The power trip / ban doesn't bother me, but the misinformation does. They present as leftist, but flare up around US elections discouraging voter turnout via 'bOtH siDeS' garbage. that only ever elevates shit like MAGA.

In the linked thread, OP promotes rioting while discouraging voter turnout. My comments agreed with activism like riots, but pointed out that it's not an either-or thing. You can riot -and- vote; and even if you don't have it in you to riot, still do vote.

Banned.

You can see my removed comment quoted in the post after mine.

This 'blue MAGA' tankie shit is somehow worse than the loud-and-clear MAGA shit over on Reddit - at least those neonazis were honest about who they were.

Anywho, YSK. Spaces like r/conservative were clearly labeled and easy to avoid; LateStageCapitalism@lemmy.world presents as a cause worth rallying around, but only until you peel up the veneer and see that they're the same fucking thing.

Also please vote. In addition to whatever flavor of activism tickles your fancy.

top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 34 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

Yeah that's not a serious community. Like I can understand why an anarchist would be vehemently opposed to voting, but a socialist? No. PTB.

Edit: and furthermore, if they're so against voting, why haven't they disabled both downvotes AND upvotes, and only use just the other sort algorithms?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    Edit: and furthermore, if they're so against voting, why haven't they disabled both downvotes AND upvotes, and only use just the other sort algorithms?

    Anti-electoralists are not necessarily against voting in literally all circumstances. We're against voting for candidates for political office.

    :this: 1
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    anarchist here. Absolutely against voting and especially against electoralism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Tell me, how would an anarchist self governed community make decisions as a group?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • Exactly. Left-anarchist myself, and the only way is, surprise, voting. Voting and debating. Democracy, for god's sake. A leader doesn't necessarily means higher hierarchy; what it really means (or should mean) is just higher responsability with the capacity of fulfilling it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago

    You're never going to get a reasonable answer from them if you get any answer at all. Anarchism only works until the difficult questions start getting asked. This is why there is no anarchist society on the planet other than some extremely small communities that would more reasonably be considered communes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    Wow. Your post is so reasonable, strongly in favour of rioting, correctly identifying it as better than voting, just allowing for voting. And still banned.

    I've blocked a lot of PTB comms because of all the trolly libs calling anyone left of Schumer a tankie then whining about being banned from leftist spaces, but this is a bonkers ban. And from .world as well, not even a leftist instance. 🤷

    To save folks a click:

    Brace yourself for an apparently super edgy hot take:

    Rioting > voting

    rioting & voting > just rioting

    just voting > nothing at all

    Discouraging voting or rioting = supporting the status quo.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    They even mention voting for 3rd parties in their rules.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 67 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

    PTB. Everyone should be voting in this election. People like that boil all nuance down to two black and white naive takes:

    • That you are either a voter OR you go out and protest. In reality there is nothing stopping you from doing both.
    • That you should not vote because there is no unicorn candidate. In reality there will never be a perfect candidate.

    I have voted in every election in the last 20 years, local, state, federal - and I have yet to see a candidate that I agree with completely. It will never happen. Expecting change tomorrow is a naive take. Slow incremental change is the only change I've seen on this planet. You are going to need to compromise on candidates, because it's always a bad and a worse candidate, and not voting means you are okay with the worse candidate. It's happening right now, and people are shocked pikachu of what happened in the last election. The reason is simple, people didn't vote.

    Conservatives desperately want us to not go and vote. That should really tell you everything. Does it mean you have to agree with the candidate on everything? Absolutely not. Does it mean that your morals are the same as the person you voted for? Also absolutely not. Politics is usually voting against things you don't want than voting for things you do. People are strange complex creatures, and you'll never find a candidate who agrees with you. (Yes, even in multiple party scenarios).

    If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Slow incremental change is the only change I’ve seen on this planet.

    Only positive progressive change is slow and incremental. Regressives and authoritarians are able to pull off change pretty fast when they realize the system is too slow to stop them and won't punish them for wrecking everything.

