I thought this was supposed to be an "anti-cancel culture" site but apparently praising the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism and wishing happy 100th birthday to the Communist Party of China is a bannable offense
I thought this was supposed to be an "anti-cancel culture" site but apparently praising the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism and wishing happy 100th birthday to the Communist Party of China is a bannable offense
If you're going to troll there, it's far better to post a bunch of crank libertarian stuff. Go big -- defend the "what's next, you'll need a license to use your own toaster?" guy, toss out some sovereign citizen nonsense, express your grave concerns about how no truly free state could have an age of consent. Throw out this banger from Murray Rothbard (note that it's from the MIses Institute, so you'll even get bonus points for posting a "serious" think tank!):
This is much harder to ban because you can find it everywhere on the right. Make it difficult for them to tease out who's trolling and who earnestly believes this stuff.
It's really not. The "BAN" button doesn't not get harder to press because you're pushing crank right-wing nonsense. It's just more likely to slide under their radar than blatant contrarianism.
If anything, just coming in guns blazing with links to The Internationale at least pisses people off and demonstrates active dissent. Posting Rothbard-tier shit just gives the seeder elements of the board something to add to their spank bank. The best thing that can happen is you still get banned. The worst is that people actually agree with what you're posting and you end up as one more vector of the mind-virus that is Anarcho-Capitalism.
We need to convince chuds to go own redditors by posting Marx in /r/politics.
:this:
"hey guys lets go prove those democrats are commies by sharing communist stuff they agree with"
If they're on Gettr, they're already a vector for reactionary ideas. My thinking is that this is internally divisive stuff that (as you said) can slide in under the radar, and if some of them end up believing it, "it" is stuff that's so far out in left field that even a lot of mainstream conservatives will call bullshit. The "flourishing free market in children" bit in particular is an idea that sounds like pure lunacy to anyone who isn't neck deep in libertarianism.
Give that seedier element red meat. I'd rather they talk about stuff that's embarrassing than talk about more popular conservative tropes (anti-immigration, law and order, etc.). That way when some proto-chud wanders in there's a higher chance they'll nope out.
The very fact that you're regurgitating Reagan-Era conservative propaganda should signal that this is false hope.
It's all joined at the hip. Anti-immigration is about keeping labor cheap and easy to exploit. There is no contradiction between sealing the US border against latin migrants and flying out to the Dominican Republic for underaged sex tourism. There is no contradiction between beefing up law enforcement and ghettoizing people of color.
How many proto-chuds noped out of 4chan?
Hell, how many noped out of Parlor?
I don't think child markets, sovereign citizen nonsense, and "do we really need an age of consent?" are representative of the Reagan era. Those can be hot-button issues even among conservatives, and they certainly have never been mainstream Republican policy positions.
The vast majority of conservatives will agree on immigration, but you'll get divisions on something like underaged sex tourism. See the "uhh I don't remember any of that" interview with Tucker Carlson and Matt Gaetz. Some of this stuff is not palatable in the mainstream.
As for proto-chuds noping out of places, there's no good way to estimate numbers, but some do. Hell, you can find people around here who'll talk about how they went through a libertarian phase, or were straight-up chuds at one point. Also worth considering is that a lot of people are "cultural conservatives" -- they don't really think to much about politics, but they grew up in a Republican household -- and those folks might be split off more easily than someone who's super invested but not especially deep in yet.
"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die . The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."
Do you think there's a possibility that a regular run of the mill conservative gets radicalized into a super-chud by reading the (to them) possibly sincere, possibly trolling, Rothbard quotes though?
I would guess there's only a remote chance of that, given the small size of the libertarian movement and the divisiveness of those particular ideas even in that movement. If this was radicalizing stuff libertarianism would be growing right now (it isn't) and child markets would be well-accepted among libertarians (somewhat reassuringly, they aren't).
The people who will sink their teeth into that have priors that probably make them a lost cause anyway (at least in the near term). I'd say the likely results are (1) starting struggle sessions and (2) getting a few proto-chuds to punch out. Think of Voat and all the Nazi shit it hosted. If someone wasn't already on board with that when they arrived it might cause them to turn around.