling of an exact event that went down. It's a work of fiction meant to shed light on some of the shadowy parts of global geopolitics, and it applies to more groups than just Jews.

As a side example, anti-vaxxers. Most of them are either crazy or stupid. That doesn't mean there aren't arguments to be made about vaccine safety, usefulness, or Bill Gates conspiracies. Just that some people are fucking crazy and/or stupid.

I do not intend for this place to be a foothold for Stormfront. 

I don't think anyone wants that lol.

My big issue is that it should be part of a general harrassment type rule instead of its own big thing.

We should always be allowed to criticize whatever person or group, but it shouldn't just be boring and lazy attacks.

"Blacks are dumb and they smell." is bad. "The average IQ of American blacks is very low." is good as part of a greater discussion, however if that's the entire post it's still just a lazy attack.

No they're not.

They all fall under the "No porn/sexually explicit content." rule, don't they?

I'm just wondering why they're needed past that.

I'm using the real definition of those words, not the reddit definitions of those words.

Cool.

On that note, is advocating for people to arm and get weapons training considered advocating for violence?

 I'm more worried about people posting "hot off the presses" shooter manifestos because we've seen major international action taken against sites that allow for it.

Yeah like I said to AoV I understand there's been issues with that specifically. As long as discussion and quotes are allowed, maybe without directly hosting/top-level linking the content it'd be fine?

 Rule 15 & 3 are different things, though.

Same thing as 16, it just seems like it'd be better off as part of a more general harassment rule.

I'll always argue that the fewer the rules, the better. Much of what it is above can be consolidated and instead of 16, maybe 7-9.

5
The_Frag_Man 5 points ago +5 / -0

I'll always argue that the fewer the rules, the better.

I agree. Let people make use of the downvote button if they don't like something. We don't need to be coddled.

36
akai_ferret 36 points ago +37 / -1

No person shall use saidit

Good thing this isn't saidit!

to solicit, facilitate any transaction, or gift including: ... ATF defined firearms or ammo as defined by the ATF, ... 3D printing files to produce the aforementioned,

This is a load of bullshit, none of this is illegal.
We just copying reddit's bullshit sitewide rules now?

17
exilde 17 points ago +17 / -0

Well, as soon as there's a transaction or gift, it becomes a commerce issue, so that's definitely illegal. Pretty sure it has to be personal use only to remain legal. I don't think 3d printed files are currently under the same restriction, though.

21
akai_ferret 21 points ago +21 / -0

As long as it's private transfers of legal firearms, that follow relevant state laws, it is 100% legal.

We were doing it for YEARS on reddit before the tech industry collectively decided to go hard for gun control after ... one of the school shootings, I don't remember which one atm.

9
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] [S] 9 points ago +12 / -3

I'm with exilde on this one. Take that stuff somewhere else or privately between people. I just don't need it on my plate.

9
exilde 9 points ago +9 / -0

I was having a brainfart and specifically thinking of ghost guns. Trading of legal firearms is fine, but yeah, there are far better places for that.

5
TentElephant 5 points ago +5 / -0

You can, in theory, trade ghost guns too. The original manufacturer (whoever finished the 80% kit) needs to put the usual markings on it and didn't intend to sell it when he made it.

2
Jammerculture 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sites just covering their ass people, put the pitchforks down

3
akai_ferret 3 points ago +3 / -0

BUT I LIKE MY PITCHFORK!
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

27
LordCommissarYarrick 27 points ago +27 / -0

might need some revisions I think, since .win place is a bit looser than saidit...

23
ZackRoyer 23 points ago +23 / -0

Can I say "retarded" here?

28
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] [S] 28 points ago +28 / -0

Yes, that rule was introduced on Reddit because a bunch of janny faggots couldn't stand the idea that people were calling them a bunch of piss-drinking retards for being fuckwits.

4
YourMistaken 4 points ago +4 / -0

What other slurs are okay?

1
xAzureAceStarburstx 1 point ago +2 / -1

Are we allowed to mention futa horsecocks?

16
Elvis 16 points ago +16 / -0

Would be a bit retarded if we couldn't.

4
nanowerx 4 points ago +4 / -0

Free speech! Free speech!

14
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] [S] 14 points ago +14 / -0

That rule was always fucking retarded, but in by gigantic janny faggots.

23
exilde 23 points ago +25 / -2 (edited)

or participating in a vast conspiracy to take over the world

What if we just believe in a natural disproportionate tendency to subvert and exploit which leads to this end, without some vast conspiracy? That okay?

edit: and further, can we discuss the possibilities of inherent moral deficiency without it being an attack? the behavioral genetics of impulse control and such?

2
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] [S] 2 points ago +15 / -13

I'd rather avoid this place becoming Stormfag central because someone wants to recruit normies to white identitarianism. Frankly I'd rather keep it about video games, but so much speech has been censored off the internet that we have to allow wider topics.

What if we just believe in a natural disproportionate tendency to subvert and exploit which leads to this end, without some vast conspiracy?

