Proposal: new policy on personal attacks

[Jerry Russell]

A frequently repeated phenomenon on this board, is that various visitors indulge in personal attacks on other members, or even the proprietors of this website. This is against the site policy, but it doesn't stop people from doing it. And such attacks have also led to replies in kind.

In the past, as board admin, I've tried complaining about this whenever I see it. I've tried ignoring the ad hominem attacks and focusing on the content. But those approaches lead to resentment, because the site policy goes unenforced.

More recently, I've also tried editing the remarks. But that's a lot of work, and is if anything even more disturbing than inaction, as nobody likes to have their posts edited.

So now I'm trying something new. If someone (like for example Loren) makes an insulting remark, and someone else (like for example Richard) replies in kind, I'm just going to look the other way. In other words: if one member of this forum insults another, I still give the person the option of coming to me to enforce the site policy against personal insults. It seems to me that's the higher road.

But I also give the insulted person license to reply in kind, with a detailed analysis of the personal faults of the site member who started the food fight, especially as it pertains to the topic under discussion.

If this seems to be working, I'll make appropriate changes to the site policy.

 

[Jerry Russell]

The simple fact is, this "insult for insult" policy is not working. It gives the entire forum the appearance of being a free-for-all for trolls. Our own behavior winds up being indistinguishable from trolling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
​

Along these lines, our policy also contains a prohibition against "spamming or irrelevant advertising". Richard is complaining to me that Collectivist's thread is basically spam. That is, he has no real interest in what we're saying here, but he is only interested in advertising his hateful anti-Semitic views that the Jews are primarily (or perhaps entirely) responsible for the world's problems.

I've replied back to Rick that we are all trying to diagnose the nature of elite secret societies, and that Collectivist represents a widely and seriously held viewpoint that deserves our attention.

But frankly, my patience with Collectivist is wearing thin. I need to see a serious level of engagement with our arguments, rather than simply ignoring 90% of what we have to say. Just as importantly, I'm sick of the constant personal attacks. Maybe Collectivist is unaware of what he's doing.

At any rate, I'm going to lightly edit Collectivist's most recent posts (those following Rick's decision to take a break) and see how things go. I'm hoping that perhaps the quality of dialog will improve. If so, we can go back through the thread and clean up the trolling on both sides.

 

[Richard Stanley]

How do solve a problem like the crypto-Marian Collectivist?

Simply cleaning up some of the language is not really getting to the bigger problem Jerry. Collectivist is only posting here, and on his one rambling thread, so as to be both disruptive and while keeping his thread near the top of the most recent post list. The purpose for doing so to intentionally drive away readers that happen by the forum, by whatever method they arrived here.

Collectivist's last intent is to engage with the central focus of Postflaviana, of which we are demonstrating the underlying Identity Scam of Western Civilization, based upon the contrived constructs of Jews and Gentiles. The sardonic biblical hilarity being that the tribe of Judah was supposedly founded by a man having sex with his daughter-in-law, who tricked him into doing so by pretending to be a street hooker. In order to complete the deal he had to provide her with collateral because he didn't have any cash on hand. So horny, he provided her with the then contemporaneous equivalent of his passport ID, which she later used to prove that he had indeed fathered, with her, the future Jews of the world. A synthetic identity, as told be their own holy book.

Similarly, the only real Gentiles of the world are the gentil nobility, leaving the majority of the goy as rubes, and the Ashkenazi as Johnny-come-lately goy whores of Gomer.

And so, actors like Collectivist, however motivated, need to refocus attention away from such discussion by using a number of disingenuous tactics. Like the popes, who need(ed) the Jews as profitable dialectic foils, Collectivist is constantly pressing the same agenda, like a robot. And so this approach is next to worthless Jerry.

His first ploy was to use a bait and switch technique, starting with a seemingly sincere (excepting his cute deceptive contra alias) discussion about the Greek economy, from which he segued into his discussion about Jewish ritual child murder and the associated neo-Nazi video. Besides what one topic has to do with the other, his real purpose was to smear us with this association, while massively wasting my time, besides making me very angry. If I was a new reader I would not want to read that contrived conversation (that never gets resolved by design), and this is what he wants others to do as well. Either we're seen as fellow travelers of his anonymous ramble porn, or as 'snowflakes'. Either way he wins.

It almost seems like you want to continue all this nonsense.

In this regard, I am sorry that I earlier rudely accused Joe of being Collectivist. At least, once I definitively proved Joe wrong about LSD, he stopped talking. And we're still waiting on him to elaborate a defense of his and Collectivist's Traditionalist Cuckoo-Coup Model (CCM) of Western Civilization. Trump is a different form of a Cuckoo Coup, in service of the SSSM however.

