I briefly considered removing his posts, but I decided on leaving them as long as they're infrequent. My issue is not that he links to his own domain. If he primarily posted his work on Phuks it would be the same deal. I'd really prefer that posts here had at least some sort of source, or at least a disclaimer that the content is speculation.
I'm not big on censorship, but there can come a point where excessive self-promotion becomes forum-sliding, which (intentional or not) is in itself an attempt at censorship. But since no one really posts here, I can't make an honest argument that he's actually sliding anything. Maybe at some point in the future that could change.
I still think these articles are designed (both in title and content) to be bait for both the far left and right.
I'm open to thoughts and feedback: @ScorpioGlitch @InnocentBystander @Hockey_Sweater
If it's something that is catching your eye, have you considered a flair? "Self-site post" or something? Lets them post until they become annoying and lets users know?
A flair is a good idea, but TBH I have no problem with a reasonable level of self-promotion. Posting around once per week is certainly on the safe side in my mind.
My only objection is in terms of content. Take the title for example. "was" and "eventually" are conflicting. "Was" implies "has been, but no longer," and "eventually" implies "is not, but will be." There's also the fact that "Turning Americans Into Islamic Mexicans" implies that US citizens are moving to Mexico, gaining citizenship there, and converting to Islam.
The combined title seems to say that AIDS has caused some sort of quantum state (pun of all puns right there) where Americans are simultaneously both (and neither) US and Mexican citizens.
Anyways, I digress. To sum it up, I think content should be judged on its merits first, and its source second. When neither merit or source can be found, I think its safe to write it off as being a troll.
Because it's not a high rate, I don't consider him to be an issue.
User downvotes are sufficient in my opinion.
Unless things change.
I'm not big on censorship..
I agree, but I don't think this is a censorship issue. It's not his retarded opinions that are the problem. It's the dishonest and spamy actions that are objectionable. I don't see it doing any harm at this point, though.
I agree, but I don't think this is a censorship issue.
Just to be clear, I was referring to my potential censorship of his content, should I remove it.
That said, I agree completely.
As for sources
I harass Warren Kinsella on the internet. He's one of the guys who made it possible for us to go on and on about Adolf Hitler as we flooded the country with people from racist, homophobic 3rd World shitholes.
He had no idea that you have to be brainwashed into population replacement.
I also name the names of some of my teachers HERE, HERE, and HERE.
Plus I get upvoted on Reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/multiculturalcancer/comments/8n8gmd/how_canada_got_gay/
Source? Speculation? We finally succeeded in moving the 3rd World into the West and you want a source?
I cite the SPLC: https://www.hockey-sweater.com/2018/02/splc-admiting-that-immigration-to.html
I would like a source which shows that proponents of immigration consciously and maliciously chose foreigners infected with HIV to be immigrants.
No one will dispute that immigration is happening. Anyone who has read the statistics can tell you that immigrants of sub-Saharan origin are contributing to crime and disease.
The only thing I find missing is proof that it was panned by someone as an attack on the west. If this proof exists, there are laws and conventions that should be upheld to deal with the perpetrators.
Links to his own blog-spam as a source.
Outstanding.
It's a site he regularly spams.
If you check the site before assuming malice, you will find that it is 100% unsourced blog-spam full of misinformation and pleas for cash.
Please don't upvote spam or agendas.
This is both.