I don't see that our disagreement about how to interpret a complex discussion amounts to "disproof". I stated how I would judge a similar case, and it's meaningless to "disprove" another person's statement of intent or thought or state of mind. De gustibus.
Taking no firm position as usual.
Yes, at the right time God will strike down Facebook if it remains evil and we don't do it as his agents first.
:D
I'll just leave this as it is.
We are to occupy until he comes and he is to do the finishing that we can't.
You don't understand God at all.
Since he hasn't revealed to me a War Plan to Right Great Wrongs at Conspiracies, I don't. What he did reveal to me at Christianity has borne much fruit.
Bloopers reel commence.
if I decide to declare war of some kind.
Too late for you, friend. We've been holding the line without you too well. I don't see how you can be of any use.
I'm a Swamp Ranger.
So?
Why should I waste time trying to defend myself against your charges when I gain nothing from it?
When have you defended yourself? All you did was twist the point, which is a form of lying. Your own fault, not mine.
It's best to expose the enemy, so others can understand your faults and never follow your twisted examples. Thank you for doing that for me.
The Balfour Declaration happened long before Hitler came to power. As far as jews being displaced, they were being forced INTO Germany as Hitler explains.
I know the history before WWI and WWII and I know jews were demolishing Germany with their banks, porn, "art", etc.
If you want to know the real reason why jews were "forced" into Germany, is that the Ashkenazi were expelled from Sweden and Norway before that.
The Balfour Declaration is the end game of the Zionist idea created by the jew Theodor Herzl, who planned to take over the holy land.
I'm perfectly fine to debate those topics in detail. I think we can have a great discussion.
Not limited to, it's been around forever as a good luck symbol. See this Boy Scouts coin from 1900
1900s is way after India and Japan made it a symbol of their religion. Same as "Aryan race".
The swastika is the symbol of the black son, do you want me to share more details here? It's an occult sigil, do you know about those?
Kikes love telling this lie. Secret societies were banned under the Third Reich because it was their conspiring that lead to the fall of Germany in WWI, and the greatest financial depression they'd ever seen afterwards.
And you can be 100% sure that a SECRET society wasn't active in the time they prophesed to ban them?
Masons were active. German masons even created the major masonic lodges in my country, exactly during the time between WWI and WWII...
Germany was so well-known in the occult that one of the major occult books on demons is known as Ars Goetia.
Are you sure that this is still a lie?
This included Christian Churches. Hitler upon making Chancellor, declared the Church would enjoy protection from the state on the condition they did not act against Germany's interests.
What is Christian about Hitler's rule?
-
He waged a war to murder people -> Against the Bible.
-
He promoted more children for Germany, even out of wedlock -> Against the Bible.
-
He promoted a hindu symbol, and not the cross. -> Against the Bible.
Can you not see that Hitler's actions played right into the hands of the current Zionists? To contrast it, compare Jesus' works. Jesus is still the most famous figure - because God wills it! And Hitler is hated because God wills it.
I agree with this statement, as long as you aren't limiting it to just Nazis.
I am not. But think about it as a controlled oposition.
Nazi means National Socialist. And the New World Order requires all people to give up on their nations. Can't you see that the fall of the Nazis (national socialists) is exactly playing into the hands of the NWO?
If Hitler was inspired by God, then this obvious win for the zionists wouldn't happen. Compare it to Jesus, after 2000 years nobody was able to defeat Jesus.
A controlled opposition that took the entire world to stop? If that were true, they'd have flipped like Italy. Nobody defended their country harder than the Germans and Japanese.
Think about it.
A war would erase the knowledge of most of the world to turn it into:
-
Virus theory, so people can buy drugs, not plants, for their health.
-
NASA - created by German scientists - Werner von Braun, etc.
-
Transgenderism - created by jews in Germany, now kids question their gender...
All this made true because of the World Wars. Because people, in a state of war, don't really care about anything else. The wars were created to erase the previous knowledge of the people.
..........
Do you want more?
