all 91 comments

[–]magnora7[A] 17 insightful - 4 fun17 insightful - 3 fun18 insightful - 4 fun -  (29 children)

Advocating violence is not allowed on saidit.

I've just banned the user in question because this is the 3rd time he's done this over the last few months despite claims he would stop, thanks for bringing it to the attention of myself and /u/soundsituation

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

Well thank God, I was getting sick and tired of having 16 users online. 15 is much better.

You should ban some more people.

[–]magnora7 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Saidit serves 100k pageload requests a day, just saying

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

I hit refresh a lot.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (18 children)

If you allow advocation of violence, this site would get shut down and have zero users.

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I haven't had my tea yet, so lemme just bulletpoint my thoughts here:

Saidit is going to have zero users anyway at this rate.

Reddit and Imgur seem under no threat of being shut down despite widespread calls for violence concerning Roe v Wade.

Socks generates a lot of discussion.

Socks has a bunch of other accounts.

I don't see how this helps anything.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Reddit and Imgur seem under no threat of being shut down despite widespread calls for violence concerning Roe v Wade.

That's because those sites are protected by Jew oligarchs. We are not. I can understand why magnora7 would take calls to violence so strictly. Personally I like the rule because I find most people making calls to violence are often trolls or feds attempting to bait dissidents into being inflammatory. They can then use this manipulated inflammatory posting out of context to convict you in jew courts or convince normies that the dissident right is full of 'incel alt right terrorists!'

Socks generates a lot of discussion.

True, which is why I tried not to ban him even though he walked the line. However, if Magnora is going to treat DAR so strictly (i.e. pulling us off the main feed for 'violence' posting) then he should apply the standard fairly.

Socks has a bunch of other accounts.

I don't see how this helps anything.

Even though you can make sock puppet accounts it's still a pain when your main account goes away. It's a deterrent.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    I agree, DAR users who post calls to violence should be banned.

    Socks violated this rule more than two times.

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    We remove comments and ban users that call for violence but they are rarely from regular DAR users.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [removed]

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      A common theme here is that all blacks should be removed from the US.

      You're leaving out Jews. We especially call for Jews to be peacefully removed or at least arrested and put on trial for their coordinated crimes against humanity and especially whites. However, this is not a call to violence even in the slightest. In fact it would be healthier and safer for both parties if blacks went back to their homelands. Blacks are so unsuited to live in civilized society that even a slight pull back in free handouts to them would cause massive violence and famine in their communities at the hands of their own people. That's not advocating violence either. Since dissidents understand the IQ and disposition of the average African we know how cruel it would be to randomly stop aid. That's why we advocate a slow peaceful disassociation and repatriation. If you spent any time here you'd see those discussions. Your only experience with dissidents is probably from left wing sources. Here's an article if you want to understand a more genuine position that's not a strawman.

      https://counter-currents.com/2014/06/the-slow-cleanse/

      Furthermore, black people commit more violence than whites and more rape. Even if dissidents called for a 'violent' expulsion of blacks (which they don't) it would be defensive just looking at the raw numbers of black on white crime. White people have a right to live in safety and not fear attacks, theft, rape and other crimes. White people have a right to live without Jews constantly advocating racial tension and racial 'retribution'. White people have a right to live free of extortion, extraction, grooming, conditioning and manipulation from Jews.

      [–]socksuckersocks_sucks 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      Bahaha... another socks alt banned. Thanks for using your username to tell us what you are. Now, to rephrase one of your own silly comments:

      Scum like you are ruining Saidit. [Nobody cares that the degenerate] socks [wasted hundreds of hours of his life] for almost 2 years, and [acquired] 17000 [useless] karma, whereas you're just [a] weekend Saidit [pinko faggot] pussy, and you want Saidit to have only [pinko faggot pussy scum] like [socks and the whole of Reddit].

