Like my nigga @Daddy's Angry Juice. God rest his soul.
Then, to put it even more simply, you just haven't seen it. Again, unless @Daddy's Angry Juice was banned for a reason beyond just annoying Dear Feeder that I'm not aware of. But looking at his page nobody brings up a hidden DM chain where he shares furry feetpix, nobody says anything about him credibly threatening someone with real life violence, nor anything about how it's okay to date 14 year olds because they did so in medieval times. The only reason offered up is "antagonizing the site owner". It's more than likely you just don't care about random shitposters being banned for antagonizing Jersh so you don't even notice it to begin with.
You are right, I have not seen it, but thank you for telling me. That is fucked up, and I don't agree with that. I will be the first to admit that I have my preferred little corners of KF that I rarely leave, and I like it that way, so I don't oftentimes engage with the site as a whole. I am not claiming to be some kind of Farms lore expert here, just saying it like I have seen it. So while Null does seem to occasionally rage ban without due cause, I also don't think it's that common or else I think we would have seen some banhammers in this thread.
Don't lump me in with lefties just because I'm a retard and somehow missed Patton whinging about community features. That's a display of my own personal incompetence, not some calculated Johnny Cochran tactic to bamboozle you.
This, conversely, is why people find interacting with rightoids exhausting. For leftoids it's because they always default to passive-aggressive shitflinging and becoming suddenly nonserious in the face of any insurmountable opposition, and for rightoids it's because they're so fucking neurotic they view every form of opposition as a 4D chess attack by a malignant agent (possibly paid for by <insert organization here>) and not just a genuine, stupid blunder on the part of their interlocutor.
Then again, I've lost count of the amount of right wing people who also flit between serious and "just joking lol" whenever the going gets tough, and the paranoia that the person disagreeing with you is part of "THE ENEMY" is a fixture of leftists as well, so are these even actual identifying traits? Or are they just the general actions of insufferable, spineless faggots being applied broadly to people we don't like?
This is what annoys me so much about partisan discussions. Whenever Unga Tribe condemns Bunga Tribe for exhibiting a suite of reprehensible behaviors, you can almost immediately stumble across an Unga doing the exact same thing the Bunga did without any censure just because "he Unga mean he good". And don't take this to mean I'm singling out one side over the other, Bunga does the exact same shit, but I'm used to Bunga being duplicitous hypocrites, so it irks me more personally when my very own Ungas get in on that action.
I don't know if something has changed, either in me or in the people around me or the water we're all drinking, but it feels like the political "sides" become harder and harder to define or distinguish as the years go by, already retarded ideologies dissolving into vague sportsball team allegiances.
Fair enough man, I am sensitive. These people frustrate me, and after dealing with General Troon who lamented they couldn't have a good faith conversation, then immediately refused to have a good faith conversation, I am absolutely assuming things. I should not just assume things unfairly, and I apologize for that. I am so used to everyone using stupidity as a smokescreen for malice, that I am beginning to view honest mistakes as malice, even when it is not. It's hard not to form the association, when I so frequently see evil masquerading as idiocy, but I also realize that I did totally jump down your throat. I am sorry about that.
The right wing post-ironic "I'm joking but not really" tactic is an unfortunate defense mechanism that right wingers develop to try to avoid constant permabans on the entirety of the internet, as well as even worse consequences IRL. Such duplicity is not necessary here, but old habits die hard. Yes, I am defending that behavior. I think they should stop it here, but I absolutely understand the necessity of it elsewhere, especially in nations where wrongthink will literally get you imprisoned.
Eh, it's not the same to me. Progressives lie to manipulate and trick people, because they view language as a tool for trickery. Your typical right winger adopts the post-ironic "is he serious, is he not serious" attitude as a defense mechanism against a progressive society that will censor him, expel him, fire him, close his bank accounts, or even jail him for having the wrong opinion. Feigning a comedic attitude is oftentimes an effective means to avoid those negative outcomes. I do not view the behaviors as the same, as one is a weapon wielded for malice, and the other is a shield to protect from a society that wants to crush him. I hate dishonesty, but I also recognize that it is sometimes necessary, as well.
That is definitely true. I think that political thought is just way too complex to cram into "good direction, bad direction", and as such, it seems that many people who are part of a political group don't actually buy into it, thus they end up with a sportsball "I support red team!" mentality. What is a "conservative"? Is it someone who supports immigration, diversity, welfare, and globalism, or is it someone who wants to preserve their nation's demographics, prosperity, and sovereignty? To the modern zeitgeist, the "conservative" is both, despite these being mutually exclusive schools of thought, and we expect these people to support the same political team. Oftentimes, I have less in common with a Republican than I do a Democrat, despite ostensibly being a "Republican", for whatever that is worth.
Regardless, I appreciate a serious response.
(sorry for rambling, i LOVE to read and when i saw your post, i had to say something, because i agree 100 percent)
