Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

11

ziq wrote (edited )

Wow they're really cracking down on anything subversive.

If any former mods from there want to mod here, let us know.

10

zombie_berkman wrote

more than that. heres a non comprehensive list:

/r/cigarmarket

/r/scotchswap

/r/beermarket

/r/beertrade

/r/gundeals

/r/pipetobaccomarket

/r/Stealing

/r/shoplifting

/r/canadagunsEE

r/rcsources

/r/gunsforsale

/r/airsoftmarket

/r/fakeid

/r/darknetmarkets

/r/dnstars

/r/DarkWEBforum

/r/SecretSniper

/r/BrassSwap

/r/gundealsFU

/r/DankNation

/r/DIY_Classifieds

/r/DNMAus

/r/AKMarketplace

/r/ardeals

/r/AKMarketplace

/r/noveldissos

/r/xanaxcartel

/r/gunnitforward

/r/darknetmarketindia

/r/DarkNetMarketsNO

/r/darknetmarketsOZ

/r/airsoftmarketcanada

/r/gun_deals

12

ziq wrote

If they're going after anything in favor of 'criminal' activity, they might take down r/anarchism next.

11

dele_ted wrote

If they do, Raddle will be flooded with a mix of really nice people who'd fit right in, and misguided, confused people that call themselves anarchists despite having no clue what they're talking about and refusing to read any litterature that could teach them what it's all about.

7

ziq wrote

The liberals would get weeded out pretty fast, for better or worse. Raddle's always been very proactive in that regard.

3

Brion wrote

What do you mean by this?

1

ziq wrote

Just that f/anarchism is quick to spot propaganda-fed liberal talking points and call them out.

4

Brion wrote

What are the liberal talking points?

2

ziq wrote

"I'll fight to defend that nazi's free speech, no matter how much I disagree with the message"

"The real truth is somewhere in the middle."

"Israel is a shining beacon of democracy in the middle east."

"Antifa are the real fascists."

"Hillary would have saved us."

"Our founding fathers (however you end this sentence, it'll be liberal af)"

0

ruinitall wrote

That's quite the straw man.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm not sure how anything I said was a strawman. It was just a list of common liberal talking points.

2

[deleted] wrote

1

Dumai wrote

didn't i see you earlier today conflating hierarchy with the use of force to argue removing racists from anarchist spaces is authoritarian

in which case you should probably get out of that glass house before you start throwing any stones

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

if you can't tell the difference between force and the socially legitimated right to use force, i.e. the right to be obeyed, then what are you are you doing on an anarchist website, nothing here will make sense to you

jokes are fine. thumbing your nose at people over their theoretical knowledge when you haven't even got basic political theory down isn't. it is incredibly pretentious

edit: apparently this isn't fucking clear to some people but the "right to be obeyed" i talked about here is what anarchists mean by "authority"

-1

[deleted] wrote

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

uhhh

the point isn't that an anarchist treats authority (the right to be obeyed) as legitimate, the point is those who hold authority take advantage of political imaginaries to justify their power. a state may appeal to "the collective interests of the nation" to justify its monopoly on the use of violence, for example. so the "socially legitimated right" to use violence is something of a social construct.

did you think "socially legitimated" meant i was literally arguing it was legitimate, oh my god do you have any understanding of political language whatsoever

0

[deleted] wrote

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

how did it sound different

my point is that there is a difference between the use of force and authority (the socially legitimated right of the use of force, or the right to command) so it isn't necessarily authoritarian to use force

how are you this bad at political thought that you needed me to explain this to you three times

and how, in spite of this, are you so prone to speaking down to others on questions of politics

0

[deleted] wrote

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

how the fuck are you this aggressively ignorant, i am actually kind of stunned

i am not arguing in favour of objective natural rights nor am i saying society can make any action morally legitimate. i have clarified this three times now and it's like you're not even bothering to read.

what i am saying is that whoever is recognised as possessing an adequate claim to command, and under what circumstances, will depend on the social context of existing power relations. "the socially legitimated right of force" refers to the narrative that some people possess the right to command and others must obey. it is unarguable that in present society a police officer possesses a right to employ the use of violence in situations average civilians don't! this is what i mean by "legitimated". so i'm speaking of the right of legitimate force as a social convention and construct that anarchists are naturally opposed to.

it's this right that constitutes hierarchical relations, so it's impossible to say that just any use of force is an example of hierarchy in action. otherwise you'd have to say the working class polish-american anarchist who assassinated william mckinley possessed some form of hierarchical power over the president of the united states, which would be a fucking absurd claim.

therefore your attempt to argue that anarchist spaces should accommodate racists is not only insane but really fucking dumb! and still you seem more interested in patronising people who know better than actually... doing any reading on the subject! so you probably shouldn't mock raddlers for being poorly read.

