I recently received a warning for "trolling" because I disagreed with the two comments above me and got several downvotes. The post is no different in tone or subject than the others, yet my comment was deemed "trolling" because of its unpopularity. I have seen this happen to others as well. Does the moderation enforce rules or their personal worldview?

The thread in question: https://e621.net/posts/4104523

bronzeagefox said:
I recently received a warning for "trolling" because I disagreed with the two comments above me and got several downvotes. The post is no different in tone or subject than the others, yet my comment was deemed "trolling" because of its unpopularity. I have seen this happen to others as well. Does the moderation enforce rules or their personal worldview?

The thread in question: https://e621.net/posts/4104523

you make a forum post complaining instead of taking it up with the moderator, or in this case, an ADMIN who gave you a neutral.
I looked at your comment and yeah, looks pretty trollish, you cannot say otherwise.
If you have a complaint with the record given, you can always dispute it. But no matter how angry or annoyed you get, 8/10 they're mostly justified. 2/10 they're not and it was a misunderstanding or bias.

You're comment may not have been "trolling" to you, but think to yourself......did you actually ADD ANYTHING to that conversation, or did you just berate an individual for their opinion? To me, it was the latter and therefore, you got a justifiable neutral mark.

You should also know that Moderators are not skilled in PR, they're just normal people like you and me...more-or-less. So they can sometimes say something bias, but most times the RULES will mostly be right.

It's probably because of how you vocalized your opinion, not because you had a different one.

"Absolutely delusional reddit take" is very obviously incendiary in a way that simply isn't true for any other comment before yours.

If it didn't have the first part you wouldn't have been booped. I have seen worse comments getting away with it tho.

How exactly is it not trolling to claim that the democrats are "fringe left" and people with that opinion "want to make being right wing illegal"?

As a German the US Democratic party is quite literally further right in most aspects than our local christian parties, and they're already center right. Our center left parties look like actual commies compared to the Dems in the US, and we have an actual communist party on top of that.

post #4107855

do we have a version of that 1984 calendar meme?

Why was I not shocked to see it was a political comic with very first comment on it being *shock* politics? Every frigging time. At least this isn't one of THOSE posts with hundreds of comments.

Yeah, calling people delusional for disagreeing, who are already stirred up is probably considered baiting.

peacethroughpower said:
post #4107855

Stahp... oh, got blocked for a few days. :( Still, seems like a bad idea to post that in reply on post.

notmenotyou said:
How exactly is it not trolling to claim that the democrats are "fringe left" and people with that opinion "want to make being right wing illegal"?

As a German the US Democratic party is quite literally further right in most aspects than our local christian parties, and they're already center right. Our center left parties look like actual commies compared to the Dems in the US, and we have an actual communist party on top of that.

Well here's the thing, you're comparing Germany to the sovereign and free empire that owns it. Yeah of course everything seems "far right" when the overton window is between post-war occupation and DDR, but in the US "borders exist for a reason actually" and "the government shouldn't limit speech" is just considered common sense.

(Edit) it also depends on which policy in which state. A Texan Dem might be more moderate in drug policy than an Oregon Dem, and an Alaskan Dem might not even consider blatantly tyrannical gun law that a New York Dem and Tennessee turncoat Rep would pass. Blanket statements like that are the equivalent of comparing Texas to Sweden and applying it to the whole EU.

bronzeagefox said:
Well here's the thing, you're comparing Germany to the sovereign and free empire that owns it. Yeah of course everything seems "far right" when the overton window is between post-war occupation and DDR, but in the US "borders exist for a reason actually" and "the government shouldn't limit speech" is just considered common sense.

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/common-sense.html I looked that up because I was curious of the origin. I've seen the term used humorously more often (say, sarcastically), recently, but it has also been used like "some say", that is to mean what the author wants. The etymology of words or phrases can be interesting, sometimes. Quite a change from the 14th century definition show there!

bronzeagefox said:
Well here's the thing, you're comparing Germany to the sovereign and free empire that owns it. Yeah of course everything seems "far right" when the overton window is between post-war occupation and DDR, but in the US "borders exist for a reason actually" and "the government shouldn't limit speech" is just considered common sense.