    That is why it is important to vote in every election to mitigate the damage they want to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago

    (Relatedly; we're voting for the lesser of evils mostly because of the voting system we're using. RTV improves on this substantially, is used in several federal elections across the country, and has reasonable appeal in many places.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago

    Imagine handing your country to fascists because you're too much of a little bitch to engage in your own democracy. I feel so lucky to be able to vote in my country. It's my responsibility and I am privileged to have it. It was earned by the blood of MILLIONS.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I don't see any rule you broke so this is a pretty open and shut PTB for me.

    That said, no great loss since these LSC communities are all millenarian fantasy dumpster fires. Capitalism ain't goin nowhere on its own.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    the only leftists i've ever met that were serious people were the ones i've met in person. terminally online leftists just post through it and have nothing else. they post big endgame-level ideas, but if you ask them how they plan to get there, you get dogpiled and called a nazi. it's roleplaying for attention on social media.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)
  • [+] -6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (10 children)

    I have yet to see the posts punching left lately AND not following the comm rules be removed (note reflection on op not above image)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    I... don't think this user is punching left...

    :this: 1
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago

    No, the democractic party is overwhelmingly not "left." They are the controlled opposition, in a game that the republicans are no longer playing, they are playing overthrow the republic, while the democrats are still playing oligarch monopoly.

    🎯 2
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago*

    The Democratic party never has been and never will be the left. The line between left and right is the line between who should own the means of production, the capitalist class or the working class.

    You’ve been on Lemmy for two years, and on an anarchist instance, no less. How do you still not know this?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    I see OP has multiple comments that are all deleted. A reply quoting their "you should vote" comment isn't deleted. There are comments still up like:

    What prevents you from voting and rioting at the same time?

    There is absolutely no reason to not vote.

    To me it looks like something else triggered the ban.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 2 weeks ago

    It could have been another one. I expanded on my stance that discouraging activism or voting is an act of support for the status quo, specifically MAGA. Maybe that crossed the mod's line. /shrug.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    It's so that other people can still pile on. Telling people to vote is against LSC community rules.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

    It looks like they've got razor thin margins on what they allow.

    -You should vote ✅️

    -You should vote for the party that isn't measurably making you life worse. ❌️

    They're guilty of "both sides bad" in my opinion. An endorsement of any mainstream party or candidate breaks their rules.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Saying you should vote would also be supporting capitalism or the parties/ideologies that uphold it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    I'm sure you will tell us which modern country with a democracy isn't operating some form of capitalism. Functional people deal with the cards they are dealt to choose the best possible outcome, not imagine the best possible one and make believe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    The comm has rules, they may be completely idiotic but they are unfortunately clear enough that can't complain about them making rules up. It isn't like most comms with "no politics" or "no promoting violence" where they inforce is in a wishy washy way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    First of all,

    The comm has rules, they may be completely idiotic

    Yes, so people would complain. Do not suffer fools. They also cripple any real discussion about "Late Stage Capitalism".

    But this would be assuming your leap of logic was correct, which it isn't. The rule is:

    3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, anti-communism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

    You don't vote because you support everything a party does, specially in majority wins all election systems. I'll quote myself again:

    Functional people deal with the cards they are dealt to choose the best possible outcome, not imagine the best possible one and make believe.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    Being banned from latestagecapitalism is an honor. They have conservative mods. You can be banned there for criticizing conservatism or saying things that are too far from Fox News talking points.

    Not really sure how or why we end up with conservative mods in these communities, but it really ruins them.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 weeks ago*

    LateStageCapitalism is run by a sole moderator who is either a foreign shill or so stupid that they're doing their work for them for free.