0

[deleted] wrote

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

what's shocking about it?

hierarchy is a chain of privilege, status, and command, so it's predicated first and foremost on the right of command. obviously force has an important part to play there but that doesn't mean force is inherently hierarchical.

1

[deleted] wrote

2

Dumai wrote

what do you think hierarchy is then

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

Dumai wrote

if you think "serious political discourse" will accept the use of the word "hierarchy" to mean "any act of violence whatsoever" then you're wrong, and i'm not surprised the only scholar you can find to agree with you is noam "what's anti-semitic about holocaust denial" chomsky, i mean, this is what happens when you fail to distinguish between power and authority

shoplifting as hierarchical? seriously?? so the fact the corporation possesses formal legal protection over its property and can have me arrested is incidental to the question???? so i have authority over corporations i guess. the fuck is wrong with you

0

[deleted] wrote

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

i'm not having this conversation anymore because you've proven on multiple occasions that you're not really interested in listening to anything i say but if you think the definition of hierarchy you gave is the "classical" academic one then i'll just leave these links here

1

[deleted] wrote

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

Hierarchy, in the social sciences, a ranking of positions of authority, often associated with a chain of command and control.

lmao you denied hierarchy had anything to do with a chain of command (which would predicated on the right of command, y'know) and when i used the word "authority" you asked me what it meant

1

[deleted] wrote

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

why are you reviving threads that are almost a month old?

especially when you've tried to get all snooty about "giving me the last word" more than once

anyway when i defined hierarchy as a "chain of privilege, status, and command" you basically told me that was a dumb idea so i'm not sure what your point really is anymore. are you just arguing semantics for no reason or what? i mean if you aren't going to stick to your own definition then a semantic dispute is kind of pointless

2

zombie_berkman wrote

people are pushing everyone to voat.

5

ziq wrote

Link us to examples so we can counter with raddle plugs.

6

cleverusername wrote

A decent amount of former r/GunDeals subscribers aren't particularly excited about moving to Voat, so they might be willing to try out a space here on Raddle. But you'd probably have to go to Voat v/GunDeals and promote the presence.

5

seitanicqueer98 wrote

archive.org has r/anarchism saved 664 times over 8 years, but just the front page, so you can click on linked articles in the title but it's not like you can view self posts or any comments, which sucks cuz there are good discussions there sometimes

2

happysmash27 wrote

Why don't we add some to the archives then? I believe one can manually add pages.

2

seitanicqueer98 wrote

for sure! it's too much for one person to do alone, so it'd be great if many of us contributed.

if u click on the title of a post and it takes you to a page that says it's not archived, click the option that says "save this url in the Wayback Machine" i'll do some later

5

techlos wrote

i run a harm-reduction subreddit for artificial cannabinoids, fully expecting it to be banned within the next few months. Guess i found my final reason to fully push me to raddle.

3

selver wrote (edited )

Ah damn, that was a really cool subreddit. Are they just banning anything that's illegal?

Are the main darknet subs still up? Those were some great resources.

2

ackute wrote

there is a discord ;) msg me

3

boringskip wrote

discord is unsafe, you should use matrix/riot.im

i can set up an encrypted chatroom if you'd like

1

ackute wrote

only unsafe if someone reports it

1

boringskip wrote

it's unsafe for a lot of reasons, including being a closed and corporate platform, and not supporting encryption, or non-javascript methods of connection. and you can guarantee they scan servers for keywords.

1

AngryData wrote

Im here thanks to banning gundeals, beerswap, and other trade subs. I deleted my 10 year old account, it had been steadily down hill there for the last 7-8 years and I was quite tired of reddit's shenanigans, bots, trolls, corrupt mods, and completely worthless admins.