No because that is mostly just motivated reasoning to justify the condemnation of that group. There is no such thing as an innate tendency towards subversion and exploitation. The very concepts of subversion and exploitation are abstract notions that can't be dictated solely by someones genetics.

can we discuss the possibilities of inherent moral deficiency without it being an attack?

No because it is, again, clearly motivated reasoning from a conclusion because the argument asserts two things, both of which are false and contradictory to one another. Inherent moral deficiency not only requires measurable, universal, objective morality. Meaning that you can define morality as a absolutely consistent, known, and universal abstraction that can be quantifiably measured. This is a contradiction in terms: an abstraction can't be objectively measured. After that, you require that genetic determinism to create a given level of morality, which removes the very concept of moral agency. That would defeat the purpose of morality itself. I could only conclude that such a contradictory argument exists to rationalize a conclusion which supports a narrative that exists to identify one group as morally inferior to another.

17
exilde 17 points ago +19 / -2 (edited)

There is no such thing as an innate tendency towards subversion and exploitation. The very concepts of subversion and exploitation are abstract notions that can't be dictated solely by someones genetics.

I'd argue the ability to deceive effectively is very innate, and if the most successful of a group are those who can do this well, it puts selection pressure on the group for that trait to become dominant, but beyond that such arguments could certainly be more culturally based. It wouldn't be an all or nothing, of course, and it wouldn't be universally applicable.

Inherent moral deficiency not only requires measurable, universal, objective morality.

After that, you require that genetic determinism to create a given level of morality, which removes the very concept of moral agency.

I'm not big on moral relativism, myself. I think theft, murder, and rape are objectively wrong, at least within the context western culture. It would lend to moral unsuitability to western culture, though if moral relativism is your bag, that doesn't mean they aren't better suited to a different culture that's of equal value.

Anyway, I understand your concern, but these ideas are some of the most heavily censored in the world. Academic attempts to discredit them never really worked over the last 60 years, so they've resorted to banishment of scientists who look into such fields over ethical concerns here in the last 15 or so. There's a reason free speech havens tends to attract such discussion, since you don't need a free speech haven to talk about cat pictures (yet?).

E: just a study that does seem to show that lying is at least a partly heritable trait https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4852200/

most behavior has a genetic trait, it seems.

9
TentElephant 9 points ago +9 / -0 (edited)

If anyone ever figures out where the line is between nature and nurture, feel free to let us know.

11
exilde 11 points ago +11 / -0

It's not really a line, though. It's just potential and actualization.

3
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 3 points ago +4 / -1

I'd argue the ability to deceive effectively is very innate, and if the most successful of a group are those who can do this well, it puts selection pressure on the group for that trait to become dominant, but beyond that such arguments could certainly be more culturally based.

I think that's nothing more than another argument about the very nature of intelligence itself, but I also don't think that intelligence is innate in the way that it keeps being touted. Intelligence, first, is not genetic in and of itself, it is a measure of multiple things that are informed by genetics. The ability for average IQ's to rise and fall over time in populations suggests to me that how it is being used is a fairly significant abuse of any actual argument about genetics.

most behavior has a genetic trait, it seems.

Right and behavior might be partially the result of genetics, as well as environment, and environment can even effect genetics as well.

5
exilde 5 points ago +5 / -0

I think that's nothing more than another argument about the very nature of intelligence itself, but I also don't think that intelligence is innate in the way that it keeps being touted. Intelligence, first, is not genetic in and of itself, it is a measure of multiple things that are informed by genetics. The ability for average IQ's to rise and fall over time in populations suggests to me that how it is being used is a fairly significant abuse of any actual argument about genetics.

This is a fair point, and the Flynn effect seems very real (though it's seemed to have evaporated in the last decade or two). However, racial disparity is fairly persistent, despite conducive environments for realizing higher potentials of intelligence. The average may rise and fall a standard deviation across the board, but the average deviation between blacks and whites track pretty much the same. Nutrition seems to be a major factor. The rationing of sugar during WW2 correlated strongly with a major boost in IQ in the British youth growing up in that period. Perhaps it was the exercise of rationing itself, though that's unlikely over such a short period of time. Could be the decrease we currently see is also a dietary issue. Maybe it's google and lack of mental exercise.

Potential intelligence is likely genetic in and of itself. Realized intelligence will be a combination of the potential one starts with, and how well the environment is suited to realizing the full potential. I'm not saying there's an intelligence gene, but there are a little over 1000 that we know of so far that interact to create what we call intelligence. In the most basic sense, intelligence is just the ability to apply knowledge.

Environment can certainly effect gene expression and mutation. That's not even debatable. That doesn't mean you're going to turn someone with a max 90 IQ potential into a genius, even with the absolute best environment.

In these discussions though, it's always important to remember that this isn't about an individual (we all vary a lot, even within our families), but the large numbers present in demographic groups, the trends that emerge from those large numbers, and the impacts those trends have on the broader society.

3
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

In the most basic sense, intelligence is just the ability to apply knowledge.

I'm not even sure if that would work.

That doesn't mean you're going to turn someone with a max 90 IQ potential into a genius, even with the absolute best environment.

Right, but when you start talking about groups of people, that stops being an issue, and we can start talking about sex selection.