      You seriously think that after two months of inactivity you'd just mysteriously start commenting again on a subsaidit that isn't on s/all and on which you haven't commented on before!? And yet you know everything that goes on in this subsaidit? Bahaha... a soy-fuelled 50-year old 'man' crying about Trump and Tucker Carlson online thinks he can trick me by pretending to be anyone but socks? Bahaha... Speaking in the third-person about socks, are we? I'm sure you have plenty of practice doing that, being a mental head case.

      Given that Nazis irk you so much, I extend to you the obligatory Heil Hitler, you mentally-ill untermensch whose descendants will, in the unlikely event that you have any, be brown, pan and trans!

      [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Haha, i should have known that was a socks alt. Looks like m7 banned her quickly again.

      [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

      Reddit and Imgur seem under no threat of being shut down

      Reddit bans people all the time for calls to violence, if they didn't, reddit would cease to exist. Some calls to violence are allowed on reddit because our society generally accepts certain violent activism, such as black lives matter or militant feminism.

      I don't see how this helps anything

      Saidit has rules. Socks broke them repeatedly, was warned for breaking rules, then broke them repeatedly again. How do you suggest we have rules if they are not enforced?

      [–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      Saidit has rules. Socks broke them repeatedly, was warned for breaking rules, then broke them repeatedly again. How do you suggest we have rules if they are not enforced?

      I don't think anyone is overly concerned with the rules so much as getting rid of socks. We're doing the same thing Reddit does, banning people who we disagree with.

      But perhaps I'm wrong, I didn't see the comments in question. Is it something a reasonable person would honestly construe as a serious call to violence?

      [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

      Yes, she did this over and over again https://ibb.co/1r2dy1R

      [–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      That seems to me to be simply a case of "talking shit" about someone.

      I don't think we should be banning anyone with the current user numbers so low unless it is over a legal issue -- a real legal issue, or spam. There's a point where there simply aren't enough people to sustain conversation. I don't see that we have the luxury of purging ideological opponents like a big forum can get away with.

      [–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      It's not about ideological opponents at all, it's about the fact that this potentially creates an existential crisis for saidit. If saidit gets shut down because we let one idiot run their mouth in a way that's literally illegal, then we all suffer. This is indeed a real legal issue as you mentioned, which is why I'm so strict about it. There is zero sense in putting all of saidit in jeopardy so one person can foam at the mouth with violent rage. Which is also breaking our rules we've had since day 1, which exist for that exact reason.

      Also, stats show that saidit is slowly growing, so this concern about it dying out is ill-founded, thankfully. https://www.similarweb.com/website/saidit.net/#overview

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [removed]

        [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Good point, I agree.

        [–]Chipit 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

        The disruptive group of users drives people away. But you know that already.

        Seriously, who defends socks?

        [–][deleted] 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        The disruptive group of users

        You, Jason, and Socks are the three biggest rule breakers on the site. I have defended all of you against bans.

        [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        This site couldn't grow because socks was trolling everyone off the site.

        [–]Riva 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Dozens of us!

        [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        Thank you for maintaining a decent reddit alternative.

        [–]Chipit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Thanks man. Sorry you have to get involved in these shitshows.

        But that user was just trouble. Never interested in an argument, used insults deliberately, just angry all the time. It's better for him that he's banned.

        [–]FuckYourMom 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Sorry to bother you. But do you think the comments can be stricken? And then a less sever punishment could be in store? Maybe a 1 month or 3 month ban for call to violence? And make it clear that is not allowed?

        [–]FuckYourMom 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

        Please unban socks. I hate socks, but I hate censorship more.

        Please don’t be Reddit. Unban socks. This isn’t Reddit.

        [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

        If M7 allows repeated overt advocation of violence against specific individuals, this site will eventually get shut down.

        [–]FuckYourMom 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

        I don’t believe that.

        [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

        If you let socks say what he did about Tucker, then to be rule consistent, you would have to allow other users to advocate for violence. If this site had right-wing calls to violence against specific liberal TV hosts, it would get shut down.

        Imagine u/waffen1488 going around saying what socks said sbout anderson cooper or don lemon.

        [–]FuckYourMom 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

        So do a week ban.

