Articles & Happening Meta Discussion

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Articles & Happenings is the third attempt at a news board on the Kiwi Farms. It is a cursed place. Every moderator who has been assigned here has resigned within a year. During 2016, the political crossfire was so bad it spread to different boards and culminated in me banning American news discussion entirely for several months. It has been deleted in its entirety twice. There is no actual discussion here, it's people posting garbage. It leans much further right than the rest of the site and doesn't particularly conduct discussion because dissenting opinions are dogpiled by a thousand memelords posting shit they read on /pol/ without any critical analysis.

The only rules that can be enforced are empirical ones with boolean violation answers. New threads must cite a real source directly and must use the headline of the article as a thread title without any editorializing. Articles must be archived in some way and must link to the original article. Replies that are one word or a reaction images are automatic one-month bans from the board.

I'm creating this now because it seems like this place is here to stay and is one of the largest areas of the entire site. I might as well throw in bare minimum effort to improve it. I don't even try to find mods for here because they will quit, without exception. I've added new prefixes ("Business" and "Crime") just now.

Discuss.


New threads should be made like this.
1570266734258.png
 
Last edited:
Click to expand...
Godwin was a fat tard when he was the editor of the Daily Texan. Even other leftists on staff couldn't stand his smug bullshit.

Nothing has changed.
 
87eecbdeacd375fd9b021a2a928e92b8.png


I kind of feel like it was actually possible to discuss the entirety of the article without the need to say stuff like this, to be perfectly honest, especially when, "This Jew has published Jew papers in Jewish" really has nothing to do with the content of the article itself. It's not really lending anything to the conversation, it's just pointing out the fact that he's Jewish and "not-white."
 
It's HK-47 said:
View attachment 1152686

I kind of feel like it was actually possible to discuss the entirety of the article without the need to say stuff like this, to be perfectly honest, especially when, "This Jew has published Jew papers in Jewish" really has nothing to do with the content of the article itself. It's not really lending anything to the conversation, it's just pointing out the fact that he's Jewish and "not-white."
Click to expand...
The substance of this Jew's article is that any speech that is not pro-Jew should be suppressed.

Either it's acceptable to discuss that, or it isn't.

If talking honestly about Jews is prohibited, that's fine. Just make it a rule.
 
I'm not the one who deleted it in the first place; I didn't even read that thread because I hate reading anything from Slate. The stuff they put out is almost always useless garbage. I had to go read that article now, though, and I think that we must have interpreted the article very differently because "No one can say anything that isn't pro-Jewish" isn't really what I took away from that article.

He took a very tiny shit on 8Chan though. I could see that upsetting people who don't like Jews. I have no strong feelings one way or the other, I'm just telling you why the message was probably deleted. The fact that he's Jewish really didn't have anything to do with the content of his article.
 
I agree that it's excessive to go on about Zionism, but at the same time, it seems absolutely relevant to call Godwin's personal motives into question. He is using his internet celebrity to advance certain causes.

In this case, the cause is technocratic decision-making of what constitutes "disruptive speech." It seems pretty relevant to point out if, for example, he changes his declared ethnicity based on who he is speaking to, as that calls his honesty into question.
 
X Prime said:
I agree that it's excessive to go on about Zionism, but at the same time, it seems absolutely relevant to call Godwin's personal motives into question. He is using his internet celebrity to advance certain causes.

In this case, the cause is technocratic decision-making of what constitutes "disruptive speech." It seems pretty relevant to point out if, for example, he changes his declared ethnicity based on who he is speaking to, as that calls his honesty into question.
Click to expand...
People who write for Slate are considered honest?
 
It's HK-47 said:
I'm not the one who deleted it in the first place; I didn't even read that thread because I hate reading anything from Slate. The stuff they put out is almost always useless garbage. I had to go read that article now, though, and I think that we must have interpreted the article very differently because "No one can say anything that isn't pro-Jewish" isn't really what I took away from that article.