2
exilde 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, absolutely. We have built a society that can function relatively well without intelligent people, because we've centralized so much. IQ is even becoming less of factor in socioeconomic success. Intelligence is not a valuable trait in a mate right now.

3
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

I don't think I could disagree with you any further. Centralization might have lowered people's aptitude, but IQ is absolutely one of the most important factors in socioeconomic success. Intelligence is now, and always has been, a valuable trait.

There are times and places where it is not the most valuable trait (like in times of war or famine), but it's always near the top because it is inevitably useful.

8
Killroyomega 8 points ago +9 / -1

No because that is mostly just motivated reasoning to justify the condemnation of that group. There is no such thing as an innate tendency towards subversion and exploitation. The very concepts of subversion and exploitation are abstract notions that can't be dictated solely by someones genetics.

Counterpoint: Islam, China, and trannies.

Not genetics, but we also know that different racial and ethnic groups are predisposed to different behavioral sets.

Why shouldn't that discussion be allowed?

I could only conclude that such a contradictory argument exists to rationalize a conclusion which supports a narrative that exists to identify one group as morally inferior to another.

Your reasoning basically bans discussion of morals at all, as the idea of morals themselves comes from a bias and rationalization of an ends based idealism.

3
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Counterpoint: Islam, China, and trannies.

Not genetics, but we also know that different racial and ethnic groups are predisposed to different behavioral sets.

Trannies and Muslims aren't a racial / ethnic group. China isn't even an ethnic group, that's just a country.

My counter-counterpoint: why is the culture of a group purely based off of genetic determinism? Can't a culture be inferior by it's actions rather than it's genetic make-up?

Your reasoning basically bans discussion of morals at all, as the idea of morals themselves comes from a bias and rationalization of an ends based idealism.

No, it just rejects objective morality. You can't speak for morality, as I recall, you are religious. That would be you speaking on behalf of God. Having God's full knowledge of all morality. It's a hell of a claim.

You're allowed to have your own morally subjective opinions, but you can't assert an objective morality.

2
Killroyomega 2 points ago +2 / -0

why is the culture of a group purely based off of genetic determinism?

Ah sorry, I kind of rushed that post.

Let me clarify.

The examples I posted were various groups that we know are or can be incredibly subversive. Not in relation to genetics, but in relation to group status, religion, nationality, etc.

To say that Islam is a subversive agent is in general a very accurate statement. To say that trannies are by their nature deceptive is a rather apt description.

I'm arguing that it's not necessarily a bad or incorrect thing to assign labels, negative or positive, to a group or class.

Can't a culture be inferior by it's actions rather than it's genetic make-up?

Yes, it very well can and that's often the case.

On the other hand, there's one group that very obviously and very controversially is inferior by their genetics. Australian Aboriginals. It's an outlier case, yes, but it is an example.

There doesn't need to be a take-away or some grand conspiracy or idealism behind superior/inferior.

No, it just rejects objective morality. You can't speak for morality, as I recall, you are religious. That would be you speaking on behalf of God.

I actually agree with you on the idea of there being no real objective morality. It's something that shifts by culture and circumstance.

However, that doesn't mean we can't approach things from a particular angle or culture. American culture DOES have its own set of moralities and we can judge actions or events through that perspective.

In regards to religiosity, mine own does not preclude me from statements of objective or subjective morality. I view God as The Father and Man as The Son. All fathers wish for their son to one day surpass them. The same is true in the religious sense. It is our own duty and responsibility to parse, understand, and begin to change the world towards what we imagine to be better.

In other words: Ours is the drill that creates the Heavens.

1
TentElephant 1 point ago +2 / -1

The key to shutting down stormfags is acknowledging that WW2 was a race war, no one cared about the jews at that time, no one generally cares about genocide, and all the genocides are bad including what happened in Germany to the jews.

4
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

Except it wasn't a race war to pretty much anyone but the Nazi's useful idiots, especially considering how many ethnic Germans were fighting Germany in the US and Russia.

3
TentElephant 3 points ago +3 / -0

Did you watch the video? It was obviously pitched as as a defensive race war to the Americans. One would find it odd that we would get into a race war between Slavs and Germans. It's due to distributed Leninism. It's a religious peer-to-peer network of ruthlessly immoral, power hungry opportunists. The progressives in our government wanted to help their allies.

The Jews in New York, like John Reed or Walter Duranty, were running around as political operatives. Hitler noticed this, but didn't realize they were happy to see the yids wiped out. As the affluential elite, they saw the eastern europe jews as a stain on their heritage, super WASPs.

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 1 point ago +2 / -1

No, it was pitched to occupying American soldiers in Germany that the German people couldn't be trusted.

That single propaganda film doesn't speak to what most Americans thought before or during the war about Germans. There was arguably more anti-German propaganda in WW1 in the US than in WW2.

It's due to distributed Leninism.

Those words don't appear in your link.

The Jews in New York, like John Reed or Walter Duranty

Here we go again. Not every Jew is a Soviet Spy. Please.