        [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

        Same difference. Magnora7 is attempting to have a fair standard here. Just because every other platform allows leftist calls to violence doesn't mean this one should. Maybe when musk fully takes over twitter we can have a site that truly allow non legally actionable calls to violence on both sides but that day is not yet here.

        [–]FuckYourMom 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        So why not address the behavior?

        Week long ban. Remove the comment. We’re not a large group yet. It’s completely manageable at this time.

        No need to ban.

        I understand, no violence. I won’t break the rule.

        But a ban seems extreme.

        [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Magnora7 most likely based the ban on the repeat infractions.

        [–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

        He's already had past temporary bans for this exact behavior. We already tried with him over and over and he keeps doing it.

        [–]FuckYourMom 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Thank you for addressing me. I’m really upset about this. I personally hate socks, but this is how it started on Reddit.

        Best of luck. I’m sorry socks continued calling for violence. But I do think socks saw his violent calls as more of art or release. Not a commitment to an action or planning an action.

        [–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        "Art or release" doesn't matter. If it looks real enough that I have to wonder, I'm going to treat it as real. I don't really have an option if I want this site not to get in trouble federally. This is exactly how we've done things for 3 years now.

        [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Sure or 60 days, or 30 days, whatever deemed appopriate. I'm not opposed to a temporary ban as a warning. I'm not sure if this was done in the past with socks.

        [–]BravoVictor 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        Reddit's not the only site that bans threats of violence. Literally every US based site does that because US law requires they do that.

        [–]soundsituation[A] 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

        I've just removed the two comments in question. By the way, users aren't notified if you ping them in the body of a post. You have to mention them in a comment.

        u/magnora7

        [–]magnora7 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

        Thanks for removing those, definitely against saidit rules. I've banned the user because according to their user notes this is the 3rd time they've had comments detailing specific violence against specific individuals, and we can't allow that on saidit and he definitely knows it's against the rules.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]magnora7 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

          User preferences has an option to do this

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          u/magnora7 why do you allow users who advocate for torture and murder of public figures on your site?

          [–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          You are an admin 😮

          [–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

          'socks' is finally banned.

          Now that is the best news I've heard today.

          Advocating violence is not allowed on saidit, and you know that. Your account has been banned for doing it numerous times over the last few months.

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          You're welcome

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          Is that from a log?

          [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[M] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

          There's a reason we set up a backup site on communities.win. The admin here has double standards. Saidit will never really grow into a large healthy free speech community when certain users are protected and certain subs are suppressed.

          edit. Thank you /u/magnora7 for holding other users to the standard you hold us. I still believe that DAR deserves to be on the main feeds of the site. It would make since if you had a curated feed with many subs removed but it seems DAR is literally the only subverse removed. Please consider adding us back on. Maybe give users an option to view 'all uncurated subs' in their settings. You can even give a warning: "viewing the uncurated feed may cause you to come in contact with uncomfortable truths"

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

          Has the admin at least commented on these double standards? This example is egregious.

          [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

          Not to my knowledge.

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          Socks was banned. M7 came through this time.

          [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

          Edit2: u/socks has been banned

          SIUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          [–]jamesK_3rd 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

          I disagree with this ban and I'd like to explain why.

          The founding fathers and citizens of the USA for generations after them, threatened politicians with stupid ideas be tarred and feathered and sometimes actually did the act. Discourse and politics are generally raw and often uncivil. A battle is will be waged either way, in the arena of words thoughts and ideas, or in the arena of the streets with guns, knives and fists... Harsh tones and angry discourse are part of life, while I hate to cite them, even the supreme court in the past has stated as such.

          We continue to silo off things that aren't narrative approved. Not just here, but in our society. Here is really just a reflection of the culture at large, or a certain section of that the founders like M7 and derr agree with.

          You can't say men can't be women, you can't say God in schools. Ban links to content we deem unworthy. We allow protests now based on permits and land use and move them to the somewhere they don't interfere with the important people's lives. The RIAA controls what content a lot of people can and cannot see, under the guise of "copyright" or "theft".

