this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
425 points (88.8% liked)
Political Memes
12480 readers
2690 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They are grouped by topics 1 respondent, 2 politics, 3 literacy confirmation, 4 thesis, 5 warning, 6 intersection check, 7 commentary, 8 openness to dialogue
So, at the very least:
1 differentiates from op, 2 outlines my politics which may also differ from op. Continued sentences is something everyone does, no?
I can def. combine4&5, but will SpookyBogMonster keep quiet about point 4 if 5 is the only choice?
6&7 need to be separated, as 6 is my intersection for Godric’s plea to end campist rhetorics, not my personal antidengist praxis.
whence?
brevity, citation, referencing, value, formatting, etc..
I’ll edit an essay format you then.
Yes, but the way you separated them makes things less readable. They should be combined into the same sentence, not into two separate numbered list items.
Not clear what you mean here.
Firstly, what do you mean by "intersection for a plea"? I suspect you think that the word "intersection" means something other than what it means.
Secondly, Godric isn't making any pleas here. Godric is simply running propaganda for the most prolific invader in the world and hates on socialists.
I will assume you meant "where?", and not "whence?". I suspect that you think that those words are synonyms.
Like, for example, when you claimed that Salvador Allende did a genocide. Also, complaints about "campism" are usually just support for colonialism (highly doubt that that is not the case for you). I can find more examples.
It isn't any more brief than using standard paragraphs, nor does it simplify referencing, as one would just use markdown quotation for that here anyway.
Not at all sure what you mean by "value" here.
Your chosen way of formatting texts just makes them less readable.
Then you can see why i made distinctions for points 1,2,5,6&7.
Whence.
Whence?
They aren't, since I made points 1,2,5&7 pretty clear. Unless you think PSL abused antidengist black anarchists are colonists.
For yourself, a narrative, my question, anticolonialism, anti PRC, anti PSL, kittenzrulz123/emberkitty, Chileans, slavers, campists, or?
I already essayed the former reply just for you, and applied your recommendations. SpookyBogMonster, kittenzrulz123, and you can mostly reread and address it if you want.
No.
The word is "where", not "whence". "Whence" means "where from", not "where".
Alternatively, you could use "when" in this context.
To answer your question, around the 30th of July, you were repeatedly asserting that kittenzrulz did apologia for a supposed genocide by Salvador Allende (among other things).
I mean, you do seem to complain about the PRC, as well as about the USSR a lot here, despite them being some of the most prominent anti-colonial forces during relevant timeframes. Judging by your assertions like how Allende did a genocide, as well as similar ones, your hatred for them seems to simply stem from your pro-NATO campism and the fact that your empire told you to hate those polities.
This isn't even a grammatically sound sentence. Frankly, what is up with your English?
Are you asserting that the PSL claimed that pro-NATO "anarchists" are pro-colonialism? If so, then yeah. Those people support the colonial metropole(s) efforts to colonially subjugate the Global South, which does make them supporters of colonialism.
What are you even asking here?
Then you are literary handicapped.
You made me cite a dictionary, since you're literary handicapped.
Source your claims, since you're literary handicapped.
Anti colonial forcing the Ukrainian genocide, Filipino larceny, Japanese island debates, Indian border bounties, do I go for more examples?
For whom are the examples you wanted bring up for, what purpose does it serve than blatantly sidetracking gish gallop?
Ah, ableism. Incredibly misplaced, to boot.
What you are saying is that you had to separate those points of your original list because of Godric's actions that were contrary to what you originally claimed. How those things are connected, you are yet to explain.
More ableism.
"From what source?" also doesn't work as a question in those context. You could have either asked "where/when did I say that?", or made the request "cite me saying/implying that". At best, if we are to keep "whence", it should be "Whence does it follow?"
Also, "literary" and "literally" (and "literarily", for that matter) are not synonyms, and "literary" does not work in this context.
Here's you complaining about being banned for trolling in a memes community by making the aforementioned assertions. The context is provided in the comments, and does include people quoting your "Salvador Allende's genocide" thing.
Except there hasn't been a "Ukrainian genocide" apart from the Lebensraum+the Holocaust, carried out by Germany and their allies (including such groups as the OUN).
If you want to claim that the famine of 1932 in the USSR (which, I remind you, affected the entire union, rather than some particular group (unlike, say Churchill's Bangladesh famine, or the Irish potato famine), which is what we would expect from a genocide) was somehow a genocide, then you should present your study to the historians that specialise on that famine, as they have come to a very different conclusion from you.
The what?
It's silly how you think that the Kuril islands should belong to unrepentant genocidaires that are under control of NATO.
What is your argument here, even?
What "bounties"?
You are yet to provide even one example for why we should supposedly consider the USSR and the PRC as bad. At least try to elaborate on what you have already claimed.
I am speaking with you, am I not?
A Gish gallop would be if I just kept throwing different examples without elaborating. Kind of like you did in your last comment.
Wait, do you even know what "Gish gallop" is, and why it has "gallop" in the name?