Remember that Hitler's death was proven by dental records after being burned, allegedly. That was the easiest way to fake a death at the time. Did they move to Argentina? Did the German scientists get divided between the USSR and the US through project Paperclip?
If you think in terms of the NWO, then WWII was a great step towards it.
Please have an open mind on this. I too was willing to accept that Hitler was a good guy because I watched the 10 hour documentary that I forget the name... But it was strong and made me side with Hitler, but if you research more, then you will question Hitler's deeds.
Hitler is dead and most people hate him. Jesus died and most people LOVE HIM. Can't you see the difference?
Thank you, I am from Europe. Thank you for the insult.
I usually comment at night or early hours, you got me. And 200 years ago, we never cared about America, so don't assume you're the center of the world.
Your argument is still invalid.
I believe God is in control of it all and deferred justice is sweet.
That's not replying at all to the fact that I disproved your position. Nice strategy to hide yourself behind God on this one, certainly a lot of believers would just shut their mouth here instead of remembering that you dodge the topic.
Do you truly believe that God will strike down Facebook?
Not at all, they outlasted them.
That's a defeat still. You're simply contesting the manner of their defeat.
The question is the community's sense of self-preservation, and it decides that deliberatively.
No, that is not the question. You want to turn this into the question.
In your analysis I defined "didn't agree with" as "rejected".
Then your definition is clearly wrong. Didn't agree is never rejected, unless specifically saying they reject it.
Only 2 agreed, the rest didn't.
2 agreed with OP = 3. The vast majority of the rest didn't even reply to it.
Play on the odds as much as you want, I'll disprove you every time.
My phrasing was hasty, but it's a quibble not worth arguing over.
I bet that every time you are caught in a lie, you use this argument... You downplay your fault, so it seems that you were kinda right to say those things. You cannot even admit you were wrong. Your ego betrays you. Do you know how I know this? Because it did the same to me.
No, I don't agree that a mod should base a ban on upvotes on an informal question,
I clearly stated: "It's obvious that "the vast majority" is done with fwoc, although they don't support a ban in majority (although votes do), they would support some action towards the constant comments of someone they ignore"
You reply to an imaginary comment, not mine.
And assuming others don't follow my example is just as wrong
Then tell me of another user, who upvotes a post that they clearly don't agree with. I will wait.
I can nitpick all your points, but the bottom line is that you can't take any useful decision towards progress in this community. Not unless it is backed by many users, so you don't feel attacked for taking this decision. But if you think about it, if the community does it, then what are you useful for then?
That's my point - with you, or without you, there is no difference.
My comment was asking JosephGoebbel5, not you.
Also, I expressed my position about your unwillingness to take action against an obvious etymology bot account, and you still defend it. Bending words of silver don't constitute a bright mind.
Do you know why JosephGoebbel5, or me, or others are so fed up when someone doesn't take a decisive action towards progress? Because we have been dealing with shills and bots for years... And we have received the worst of insults anyone can get... Can you believe that makes us a little bit annoyed when we fully express our position, and someone is still against us with phony arguments?
We are at a war. A war requires warriors. Our enemy is well-prepared for combat. We don't need a poet on the battlefield.
A warrior must be sure in his action, he must be ready to combat the worst case possible, not run away from a debate with indecisive words of silver...
I have not seen anything decisive from you so far, but I haven't checked all your activity... If I ever see you fighting the real the fight with the expense of your own reputation, then I'll consider it. You seem willing to do the work, but your actions betray you. Until you take any decisive action, than that idealism would still be far from you.
P.S.: I would upvote you here, because someone downvoted you and I don't want you to think it was me. I would downvote only lies that I can disprove easily, this is not the case. And I don't disagree with your current comment, so I CAN upvote it (a discussion we had in another comment chain). That's me revealing all my cards on the table... Can you do the same?
Literally every religion can say that about itself. You obviously don't understand irony.
But you ignore my question, which is not surprising, since you do that all the time... but still:
Sorry, remind me how Communism was promoting "soul torture" in your statement?
Waiting on your reply...
Unless you're a coward and can't defend your own statement.