What's your opinion on the JQ?

bronzeagefox said:
Well here's the thing, you're comparing Germany to the sovereign and free empire that owns it. Yeah of course everything seems "far right" when the overton window is between post-war occupation and DDR, but in the US "borders exist for a reason actually" and "the government shouldn't limit speech" is just considered common sense.

(Edit) it also depends on which policy in which state. A Texan Dem might be more moderate in drug policy than an Oregon Dem, and an Alaskan Dem might not even consider blatantly tyrannical gun law that a New York Dem and Tennessee turncoat Rep would pass. Blanket statements like that are the equivalent of comparing Texas to Sweden and applying it to the whole EU.

I'm terrified to see what passes as a reputable source of information for you.

bronzeagefox said:
Well here's the thing, you're comparing Germany to the sovereign and free empire that owns it. Yeah of course everything seems "far right" when the overton window is between post-war occupation and DDR, but in the US "borders exist for a reason actually" and "the government shouldn't limit speech" is just considered common sense.

(Edit) it also depends on which policy in which state. A Texan Dem might be more moderate in drug policy than an Oregon Dem, and an Alaskan Dem might not even consider blatantly tyrannical gun law that a New York Dem and Tennessee turncoat Rep would pass. Blanket statements like that are the equivalent of comparing Texas to Sweden and applying it to the whole EU.

Both major American parties are far right. That statement is true in every quantifiable way, and a broader look at worldwide politics will confirm much the same.

The entire system of labeling people and ideas as "left" or "right" originates from after the French Revolution where monarchists and similar would sit on the right, whereas revolutionaries and similar would side to the left. Thus, "right" can be broadly understood as "pro-hierarchy" and "left" as "anti-hierarchy". Of course, a person can favor specific hierarchies while excluding other forms of hierarchy, so it's more typical, more useful, and more descriptive to restrict the use of "left" vs. "right" to the sense of economical hierarchy, and let terms like "libertarian" and "statist" pick up the slack elsewhere.

The Democratic Party acts to defend the capitalist model of property hierarchy. While it differs from the Republican Party on the exact implementation and on broader social issues, these are the hallmarks of a rightist party. Our media loves the idea that Dems are "big government" and that the GOP are "small government", but this is never supported by the reality: both parties regularly consolidate the power of the federal government; the PATRIOT Act was a bipartisan effort to increase the strength of government, the No Child Left Behind Act and its successor the Every Student Succeeds Act which gave the federal government a stronger role in education, the Affordable Care Act and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which both reflect increased involvement in health and economy, etc.
A leftist party would be calling for transformations along the lines of public ownership of the means of production at minimum, but currently even the most "extreme" Democrats are still operating in the capitalist framework, decrying "crony capitalism", and opting for social democracy that provides a strong safety net for its people but doesn't actually change the model of property (and these safety nets are already present in a number of other countries, such as Germany's system of social benefits.)

In fact, speaking in broader political terms, even American conservatives can be liberals. Liberalism is understood as a specific platform that incorporates free trade, open society, and a limited government that allows private entities to pick up the slack, and there are more specific forms still like neoliberalism.

Japan has effectively been a single-party state ruled by the Liberal Democratic Party. Their policies embrace liberalism in every possible way, and their opposition includes:
・ The Democratic Party for the People, a rightist party with major pillars include raising wages, reducing taxes, doubling the education budget, encouraging greater political participation by young adults, allowing voting on the internet, national self-sufficiency, and nuclear energy.
・ The Communist Party, a party that publicly discusses its socialist theory and cites Marx and Lenin but rejects their methods, limiting themselves to moderate policies in the interest of a peaceful, democratic transition: an increased minimum wage, abolition of unpaid overtime, various changes to education to reduce the cost for students, reducing national health insurance premiums, and strengthening pensions.
Despite maintaining a stranglehold on the country's politics since 1956, and the liberal party being opposed by progressives and literal self-identifying communists, this doesn't mean that the country has transformed into some kind of hippy liberal paradise, because the entire idea of what it means to be liberal is fundamentally incompatible with mainstream American political dialogue.

lafcadio said:
Both major American parties are far right. That statement is true in every quantifiable way, and a broader look at worldwide politics will confirm much the same.