    He bans anyone that goes against his narrative. I am by no means the only person that has spoken out against that sub and its mod. It's becoming public knowledge at this point that the sub is compromised.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    They have communist mods, I think they're Marxists. I'd respect you more if you at least said you're against the "extreme left" or something like that instead of pretending that everyone who isn't liberal is conservative or secretly conservative.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago

    I think I will opt for civility and choose to endorse free speech, whether in an echo-chamber or not.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago*

    Tankie outreach community with mods that are pro Russia and censorship heavy. One of them loves responding to comments they've deleted. LW does nothing like usual in response to problematic moderators. PTB.

  • source
  • [–] [M] 38 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    Note to all: This is not the place to get on your "VOTE" soapboaxes. Stick to judging the moderation action.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    I find it weird how they remove comments of people with massive upvote ratios. Like arent those comments the community overwhelmingly agrees with? How are they justifying consistently censoring their community this way?

    PTB just because of that

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Things can be both popular and bad for a community and/or breaking its rules. It's obvious that this isn't what's happened here, but upvotes alone aren't everything - you could probably get a lot of upvotes with a good meme in any discussion community (because who checks what community a post came from every time before upvoting), or post an inflammatory political take that is bound to get a lot of comments that mods now have to deal with.

    Here however, the Mod simply disagreed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yeah, but even so, these are just totalitarian and absurd rules. They're destroying freedom of speech because they're compelling the language and speech to only what they look as acceptable. That's certainly just minifascism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago

    How are they justifying consistently censoring their community this way?

    The sole active mod on LateStageCapitalism is an insufferable crybaby who is either an accelerationist or a paid foreign shill. If you go against his narrative, you will be banned. It's a trash sub that shouldn't be used by any reasonable person.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    LATE STAGE CAPITALISM IS AN INVALID SUB RUN SOLELY BY AN ANTI-DEMOCRATIC CRYBABY MOD THAT BANS EVERYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH HIM AND HE IS MOST LIKELY A PAID FOREIGN SHILL.

    Not sure how many times I have to keep pointing this out, but I will because fuck that loser.

    Mod's name is GodlessCommie (lol) and he spreads anti-voter sentiment and runs the sub as his own personal cry space that you can only take part in if you support his narrative.

    He is stupid, dangerous, and most likely being paid by people who want to see American decline.

    Do not participate in that sub and let everyone you can know not to as well.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I got banned for violating rule 4 (no "lessor evil rhetoric") despite specifically writing a comment not to include "lessor evil" rhetoric and then having the audacity to call out the mod to show where I broke rule 4 in my comment.

    Fuck those guys. I was very motivated to report the channel, but I'm not 100% sure that I'm not just being a butthurt little bitch, gonna give it a few days to simmer, and to see if other people continue to have issues with their moderation. Still though, feels good to get a ban badge from them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    lessor evil

    Lol. That moron mod doesn't even know how to spell "lesser".

    Yeah, I thought about posting on here after that idiot banned me, but didn't feel like it was worth the effort. But at this point I've seen multiple others complaining about that fool and his sub so I'm glad they're taking the time to post about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Where else? I can't stop seeing far right/russian propaganda. I don't even want to use this app anymore, it seems like that's all there is here, along with very mean aggressive manipulative accounts.

    I don't know how to stop it. I can't even down vote the shit, or comment at all anymore because I think a mod silently banned me from multiple places or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    You can block it in the settings

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago

    If you care about a community, make another one, the way lemmy is setup you get just as much visibility as a popular one

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

    The comment of yours they removed:

    Who gives a fuck if it's actual democracy. Vote for whoever has the best shot of keeping the greater evil out of office, and use that time to sharpen your guillotine. Again, you don't need to pick just one.

    The reason given:

    Rule 4

    Rule 4:

    No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or ‘wasted votes on 3rd party’ is lessor evil rhetoric.

    Instance-wide rule 4:

    Do not post illegal content of any type. Do not engage in any activity that may encourage, facilitate or provide access to illegal transactions. Do not share or encourage the sharing of abusive or sexually suggestive content involving real or fictional minors. This also includes drawn, animated, generated and other content that does not depict real minors. Any violent or otherwise inappropriate behavior involving a minor will also always be strictly prohibited.