4
TentElephant 4 points ago +4 / -0 (edited)

You're absolutey right. It isn't every Jew. I don't actually blame the jews. It is this weird monster at the top of the managerial state that reaches across borders. You have to ask some questions though when John Reed gets buried in the Kremlin, and he weirdly shows up everywhere shit pops off.

You have seen progressives re-write history. Why would you accept their weird fixation on the Holocaust that developed in the 70s? They've been doing this shit forever. The best red pill is the acceptance that you do not, and should not, have to operate within their moral framework, for it is one built by a history of incompetently immoral opportunists.

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 1 point ago +2 / -1

Why would you accept their weird fixation on the Holocaust that developed in the 70s?

I don't know what you are talking about. The Holocaust wasn't invented in the 70's and it's horrors were well established before that. Part of the reason for anti-German propaganda was the belief that the Germans were insane zealots who would turn on anyone in a heart beat, all at once. "Look at what they did to the Jews, and the Poles, and the Slavs. They could do it to you too."

This didn't make much sense in America at this time because an absolutely massive swath of the population was German already.

The best red pill is the acceptance that you do not, and should not, have to operate within their moral framework, for it is one built by a history of incompetently immoral opportunists.

I don't. But that also doesn't mean that I should become their literal strawman and start claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen, 9/11 was an inside job, and whatever the pastor on TV said is a literal translation of God's word.

I can make decisions based on my own principles, morals, and whatever evidence I find. There is significant value in understanding the Holocaust as modern & industrial genocide perpetuated in one of the most advanced states in the world.

1
JohnnyHitler 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'd rather avoid this place becoming a forum for people to go from cuckservative-tier useful idiot(well, "useful") to actually redpilled, because this place has to remain controlled opposition, silly goy

FTFY. No need to mince words on your free speech website.

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes yes, everyone you don't like is Hitler a jew.

20
StephanieDubeDwilson 20 points ago +21 / -1 (edited)

Rules are for faggots. You guys probably have PTSD from being on retard reddit for so long, but don’t be afraid to speak what’s actually on your mind.

Some fag on kotaku writes an article that basically amounts to “I’m white. Fuck white people! (Please have sex with me now)”? Don’t hold back, call him a fucking faggot ass loser, or if it’s a woman call her a dumb whore. There’s actual freedom of speech here (unless your mod team tries to make it otherwise).

Hell just the other day on TDW someone made a “spez” account and made a post telling people to fuck his wife as reparations for the reddit ban wave a few days ago. It got noticed by heavy.com and they wrote an article 😂

These people who say “get them the fuck off our site!” really mean “get them the fuck off our site AND don’t let them discuss shit anywhere else on the internet reeeee!” Use this. Abuse this. Bottom line, have fun, and don’t be cucks. You’re .winners now, time to act like it.

9
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 9 points ago +10 / -1

Rules and order make sense. For example, I'm not a fan of mass migration and I insist on national borders. That requires rules & order. We're not complete anarchists (well, the majority of the users aren't).

18
anon12 18 points ago +21 / -3

Yo what the fuck?

We're off reddit now, half of these aren't necessary anymore.

Let people fucking speak.

15
Soup_Navy_Admiral 15 points ago +15 / -0

SIXTEEN: Do not attack entire identity groups as inferior, subhuman, inherently morally deficient, biologically/evolutionary mongrel, or participating in a vast conspiracy to take over the world, ala ZOG-NWO / The Patriarchy.

Does this mean I still can't call myself a mutt because my grandparents are from different parts of the world?

(Yes, I'm still salty about that.)

12
exilde 12 points ago +13 / -1

I'll call you a mutt, if it makes you feel better.

7
Soup_Navy_Admiral 7 points ago +7 / -0

I'll call you a mutt, if it makes you feel better.

yaaaay

5
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

Are mutts inferior?

5
AntonioOfVenice 5 points ago +5 / -0

According to some commentators, a lot of mulattoes have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to race. Just today, I saw a video of a mulatto wearing a tutu screaming 'traitor' at a cool black cop.

2
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's because racists are trying to weaponize mulattoes as a particularly aggrieved class by exploiting the racial tensions that said mulattoes have in regards to their parent race.

Someone who's "bi-racial", but has basically been mixed for 3 generations, is going to say they "don't feel like their part of either race" because racists want to exploit that as a weapon, and teach them that victim complex.

That flamer in the skirt was condemning a black cop because he was virtue signalling to make himself feel better and feel important. The 3/4ths white gay man is more of a "real black man' than the actual black man. Same goes for how transwomen are more real women than cis-white-women.

3
ShadistIsACuck 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes.

1
Soup_Navy_Admiral 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hybrid vigor, baybeeeeeee.

11
Adamrises 11 points ago +12 / -1

Since this is clearly a copy paste from Saidit, is the "No Porn" their rule or the rule here?

Because that's some serious stupid shit to ban it sitewide, rather than on specific .Wins

10
AsahiNoHikari 10 points ago +10 / -0

https://policies.communities.win/content/ Porn does not appear to be generally banned.

4
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

For here yes. Obvious porn really should be banned because it opens up a whole can of worms for us and doesn't really relate to anything here.