          Socks made a stupid comment. Obviously unable to win in the realm of ideas, but I'd argue the taddle tale nancies were just as bad. Instead of mocking such a stupid statement, it turns into "get help" and "please ban them", which I find lower IQ than the statement in question. As if we all don't get angry, we all don't have such thoughts. I still find my blood pressure boiling when I think about Trump and Fauci, and their horrific lockdowns, mask mandates, forced vaccinations for the past 3 years, and the future.

          Additionally, I disagree with the policy of deleting posts of users, unless it is a seriously egregious violation. The best disinfectant, as musk says, is sunlight.

          Again, I don't care for socks. Generally, I think they're trolling others, and their ideas aren't based in real life. In fact most of the time I feel their posts are good for the practice of mockery and scorn, as well as patience and restraint... But again I disagree with the ban as I don't believe the user was inciting violence, or even directly threatening it. Of course, the mods, including M7 have a tough, thankless job. I still appreciate and thank all of you, regardless of everyone's stance on this or any other issue, it takes a lot to do such work.

          Did anyone take screenshots?

          Yes https://ibb.co/1r2dy1R

          [–]Chipit 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          Those who abuse their free speech to advocate for the abolition of free speech can't be tolerated, even on a free speech site.

          Deliberately breaking TOS can get the site shut down, as all the professional troll posters on this site know quite well. It's their go-to tactic to get sites shut down. AHS did it all the time on Reddit to censor subreddits they hated.

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

          If this site allows advocation of violence toward specific individuals, it will get shut down.

          [–]FediNetizen 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

          Lol, no it won't. Saying "someone should do x to y" isn't the kind of imminent credible threat that you can get criminally charged for, and Section 230 means site owners aren't liable for what their users post, with only very narrow exceptions.

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          Tell M7, he seems to think this can't be allowed on saidit.

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

          u/socks has been banned from saidit. What say ye u/eatadick_socks?

          [–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

          Also what say ye, u/socks-the-nigger?

          [–]socks-the-nigger 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          This is a win 😮

          [–]doctor_tenmaBurzum enthusiast 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

          Will light a candle in his honor.

          I never wanted to kill him! What would I do without him? Go back to dunking on Plebbitors?! No, no. He... he completes me...

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

          It's like joker and lego batman

          [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          Insert Lego-up-the-butt joke here.

          [–]binaryblob 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

          On Reddit tons of people are rooting for Ukraine to fuck up as many Russian soldiers as possible. Those are also calls of violence, but those are of the "good type".

          If you can't call to violence, there is no freedom of speech.

          [–]pcpmasterraceDer Ewige Anglo 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

          War is a matter of state policy. The state in general is a fundamentally violent institution, but discussing state policy is almost always acceptable.

          [–]binaryblob 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

          OK, so saying "kill all the members of some race is cool", but saying "kill John Doe of race X" is bad (in the implementation of the state policy just kill John Doe first and then magically have a new insight about people of race X)?

          [–]pcpmasterraceDer Ewige Anglo 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

          You're talking about specificity, which is one of the criteria for Brandenburg v Ohio, although the rules on this site are a little stricter. We should leave race out of it for now because that just confuses things. Theoretically, governments are supposed to avoid killing innocent civilians. That being said, there are circumstances in which killing is generally considered acceptable. Soldiers are fair game, within the laws of war. And more severe crimes - for example, rape or drug dealing - are punishable by death in many countries, and it is fine to discuss whether this is the right course of action for a state to take, and if so, what manner is preferable (e.g. lethal injection vs electric chair).

          [–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

          I am talking about how in a democracy you must also have a path for the next Hitler to be elected.

          It should be possible to run for office and say that you want to make it into law to kill whatever group you want. It might be desirable in some abstract sense to not have candidates running for office that don't want to do that, but that's not relevant.

          I think anyone, but especially politicians, should be able to chant for example "less $RACE people" all they want. How can you get voters, if you have to keep your plans a secret? It doesn't make any sense, other than to protect the interests of those currently in power.

