Pic related. What the fuck is this? How is a discussion on a social phenomenon that began in the late 1940s and was fully fleshed out by the mid 1980s not a topic fit for the history board?
It's not like something like this can be posted on /pol/ seeing as the flags and IDs make serious discussion impossible. What do mods expect? If they wanted serious discussion on /pol/ they would remove flags and IDs so it isn't just an edgier version of /int/.
Is all discussion on anything that could be considered even slightly controversial by anybody banned from /his/? Are we seriously expected to post this kind of stuff in /pol/, despite real discussion being impossible to come by on that board due to flagposters and IDiots?
>>340251
A U T I S M
>>340251
Wow, that really is pretty pathetic. /his/ will die with mods that bad.
>Pajeet's constipation is irritating his anus again
just let loose your stools on your stool
>>340251
Why in the fuck is that banned? Even with their hate-boner for /pol/. That thread is, like, the opposite of what they should expect from /pol/.
American Prosperity Gospel is a legitimate and interesting topic, and if they want /his/ to be the intellectual discussion forum they said they wanted then they shouldn't arbitrarily censor topics.
Just replace all the fuckers already. They can't do their jobs worth shit.
>>340251
t. Rajesh
Better safe than sorry desu. Fuck /pol/fags.
That is pretty shit modding desu senpai.
Sure is 8gag in here
>>340507
Christ, look at OP and actually read it. His source leads to NPR ffs. There's nothing /pol/fag about that.
Stop using the /pol/ boogeyman to validate shitty moderation.
Feel like a political topic, or one that will become political.
Would probably fit in better on pol
It's the price we must pay to keep /pol/ out of our boards. They still need to make it a forced anon board to prevent attentionwhores and derailing threads.
I knew this would happen if /his/ was made. Politics and history go hand in hand. Most historical topics are open to interpretation, and if its open to interpretation debate will inevitably follow.
If mods begin to ban subjects that might lead to historical debate, than they might as well just shut down the whole board.
>>341066
>we need to make sure we clamp down on speech
>what if somebody says something mean?!
Liberals, everyone.
>>341059
>Would probably fit in better on pol
You can't be serious. /pol/ is reserved exclusively for spamming /int/ memes about flags, every single thread devolves into that within minutes. /pol/ is literally where /int/ goes to be racist. You don't have serious discussion on /pol/ since flags and IDs were added.
You know, /his/ mods remind me alot of the early SU(Steven Universe) fandom.
When the show first started, and the fandom started to form around it, they were so afraid of becoming "the next MLP" that they would do anything to differentiate themselves from it. They became strict with fear of being MLP. It had gotten to the point where they would setup tags for porn, force drawfags to put their NSFW related stuff in that tag (which would subsequently get shat up by shitposters), whine and yell at the first person to deviate from the shows character design, and tried to set strict rules as to what could be drawn, said, or done, or worn. This was all under the now hidden fear that "they could be the next MLP". I say " now hidden" because when it really turned to shit, they still had the nerve to think they were above them. "Atleast where not horsefuckers" they would say. "Yeah, but your rubblefuckers" someone else would say. Ultimately, in their quest to "never stoop so low", they unintentionally stooped lower.And this is not a uncommon concept. All throughout history their are examples of nations who, in their conquest to be better than their forefathers, become worse as a result.
Thoughts become things, even when you don't want them too, so when you fear of being who you dont want to be, you will become just as bad, or worse.
The answer is not to stifle, prosecute, and silence anything that is minimally related to the past you don't want. This only allows that fear to overcome you, to take over and pilot the ship you never wanted it to whether you realize it or not.
The answer, plain and simple, is too have trust. Have faith. If its blatantly, then handle it, but if looks like it can provide discussion, its on-topic, and it looks to come from a sincere place, allow it.
>>340251
this looks like a history discussion to me
>>341197
Nothing funny about it. That's the way it has always been. Leftists simply cannot handle dissent. Their entire worldview is based on the idea that no sane individual could possibly disagree with them. So when a sane person *does* disagree with them they have a panic attack because they witnessed something that "simply cannot be". Sort of like how in Lovecraft's stories people go insane just from looking at him, because he is something that "cannot be".
Leftists need their safe space circlejerks to protect their fragile sanity.
>>341200
>just from looking at him
*just from looking at Cthulhu
>>341200
Look at this: >>341288
This shit needs to fucking stop. The fact that people are begging for more and more things to be banned just because somebody might mention something triggering disgusts me.
>>341385
>>341200
And before somebody starts bitching about
>>muh /pol/
I'm actually a socialist. If modern "leftists" actually valued freedom like they claimed to they would understand that trying to ban everything that goes against their personal ideology is wrong. They're always willing to call right wingers out for doing that, but pretend that it's okay when they do it because they act like they're "fighting back."
You aren't a warrior fighting back against those evil /pol/lacks when you try to get things banned out of paranoia. You're just another psychotic fascist.
Your post was pretty good OP. That guy is a sperg
>tfw /his/ could be the new /pol/ if it wasn't for retard mods
>tfw /pol/ is ruined due to ids and flags
>tfw /his/ is ruined due to retard mods
Why can't we have anything good on 4Chan?
>>341197
>/pol/acks support free speech and discussion of history so long as they hold the same opinion
fixed
>>341941
>>tfw /pol/ is ruined due to ids and flags
/pol/ was shit long before IDs and real flags were a thing.
>>341392
While I agree with this in principle, I can understand the desire to relegate political discussion - all political discussion, if possible - to /pol/.
It gets a bit tiresome when you e.g. want to discuss a movie on /tv/ to get away from thinking about politics or depressing current events, and someone derails a thread with political discussion.
This is clearly not an example of that, though.
>>341100
Nice digits, by the way, but this place has never been about free speech. /pol/, sure, perhaps, but never 4chan in general.
>>341959
Hardly.
People don't get warned or banned on /pol/ for their opinions.
>>341991
I love how easily all the South Park millennials were manipulated by SJWs into rewriting history and refusing to take a position on anything.
>>340251
10/10 kumar.
you almost had me convinced that this was going to be a legitimate gripe to do with the moderation but in the end it was just more flag bitching.
>>341996
Yeah, /pol/ gets this image of being a place infested with shit-eating Nazis, but there's nothing there barring people with harder leftwing values from diving into the shitposting pile either.
The fact they generally don't do it or even try to carve out their own place on that board is kind of a validation of >>341200's point even though it pains me to admit. I was half a nut hair from being a full-fledged communist until a few years ago when OWS imploded under the weight of privileged hypocrites and myopic hucksters pushing divisive identity politics.
Like >>341392 I'm getting real tired of this trend of nonsense that's retroactively proving everything the most caustic of rightwing trolls said about the Left 100% true.
I mean, just a few days ago there was a thread here on /qa/ with quite a few begging for a new /leftypol/ board with moderation to keep /pol/ itself from taking over.
>>341173
The sad thing is the post in the OP didn't even state an alignment on that issue. They merely said they found the phenomena fascinating and then linked to an NPR article. They could very well have been viewing that topic as an interesting area of study alone.
It's just a warning you soft hearted little pussy
>>342033
Fucking this. The types of people trying to turn /his/ into /leftypol/ aren't interested in arguing ideals on their own merits. When /pol/ is wrong they still at least argue the topic.
The caustic anti-/pol/ crowd just want any conflicting opinions to be banned outright.
>>342033
Same anon you replied to.
Exactly, I am classical liberal (read: BREEDOM :D:D), but do I moan and whine about deleting /pol/? Nope. I keep debating.
People really can't seem to get the idea that there's more than one kind of person on /pol/.
These /leftypol/ people who seem to hate stereotypes so much, they sure do do love to stereotype /pol/.
>>342400
It is literally a question about the origins and development of religion over time. It is unquestionably a History and Humanities topic.
What you need to understand is that history is always somewhat political
>>342661
>redefining of the Republican party
>how did it become what it is today
That sounds political to me. You would get more replies on /pol/ than on /his/
>>340251
This is the first "WTF I GOT BANNED FOR THIS?" post on /qa/ that I actually agree with.
>>340251
it's cancer, OP
>>342661
>It is literally a question about the origins and development of religion over time
It is specifically referring to the "prosperity gospel" and how Calvinism became intertwined with politics after world war 2 and redefined political affiliation. It is a historical topic, because by the late 80s (post-Reagan) it became fully accepted as How Things Are. How it became how things are is an interesting topic, and is entirely historical.
>>342675
No, because people who hold allegiance to political parties are unable to separate their emotion and desire to shill from the topic. The history of how this situation came about cannot be discussed in a political context, because it inevitably becomes Right Vs. Left. NPR links are completely disregarded on /pol/, due to it being a partisan rag that shills for the left. Everything in the USA is partisan these days, and it makes accurate historical discussion about the development of political allegiances very hard to come by.
>>340251
Unbelievable. So we cannot have serious discussion on either /his/ (due to mods) or /pol/ (due to IDs and flags)? Why not just shut this site down in that case?
>>344381
Killing all the "serious boards" is the best thing that could possibly happen to this site.
>>340251
I got banned a few days ago for posting pic related and telling some guy that Indians doing this kind of shit is actually true to an extent after a guy made a joke about why Mongols never really were able to take over India and some guy went "NO INDIA DOESN'T DO THAT IT'S THE CLEANEST NATION EVER" and damage controlled hard.
I wasn't even mad about being banned. If they don't want that kinda shit, fine. But the reason was "spamming/flooding". It wasn't even like I broke that rule and posting once isn't spamming and flooding.
But the mods are complete faggots. Them being even harsher faggots during the busy period when a new board is made is almost guaranteed. And, yes, I'm posting the picture again, you fucking crybaby. Next time ban me for the ACTUAL rule I broke or piss off. Stop being a lazy cunt who just randomly pulls rules out of their ass.
>>344568
everyone is bored of it
>>344576
I get that. But I wasn't even making a joking post. I just said it does happen, but that it's not nearly what the other guy said who just said "lel mongols couldnt handle shit in streets". I wish I took a picture of my post. And I can't go back to see my last ban.
Either way, it wasn't the ban that got me mad. It's that the mod couldn't be bothered to ban me for a real reason and put "spam/flooding". Because one post is spamming and flooding now. And it was one post because I left right after that and tried to post on /tg/ and got the ban message. Could've been rule 3 about the quality of posts. Could've been NSFW images on a worksafe board because guys are shitting in the picture. He had a buch of valid ban reasons and chose the bullshit one.
>>344568
>mods are massive faggots
same shit over and over again. mods should ban themselves for being so spam-like
>>344588
Oh boo hoo.
>>341941
I must be going crazy because every time I see a post complaining about /pol/ being ruined by IDs and Flags it's with this variation of
>4Chan
perhaps you should find a hobby m8, one that isn't shitposting on /pol/ or /int/
>>346330
Proof?
>>346330
4chan is about anonymity
>>346350
No it isn't.
>>341941
>tfw /his/ could be the new /pol/
Is this supposed to be a good thing?
>tfw /pol/ is ruined
Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
Based Hiro. Holy shit.
>>346378
>>340251
>One image of a mod not reading a post long enough
>GUYS LEFTISTS ARE CENSORING ME
>/his/ MODS ARE OPPRESSIVE
Jesus /qa/, you're fucking gullible. You're allowing a /pol/-tier delusion cloud the fact that this is literally just a picture of one ban with no proof of a trend in /his/ moderation. Mods fuck up sometimes, but that doesn't mean there is any epidemic going on. It's just a dumb mod seeing the word "Republican" and thinking it's political on the spot.
>>346396
Your tears are delicious.
>>346402
Who are you quoting, retard? NPR links are the opposite of something a leftist would censor. People are complaining that they can't discuss this stuff on /his/ due to stupid mods but also can't discuss it on /pol/ due to all the ID/flag shitposting.
>>346412
You stupid piece of shit. hose people are responding to faggots in this thread (most likely you, scumbag) who are saying it was a good idea to delete the OP because censorship is so much better than being exposed to naughty opinions. Murder yourself, I'm not asking.
>>340251
>One dumb ban
>/his/ IS SO CENSORED GUYS
I know it's infuriating to get banned because a mod just saw the word "Republican" and thought it was political, but one ban does not equal an epidemic.
>>346408
>omg somebody told me to kill myself!!!
>my trolling is paying off
>im finally getting attention
>this must be what it's like to matter to somebody
Sad.
>>341200
And the Right is soooo much better with free speech. Except when they decide it's degenerate or fit the national identity of the country. You will not believe how many fucking times I have seen people on the Right say that people born within a country who aren't patriotic, or have a different religion, should not be considered citizens, and other such absurdity. People with different viewpoints than them should not be allowed to vote. This isn't even uncommon.
>>346520
If you hate your country, you should gtfo. If you hate your country, you are clearly not going to vote in its best interest and should not be allowed to vote.
>>346428
How about the mods stop being triggered and actually read posts before jumping to banning people? Is that so much to ask or what?
>>346551
It's not hating your country, you can't be neutral on your country and have the Right not trying to censor you. I've seen political comics about people having a flag on their yard only on the 4th of July being demonized for not having it all year.
Secondly, hating your country does not mean that your opinion won't lead to the improvement of the country. The national opinion has changed because of small minorities who probably weren't that fond of their country at the time, and most of the time, that change in opinion was for the better.
Don't try to justify censorship in any form.
>>346551
The issue is that the modern right takes any criticism to be "hate". For instance, if you think that the current wars are bad and just fucking up the country you'll hear "You hate the troops! They're dying for your rights!". Whereas the point is "you're sending our soldiers to die pointlessly" and they're just as much a victim of shitty governing as anyone.
You can criticize things without hating it. Or even hate things without thinking the entire country is bad. Why do you think our Founding Fathers allowed free speech? And some even said revolutions every X years were good? Because you're not supposed to suck the government's dick and approve of everything. You're supposed to speak out against what you dislike and try to form a more perfect nation. And the objective facts are that this nation isn't number 1 anymore. Militarily we are, but outside of that we're falling behind. We should be the best and we're falling behind on everything and with this new terrorism shit we basically sold out our constitutional rights under the Patriot act, NDAA, and new terrorism laws/definitions. And that, my friend, is worth being pissed off about. If you think standing up for what your country was founded upon means hating the country, then crack open a history book and read what our Founding Fathers said and warned us about and then take a look at our modern nation. It's a fucking shame what this country has come to.
>>340251
Jews gonna Jew m8.
>>340251
Simple, /his/ is and always has been a Christian Board.
>>341141
>says the Anon who never goes on /pol/
>>340251
Friendly reminder that 4chan's moderation is the site's worst enemy.
Don't have screenshot but mods banned me for something I didn't post
>>347275
I should clarify it lasted about a day and only realized I was banned after the ban was over
/his/ is so paranoid about becoming /pol/ that they've adopted a reverse hivemind. It's like you're walking on eggshells with every post, worrying about being banned or spammed with >>>/pol/ for talking about something they don't like.
For instance, the first day had a bunch of CSA threads that were spammed with "go back to >>>/pol/" and "mods pls ban /pol/tards"
>>346402
I got banned for a similar post and ive seen screencaps of other bans. the board is shit
>>347304
The mods should the boards name to /leftypol/ at this point.
>>347304
It's literally the mods and a couple users who are intentionally trying to make /leftypol/
>>344568
I'd ban you too for posting such a shitty screencap.
>>347599
Never underestimate the autism of /int/
>>344568
Turns out I did screencap it.
>>340270
>toilet witches
>>340468
The /pol/ paranoia is what really ruined the board. Even people who back up their shit with evidence instead of being blatantly racist are banned anyways, i also saw some dude get banned for starting a discussion about fascism.
I'd much rather have /his/ be /pol/ 2.0 than what it is right now, i mean if you want a civil, non 4chan-like discussion you can always go to /r/history or the countless other history forums.
TRIGGERED
>>348058
He probably just clicked the wrong one on accident.
>>341173
capped
>>342033
qft. Time to replace the incompetent mods on /his/ with people who actually know that facts and genuine inquiry should never be against the rules.
/his/ risks becoming dead on arrival unless something is done.
>>347318
The mods are the problem that has to be removed.
>on /his/
>see communist thread
>thread is literally just a circlejerk of these faggots telling how great communism was/is
>counter all these retards by showing hundreds of examples of where communism failed and took the lives of hundreds of thausands of people (with sources.)
>>>/pol/
>back to /pol/
>/pol/ pls go
>hello /pol/
>later banned for posting politics outside of /pol/
What the fuck!? I don't even browse /pol/ but I'm starting to understand why they're pissed about what's going on in /his/.
>>348617
>qft.
what is this 2006?
>>349495
IT'S TWENTY FIFTEEN!!!!!!!
2015
0
1
5
>>349490
The irony is that those people are almost certainly from /pol/, which is why they are so defensive. Try being a communist on /pol/, it doesn't go over well. Voice any opinion remotely communist or come out as a communist, and you will quickly find yourself arguing against half a dozen people at least, you will be overrun, literally incapable of replying to all the people shoving arguments at you. This is doubly true for a communist thread.
Makes sense to me they would try to create commie-circlejerks on any board they could. Even the communists from 8ch's /leftypol/ have despaired of ever denting /pol/'s staunchly anti-communist userbase.
>>349507
There can only ever be a clear consensus of communism being a good thing in places where all dissent is banned. That's why /his/ mods are so fucking awful. They believe anything to the right of Lenin is /pol/.
>>349490
>On /k/
>Yet another thread about gun control politics
>Get slightly assflustered about 1/5th of /k/ being about "DEM DAMN LIBERALS GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS"
>Even though I'm pro-gun I decide to play devils advocate just to blow off some steam
>Cite many sources about how gun control has made communities safer (even though I don't believe it)
>lel get back to /pol/
>/pol/ go home
>/pol/ please go
You don't even have to be making rightist arguments for people to pull out the /pol/ boogyman card. Any political opinion that someone disagrees with belongs in /pol/.
>>349513
That really doesn't sound like something /k/ of all places would say about gun control. They'd most likely redirect you to reddit. /pol/ is pro-guns, and most of /k/'s user base is indeed /pol/.
>>349513
Horseshit. /k/ knows damn well that /pol/ is pro-gun.
>>349526
to some extent.
>>349511
You won't get anywhere posting on /his/ you'll have to take it to the mods on IRC to see results. In the past I'd email moot about this, but I don't know who to email anymore. And the IRC crowd is so disconnected from the actual site these days.
>>349532
Are you sure Hiro has not posted any possible means of contact?
>>349537
>just sharing my thoughts
so you made that story up? Okay...
>>349538
I don't think so, and besides Hiro is very typically a Japanese doormat. I'd prefer to have experienced mods deal with this. They're not a monolith, we just need to get some impartial eyes on /his/ cause whoever is running the show right now is biased as all hell.
>>349546
No, its a true story. I really have no reason to lie about this.
My point was that people throw the /pol/ card out no matter who is arguing.
>>349550
Submitted some feedback but I'm dubious as to the results. I liked the days I could just email moot. It got results sometimes.
>>349551
That's stupid though, a place like /k/ would know that /pol/ is pro-guns, and I think as someone who regularly browses /k/ would know this.
>>349556
same, pic related.
>>349560
nice job anon, hopefully you get a reply from he mods
>>346520
The difference is those idiots you speak of on the Right end up marginalizing themselves by their own stupidity. Very few people take them seriously anymore.
The crazies on the Left however have the ear of decision-makers from lowly internet forums to the highest offices in the western world. And what's worse, the crazy stupid shit on the Left is driving people into buying the crazy stupid shit on the Right again in hopes to stop the former.
>>348604
Over corrective measures are why the majority consensus keeps swinging back and forth every 5-10 years. You'd think at some point people would realize going off the deep end is just going to hurt them in the long run by now, but power corrupts as they say.
I think the main reason people don't like /pol/acks on other boards is that they become triggered so easily when told to shut up. They then go into some huge thing tirade about leftists, censorship, and red pills.
>>352648
To be fair a lot of that is just people turning /pol/ into a boogeyman label for any sort of hint of political discussion they find distasteful. Some people have it in their heads that anyone voicing negative opinions of something like mainstream modern feminism is automatically a /pol/tard. The resulting argument could have as much to do with the accused getting pissy with their opponent's lazy logic as much as legitimate /pol/sters getting bootywrecked.
>>352648
>I think the main reason people don't like /pol/acks on other boards
The only people that don't like /pol/acks are the mods and people from other sites.
>>354657
this post is literally why people don't like /pol/
>>354715
dude /pol/ is like the 4th most popular board on 4chan and most of the population of the top 3 boards are /pol/ crossposters, you're a minority.
>>354894
telling others that they are a minority in response to being hated?
oy vey!
>>349561
>get a reply from he mods
>using feedback
lol nope
>>341066
BETTER MAKE SURE NOBODY SAYS ANYTHING OFFENSIVE ON 4CHAN
>>354652
>Some people have it in their heads that anyone voicing negative opinions of something like mainstream modern feminism is automatically a /pol/tard
No, it's the fact it can't be left at that. Just because someone says a contrary opinion does not mean it should become a thread derailing argument. It's sometimes better to just not respond.
To any brave /pol/ fighters for "le freedom of le speech" on every board:
You know why bronies got the global rule 15?
Not because people wanted an echo-chamber which would somehow be caused by banning pony discussion.
Not because it hurt their feelings and they got triggered.
Not because they wanted to ban freedom of speech.
It was because the bronies were insufferable faggots.
Now, guess which group is also composed of insufferable faggots?
/pol/ is made specifically to hold political discussion. Why don't you discuss it there then? Most people don't discuss videogames on /sci/ and later cry about "freedom of speech" when they get told to go to /v/, why do you do this when you get told to go back to "/pol/" after posting /pol/ shit in unrelated boards?
>>355921
All these "muh free speech" people are a bunch of hypocrites and fucking annoying. 4chan's about being autistic about shit you like, having fun, and talking shit. Not whining about your fucking "oppression" and social justice movements.
>>355921
>Not because it hurt their feelings and they got triggered.
Actually, it often it because of that. Nowadays you sometimes get told to go back to /pol/ if you call someone a nigger or makes jokes about Jews, or say something bad about feminism (which is something that was common and expected on pretty much every board except /co/ for years). "/pol/" has essentially become a boogeyman for any right-wing opinion or politically incorrect speech since 2012.
>why do you do this when you get told to go back to "/pol/" after posting /pol/ shit in unrelated boards?
Politics are a much broader subject than videogames. They'll often come up because they're so interlinked with everything in life, from gender, to race, to class, to what's allowed in media. The internet, and hobbies like gaming and comic books have become a lot more politicized in recent years, so it makes sense that people will talk about it more. I would rather have /pol/acks than the wave of Redditors and Tumblrites that have been flooding the site.
>I'm a conservative christian
>>356175
I would rather have none of that
>>340251
isn't /his/ supposed to be for humanities as well?
>>356204
I wish for that too, but I've realized that it's impossible, especially in 2015. If you get rid of the /pol/acks, you get stuck with the tumblrettes. If you get rid of the tumblrettes, you get stuck with the /pol/acks. Anytime you tell the /pol/acks to fuck off, you give more ground to the tumblrettes, and vice versa. Everything has become polarized.
>>356256
Excellent post. The mistake of all these supposed neutral people wanting a better, cleaner 4chan, is thinking the place isn't beyond salvation. It is. Radicals, from any side, will always end up winning.
>>340251
>/pol/ seeing as the flags and IDs make serious discussion impossible.
Flags I can kinda get, especially if you're from India or somewhere like that, but how do thread specific IDs make serious discussion impossible??
>>346350
Thread specific ID's don't kill anonymity
>>356256
Here's an idea: we tell both groups to fuck off.
>>346613
>I've seen political comics about people having a flag on their yard only on the 4th of July being demonized for not having it all year.
You base your opinion of the right on fucking political comics??
>>356310
That certainly will show them
>>356308
Yes they do.
>>341197
>>341200
Here's the thing.
Most /pol/acks aren't actually Nazis or neo-reactionaries or any other extremely right-wing philosophies. A lot of it is just shitposting and trolling. And I use /pol/ regularly. Nazism and other ideologies just became the hip new meme and then stuck around for years.
I have nothing against proper discourse, and I do think that OP being banned for that post is ridiculous, but there do need to be some measures. On /his/ we constantly get threads about African history and the whole threads are just filled with shitposting from both sides. You see /pol/tards spouting that bullshit, fake Darwin quote, people who honestly believe there really never was a sub-Saharan civilization with writing or agriculture or metallurgy, and then on the other side you get idiots trying to claim that the ancient Egyptians or Carthaginians were black.
Essentially, I'm not in favour of censoring every single right-wing opinion, I just want ignorant, unsourced shitposting like those posts in the African threads gone.
>>356330
How so?
>>356346
>pseudonym
!=
>anonymous
>>356411
It's only thread -specific though, so if it does harm anonymity, it does so very minimally, while eradicating samefagging
Anonymity is valuable within a thread. It's retarded to value some IP's posts differently cause he shitposted in some other way, If he said something other anons didn't like tough shit. He's not a tripfag.
>>355921
posting an opinion on a different board is completely different from posting pony porn.
Fuck pol faggots. Mod did the right thing.
>>356592
Fuck you opinion
>>356568
But /pol/'s opinions are ignorant, emotional, idiotic, historically-revisionist and plain stupid. They shouldn't be allowed because they're not worthwhile enough to talk about if you're over the age of 10 or so.
>>356614
Thanks for proving that /pol/ is filled with ignoramuses and troglodytes. All of you trash actually disgrace the white race.
>>356568
Why do you think anyone cares about your stupid "hurr durr redpilled xD" opinions?
>>356619
you did the meme
>>356623
opinions care
>>356418
You are adding identification to what is supposed to be an anonymous image board.
It doesn't matter to what degree the identification is, it's still pants on head retarded, and goes against one of the main things that makes this site interesting.
>>341173
this is adorable because if we are supposed to have the faith in eachother you talk about GR 15 needs to die.
>>356623
its a meme ya dip
>>357425
Fucking kill yourself brony
>>357983
This.
>>356617
This right here is why I will side with /pol/ every time despite hating the board. Saying anything unpopular on a board gets retards screaming "go back to /pol/!" at you and people like you only make that worse.
If /pol/'s opinions were everything you say they are, then you'd have no trouble at all dealing with them. In practice what you're saying just leads to over corrective measures.
>>341941
To this day the only people bitching about IDs and flags on /pol/ are shitpost masters. I'm convinced most of them are Ausfailians who are infuriated that everyone can see their flag when they post their verbal dog turds.
>>340251
Hey Pahjeet, nobody likes you.
>>356617
>But /pol/'s opinions [...]shouldn't be allowed
Why are people such fascists?
honestly your topic was shit and /pol/ bait desu fAM
>>362223
>desu fAM
Your shitty post has been disregarded.
>>360369
fuck off, flags destroyed pol, you are only contributing to the decline
>>362822
This
>>356175
>They'll often come up because they're so interlinked with everything in life, from gender, to race, to class, to what's allowed in media.
this is what sjws say to justify sabotaging hobby discussion too
>>362927
I'm pretty sure that people who bring "/pol/" shit into hobby discussion only do it to cry about SJWs sabotaging those hobbies. Show me a single example where that isn't the case.
>>362962
Pretty much. Most of what is labeled /pol/ bullshit is people getting pissy at SJW sentiment already expressed in a hypothetical thread.
There are a few who go off on a rant without prompting and that shit is annoying, but given how SJW shit permeates so widely it's unfortunate but understandable how hyper-vigilant people are turning in its wake.
>>341141
>every single thread devolves into that within minutes.
What do you get out of lying on the internet?
>>356617
>I disagree!
>ban it
Into le trash it goes
>>363176
Fuck off back to >>>/8gag/
>>363269
>Complaining about SJWs = 8gaggery
Eh, I think you're the one who's in the wrong place friendo.