9
Adamrises 9 points ago +10 / -1

I didn't mean to say it should be posted here. It doesn't relate obviously. Its just written in such a draconian way that it triggered some red flags.

Though I suppose this isn't a subcommunity of a larger website like reddit, but its own site yeah? So I was just reading it as "T_D mods banned porn for all Wins." I'm not good with technology so I'm confused on that part.

4
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

No, I was just an idiot and should have removed that. It was copypasta from Saidit.

3
AsahiNoHikari 3 points ago +3 / -0

Is discussion of porn relating to censorship (e.g. hentai games getting banned or cut on Steam) allowed?

5
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

Oh yeah, that's fine.

Just not raw pornography.

9
Soup_Navy_Admiral 9 points ago +9 / -0

NINE: No person shall use saidit to solicit, facilitate any transaction, or gift including: ... ATF defined firearms or ammo as defined by the ATF, Bump-stock type devices, Explosives, 3D printing files to produce the aforementioned, controlled substances, Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco, Stolen goods, Paid services involving physical sexual contact, Personal Information, Falsified Official Documents, Falsified Currency, Fraudulent Services, Pharmaceuticals

(Looks at site name.)

Greetings sir, I wish to solicit and/or facilitate a transaction for some ATF-defined firearms and controlled substances, as well have sexual contact with some falsified currency. Would you be able to assist me in this endeavour?

3
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 3 points ago +5 / -2

No

9
GeneralBoobs 9 points ago +10 / -1

So, Dindu Nuffin and Happy Merchant references are banned. Okay then. Goodbye, KiAhalf 2.0

8
ShadistIsACuck 8 points ago +8 / -0

The reason for removing /pol/posting used to be reddit admins but now the cucks ban it anyways.

2
AntonioOfVenice 2 points ago +5 / -3

That is not at all clear. If it's made in jest, I'm guessing it would be allowed.

8
AlphaPepe 8 points ago +9 / -1

Welcome u/DomitiusOfMassilia! Greetings from T_D. We hope you enjoy your stay.

12
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 12 points ago +12 / -0

Thanks!

I have no idea who you are!

8
UnsubtleAardvark 8 points ago +8 / -0

Do we know if/when Antonio and Clockwork will be joining us over here?

8
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

Soon, I assume.

9
ClockworkFool 9 points ago +9 / -0

Soon? I got here before you did.

I just didn't do anything productive.

7
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 7 points ago +7 / -0

I should probably learn how to invite mods.

0
Ragnar_Danneskjold 0 points ago +1 / -1

Glad to see this are still the same over here ;)

1
ClockworkFool 1 point ago +1 / -0

I like to think I have ritual significance.

5
AntonioOfVenice 5 points ago +5 / -0

Well, I'm here now.

A kind KiA moderator actually registered my account to prevent anyone from stealing it.

1
Aphrael 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can you say who, or do you have to protect the name of the innocent?

8
Gamergate 8 points ago +9 / -1

TL;DR QRD. I fucking hate commies and the religion of Islam. Do you welcome Veterans here?

10
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 10 points ago +10 / -0

Sure, but be advised: I'll welcome Islamists and Commies here. You should know thine enemy.

7
AntonioOfVenice 7 points ago +7 / -0

thine

Props for using proper grammar.

Though even better would have been: thou shouldst know thine enemy.

10
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 10 points ago +11 / -1

Shut up faggot. Quit talkin' like a queer.

8
AntonioOfVenice 8 points ago +8 / -0

I'll be just as much as a faggot as I want, this is KiA2.win, bitch.

3
TentElephant 3 points ago +3 / -0

Good plan, there is nothing wrong with defending your territory though. Physical removal works. Be the monarch, defend the realm.

4
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

No Janny Monarchs. Ever.

The reason Distributed Leninism was needed was because Formal Leninism couldn't find a single point of failure to attack.

Leftists need institutions to attack. If I make my institutions formless, they can't attack it through any traditional means, and the march through them becomes far longer.

2
TentElephant 2 points ago +2 / -0

There reaches a point where the incessant screaming becomes noise. If you suck at it, you'll find out when your community dies. I'm hypercapitalist. This is your property, but no one is going to shop at a store that throws out everyone not trying to steal from them. Now sit the fuck back down you worthless jannie.

3
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

. This is your property, but no one is going to shop at a store that throws out everyone not trying to steal from them.

This seems like the opposite of what you should be accusing me of.

3
TentElephant 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm not accusing you of it. It is a failure state. One which Bane achieved marvelously, with his own little peacefully protestoring counter-revolutionary, david-me, to manufacture consent.

I'm not saying that it was a coordinated event. It was a great opportunity. The cathedral works.

7
ceiphori 7 points ago +7 / -0

Feels good man.

7
OppressedKekistani 7 points ago +7 / -0

I'm reasonably certain Rule 2 is NOT a sitewide rule in the .win community.

In fact most of these are like that. Doxxing is allowed, among other things.

5
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

I'm gonna probably avoid doxxing as much as reasonable. I really do respect the right of privacy. The lynchmobs should have difficulty finding targets.

6
OppressedKekistani 6 points ago +6 / -0

This is ultimately suicide when your enemies have no such qualms against you.