          [–]pcpmasterraceDer Ewige Anglo 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          That's not what Hitler said or did.

          [–]Richard_Parker 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

          Did anyone take screenshots? I'd like to see what was posted.

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

          Did anyone take screenshots?

          Yes https://ibb.co/1r2dy1R

          [–]Richard_Parker 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

          Thank you. Could arguably be interpreted stated in jest, but I doubt it... These people Donahue malevolent thought a, and they continent to consolidate power they will go from soft tyranny to a hard one with glee.

          I personally think the standard should be thhat of Brandenburg v Ohio, but i don't make the rules.

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

          Jest or not, calls to violence are not allowed, especially against specific individuals, over and over again.

          [–]Richard_Parker 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

          To clarify, I stated it was arguablly plausible that it is in jest AND then stated I really doubt it is in fact in jest. Pretty sure this person has murderous, sadistic thoughts...,as many of them do. Not sure why people don't understand that. Sam Hyde quote and all that.

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

          Yah makes sense to me. u/socks needed pschological help. She was addicted to internet trolling and radicalized.

          [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

          The more I engaged with socks the more I realized exactly what you've just said here. It would not surprise me if socks has some type of gender confusion as well (is it a she or a he? He got mad at me when I used female pronouns but others seem to use them?). Fits the stereotype of a high IQ but confused person. Socks also fits the bill of a Jew (israeli or US DOD affiliated) doing paid opposition research on dissidents. If you're out there reading this socks know this: we treated you fairly despite your frequent bad faith argumentation. We hope you look deeply into the books, truths and arguments we presented to you. Do you think the people that hired you to research us really care about you? Most likely you are expendable to them. Remember that. Truth always wins.

          [–]shilldetector 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          Socks also fits the bill of a Jew (israeli or US DOD affiliated) doing paid opposition research on dissidents.

          I'd put it at better than a 50% chance this accurately describes radicalcentrist. A literal paid shill who is perhaps experimenting on whether it's possible to trick even alt righters into taking positions you want them to take. He started out doing this in a straight forward manner, accurately describing his real views and why we should adopt them, then after getting nowhere with that changed tactics and started this half ass larping as some kind of white nationalist. The fact he didnt even bother using a different alt when he switched tactics is odd, but may simply be because he just gets paid to do it and doesnt even really care that much if he's successful in his attempted subversion.

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          I honestly think he/she was trying to bait people into saying the wrong thing online so he/she could get this site shutdown and the amount of time and effort spent suggests she might have a professional for-hire troll.

          [–]Rob3122 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          Lol!

          [–]Entropick 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          Fuck you, mossad, jidf, hasbara, act.il, the sleaze is finally apparent to all. I oppose violence in all aspects but all actions up to THAT POINT should be aggressively pursued against these particular individuals. Yo, Israelis! Come clean and apologize for 9/11, we demand 1 Trillion dollars in repayment for the financial support given while you had nuclear weapons from South Africa. This is illegal. Everyone knows! Let's see what else you got for humanity!

          [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

          She?

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

          I just assumed socks was female? Not sure what her preferred pronouns were.

          [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

          I made the same mistake and he corrected me.

          [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

          This type of trolling is almost always a male thing.

          [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

          Plus his typing style seems very male to me. Idk how they thought he was a woman.

          [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          It was a thing like a year ago that socks was being protected because one of the admins was simping for 'her'. I don't know if it was just an assumption/rumour or had something behind it but I was told it was a girl and she is being protected by the admins which is why I couldn't ban her without having our sub shut down.

          [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          Yeah, a person this immature and braindead as a woman would just be riding the cock carousel.

          [–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          Hurrah, credits to u/Jasoncarswell for always calling him out

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

          Can't someone who is banned just create a new name and come back in? How do you keep someone like that out?

          [–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          I'm not sure how that works when it's a sitewide ban by the admins, but the mods have to reban salos weekly in this sub.