Hmmm... Then what about another place, not this site? Saidit comes to mind, have you seen their conspiracy page? https://saidit.net/s/conspiracy/
But what is that about "anti-Nazi prejudices"? The Nazis aren't the good people, just because they seemingly were fighting the jews... They were just a scapegoat to use for the jews to go to the "promised land" and create Israel, don't you know this?
The swastika is a hindu symbol... And the Thule society is a satanic secret society, which was the cause for the leading of Germany in WWII...
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, it may be a psy op to gather the enemies of the enemy in one place and with one incorrect ideology...
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I would never side with Nazism, just because I expose jewish crimes... I know that's a controlled opposition, don't you?
I know the general approach in such matters and I was focusing more on the specifics around dealing with AI chatbots and shills infestation, but I see that I wouldn't get a definitive answer.
Regarding free-will-of-choice, it is clear to me that he's a shill. DZP1 said something very interesting - he's a human, who uses a bot for most of his comments, but interferes when there's a reason to look human.
-
fwoc never posted. If a human has something to say, he wouldn't wait 4 years to only comment under other's posts. That's not human behavior.
-
fwoc constantly spams his etymological comments, which are mostly incorrect, but not all can understand that. He is vastly ignored/blocked by people in here, yet he keeps on spamming for 4 years... That's not human behavior.
-
fwoc is flooding the comments, so they seem incoherent and work to make others disengage on any useful discussion. That's the work of a shill. (Now not so much because he's on the radar, but he's still here and there on topics that need to be suppressed or confused...)
I think you're making the mistake in believing that shills and bots will be easily recognizable, while their methods are far more advanced than you imagine...
If a person makes and breaks a commitment, what goes around comes around. If they act human, there's a path of redemption; if they are shilling, they'll get in trouble on their own accord without my help. So if we ask people to agree to an honor code personally, even if they don't mean what they say an alert mod will be able to prevent disruption. So it's not that important to determine which is which, just to be alert to both possibilities. I frame it as "(God in) the universal order" because even if one doesn't believe in God the law of sowing and reaping still comes around, and I try to be considerate to atheists such as by hinting that ultimately order points to God.
Thank you for the explanation, I understand it now.
Although, I disagree with this statement "If they act human, there's a path of redemption; if they are shilling, they'll get in trouble on their own accord without my help." - it's obviously incorrect for other social platforms like reddit, facebook, instagram, etc. where shills and bots rule, while real humans get in trouble.
Following these examples, one would think that this future is bound to happen in this forum as well. After all, they defeated the previous mods, it stands to reason that they will do that again with any new moderation. Especially if the moderation is as lenient towards bots/shills as the previous one.
The vast majority (14/16) didn't agree with the proposal (i.e. "rejected" the OP proposal)
Where do you see that? I specifically pulled the comments and how they connect to OP's proposal. I cannot see 14, can you show me 14, who "rejected" the proposal?
So maybe 10 of them didn't accept the proposal either, and the 4 that did state rejection included a newcomer and two ambivalences.
I still don't know where you get your information about 10...
The two ambivalences stated that they ignore most of what fwoc is writing, they simply don't agree with a ban, but they DO IGNORE fwoc.
It's obvious that "the vast majority" is done with fwoc, although they don't support a ban in majority (although votes do), they would support some action towards the constant comments of someone they ignore "in a vast majority", wouldn't you agree?
And maybe many of the 30 do agree with the OP (though that's not explicit and I usually upvote things I don't agree with if I do agree it was appropriate to bring up).
Then you incorrectly upvote things and assume others do the same. I have upvoted things I don't fully agree with, but only because I comment the specifics on what I agree and disagree in the post. I would never upvote something I disagree with... Taking just your example, and assuming others do it too, is incorrect.
Also, you find it easy to discredit why people upvote the post, while I showed you the reason many downvoted it, and that's because they dislike the username of OP. But you're not addressing this argument... Is that fair? Or not?
And it's far more likely that others would downvote for the same reason, because there are 7 people, who downvoted on the account of hating Christianity, and that leaves 8 others...
