/politics/ - News & Politics

ITT: We make /politics/ become /pol/.

>>10410

Fuck off /intl/, everyone hates you.

>>10410

hi /int*/

>>10411

>Fuck off /pol/, everyone hates you.

FTFY.

>>10413

Reported.

>>10412

I know man, these fuckers are everywhere. They are KILLING this site. The only solution is permabanning them.

>>10413

>implying you are not filtered

>>10414

+1. I just checked the log, not banned yet! Where are the mods? They must be working with them.

>>10414

>>10416

The two /pol/tards seem to be lost, I see. Here: >>>/pol/

>>10418

FUCK you /intl/

*test*

test

>>10407

>mods = gods

so 4chan /pol/ huh?

>>10419

It's not /intl/, get the fuck out. /politics/ wasn't founded for your rule faggotry.

>>10507

fuck you /intl/ scum

In all seriousness, I wouldn't mind seeing 5) implemented.

it's going to be rough for a while: /politics/ is now more popular than beating off. such rapid growth brings problems and change and there's gonna be alot of newfags that don't have the discipline to not reply to such obvious bait.

just think of the level of panic /stormfront/'s moderators are experiencing right now and keep it sleazy.

>>10536

It's not even a bait. It's clearly a sarcastic post. Most of the replies are also sarcastic. They are making fun of poltards.

>>10688

Political boards are for serious discussion. Jokes do NOT belong here.

why do people take imageboard posts so seriously?

>>10722

>First of all for the sake of BO's sanity.

THIS!!!! Won't someone PLEASE think of the moderators!!!

>If we want to keep our freedoms here, we should keep nonsense at a absolute minimum.

EXACTLY. In order to become the last bastion of free speech on the internet we need to ban shitposting, shills, d and c, demoralisation, samefagging, gaslighting, ponys, pedos, furries, gaiafags, anonymoos fags, /intl/, /pol/, sjws, nazis, libertardians, ted cruz supporters and, of course, doubles.

>>10722

KC is just a board for europeans to discuss the current happenings. fucking mods dont get that and keep allowing topics more suited on other boards. or maybe the only mod have no time to waste on deleting shitposts.

>>10801

Yes it is just terrible! I'm trying to have serious discussions about various haplogroups when some SHITposter makes a post I don't like.

I go into a seething rage at seeing this and I have to metapost until it is deleted to calm myself down.

FUCK shitposters!

>>10801

You are missing the point. KC/int/ started out as foreigner quarter for KC. The serious topics were effectively an accident. What I wanted to convey is that bullshit like >>10739 shouldn't be indulged or memed because we have a rather serious topic at hand.

>>10818

Absolutely brother. Chans have never been about anonymity, free speech, or content. They've always been about serious discussions and epic internet movements to enact political change.

I've reported that shill.

>>10818

he isnt worth replying to. i was adressing your point on how to not let the [i]noise[/i] overwhelm this board.

the answer is the moderation.

>>10697

Politics is a joke though.

>>10894

Only /intl/ shills support free speech.

t. /politics/ - the last bastion of free speech

>>10407

This is an /intl/ thread. Go check out freech.

Ironic that they'd try to false flag and bait.

The entire point of this board is to have a politics board free of the totalitarian moderation of /pol/, but in order to be a politics board at all it has to moderate in order to keep things on topic. So, essentially the rules should be that anything is allowed as long as its reasonably related to politics.

Obviously that isn't good enough for /intl/, because that still involves rules and that means rulecuckery even if that's what the users want. /intl/ wants to create less choice by turning every board into /b/. They are the opposite poison to /pol/ and imkampfy. /politics/ needs to be a third position here.

I wish they would just go and bother /pol/ since they have far more rules than us, but they'll come for us anyway.

Don't take /intl/ bait. EVER. Keep the rules as they are.

>>11022

Great post brother.

There are CLEAR lines between on-topic and off-topic and I for one trust the moderators to tell me what that line is. They know best. Every other board in history has proven that moderators are perfectly capable of drawing that line.

Thank you for pointing out this obvious /intl/ shilling. Wanting to let users decide what to post and what to read is absolutely despicable. If we want to be the last bastion of free speech we need to let moderators decide that for us.

I'm surprised OP didn't suggest adopting a Code of Conduct such as http://contributor-covenant.org/

>>11084

OP is an /intl/ shill ignore him.

Don't worry we will be banning all shitposting, false flagging, shilling, d and cing, demoralising, and /intl/ posting.