You think Cancel Culture is just gonna decide to stop all on its own in any situation not involving a lefty?

0
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 0 points ago +3 / -3

The more you regurgitate the left, the more you will stand for nothing without a single principle. You'd be better off abandoning your principles now and joining Antifa, instead of claiming to be principles and abandoning them for power later. Just don't lie to yourself.

9
OppressedKekistani 9 points ago +10 / -1

"The righteous dead are not more righteous, they're simply dead."

4
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 4 points ago +7 / -3

Then stop waiting everyone's time and be a leftist if it works so well. Abandon your principles and do what works.

After all, Leftism has never failed, right?

It can't be that principled positions might have value, right?

Of course not. No principled position has any strategic or tactical value. Gain power and disregard everything else. That's how you get to final victory.

6
OppressedKekistani 6 points ago +7 / -1

False equivalence, holding them to their own standards does not make one a Leftist. For starters, not a Marxist, secondly, no political alignment with globalism or disarmament policies. Thirdly, no oppression stack. You apparently have no idea what a Leftist is, but it's not simply "does things I don't like".

3
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 3 points ago +5 / -2

On the contrary, I'm well aware of what a Leftist is. That's why you can't hold them to their own standards. They don't have principles at all.

2
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

I removed it just in case.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
9
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 9 points ago +9 / -0

bundles of sticks

Do you mean faggots?

Do you mean uppity faggots?

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks

5
Piroko 5 points ago +5 / -0

Do not attack entire identity groups as inferior, subhuman, inherently morally deficient, biologically/evolutionary mongrel, or participating in a vast conspiracy to take over the world

But what about women?

0
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 0 points ago +2 / -2

They are included in that.

3
Piroko 3 points ago +3 / -0

Mmmmm guess we're gonna have to pokeduel.

SCHOPENHAUER, I CHOOSE YOU!

2
Aphrael 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm good with staying away from theredpill territory, but can we at least use drama memes? I feel like I'd be losing part of my culture if I couldn't joke about the dog pill.

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] [S] 1 point ago +2 / -1

I'm not trying to regulate basic bitch bantz between the genders. I'm trying to steer clear from "women are an inferior subclass of humans that should not be allowed to vote". Which, frankly, is further than TRP. It's "Return Of Kings" nonsense.

3
Aphrael 3 points ago +3 / -0

END UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE!

1
YourMistaken 1 point ago +1 / -0

So we can't advocate for the repeal of suffrage for groups of people?

1
ShadistIsACuck 1 point ago +1 / -0

Cuck

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

I didn't stutter.

4
m0r1arty 4 points ago +5 / -1

Nice for you lot to finally show up!

8
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

joined 51 days ago

I've been trying to get in contact with them for a while.

2
m0r1arty 2 points ago +3 / -1

Better late than never! :)

5
TentElephant 5 points ago +6 / -1

Too bad those retarded tranny faggots got a good chunk of people thouroughly confused.

3
GoggleHead 3 points ago +3 / -0

I see we've ported over most of the same restrictive faggotry, completely defeating the purpose of standing up the site. We'll see how long it takes for this one to burn down.

1
StephanieDubeDwilson 1 point ago +1 / -0

Here I thought KiA2 was the badass one, looks like I was wrong.

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

You should compare our Long Rules list in Reddit to this. The difference is stark.

3
GoggleHead 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, but you're still gonna shut me up if I start identifying the root cause of the issues facing our society. So why should I give you a cookie?

-1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] -1 points ago +1 / -2

Are you gonna blame the Jews for everything?

If so, then I don't really care that you're upset. We have to have a minimum standard of decorum, and I really do not want this place to be overrun by Stormfags. Make you own subs, honestly, I know several places that will allow you to. You guys ruin your own environments and then complain when nobody lets you onto their communities.

3
SexualTyrannosaurus 3 points ago +3 / -0

Anyone have a list of all the .win's that have already migrated over?

3
Sucrapi88 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thank God for this. I frequent TDwin and now I can come here. One step closer to completely stopping going from reddit. Hopefully theredpill and WhereAreAllTheGoodMen can create their own domains.

3
todiwan 3 points ago +3 / -0

This place looks lovely, and although the rules aren't quite perfect, the problems I have with them are so minor that I can't even be bothered stating them. Looking forward to using it. It's gonna be a very easy transition, since the only sub on Reddit I used in the first place was KIA2.

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

The rules are mostly here to secure our position and establish a minimum order.

1
todiwan 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm mostly talking about "don't post more than 5 posts a day on this sub". It seems... arbitrary. And the repost rule. The rest are pretty fine.

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

We instituted it as a result of 2 users basically posting 30 posts each every single day and not really checking if they were re-posts, taking forever to respond, and many of the posts being shit quality. It was too much.

5 was an arbitrary number, but it seems to be enough to keep many posts coming in from different people, and not letting people get swamped by bullshit.