The entire system of labeling people and ideas as "left" or "right" originates from after the French Revolution where monarchists and similar would sit on the right, whereas revolutionaries and similar would side to the left. Thus, "right" can be broadly understood as "pro-hierarchy" and "left" as "anti-hierarchy". Of course, a person can favor specific hierarchies while excluding other forms of hierarchy, so it's more typical, more useful, and more descriptive to restrict the use of "left" vs. "right" to the sense of economical hierarchy, and let terms like "libertarian" and "statist" pick up the slack elsewhere.

The Democratic Party acts to defend the capitalist model of property hierarchy. While it differs from the Republican Party on the exact implementation and on broader social issues, these are the hallmarks of a rightist party. Our media loves the idea that Dems are "big government" and that the GOP are "small government", but this is never supported by the reality: both parties regularly consolidate the power of the federal government; the PATRIOT Act was a bipartisan effort to increase the strength of government, the No Child Left Behind Act and its successor the Every Student Succeeds Act which gave the federal government a stronger role in education, the Affordable Care Act and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which both reflect increased involvement in health and economy, etc.
A leftist party would be calling for transformations along the lines of public ownership of the means of production at minimum, but currently even the most "extreme" Democrats are still operating in the capitalist framework, decrying "crony capitalism", and opting for social democracy that provides a strong safety net for its people but doesn't actually change the model of property (and these safety nets are already present in a number of other countries, such as Germany's system of social benefits.)

In fact, speaking in broader political terms, even American conservatives can be liberals. Liberalism is understood as a specific platform that incorporates free trade, open society, and a limited government that allows private entities to pick up the slack, and there are more specific forms still like neoliberalism.

Japan has effectively been a single-party state ruled by the Liberal Democratic Party. Their policies embrace liberalism in every possible way, and their opposition includes:
・ The Democratic Party for the People, a rightist party with major pillars include raising wages, reducing taxes, doubling the education budget, encouraging greater political participation by young adults, allowing voting on the internet, national self-sufficiency, and nuclear energy.
・ The Communist Party, a party that publicly discusses its socialist theory and cites Marx and Lenin but rejects their methods, limiting themselves to moderate policies in the interest of a peaceful, democratic transition: an increased minimum wage, abolition of unpaid overtime, various changes to education to reduce the cost for students, reducing national health insurance premiums, and strengthening pensions.
Despite maintaining a stranglehold on the country's politics since 1956, and the liberal party being opposed by progressives and literal self-identifying communists, this doesn't mean that the country has transformed into some kind of hippy liberal paradise, because the entire idea of what it means to be liberal is fundamentally incompatible with mainstream American political dialogue.

Honestly this is the most compelling, scholarly, and levelheaded analysis I've seen of this that isn't just "America fascist" or "America should be fascist" and I respect you for it. I think the issue is the original image the comic chain is in is made by a pretty bad faith cartoonist, so objectivity is already out the window, that and add an American and Europeans discussing US politicsl parties and it just gets too messy really quickly.

This reminds me of how some words have entirely different definitions in the USA and English European countries, and often opposite ones. Even funner is when you include places like Australia, Canada, and India.

There's the US English use of 'brilliant' which is usually sarcastic but refers to a light bulb or it's cliche representation of intelligence. Then there's 'pretty good' which is much the other way around for saying something's 'good enough'. Liberal is another one like that. So, after how many generations does Lenin get to be considered old-fashioned and it's trying to preserve the status quo to represent those ideas?

bronzeagefox said:
I think the issue is the original image the comic chain is in is made by a pretty bad faith cartoonist

Well that's political satire for you. You won't always agree with what it says, so blacklist politics and/or happyroadkill and move on, you aren't obligated to comment.

alphamule said:
This reminds me of how some words have entirely different definitions in the USA and English European countries, and often opposite ones. Even funner is when you include places like Australia, Canada, and India.