Then /politics/ will truly be a high quality board.

>>11022

>anything is allowed as long as its reasonably related to politics.

Defined by the moderators. How fucking stupid are you? You think this argument hasn't happened before? Christ.

It always amazes me how the people who leave rulecuck boards are the most prone to renact it.

>They are the opposite poison to /pol/ and imkampfy.

Correct. Letting you post what you want is the opposite of the moderator telling you what to post. You LOATH the idea of being able to post what you want (lord knows why).

>I wish they would just go and bother /pol/ since they have far more rules than us, but they'll come for us anyway.

It's because we hate you and want you to fail, obviously. That's the only reasonable explanation, isn't it?

Alright, I gave you the reasoning so now I don't feel guilty when people like you kill this board. Good night.

t. ebil /intl/ shill who hates everyting you love

>>11085

I think /intl/ migrated over to freech

>>11054

>>11087

>Defined by the moderators. How fucking stupid are you? You think this argument hasn't happened before? Christ.

That's the best it gets, sorry. The alternative is that the board just becomes /b/ 2.0

You're a utopian. I'll settle for mods who try and follow a code of conduct we can call them out on than mods that just powertrip abitrarily.

My enemy isn't rules. It's in fact authority based off the whim of the mod instead of the rules. If we are all aware of the rules we can react accordingly, whereas a tyrant mod makes it a guessing game.

>>11134

>It's in fact authority based off the whim of the mod instead of the rules.

What do you think rules are? Who defines the rules?

The end result is no different than in real life. Except instead of a government bureaucrat deciding what is and isn't hate speech, you have a fat autistic power-hungry lowlife moderator deciding what is and isn't shitposting.

The results are always the same. You go through this over and over again, board after board. Site after site. And yet you never realise this.

btw rulecucks have been using "/b/ 2.0" for years

it's right up there with "anyone who opposes moderation is obviously an 'X'"

>>11203

so you think all boards should be /b/?

This board lacks purpose. Thats why its so hard for you to agree on the what you want people to post here and what not. I think you should import the concept of the Bernd from KC - A fellowship of learned individuals.

The Bernds are tied to the study of their own country since its revelant to their everyday life. I would propose you to focus on the new world.

>>11218

Thats a good purpose. But i dont think every body here agrees. That is the issue.

>>11206

No, in fact I think /b/ has too many rules.

>>11220

Yes, and the unfortunate reality is that those who support stringent moderation wish to ban those who support lesser moderation. The reverse is not true.

As such, those wanting more stringent moderation always seem to win out. Not to mention moderators themselves almost always favour an increase in their powers.

>>11221

You think specialization is bad? its just what majority of /pol/ want to discuss.

>>11222

No, I think the moderator determining what people can post and what they can read is bad.

>>11223

Thats not moderation. Thats censorship.

>>11222

>its just what majority of /pol/ want to discuss.

it's what the mods want to be discussed, they censor what they don't like, so naturally, those are left agree with the mods and give the impression that mods are just following the users

>>11225

Those who are left are the minority. Thats why you can be angry all you want and nothing will change.

>>11226

>Those who are left are the minority

I agree, and I'm not angry, I left that dump long time ago.

>>11224

Yes. That is the entire point. The two are one and the same.

>>11228

How will you make sure that they wont take over this board and make it a dump?

>>11231

>make sure

>on the internet

there's no guarantees on the internet, the beauty of 8chan is that you don't have to make a commitment, if this place turns into a dump, then guess what, I'll dump it too, but I doubt that would happen because it's established as a neutral board from the beginning, not "politically incorrect" or "libertarian" or "leftist"

>>11235

I would rather resist them. There is no reason to not have nice things.

>>11238

I would resist too, but not much.

>>11203

>What do you think rules are? Who defines the rules?

The mods. Try to keep up. That isn't the important bit.

>The end result is no different than in real life.

It's very very different. Consider these two scenarios.

Scenario 1:

Mod: Hey, guys here are the only rules: rule 1, rule 2, rule 3, etc.

Users: Okay. If you start moderating outside of those rules then we'll know and complain/take our business elsewhere.

Scenario 2:

Mod: LOL guise I'm in charge, so the rules are just whatever I feel like OK.

Users: The rules could change moment to moment and we'd never be able to call you out! This is bullshit?

...

Failure to understand the difference between these two scenarios is like failing to understand the difference between constitutional liberalism and absolute monarchy.

>>11275

There is no practical difference between the two scenarios. You skipped over the first part of my post due to your lack of understanding.