While you assume because you (1) can upvote something you disagree with, then possibly there are 29 others, who do the same?
If you weren't sure whether you're biased, or not, there's your proof.
When someone says "please ban" for spam and nonsense, two people formally agree, and there are 27 other upvotes, well, that's a movement in the community; when 14 people say either don't ban or focus on other things, that's a bit more of the movement of the active part of the community.
That's totally wrong...
2 people totally agree + OP makes 3 people total // 2 people totally disagree // 2 people ignore him and don't think a ban is necessary
7 dislike the post just because they dislike Christianity.
The rest don't express opinions on the post.
Out of 45 people (yes, OP is also a person) - 30 agreed / 15 disagreed. Twice as many agreed to it.
If you need more help on how to read stats correctly, let me know.
So my hypothetical response would probably be to state the question for a more formal vote to put people on the record, referring to the prior discussion; and then to see if the formal vote total also aligns with the atmosphere (including arrow votes) and the weight I'd assign to who are more stable contributors and who are less.
So, according to you, a "stable contributor" is someone, who spams etymological nonsense in the comments and never posts? And that's more important than other people, who post and comment coherently? Or is it equal in your eyes?
Didn't I say I had deleted Will about a dozen times and interacted with him such that he tapered off acceptably to the forum's taste? I didn't need to ban him then. If he had shown unwillingness to consider the community's standard on spam (and this one's is different), then a ban would ensue in time.
No, you didn't. Nor does it matter because there is still no solution for the ignored by a "vast majority" fwoc.
I think DZP1 already replied to your position in the comment of that post.
It does seem like it. Never seen other users so united in a cause as these two, and one never replies to the other, which would be weird if it were two different people, or three.
I hoped some moderation could fix this problem, as we have none currently, but half of the users, who want to be mods, would simply treat these obvious multiple shill account as "free speech" and never take any action...
Sometimes I wonder if we can just get a group of the bright minds in here, who can recognize shills, and create our own place... What are your thoughts on such an idea?
Update:
u/DresdenFirebomber at +4/-19 with 3 comments (that's only based on the reply you just wrote)
Pretty sure no non-shill would miss you if you're banned.
It's clear that you don't discuss the topic, but only want to say negative things about OP.
Discuss your problem with OP, don't spam his posts. Or spam them and get downvotes, I don't really care... but I enjoy exposing shill tactics.
A person who makes a commitment to respect, fairness, and transparency is held to it not only by us humans but also by (God in) the universal order that punishes broken commitment. Humans are imperfect, but setting guards is sufficient for the dialogue and growth you seek to flourish. Other guards are possible than those I suggested, they are only a note to the community.
I have no clue what you're trying to say with this... Doesn't seem to be responding to the quote from my comment that you quoted above it... Please clarify, if that's even a possibility.
In your first link, the voting on the discussion proceeding is +30/-15, but of 16 main replies only 2 agree with OP and the vast majority reject OP. A mod who judges solely based on a vote total for a discussion wouldn't be taking the whole situation into account. When I held a community discussion on what I thought was an obvious troll, I was shocked to find that there was more mercy in the community than there was demand for resolution of injustice, so we didn't act at that time other than to define a probation (which the "troll" later broke, allowing us to ban).
Then let's discuss the whole situation, shall we?
- 1st comment (IGOexiled) - mockery against Jesus + "I like him. He's got a consistent message. A lot of the times I don't read his entire paragraph, but when I do I know what to expect."
{Against Jesus, defends fwoc, a lot of times he ignores him}
- 2nd (llamatr0n) - mockery against OP and his username (Jesus). NEVER MENTIONS THE TOPIC IN QUESTION.
{Against Jesus}
- 3rd (Xchr0nos) - mockery against OP and his username (Jesus) [Another account doing the same with a "0" instead of an "O" again... Strange?], NEVER MENTIONS THE TOPIC IN QUESTION.
{Against Jesus}
- 4th (ReturnOfShillSlayer) - mockery against Jesus again. NEVER MENTIONS THE TOPIC IN QUESTION.