3
AceOfTrumps 3 points ago +3 / -0

2

Might want to think about the wording, as it is if taken literally you couldn't post a john wick meme, advocate for the death penalty, etc

5

Tdw literally stickied a meme of two gay guys obviously going at it... I highly doubt that's a site wide restriction

I know i'm not a member of your specific community, so take my opinion with a grain of salt & welcome to .win & congratulations on making the switch

4
AntonioOfVenice 4 points ago +4 / -0

Tdw literally stickied a meme of two gay guys obviously going at it..

You can't pique my curiosity like that and then deny me the goods.

2
AceOfTrumps 2 points ago +2 / -0

https://thedonald.win/p/Fftf7NRN/x/c/

It's not quite how I remembered it, point still stands

3
AntonioOfVenice 3 points ago +3 / -0

Such a disappointment

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Might want to think about the wording, as it is if taken literally you couldn't post a john wick meme, advocate for the death penalty, etc

I want you to read this as if we're not on Reddit. Like: as if we're not fucking retards that try to re-define words to win arguments. Like actually glorifying real violence. I'm sure I could clean it up, but you kinda get what I mean, I'm sure. Don't be like "I'm glad those kids in CHAZ got shot!".

Tdw literally stickied a meme of two gay guys obviously going at it... I highly doubt that's a site wide restriction

That's my fault, I copy-pasta'd it from Saidit.

2
The_Frag_Man 2 points ago +2 / -0

Don't be like "I'm glad those kids in CHAZ got shot!".

Why?

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because this place has the exact opposite problem of Reddit. We need to have a minimum level of social decorum so that we are not all savages.

3
YesMovement 3 points ago +3 / -0

Rule 7 sucks. I thought the <2500 Twitter followers was a stupid Reddit rule not a stupid KiA rule?

I get FB because it has real names or Twitter accounts w/ a dozen followers, but why the other limits.

I was going to post a great Twitter thread thinking I wouldn't have to follow that stupid rule on .win, only to see that dumb rule is here too. Quality thread on a free speech case vs New Zealand banning Lauren Southern but he only has 650 followers.

Can we not at least reduce the follower count to something like 100 since we don't have Nazi admins to worry about?

3
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Fair enough. I'll make it 500 and we'll see how it plays out.

3
newironside 3 points ago +3 / -0

FIFTEEN: Do not direct particularly egregious identity based slurs at users. A list will be provided

Wheres the list.

4
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

I totally forgot to make one. I'll have to do that in the coming days.

1
UnsubtleAardvark 1 point ago +1 / -0

Is this list being made for legal reasons or just because you don't want to see any bad words?

2
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bad words, mostly to encourage a basic-bitch level of decorum.

4
UnsubtleAardvark 4 points ago +4 / -0

You see I still believe in the free speech absolutist approach, so I'm not going to agree with this rule.

1
TentElephant 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm a free thought absolutist. There reaches a point where raw speech becomes a DDOS on thought, not enough signal, conversation dies, people leave. Don't throw people out to appease the mob. Throw people out because they are legitimately problematic for the continued well-being of your house, store, business, kingdom.

3
UnsubtleAardvark 3 points ago +3 / -0

Throw people out because they are legitimately problematic for the continued well-being of your house, store, business, kingdom.

That is literally the same line of thinking that the SocJus crowd, and really any censor in the history of the world. People are generally fine with letting anything continue until they feel it threatens their way of life.

I still firmly believe that you should let the community regulate itself and not restrict bad words.

1
TentElephant 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree bad words should be allowed. Check out my first comment. Context matters.

2
HeavenPiercingMan 2 points ago +2 / -0

So what can't we talk about here or in reddit? I've been seeing vague references to "unmentionable matters" regarding antifags, kinda like the whistleblower's name.

2
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just what you see on the Rules.

ERIC CIARAMELLA

1
HeavenPiercingMan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh, it's because on plebbit I kept saying two guys saying that "something about antifa we can't say" and "com", I asked via PM what they meant and I just got told a vague "ask around in Win"

P.S. ERIC CIARAMELLA IS A RETARD, TRANNIES ARE FAGGOTS

2
roseate 2 points ago +2 / -0

Will we be getting a banner and theme soon?

2
Diotima 2 points ago +2 / -0

welcome from the donald.win member here! I am not a KIA2 poster in the past so I probably won't actively be posting here due to frankly already way to active on TD.win and I need breaks!....but welcome nonetheless... and remember together we can Veni, vidi, vici.

2
sensual_rustle 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fuck half-kia

Their message was completely fucking ass.

2
Hugs 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's good to be back, baby.

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Welcome back!

2
Banmantank 2 points ago +2 / -0

Summary: do not be an asshole.

Got it. Much love from t_d fam for freeing yourselves. So far you cats seem to be pretty funny.

2
mspl 2 points ago +2 / -0

Did you forget the concept of free speech or something ?

2
kidfromtheplayground 2 points ago +2 / -0

You all look good over here on .WIN! Nice simple rules good stuff!

2
ceiphori 2 points ago +2 / -0

Too many rules spoil the broth.

2
TheLionParty 2 points ago +3 / -1

Glad to have you all part of the .win community, One of the few places on reddit where sanity is still prevalent.

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks.