He took a very tiny shit on 8Chan though. I could see that upsetting people who don't like Jews. I have no strong feelings one way or the other, I'm just telling you why the message was probably deleted. The fact that he's Jewish really didn't have anything to do with the content of his article.
Click to expand...
OK, this is amazing.

Godwin is a Zionist, he is arguing in this article as he has for many years that anyone who opposes Zionism or talks truthfully about his tribe should have their speech suppressed, and you are arguing that this cannot be discussed because he doesn't come out and say "As a Jew, I support the suppression of the speech of non-Jews about Jews" in his latest article.

That's your argument? That the sick, twisted motivations of the writers of articles discussed on A&H can only be discussed if they're not Jewish?
 
3119967d0c said:
OK, this is amazing.

Godwin is a Zionist, he is arguing in this article as he has for many years that anyone who opposes Zionism or talks truthfully about his tribe should have their speech suppressed, and you are arguing that this cannot be discussed because he doesn't come out and say "As a Jew, I support the suppression of the speech of non-Jews about Jews" in his latest article.

That's your argument?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand: I don't care and I think the argument at it's core is just silly.

I'm not the one who deleted it and I probably wouldn't have, I'm just saying that spouting off the words "Jews" and "Zionism" multiple times in a row is probably what caused someone to reach for the Shut It Down! button. I didn't see anything in that article about Long-Nose Tribes or Zionism or Jewish Questions, but I also didn't read it in any capacity more than a cursory glance because I don't care. I'm positive that there's all sorts of hidden meanings and hidden agendas and other red strings zipping all over the corkboard that you'd only see if you're a Level 85 Grand Jew Assassin, but I really do not want to get into a drawn-out discussion with someone who hates Jews because anti-Semitism makes people fucking weird.

It's not even the fun, Alex Jones kind of weird it's just regular weird. It's like they can't read anything or do anything without having to find some sort of way to attribute it to this globe-spanning, multi-generational conspiracy where this race of short, hairy people who can't even keep rock-chucking lunatics out of Israel are also somehow in complete control of the planet. It's the internet and some people hate Jews. I get it, I understand the proposed rationale behind it, but to me it's just silly to go looking for it absolutely everywhere.
 
It's HK-47 said:
You misunderstand: I don't care and I think the argument at it's core is just silly.

I'm not the one who deleted it and I probably wouldn't have, I'm just saying that spouting off the words "Jews" and "Zionism" multiple times in a row is probably what caused someone to reach for the Shut It Down! button. I didn't see anything in that article about Long-Nose Tribes or Zionism or Jewish Questions, but I also didn't read it in any capacity more than a cursory glance because I don't care. I'm positive that there's all sorts of hidden meanings and hidden agendas and other red strings zipping all over the corkboard that you'd only see if you're a Level 85 Grand Jew Assassin, but I really do not want to get into a drawn-out discussion with someone who hates Jews because anti-Semitism makes people fucking weird.

It's not even the fun, Alex Jones kind of weird it's just regular weird. It's like they can't read anything or do anything without having to find some sort of way to attribute it to this globe-spanning, multi-generational conspiracy where this race of short, hairy people who can't even keep rock-chucking lunatics out of Israel are also somehow in complete control of the planet. It's the internet and some people hate Jews. I get it, I understand the proposed rationale behind it, but to me it's just silly to go looking for it absolutely everywhere.
Click to expand...
That was very long, but if I understand what you're saying, you think it's fine for a report and deletion of a post to be approved, just so long as it involves criticism of a Jew who wants to suppress the speech of non-Jews?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I understand why a rule might be made against any criticism of Jews to protect the forum, because Jews like Godwin want to take away freedom of speech. But it should be openly stated.
Unog said:
Well, who did?
Click to expand...
Probably @Randall Fragg, who openly admits to deleting another post of mine because it was making fun of neocons advocating for invading every country in the Middle East because 'they'll welcome AMMURRICA with open arms' a-la Iraq 2003. Apparently calling the congenitally retar.ded stupid is uncollegiate or something?
 