{Against Jesus}
- 5th (Throwawaylostaccount) - NEVER MENTIONS THE TOPIC IN QUESTION.
{...}
- 6th (DZP1) - "I have repeatedly complained to mods about the bot. FWOC is a guy using a bot, so most of the time we see the bot but sometimes he responds as a human." + "Freedom of speech is something that is harmed by the existence of such bots."
{for the banning of fwoc}
- 7th (clemaneuverers) - NEVER MENTIONS THE TOPIC IN QUESTION.
{...}
- 8th (Traps4GME) - "Firstly free will is not a bot. He is clearly a human or if he was a bot we have lost control of the AI. The latter option is quite scary." + "Fourthly, I would rather kick ban you for your Jewish fake Jesus psyop which was manufactured (just like the cohoax) to subvert the native European people." [Again, hate towards Jesus.]
{Against Jesus, defends fwoc}
- 9th (Dorktron4Runner) - "No. We have many other users that should be banned first, but I don’t like banning anyone who has found their way to this place."
{Against banning anyone in general without sufficient proof, doesn't provide anything useful that fwoc does.}
- 10th (Entropick) - "Crypto-jew detected: An individual with the moniker Jesus and Love practicing exclusionary principles; block the user if you don't like it; I respect and enjoy his posts." [Another example of hate towards Jesus.]
{Against Jesus, doesn't provide anything about fwoc}
- 11th (TTComix) - NEVER MENTIONS THE TOPIC IN QUESTION.
{...}
- 12th (fanoffreewill) - "Please please don't ban f-w-o-c. I made an account just to contribute this message. I have been lurking here for 3 years and f-w-o-c has become my favorite kind of message--original, intuitive, mystical. It's language poetry. It's an art. This is something to nurture, not suppress." [Literally has 2 comments. That's not a bit suspicious to you that someone made an account specifically to defend fwoc? I bet it isn't for you, but it is for me.]
{I bet you think that's a real person...}
- 13th (Filledwithfire) - "FWoC to me is just an annoying text wall that I usually scroll past. There’s not much he writes worth engaging in, so I would just ignore him. Def not banworthy." [Another person, who finds no use for fwoc comments.]
{Doesn't want to ban fwoc but doesn't find anything valuable either in fwoc}
- 14th (Dualkalibur) - "Id rather have an interesting bot around here than another christ-cuck shitting up the place with his self imposed righteousness." [Hate towards Jesus, again...]
{Against Jesus, literally calls fwoc "a bot"}
- 15th (KratomGuy) - "I agree, bot is annoying"
{for the banning of fwoc}
- 16th (TurnToGodNow) - NEVER MENTIONS THE TOPIC IN QUESTION.
{...}
In the comments:
-
4 users don't want to ban fwoc. (1 of them has created their account for that post, 2 others don't find value in his comments, just want to ignore him, not ban him.)
-
2 users want to ban fwoc.
-
7 users express their hate towards Jesus, religion, Christianity, etc.
You said:
"and the vast majority reject OP."
Explain to me where is this "vast majority"...
Also, who are the 29 people, who upvoted the post? YOU are the one, who ONLY judges by the comments, while TOTALLY IGNORING the upvotes.
Should everyone that agrees write a comment?
Also, a lot of Christianity-hating users have obviously downvoted AND commented on the post. Any thoughts about this?
7/16 would be the vast majority that has similar views, but let's see what you have to say...
I am tired of making this breakdown and I would rather have this topic discussed first before I move to your other points.
I make note of your previous statement "but also by (God in) the universal order" (it's from the 1st quote from you that I didn't understand). Can you elaborate on that "God" you mentioned?
I'm curious as to how fair can you be in your next reply...
This comment isn't responsive to my point.
It's about the motive of the moderator. You said "But offhand that seems very abusable and could lead to the censorship we all hate." - censorship is required when someone is breaking the rules and spamming nonsense, or hurtful content.