    Based on what you said, compared to community rule 4 as well as instance rule 4, this is a PTB

    Reported the mod team to the LW admins for review.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    "Keeping the greater evil out of office" is 100% "lessor evil rhetoric"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    context on lessor evil rhetoric:

    Dismissing 3rd party votes or ‘wasted votes on 3rd party’ is lessor evil rhetoric.

    They defined what they consider it. By their definition, this doesn't apply.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago*

    What they said is "Dismissing 3rd party votes or ‘wasted votes on 3rd party’ is lessor evil rhetoric." So now we know that "Dismissing 3rd party votes or ‘wasted votes on 3rd party’" is "lesser evil rhetoric", but that doesn't mean that other things cannot be lesser evil rhetoric, e.g....the exact quoted comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago

    GodlessCommie, the sole active mod of LateStageCapitalism has set the rules up in such a way to give himself carte blanche to remove anyone that goes against his narrative.

    He is quite possibly the most insufferable mod in the entire Lemmiverse and has made that sub his own private cry space and destroyed the sub's credibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

    Fascism emerges from liberalism. Calling people fascists when they are against Liberalism and for communism is exactly the sort of shit that will get you wrecked in communities run by leftists.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Keep the comments in YPTB posts about the moderation action itself, not about the general topic in which the moderation took place.

    Also, removing their comment wasn't just opposing liberalism. They advocated for voting and rioting, which certainly isn't a part of liberalism. At that point, it is just anti-democratic.

    PTB

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Vote for whoever has the best shot of keeping the greater evil out of office

    It's "Lesser evil" liberalism. The greater evil is the United States of America, not half of its ruling party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (12 children)

    I was going to make a post and argue about your comment but then see you are on a .ml, so I will just leave it at this

    Fascism emerges from liberalism.

    probably the stupidest fucking thing I have read today

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Yup.

    .ml loves stating liberalism and fascism are related. And they state it with the assurance of an accomplished scholar.

    It remains one of the dumbest opinions I've ever read on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Think of the 2 nations that define fascism in the modern mind: Germany and Italy. What were they before they were fascist? They were liberal.

    I know this is difficult, because it requires unlearning a whole bunch of stuff and learning what feels like old history, but stick with me.

    America is a Liberal country. The conservatives and the liberals in America are two factions of Liberalism. Every "tri-color" flag in Europe is the result of a Liberal revolution. Liberalism is really the first formal political philosophy that became a state system. Prior to Liberalism there were monarchies, but not because of a formal political philosophy. Monarchies emerged without that level of self-consciousness. But after Liberalism emerged, Conservatism emerged as a political philosophy to defend the monarchic state system.

    Liberalism was a political philosophy developed by the merchant class in European monarchies. Before ocean-faring colonialism, merchants made money via overland trade routes and benefited from the European Crusades. But they couldn't convert their riches into real political power due to the way monarchies worked and in particular the absence of private property.

    But when Europe developed the ability to do over-water colonialism, the merchant class got huge and much much richer. And that created pressure against the monarchic system. Merchants wanted to be able to buy and sell land, they wanted to buy and sell entire cities. They wanted their wealth to translate to political power.

    And they couched that desire in terms of "freedom", "liberty", and "the pursuit of happiness". The crown should not stop a man (and only men, and only European men) from going off in boats to take the wealth of other societies and get rich from it. They certainly shouldn't stop bankers from funding such adventures and then claiming the right to buy millions of acres and pay workers a subsistence wage to farm it for the banker's profit.

    This was the birth of Liberalism. And wherever Liberalism overthrow the monarchy, they destroyed the existing social contract (nobilesse oblige) and replaced it with "every man can earn a wage in a free society". Which resulted in about 100 - 150 years of abject poverty, famine, pestilence, slums, wars, and eventually labor movements.

    Labor movements emerged as workers realized that a) the politicians and businessmen were all lying about liberty for all and b) they had to band together because the "democracies" were sending in the military and paramilitary forces to crush them whenever they decided to stop working and demand better conditions.