There's the US English use of 'brilliant' which is usually sarcastic but refers to a light bulb or it's cliche representation of intelligence. Then there's 'pretty good' which is much the other way around for saying something's 'good enough'. Liberal is another one like that. So, after how many generations does Lenin get to be considered old-fashioned and it's trying to preserve the status quo to represent those ideas?

While the linguistic difference re: "liberal" is interesting, and there is a pattern of Americans sanitizing their politicians after they fall into irrelevancy, it feels dishonest to frame it as just a linguistic divide. There are actual reasons that "liberal" means something different in the United States compared to the rest of the world, despite meaning support for the exact same economic model.

MLK Jr. was openly mocked during his lifetime by conservative elements (see the "I Plan to Lead Another Non-Violent March Tomorrow" cartoon for an immediately obvious example of this), after his death Martin Luther King Jr. got sanitized because it's very convenient to use him as a rhetorical device while ignoring what he was actually about.
George H. W. Bush was sanitized because he's a moderate compared to Trump, and after his death he's not even useful as a scapegoat.
Lenin will never be sanitized in any of our lifetimes because any reasonably positive depiction of him would be either an endorsement of his anticapitalist stance (a stance which will not find widespread success with Americans, their politicians, or their financial backers) or his political actions like anti-kulak campaigns.

While there's a lot more to America's racial and social history than I can reasonably sum up in this post, letting its people squabble over social issues like minorities and immigrants, while allowing them to pick and choose which flavor of liberalism they like, helps to empower and protect the state and economic leaders who benefit most from America's current governmental model. If they can get "liberal" and "conservative" moderates to argue while shutting out any alternatives, it means extremists can't threaten the status quo. If you call an American "liberal" in a derogatory way, it doesn't matter too much what they actually believe in because everybody has to play with one of the major parties to get anything done.
In contrast, other countries openly fight their corporations in a way that isn't often true for the United States (GDPR data protection, Consumer Rights Act enshrining rights such as the ability to refund, etc.), and they adopt voting systems that make it practical for alternate parties to gain meaningful federal presence. If you call a European a "liberal", that actually has to mean something because voters can get so much more specific.

lafcadio said:
Lenin will never be sanitized in any of our lifetimes because any reasonably positive depiction of him would be either an endorsement of his anticapitalist stance (a stance which will not find widespread success with Americans, their politicians, or their financial backers) or his political actions like anti-kulak campaigns.

*makes a comic about his experiences in prison and exile*
Actually, if you didn't reveal his last name until the end of the movie (version), it would be kind of funny to see differences in reactions from audiences.

It would probably be similar in atmosphere to that Death Ship movie/novel, where a ship is sunk for insurance fraud, I guess. I would not be shocked if it already exists but not in English.

bronzeagefox said:
Well here's the thing, you're comparing Germany to the sovereign and free empire that owns it. Yeah of course everything seems "far right" when the overton window is between post-war occupation and DDR, but in the US "borders exist for a reason actually" and "the government shouldn't limit speech" is just considered common sense.

(Edit) it also depends on which policy in which state. A Texan Dem might be more moderate in drug policy than an Oregon Dem, and an Alaskan Dem might not even consider blatantly tyrannical gun law that a New York Dem and Tennessee turncoat Rep would pass. Blanket statements like that are the equivalent of comparing Texas to Sweden and applying it to the whole EU.

Borders do exist for a reason, actually. Namely, western powers forced them on the world for the sake of resource hoarding, nationalism and enforcing feudalism, mercantilism and capitalism. Many people in places like Africa or the Americas, prior to colonialism, lived in structures which didn't include hard borders. An ideal world would exist without nations or borders, and it's absurd to say anyone is illegal on stolen land.