You say "we all hate", which is your motive. I answered on that. If you fear that you will be hated for censoring some users, then how can you be a fair mod, when shills and AI bots consume the forum?
Anyway, let's focus on your current points.
If it's clear to the average person that an account is essentially AI content, then it's very easy to discipline on current rules.
What if it's not clear? How can you differentiate between a normal user and AI content, when AI can mimic it perfectly? How can you be fair to real users then?
My point is that those admitted humans who regularly quote and lean on AI content might also be deleted by common consensus, as happens in other fora.
A person, who uses AI content, is not an AI chatbot. It depends on how AI content is used. Some use it to create a picture that better illustrates their point, that's not a reason for ban or mute, in my opinion.
Your comment fixates again on an allegation that I seek being liked and an allegation that Will is essentially AI (when your own links show many people agreeing he's not, as his writing was far ahead of AI skills when he first released it, and AI still hasn't caught up)
Wrong on both accounts. I asked a question that you interpreted as an allegation - that your own problem with interpretation.
Also, free-will-of-choice is not at all ahead of AI chatbots. You're referring to the commercial use of AI, which shows how little you actually know about the subject. Now, you can say that's an allegation.
free-will-of-choice is an example of an etymology chatbot, and its lack of any posts is a proof that the user's actions are not to contribute (it could've made a post about the most common etymology meanings and what conclusions it draws, at least). Furthermore, it has no personal opinion on topics, it only uses etymology to confuse users, and it worked for you.
That's why I allege that you're inept on the topic of ai chatbots and shills.
First of all, please don't reply twice to my comments anymore. It's a shill tactic to divert the topic, and I won't reply to two comments. If I haven't yet replied, you can just edit your comment.
Secondly, I see your point.
he didnt talk about the skulls and them being deformed due to pressure tho
I probably remember it from his Creation Seminar (parts 1-7) or in his debates with scholars on evolution and creation.
Oh, I just found it - https://youtu.be/hvaYhPC-UiE?t=3513 (I saved it at the proper time, so you don't have to watch the full video. It's specifically about the neanderthal.)
evidence of what? i think YOU are the one who has to bring all the skulls and show me that they are different in unique ways since they are under pressure, but this is not the case
Also answered in the video. Enjoy watching!
P.S.: Forgot one point you made:
as i said, i think truth is neither in academic mainstream science nor in religion, both are fanatics bending facts to support their wishful thinking and desires
You are free to believe whatever you want about anything. That's why I research the topics, so I don't believe anything, but stand on proofs to find the truth. A lot of people don't do that and their opinions shouldn't matter.
Just one comment from the bot u/DresdenFirebomber?
Hey, where is your shill buddy JosephMalta?
You seem to infest OP's comment section, but so little activity from you now...
Wow, tell me if those aren't shills:
-
JosephMalta +9/-16
-
DresdenFirebomber +7/-13
You will notice those same bots upvoting each other almost all the time under OP's posts... Wtf??
Can the JosephMalta and DresdenFirebomber shills be done with already?
u/DresdenFirebomber at +3/-17 with only 2 comments...
Out of all comments, you can clearly see the shills:
-
JosephMalta +2/-6 (shill)
-
DresdenFirebomber +2/-10 (shill)
JosephGoebbel5 +6/-1 (OP and the one, who made the shills angry)
It's nice to have it visible that JosephMalta and DresdenFirebomber are shills. I wonder how many times they swarm a post together and get downvoted by the community...
Oh, look - another example - https://conspiracies.win/p/1ARK5BG2s9/slavery/c/
-
JosephMalta +2/-4
-
DresdenFirebomber +2/-6
JosephGoebbel5 +7/0
I wonder what will happen next with these accounts...
Perfect.
I'll let this comment stand on its own. I also screenshoted it, so you can't pretend that you never wrote it.
It shows how you don't reply to me, but to imaginary topics that you pose. It's how you dodge a topic.
I don't blame you. But without you, nothing of value is lost.
Your ego doesn't allow you to admit that you lost an argument. And your ignorance doesn't allow you to win one.