    This went on for a while until one group of workers got organized in a different way and overthrew their government entirely. 1917, the Bolsheviks, the October Revolution. And what happened? The Liberals got super scared. They saw that it meant they could lose the battle with their own working class. So the first thing they did was invade Russia and try to stop the revolution.

    But the second thing they did was fund the rise of the Third Reich and the Italian fascist movement. These movements protected markets, protected large private property holders, and promised to solve the problems Liberals were facing by 1) fusing the labor movement with a nationalist movement to prevent revolution, 2) fuse the state and labor with industrial investments to build the most productive state in the world and 3) use that fusion to field the most powerful military in the world and direct it at the Soviet workers state, destroy the revolution, and build an American-style occupation of the Slavic people's that would subjugate them for a hundred years or more, just like the Europeans did everywhere else around the world.

    And the Americans, and the English, all Liberals, all businessmen with private property and individual rights to the pursuit of happiness through profits, they all funded the fascists because they saw it as a solution to the problem of labor organizing. They believed so much that the Nazis would win that they watched the Great Depression create mass unrest and when FDR's faction decided to concede some social democratic reforms to avoid revolution, the liberal businessmen of America plotted to coup him and replace him with a military man and implement European-style fascism in the USA because it was a defense against the working class.

    Liberalism produces fascism. That's where it comes from. That's its systemic function. That's its history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago*

    Fascism emerges from liberalism.

    probably the stupidest fucking thing I have read today

    Previously:

    Every single time fascism has taken over, it is because liberals sided with fascists against socialists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Not agreeing or disagreeing, because I don't really want in this discussion, I was just passing by and saw what could be a miscommunication. What I think they were trying to say is the logical inversion of what they actually said, which would be: [Fascism has an extremely hard time rising under authoritarianism]

    What they said, "fascism emerges from liberalism" reads as "fascism ALWAYS emerges from liberalism" which I feel like is... Really loose speaking, I think. I could be wrong.

    Maybe any non-authoritarian control does ALWAYS result in fascism. You would have to do the statistics on all history and human behavior. It's definitely possible to be true. I think there may be, I recall something about plato or socrares or ancient Greece or something talking about how a tyrant will ALWAYS rear its head or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    [Fascism has an extremely hard time rising under authoritarianism]

    Maybe any non-authoritarian control does ALWAYS result in fascism.

    You're misunderstanding the terminology. Liberalism, as it's being used here, is synonymous with capitalism. It's not the opposite of authoritarianism.

    In the historical examples of Germany and Italy, fascism came about out of a capitalist system and supported and was supported by the capitalist class. The economic policies of fascism involved nationalizing businesses belonging to the out groups, but was primarily focused on privatization, including the aforementioned businesses, in order to redistribute them to the in group. The reason that the capitalists supported fascists was because the systems they were in had become unstable and unsustainable, and they knew that their interests would be threatened if socialists came to power, but not if fascists did.

    That's not to say that every capitalist system always leads to fascism, but rather that every fascist state has come out of capitalism. Of course, people have different definitions for fascism, and the degree that that's true depends on how you define it. A narrow definition that treats a capitalist class as a defining characteristic of fascism would make it true by definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Fascism emerges from liberalism.

    Lol. Didn't even need to check that you were from .ml to know you were from .ml.

    Sometimes it feels like you're all just the same person posting under different accounts because you all sound the same.

    Implying liberalism and fascism are related continues to be one of the dumbest sentiments I've ever seen on the internet. Ever. And I've been on this shit since Geocities was the only thing worth doing on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yeah i blocked that community because they delete any comment that says anything about voting.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago*

    GodlessCommie, the sole active mod on that sub, literally spends all his time speaking out against voting or banning people that promote voting. He is either an asshole or a paid foreign shill, which are kind of the same thing.

    To be clear, he bans people who promote voting as a concept. It isn't about people plugging a specific party. Just voting in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›