The following verges on going off-topic for Meta; however, it is still on-topic insofar as forum moderators need to be cautious about the potential for
bad reports made in the Wall Observer due to disagreement with controversial opinions.
Looks like I was one of those reporting it [...]
I’ve never reported anything on WO before because there was nothing close of being up for reports but [...]
I wasn’t sure if it’ll get deleted, so Kudos to the mod, I’m supporting this move 100%. [...]
So, it means a lot that I’ve reported some of your posts (I’m rarely reporting on “Der aktuelle Kursverlauf”).
And as said before, I’ve never reported anything on WO before. [...]
WO is a place where I’m awaiting positivity about Bitcoin, not obvious off-topic spam walls.
Vast piles of utterly nonsensical garbage are posted in WO, and much of that is
completely irrelevant to Bitcoin. According to you, all of
that has always been “nothing close of being up for reports”.
I am not a mind reader. But I don’t think that I am going out on a limb with the following. It is presumes little to posit that you
specifically targeted me, whereas you yourself said outright, “
it means a lot that [you’ve] reported some of [my] posts”. There must be a reason. My posts must be extra-special!
I don’t shitpost. Say what you will—you must admit that
all of my posts are highly literate, intelligent, and cultured. You reported my posts, not others’ shitposts. I think that my posts were
too good, in a way that you disliked.Those who are not deeply familiar with German politics will not understand this; but I think it’s highly probable that this adequately explains your motives for reporting my posts:
Ich bitte dich, mit dem Fluchen aufzuhören. Auch, wenn es um Bernd Höcke geht.
I aver that in modern Germany, AfD would probably come closest to a political party that I may support.
(Watch for explosion in the German forum because I said this. :-/) But of course, I would not support AfD, because I am
actively anti-democratic, according to my
personal political manifesto; and if anything,
Björn Höcke is still a little bit too much of a centrist for me. At least, he is not as bad a leftist as Trump!
I have been calling Trump a Communist for about the past five years.
As set forth below,
2/3 of the posts that you reported were probably quite objectionable to you on political grounds. And the third, which you mischaracterized as a
fluffypony post
, you obviously did not read at all! It was specifically a Bitcoin privacy post—
Red alert: Imminent plans for a mining pool with transaction blacklisting, based on blockchain analysis and, of course, the Diktat of the American world-police OFAC.[...h/t fluffypony...]... All users of Blockseer’s pool are required to pass KYC (Know Your Customer) protocols, and blocks posted to the Bitcoin blockchain by Blockseer’s pool will only contain filtered transactions ...
—oops...
I totally appreciate your insightful technical posts and your posts about privacy
But first, for greater context, here is a shortlist selection of
a few of the recent “politically incorrect” posts that I have made in the Wall Observer—such things as
even Björn Höcke would not dare to say!- [WO] White Suicide: The
Scarlet Letter Red Icon of Racism - (A post that starts with a deeply meaningful insult-comedy, then turns to serious condemnation of the stupid men who invented feminism.)
- Re: [WO] Violence to violins and the followup thereto, with greater detail.
- Re: [WO] The dangerous sex
- (A post which starts with condemnations of degeneracy, and proceeds so far to the right that I literally call Trump a Communist.)
I have been calling Trump a Communist for about the past five years.
- A post which started specifically about Germany, before diverging into Russia:
Some years ago, I spoke to an erstwhile East German who was already quite elderly.
He loathed Communism, despised the DDR government,—but hated the Americans worse, and accordingly hated the BRD American satellite even worse than the DDR Soviet satellite.
His view: In the DDR, all decent people knew that the system was their enemy. But Reunification had poisoned people. The culture became Americanized. Instead of focusing on internal resistance and external survival, as in the DDR, people lived in a shallow fantasy of consumerism, trash culture, and meaningless games that they believed meant “freedom”. The Americanized BRD did what the Sovietized DDR never could: It killed people’s spirits from the inside out.
If that sounds like me, it is only because along the course of my life, I have learned from others; and I hereby recount in my own words what I learned from the real-life experiences of East Germans, Russians, and others whom I have known from the Eastern bloc, as viewed through the integral lens of my studies of philosophy and history.
Hmmm...
When we have a look at Japan, the people are very respectful to each other. Doing harm to the community is extremely despised by the japanese citizens. That's a good attitude when people are living respectfully together and because of that the crime / terrorism problem is very low there - and the society is working without privacy invading measures.
I don't had time to do an analysis but my first impression how that could be achived is:
[...]
- no extremism / racism => no terrorism
Ah, yes, Japan: A homogeneous society with a nationalist culture, in which gaijin (‘foreigners’) are almost unanimously despised. Japan is not diverse—not divided—therefore, the Japanese people are united. I think that you are making my argument for me!Now, compare this:
Re: Overcoming Systematic Racism with BitcoinTo get rid of racism, many factors play a role in my opinion. Most important is to avoid votes for racist or nationalist people / parties.
...to this post which you got
cancelled: 
Galileo was not popular.He stood against not only the Church, but also society itself. Accordingly, he was about as popular as I am: A few intelligent people appreciated him, such as the Medici duke who was his primary supporter at the end of his life; he even had supporters high within the Church. But he was otherwise considered scandalous, and even criminal.
The ignorant modern mind tends to assume that rebelling against the Church was always super-cool. Whereas in 1632,
heresy was like racism, sexism, or social class discrimination are today. (n.b.)Galileo’s wife was so embarrassed and angry at his sins, she burnt his papers after he died. Unknown works of irreplaceable genius were thus irretrievably destroyed. Because:
Unpopular. The notion that he would have received 2.3K retweets and 18.6K “likes” is wildly implausible.
Galileo is cancelled. You don’t report illiterate “off-topic” gibberish; why did you want to shut
me up, specifically?
Another reported/deleted post:mostly it seems to be about authoritarianism;
I think that that word is
way overused and abused. Well,
I am an authoritarian.
the communism side needs drawing out.
How many pages do you want me to add to the Wall Observer? :-/
Twitter is for bird-brains.
Because this is the Internet, and because liberals love guilt by association, and because I have needed to
defend the honour of kitty-cats: I should note that Lauda did
sometimes agree, sometimes disagree with my opinions. My impression of her was that she was a more or less mainstream conservative with some interesting twists; freethinkers defy labels, and pigeon-holes are for the tweeting birds.
She
did love freedom of speech, which is why I said that she would have been a good WO mod.
It is the modern liberal that is against free speech.
*Weird flex*. Liberalism is a disease.
For my own part, I should note that as as a nationalist in principle, I have always been friendly to people of many races and nationalities who want to use Bitcoin to free themselves from the banks, thus to build their own futures. Liberal simpletons would not comprehend my nuanced
Weltanschauung. Bitcoin is for each his own, as well as being a new medium for a grassroots-level comity between nations.
People who disagree with each other about everything else, can agree about Bitcoin. [...] You may dislike me, you may disagree with me, you may condemn me—you may even decide that you hate me. But we both agree that Bitcoin has value; and Bitcoin itself is absolutely unbiased between us. This is what gives Bitcoin its power—and this is how Bitcoin empowers anybody who wants to use it. If I decide that I hate you, we still agree on Bitcoin—and we can’t tell each other what to do with Bitcoin.
[...]
The Bitcoin technology is
easy to duplicate. But the Bitcoin social movement cannot be duplicated. It exists because everybody agrees on Bitcoin. People all over the world, of every race and nationality, of every religion, of every political opinion,
all agree on Bitcoin. Their agreements or disagreements about anything else are irrelevant to Bitcoin.
That is why there is only one Bitcoin.
) 