I do have to credit the whole discussion of Cultural Degradation with opening my eyes, but ironically I claim this more supports our Shepherds, Sheepdogs, and Sheep Model (SSSM) rather than the CCM. (The lords giveth with one hand and taketh with the other - to fulfill their global agenda.) In this latter regard I am also still waiting for someone to declare the decade, year, month, day, or microsecond of the Peak of Western Civilization.

Fixing Collectivist will require much more extreme measures Jerry. And I would like to know what he has said before you clean his remarks up.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hello Richard, welcome back from your break.

Collectivist is only posting here, and on his one rambling thread, so as to be both disruptive and while keeping his thread near the top of the most recent post list. The purpose for doing so to intentionally drive away readers that happen by the forum, by whatever method they arrived here.

It's possible that Collectivist has such cynical motives as you say. However, another possibility is that he is sincerely convinced of the truth of his views, and is devoting his time to promoting them. If we consider anti-Semitism as an elite divide-and-conquer mind-control meme, then it is certainly a successful one. And as such, for every cynical or paid promoter, there are a thousand true believers.

If Collectivist is in fact driving away readers, that might be the opposite of his intention. He might be hoping that people will read his materials, and learn to share his views about the Jews.

But, my theory is that we don't have many readers because we haven't done anything to promote the site. And I haven't been inclined to spend much effort for promotion, because I think we're not ready for traffic yet. The content on the word press site needs to present a reasonably complete and well-organized overview of our theory. It's a long ways from that point.

I hope to be able to devote more time to the project in the future, and I also think we need to cut back on the time we spend working on the forum.

I'm open to the idea of a new site policy that would require a new thread for each new topic. But I can see pros and cons to this: in some ways I think it's to our advantage that Collectivist confines his remarks to this one thread. I don't think you'd like him any better if he was posting his comments all over the site.

Either we're seen as fellow travelers of his anonymous ramble porn, or as 'snowflakes'. Either way he wins.

I disagree. He presents us with the opportunity to counter his misinformation, and to present a coherent response to his very common errors.

As to the epithet of 'snowflake', it's a meaningless pejorative thrown around by alt-right provocateurs and fellow travelers. Almost a badge of honor: "snowflake" seems to be applied to just about anyone who opposes the Trump agenda.

It almost seems like you want to continue all this nonsense.

As I said, it's up to Collectivist. He needs to seriously engage our arguments, and he needs to lay off of the personal attacks.

Whatever happens, I expect I'll be going through his entire thread and cleaning up the site policy violations. I'm not sure how much substantive discussion will be left after that's done.

And I would like to know what he has said before you clean his remarks up.

Why? I didn't get rid of anything of substance. But if you really want to know, doesn't your admin password let you look through the edit history?

 

[Jerry Russell]

What about similarly maintaining the 'order' of the rambling, kitchen sink, personal prelature, Group Think thread?

I don't really have such strong feelings about this. I would be willing to have a one-topic-per-thread rule, and try to enforce it.

But you haven't answered my point that you wouldn't like Collectivist any better if his thread was divided up topically into several smaller ones.

 

[Richard Stanley]

But you haven't answered my point that you wouldn't like Collectivist any better if his thread was divided up topically into several smaller ones.

You want me to like Collectivist? Not going to happen under any foreseeable circumstances, albeit I am not divine or omniscient. I would like matters better if his one thread was broken up properly, but that wont make me like him and his other deceptive behaviors any better. Liberals like these probably let their wives out of the house, other than to go buy groceries, and let their daughters go to school. Outrageous. Probably doesn't keep any slaves in his basement either, as a good conservative should do. This Culture has gone to Hell in a hand-basket Jerry, I'm telling you here and now.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Liberals like these probably let their wives out of the house, other than to go buy groceries, and let their daughters go to school. Outrageous. Probably doesn't keep any slaves in his basement either, as a good conservative should do.

This is the sort of personal attack that makes people confused about who is causing the problem.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I qualified my comment with the use of the term 'probably'. I have no idea if Collectivist is really a consistent conservative or a liberal. He may very well be a cafeteria conservative, as a former pope was fond of terming so-called "Cafeteria Christians". Collectivist is not a very consistent individual I find, much like Trump and President Bannon. Zionist one day and not the next, whenever convenient. Ritual child murder - Bad / ritual child rape - Meh.

 

[Aspiring Author]

I think antisemitism cuts across the political spectrum. Antisemites have particular character flaws, that make them susceptible to a broad variety of extremist ideologies, usually dependent on what cultural background they are born to, although some antisemites will seek out ideologies that suit them best.