2
-Fender- 2 points ago +2 / -0

Unrelated to the rules, but relevant to this internet site:

Why are you calling this site a "subreddit" in the banner at the top of the screen? Call this a "forum" instead, or something else. The purpose of this site is to disassociate ourselves from reddit, is it not?

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

I should probably change it... I just don't know what I should call it.

1
Irreverant77 1 point ago +1 / -0

No. You should keep it. Even if half a year from now we should move again, keep it.

Why? Because fuck reddit & 1/2KiA.

For instance, I occasionally search a topic with "KiA2", "KiA", & "Reddit" in my search query along with the topic. Occasionally entering certain names of supreme faggotry like "Nathan Grayson" or "Erin Biba" brings up KiA2 reddit hits on the first few pages of search results.

At best KiA2 will be whitewashed and forgotten in the retarded annals of reddit cuckery. More likely KiA2 will be denigrated as evil wacist nazi's that tried to hi-jack geek culture.

We don't have to remove references from reddit to dissociate from them. I found this community 2years ago by stumbling onto encyclopedia dramatica, becoming enamored by GG(they had receipts), lurking for 6 months, but not identifying as a gamer. I grasped the significance of gaming, ethics in journalism, and anti-pc culture though. Thankfully KiA2 was relatively new and made a good beachhead for me.

My mild autism only allows mild levitation. My dyslexia makes me fucking crash land every time. There's autistics on the internet who's autism lets them fucking fly and they always land on their feet though. I might be an anomaly, but I'm certainly not the only one. I hope our community as a whole grows from a broad array of interest aside from just primarily appealing to apolitical dissidents whom have grown weary of curated MSM narratives.

Leave "reddit" in the banner as a beacon for the next random who might otherwise never find us.

As long as our core community stays together and grows we'll stay relevant in search queries. Cutting out our "reddit" origins is just an increased layer of seperation for the next newbie to overcome.

2
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

That makes sense.

2
WelcomeToRealLife 2 points ago +2 / -0

What are the standards by which something is judged a "falsehood or hoax"? That seems like leaving the door open to censorship.

2
Zednix 2 points ago +2 / -0

There are way too many rules, you need to cut this shit in half.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
CoronaChan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nice!

1
The_Frag_Man 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do not post intentional falsehoods or hoaxes. Yes, the Elders of Zion and other such intentionally fabricated documents fall into this.

What if you wanted to discuss it? Is this rule about misleading the user base, or about excluding some topics of discussion?

SIXTEEN: Do not attack entire identity groups as ... participating in a vast conspiracy to take over the world, ala ZOG-NWO / The Patriarchy.

Why? What if you clarify that "The Jews" is not referring to "All Jews"?

0
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

What if you wanted to discuss it? Is this rule about misleading the user base, or about excluding some topics of discussion?

This is about countering disinformation campaigns. The Elders of Zion happen to be a very old campaign but it still has hangers on. I can easily imagine that some people will create other hoax campaigns to try and get the general userbase to believe terrible things.

What if you clarify that "The Jews" is not referring to "All Jews"?

Attacking "The Jews" is a collective attack on Jews. It's an old trope to deflect racial collectivist attacks on groups by saying, "I'm not talking about every Jew".

Racists, are racial collectivists. They attack racial collectives.

2
The_Frag_Man 2 points ago +2 / -0

Okay, but what if there is a group of conspiring Jews? Are you allowed to talk about that? Or what if there might be, and you want to talk about the evidence. Will you remove posts containing evidence of a conspiracy? Are conspiracies allowed?

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Evidence of a conspiracy by people who are Jews is fine. Claiming that Jews are per-disposed to conspiring against everyone who isn't Jewish is very different. It's the assertion of Jewish racial conspiracy.

1
The_Frag_Man 1 point ago +1 / -0

Just so I can be clear about the rule, let me give an example. Suppose that there is a conversation about mass immigration in Europe, may I present for discussion the famous Barbara Spectre interview video?

1
DomitiusOfMassilia [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't know, I've never heard of that. Can you give me a better example?

1
agreedbro 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fuck reddit. Glad to be here instead.

1
XCorneliusX 1 point ago +1 / -0

Welcome to the win community. For your info, your login works in all our network wins. If you do not see a win on this list, https://communities.win/p/GIEblc8H/list-of-win-communities/c/ posted by u/Doggos or on the sidebar of that win, do not use your login and pass. There are .win sites that are not ours and they may steal your login.

Have fun breaking free of Tencent dictators.

1
Winter 1 point ago +1 / -0

Is there a way to put forth suggestions for things? I just wanted to see if there was any others that may want to see bigger upvote buttons for those on mobile? I keep hitting peoples names instead and I swear to you my thumbs are not sausages. The Donald’s is super easy to hit, so I figured I would just put the suggestion forward, if it hasn’t been already. :)

1
RPD2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Welcome to the other side of the wall! Good to be here guys.

1
xAzureAceStarburstx 1 point ago +1 / -0

Will people be censored if they say anything controversial yet true about China, black people, transgenders, or women that's been called a conspiracy theory?

1
ConsiderThisBoot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Awesome that y'all finally settled in the new world. now I will participate!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0