If you want to bypass a filter, use the gear to toggle BBCode and enter code like
Code: 
[b][/b]
inbetween the filtered word.

Or use a non-space-taking character.

Congratulations, you are no longer a posting reta‍rd!
 
3119967d0c said:
That was very long, but if I understand what you're saying, you think it's fine for a report and deletion of a post to be approved, just so long as it involves criticism of a Jew who wants to suppress the speech of non-Jews?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I understand why a rule might be made against any criticism of Jews to protect the forum, because Jews like Godwin want to take away freedom of speech. But it should be openly stated.
Click to expand...
Anti-Jewish stuff isn't deleted because it's some sort of threat to the board. The biggest threat to the board are disabled, fat people or dickless ex-men with lots of welfare money to throw at pointless lawsuits. They're deleted because they're a thought-terminating "dead end" that never results in anything other than turning a thread into a crap-fest. Any and all rationality flies out of the window as soon as it's brought up and then every reply there-after is just a variation on gas the war, race Kikes now.

It's like how Far-Left people grind to a halt and start yelling "Fuck whitey!" or how games journalists never shut up about Gamergate or how Trans activists blame everything on "CIS" people. It's just a dead end masquerading as an argument and it doesn't mean anything, it's just an easy scapegoat.

And yes, I am aware of the irony in using "scapegoat" in this discussion.
 
It's HK-47 said:
Anti-Jewish stuff isn't deleted because it's some sort of threat to the board. The biggest threat to the board are disabled, fat people or dickless ex-men with lots of welfare money to throw at pointless lawsuits. They're deleted because they're a thought-terminating "dead end" that never results in anything other than turning a thread into a crap-fest. Any and all rationality flies out of the window as soon as it's brought up and then every reply there-after is just a variation on gas the war, race Kikes now.

It's like how Far-Left people grind to a halt and start yelling "Fuck whitey!" or how games journalists never shut up about Gamergate or how Trans activists blame everything on "CIS" people. It's just a dead end masquerading as an argument and it doesn't mean anything, it's just an easy scapegoat.

And yes, I am aware of the irony in using "scapegoat" in this discussion.
Click to expand...
So I'm not sure quite where you're going here.

Are you classifying my post, correctly looking at the motives of anti-free speech activist Mike Godwin, as a post by a member of the "disabled, fat people or dickless ex-men with lots of welfare money to throw at pointless lawsuits."?

Or is describing his motives "a thought-terminating "dead end""?

Or is it as simple as you deciding that anyone who mentions Jews is an 'anti-anti-SJW' and that they are 'just as cringy as SJWs, remember Gamergate'? Because if so, that's pretty sad.
 
3119967d0c said:
So I'm not sure quite where you're going here.

Are you classifying my post, correctly looking at the motives of anti-free speech activist Mike Godwin, as a post by a member of the "disabled, fat people or dickless ex-men with lots of welfare money to throw at pointless lawsuits."?

Or is describing his motives "a thought-terminating "dead end""?

Or is it as simple as you deciding that anyone who mentions Jews is an 'anti-anti-SJW' and that they are 'just as cringy as SJWs, remember Gamergate'? Because if so, that's pretty sad.
Click to expand...
32433.png

I give up, I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore. Here's a link to Talk to Staff.
 
It's HK-47 said:
View attachment 1152868

I give up, I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore. Here's a link to Talk to Staff.
Click to expand...
It's not a 'Talk to Staff' issue. Is 'Talk to Staff' the correct forum for suggesting changing forum rules?

If you can't come up with a coherent reason for removing posts that do not violate forum rules, you should propose an alternative rule.

I have proposed that if you are concerned that discussing the motives of evil people who want to suppress speech is dangerous when they're Jewish, there should be a rule to ban discussion of Jews in a negative context. What is your response?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom