Feedback Kiwi Farms and Positive Good For Normies

[Wormy]

Kiwifarms is horrifying because it's unironically a weapon of the coming future right wing Christian authoritarian state it advocates for. Not for the reasons most normies think it is.

If you want to dispel the idea the site only targets minorities (and by minorities they always mean troons) you can point out that there are whole subforums on America First and Ethan Ralph.

Which is easy to counter in it'self; Nick is only a target for his homosexuality. Ralph is only a target for being fat.

That said, Kiwifarms is a surprisingly friendly and diverse community. Children would be much better served hanging out here than they are on Twitter or Discord.

Unless they're non white. Or female. Or non Christian.

 

[George Floyd]

Which is easy to counter in it'self;

There's no need to counter that, because nobody is interested in facts on the internet. Just cover i tup with more lies. Check what the wikipedia page for this website looks like. Primary sources are forbidden and kiwifarms.net is explicitly banned as a source, so whatever journos made up is treated as the gospel. The only place where there are people who see through jewrno lies I've seen is HackerNews.

 

[named]

Kiwifarms is horrifying because it's unironically a weapon of the coming future right wing Christian authoritarian state it advocates for. Not for the reasons most normies think it is.

Merely highlighting public, harmful behavior (in the vein of LibsOfTikTok) is entirely within the scope of legitimate political discourse. There's not a clear dividing line between "journalistic investigation" and "harassment." You need to point out some distinctive, direct social harm that is done by highlighting that behavior; and I have yet to see anyone who has been able to do that except in cases of direct harassment. I generally believe that this sort of coverage is acceptable as long as the journoscum don't try to interfere with business relationships (which is tortious, but almost nobody ever sues over it due to the deference to free speech in the U.S.).

This argument that the right wing having exactly the same ability to speak as real, normal people is a slippery slope to a "right wing Christian state" is nonsensical. A "right wing Christian authoritarian state" in the sense of a theocratic Franco-style dictatorship will never form because absolutely nobody trusts Christian churches to run anything directly. Even SSPX sedevacantists don't usually advocate for that anymore. The closest to such a state in modern times is Russia, but that relationship is backwards in the style of the Church of England: the state decides the priorities, and the Russian Orthodox Church mostly supports whatever the state wants.

An "authoritarian state" in the sense of a traditional fascist corporatist model already exists to some extent, as you can see from the coordinated use of corporate power to achieve the government's ends, as in the recent Facebook / Twitter disclosures.

A "Christian state" in the sense of upholding Christian moral principles already exists. I don't see many child sacrifices to Tlaloc these days. Christian moral principles are baked into the culture we live in to the extent that they're not even visible; and the moral principles and judicial of historical pagan societies are so alien as to be completely incomprehensible to the average modern person.

Which is easy to counter in it'self; Nick is only a target for his homosexuality. Ralph is only a target for being fat.

Nick, Ralph, and co. are "targets" for being completely incompetent in a way that produces an unending amount of drama. Nobody has accused Baked Alaska of being homosexual and he still has a 400+ page thread. People fixate on Nick's homosexual behavior because it's particularly ridiculous even by the standards of right-wing homosexuals.

Unless they're non white. Or female. Or non Christian.

This forum is known to have a significant female population; they just mostly stay in the Beauty Parlor. It's almost as if men and women don't generally have exactly identical interests.

Regarding the other two; to explain this in a way that is comprehensible to leftists:
Forcing right-wing commentators into almost-exclusively right wing spaces is generally going to further radicalize them because they will only talk to the other people in those spaces. The belief of the left wing that creating a universal public square will promote liberalism only applies if there is a single universal public square. The design of most social media has promoted the creation of these hugboxes where you never talk to anyone who disagrees with you.

If you want to stop this, you should act against the banning of right-wing commentary from public spaces. Please read Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent and consider the effects if public discourse becomes partitioned into "right-wing" and "left-wing" sets.

Any public space will have some general standards for acceptable speech (frequently called the "Overton window"). General standards for what discourse is allowed on most current public forums are biased towards the left wing - you can talk all you want about common, acceptable interests like "gas the kulaks, class war now" on r/GenZedong, but if you say that transgender people are mentally ill on that same site (even though their condition is clearly extremely correlated with other mental illnesses), you will get immediately banned for hate speech. This forces right wing commentary into the few spaces that will still allow it, and results in them being right wing hugboxes.

A&H has almost no moderation beyond basic formatting rules and breaking off-topic fights to a Spergatory thread, so it will tend to be a right wing hugbox. Left wing commentators are allowed there(Hollywood Hulk Hogan, for example), but they're not exactly going to be popular with the community that's there.

 

[Wormy]

>>absolutely nobody trusts Christian churches to run anything directly.
Are you sure about that? I can provide quotes....

>>A "Christian state" in the sense of upholding Christian moral principles already exists. I don't see many child sacrifices to Tlaloc these days.
True, but how many people are put to death for working on Sundays, wearing two different fibers, planting crops not according to scripture, or are killed simply for not acknowledging Christ's divinity? Why do Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists argue for Biblical law if we're already there?

>>If you want to stop this, you should act against the banning of right-wing commentary from public spaces. Please read Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent and consider the effects if public discourse becomes partitioned into "right-wing" and "left-wing" sets.
Already read Chomsky. Not keen to admit it too loudly, though, it gets me branded a Communist.

>>Left wing commentators are allowed there(Hollywood Hulk Hogan, for example), but they're not exactly going to be popular with the community that's there.
That only helps prove my point about the community here. Just go to the Pol Pot thread that popped up in Q&A for more evidence.

 

[named]

Are you sure about that? I can provide quotes....

I'm interested in Christian extremist groups also, so if you have some content, I'd be interested in it.

Rod Dreher from The American Conservative is the template right-wing Christian I get exposed to. He does not support organized churches running governments based on his experiences at the New York Post covering the Catholic Church's sexual assault scandals. He does support Orban in Hungary, but Orban isn't a Christian Dominionist per se.

As far as groups of people go, I'm Catholic and mostly get exposed to sedevacantists, who inherently don't trust the Church to run anything - they're a breakaway group by definition. I know of Christian Dominionist Protestants somewhat, but they're generally considered incoherent lunatics - gentiles were generally required to follow the Noahide laws, and the only parts of the Noahide laws that are controversial in modern society are the prohibitions against blasphemy and adultery. The Talmud would expand this somewhat, but it's not binding on Christians.

>>A "Christian state" in the sense of upholding Christian moral principles already exists. I don't see many child sacrifices to Tlaloc these days.
True, but how many people are put to death for working on Sundays, wearing two different fibers, planting crops not according to scripture, or are killed simply for not acknowledging Christ's divinity? Why do Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists argue for Biblical law if we're already there?

Regarding the application of most of Deuteronomy, see above regarding the Noahide laws. There are very few of those laws which are held to be binding on non-Jewish Christians, and the pool of Jewish Christians is nearly zero (Messianic Jews and Black Hebrew Israelites only, and they're both fringe sects).

The main points of conflict with modern law held by Christians that I am aware of are the prohibition against divorce (Catholics only), the prohibition against adultery, the prohibition against sodomy (please note that this also includes non-reproductive heterosexual acts), and the prohibition against abortion. This causes the idea among atheists that Christians are really fixated on sex - we're not, but society doesn't disagree with us on much else.

>>Left wing commentators are allowed there(Hollywood Hulk Hogan, for example), but they're not exactly going to be popular with the community that's there.
That only helps prove my point about the community here. Just go to the Pol Pot thread that popped up in Q&A for more evidence.

My point is that the community on sites which don't apply censorship is going to be more right-wing than mainstream sites, and moderators of those communities can't really do a lot about that without applying similar censorship. If you want to discourage the creation of hugboxes, you should campaign against censorship on mainstream sites, not try to go after the remaining right-wing hugboxes. (Even the excitable 12 year olds get bored of screaming "nigger" into the void after the first few thousand times - if it's allowed, it's not edgy anymore.)

 

[Wormy]

I'm interested in Christian extremist groups also, so if you have some content, I'd be interested in it.

A really good place to start is the Chalcedon Foundation and RJ Rushdooney. Sarah Palin's church was part of that umbrella. Also the Seven Mountains organization.

If you want to discourage the creation of hugboxes, you should campaign against censorship on mainstream sites, not try to go after the remaining right-wing hugboxes.

I'm fine with that, actually. I think it would hurt the hugboxes organically anyway.

Noone's going to go for it though.

(Even the excitable 12 year olds get bored of screaming "nigger" into the void after the first few thousand times - if it's allowed, it's not edgy anymore.)

But as this site proves, 12+ year olds never get bored of the word.

 

[Haramburger]

It's hard to get people excited about hunting and jailing pedos and human traffickers. There are actual celebrities like Ashton Kutcher using their riches to fund operations to catch traffickers and shut down rings of child kidnappers, and despite the initial positive press, almost no one keeps up with his progress & normies would rather look away and pretend the problem doesn't exist instead of praising Ashton.

In the same vein, you can't expect normies to see doxing of zoofuckers and "consent accident" creepers as a public good, even though it is. But we do have a sub-community of Sardine Enjoyers™ and supporting sardines supports fishermen and fisheries, and that's just stupid and weird enough to be upvoted to the front page of Reddit with enough Reddit Gold supporters, so please spread the word and pay Conde Nast like a good goy to flare our deenz lovrs.

 

[Ishtar]

Kiwifarms is horrifying because it's unironically a weapon of the coming future right wing Christian authoritarian state it advocates for. Not for the reasons most normies think it is.

People often warn about this, but no one takes into consideration that an intra right wing civil war would erupt before some sort of RJ Rushdoony theocracy was installed. Neo Nazis, Nietzchean vitalists, Christian theocrats, libertarians-all make up the "right wing" and if the Left and Liberals were defeated, a mighty struggle would ensue for the future civilization to be created(and it would be glorious...to see Pol arguments reflected in a civil war).

That aside, KF does good work in showing what degeneracy, criminality, and rot actually goes on-especially in leftist circles. Hence the enmity it has gained from Lucas Sorrenti among others.

Regarding KF and normies-I've said in the past this site has an unforgiving and ruthless atmosphere, that would drive away normies who might have a bit of curiosity left in their heads, but I was wrong. The truth is here-for any with the patience to listen to us. Large sections of the populace will believe Vox anyway and the WAPO because Taylor Lorenz is a troon booster, but we must always be a light for those who see through the darkness around them.

 

[LurkTrawl]

What does "negative good" mean?

 

[Kronk _]

Its because its "positive good" is something that the site does not want to be.

The positive good is archiving all the bad shit someone does. Those archives hold value since these are not available anywhere else. I found and stayed in the farms due to it exposing zoos and pedos, but clearly, thats not the main purpose of the site.

 

[Ishtar]

KF and A&N have a lot of political posters, pol outliers and those banned from fora and elsewhere online(usually for right wing political beliefs)-this is not the purpose of the site. The primary purpose of KF is to document and archive, and to mock troons, death fats and other abominations.

I dislike the “free speech” rhetorical defense-in political conflict this is fundamentally passive and defensive, but it’s really all Josh has. He can’t say “KF is a based outpost of Christian Nazi WNs with a side helping of rad fems”-that doesn’t win over the general public, hurts him even more PR wise and isn’t what he himself believes(Josh is somewhat right wing politically but it’s not really relevant).

Lucas Sorrenti and other troons do however see their conflict with KF in stark political terms. KF is a locus of anti trans discourse, and archiving, which makes pushing propaganda and narratives much harder as pushback develops-either from KF users or from their other enemies who can cite KF.

Josh relies on the “free and open internet” appeal because I think he’s more a libertarian than any sort of reactionary and because well he’s running a site, not engaging in political warfare, even if his enemies see it that way(and it’s true).

I think this approach has limited value, but it’s the only real approach Josh can take.

The average normie fundamentally is a herd animal-if CNN and the WAPO tell them there is an ongoing trans genocide with KF death squads helicoptering into tranny’s homes and machine gunning them, they’ll believe it. Because CNN and The WAPO are “legitimate” resources, that the masses accept.

All we can do is patiently explain KF’ work in exposing criminality and depravity of all kinds and hope that the cattle aren’t as stupid as they seem.