What I mean by the mods DEFINING the rules isn't simply that they say "'X' is banned". It's also that they determine what "X" is DEFINED as. Any regulation of speech is inherently subjective, and the person who holds the capacity to enforce the rule is greatly empowered by that subjectivity. That is, by their ability to define and redefine terms to suit their ends.

There is no dichotomy between

>Hey, guys here are the only rules: rule 1, rule 2, rule 3, etc.

and

>the rules are just whatever I feel like OK.

The BO is at once the legislative (writing the rules), the executive (enforcing the rules), and the judicial (defining the rules).

For you to compare this to constitutional liberalism in any way is absurd.

>>11298

>There is no practical difference between the two scenarios

There's an enormous difference for the reasons stated.

>Any regulation of speech is inherently subjective

I'm aware of all this, but it's not something that can be got around. One of the comprises is having lots of alternative rule sets and a low cost of exit. This is equivalent to private property in a free market.

>That is, by their ability to define and redefine terms to suit their ends.

We can detect that. The main reason I'm here and not on /pol/ is that according to my subjective opinion, imkampfy started moderating well outside the laid down rules. Thanks to a previous precedent (an informal constitution equivalent if you like) of formal rules, I was able to calibrate my expectations of the board, and detect unacceptable violations early. And so, I moved on.

The system works, because it isn't about the individual boards.

>For you to compare this to constitutional liberalism in any way is absurd.

There are many forms of constitutional liberalism. The main element I want to draw attention to isn't separation of powers, but "rule of law" which is very very very different from just having rule by whim, for reasons I have explained repeatedly.

The difference is sufficient to make me happy and that's all that matters. I am happy with /politics/ right now, and thanks to rule based moderation I have a method of detecting when the implied contract of those rules are being violated, and will go elsewhere. If I instead thought all rules were bad, I could just go to /b/. Or other imageboard alternatives to 8chan. I have these choices and this freedom.

You seem to be under the perception that rules can't be consented to, but this is wrong. With low exit costs, and no danger, rules can't even be considered choice reducing in aggregate. By choosing a community with rules to my liking, I can filter out people I don't like to discuss the things I actually want to discuss, and if those rules become too distorted or broken to my liking, then I can say fuck you to the moderation and move elsewhere and onwards in the vast open frontier of the internet with all the freedom and choice you could ever want.

More than that is just utopian nonsense based on a contentless vacuous conception of freedom that amounts to ALL THINGS ALLOWED EVERYWHERE AT ALL TIMES

I don't want you to have that freedom because it takes away mine. Go fuck yourself.

>>11349

> If I instead thought all rules were bad, I could just go to /b/.

Well, I would have to go to a /b/ equivalent that allowed CP, but I don't want to see that.

I don't want you to have that freedom, and I'm quite content with being an "authoritarian" to that degree. Sieg fucking heil etc.

>>11349

>but "rule of law" which is very very very different from just having rule by whim, for reasons I have explained repeatedly.

No, what you've done above is concede that there is no rule of law - but you are free to move once one particular petty tyrant inevitably goes to far.

>rule based moderation

Again, this is a fiction. There is in effect no difference between having rules and having no rules. The only thing with ANY practical significance is moderator behaviour.

>You seem to be under the perception that rules can't be consented to, but this is wrong.

No, what I'm saying is that they are inherently meaningless. This is why your comparison to constitutional liberalism is absurd.

>More than that is just utopian nonsense based on a contentless vacuous conception of freedom

>I don't want you to have that freedom because it takes away mine. Go fuck yourself.

You understand the specific issue (moderator overreach) but don't understand its general implications. You say, well there's no problem with rules because you can always move! Leaving aside the logical issues here, you fail to grasp that the problem is inherent in moderation itself. It is not the result of specific circumstances, and it is not confined to specific boards or websites. The story of image boards generally is a move towards more moderation, and this is BUILT into the system.

You say my view is vacuous, but in fact it is based on a detailed understanding of how image boards work. You say my views is contentless, but in fact it is centered around content. I do believe that the user should be allowed to decide for himself what to post, and what to read. I do not believe that power should be ceded to the moderator. Over the years I've been called many things for this belief (depending on the boogeyman of the day) but in reality all I care about is having a good board.

As for "I don't want you to have that freedom because it takes away mine." This is the exact same reasoning you find on college campuses, and it is used to shut up people like you and me. It's fine if you really think my being allowed to post freely inhibits your ability to do so, but consider the implications of such a belief before stating it.