Governments already limit many forms of speech - for good reason! For instance, military classification, libel, incitement of violence and, in the legal system, gag orders all amount to restrictions on speech. While I do think there should be very strict limits on what forms of speech can be restricted, to hold an absolutist position is harmful and impractical. It's like driving - we all agree that people have a right to travel, but if there's absolutely no limitations on where or how you drive, there's going to be utter chaos. If you want to see examples of this, go check out 8kun or Twitter X. Countries like Germany also limit fascistic speech for very good reason, and to participate in the democratic process, you must agree to respect and uphold the democratic process. Fascists are more than willing to take power than dismantle any ability to remove them from power.

I don't like appeals to common sense because that's incredibly relative to culture, location and time. For instance, it was once common sense that women and black people are property and unable to vote. I certainly don't think that was a very well founded belief! I should also say, I haven't ever heard anyone from every other first world country complain about being subjected to the tyranny of not having to fear a mass shooting.

(I don't think you can ever have an objective political cartoon, either. It's best to just find the ones that amuse you for one reason or another. Ben Garrison is one of my favorite artists even if I abhor most of his work.)

Lafcadio is based.

cinder said:
What's your opinion on the JQ?

Easiest pop quiz ever!

peacethroughpower said:
Borders do exist for a reason, actually. Namely, western powers forced them on the world for the sake of resource hoarding, nationalism and enforcing feudalism, mercantilism and capitalism. Many people in places like Africa or the Americas, prior to colonialism, lived in structures which didn't include hard borders. An ideal world would exist without nations or borders, and it's absurd to say anyone is illegal on stolen land.

Governments already limit many forms of speech - for good reason! For instance, military classification, libel, incitement of violence and, in the legal system, gag orders all amount to restrictions on speech. While I do think there should be very strict limits on what forms of speech can be restricted, to hold an absolutist position is harmful and impractical. It's like driving - we all agree that people have a right to travel, but if there's absolutely no limitations on where or how you drive, there's going to be utter chaos. If you want to see examples of this, go check out 8kun or Twitter X. Countries like Germany also limit fascistic speech for very good reason, and to participate in the democratic process, you must agree to respect and uphold the democratic process. Fascists are more than willing to take power than dismantle any ability to remove them from power.

I don't like appeals to common sense because that's incredibly relative to culture, location and time. For instance, it was once common sense that women and black people are property and unable to vote. I certainly don't think that was a very well founded belief! I should also say, I haven't ever heard anyone from every other first world country complain about being subjected to the tyranny of not having to fear a mass shooting.

(I don't think you can ever have an objective political cartoon, either. It's best to just find the ones that amuse you for one reason or another. Ben Garrison is one of my favorite artists even if I abhor most of his work.)

Lafcadio is based.

A bunch of actual lies, logical fallacies, and communist propaganda garbage I won't engage with. Fuck totalitarianism lol

bronzeagefox said:
A bunch of actual lies, logical fallacies, and communist propaganda garbage I won't engage with. Fuck totalitarianism lol

If you think that's communism, I really want to know what your opinion on the JQ is.
Or what you consider a reputable source of information, for that matter. Fox News? Breitbart? Infowars? Daily Stormer?

bronzeagefox said:
A bunch of actual lies, logical fallacies, and communist propaganda garbage I won't engage with. Fuck totalitarianism lol

Yeah, because you can't. You have nothing but propaganda fed to you by billionaires. Everything I said is objectively true, you're just incapable of acknowledging that. Face it, you have nothing but dumb quips.

Hmm, I wonder why this isn't locked yet. It's my objective opinion that this will only get worse, hehe. (joke)

alphamule said:
Hmm, I wonder why this isn't locked yet. It's my objective opinion that this will only get worse, hehe. (joke)

I don't really see a reason to lock it, everyone's been civil

versperus said:
I don't really see a reason to lock it, everyone's been civil

"everyone" "civil"