7 ms·

Any proof about being far-right? Looks like the claim was only added to wiki today. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiwi_Farms&type=revision&diff=11

Any proof about being far-right? Looks like the claim was only added to wiki today. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiwi_Farms&type=revision&diff=1106535664&oldid=1106427863 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiwi_Farms&type=r...

maeln 4y ago
You can literally go on the forum and read it if you need any proof.
- convery 4y ago
  Just did, the latest featured thread is laughing about a Republicans silly statements. Seems to have no issues criticising both the left and the right..
  - oats 4y ago
    Oh ok then, I forgot that there aren't people who are further right-wing than the Republican party...
    - convery 4y ago
      You said to read the forum, I did. Saw no comments about politics, threads of people laughing at both sides of the political spectrum (with the majority of threads being apolitical). So where's these 'far-right' people hiding?
      - mhoad 4y ago
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        It's more embarrassing to not provide evidence that is supposedly easily found when asked.
        mhoad 4y ago
        Nobody here is your personal librarian. Nobody owes you some carefully cited reply. The original point that was made is widely accepted by every neutral party familiar with the topic, it wasn’t some fringe theory. Then the replies started coming in that were at best ignorant and at worst bad faith demanding proof. It’s like trying to argue with your crazy uncle at Christmas about global warming. I’m not going to play that dumb game with you and not should anyone else feel compelled to. If you had any genuine interest in getting an answer it wouldn’t be difficult but it looks much more like you just want to be some contrarian for the hell of it.
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        I'm not saying you owe me anything. I'm just saying if you want to convince anybody you shouldn't just say there are people who agree with me but I won't tell you who they are or the examples they point to.
        mhoad 4y ago
        The point I was trying to make is that you’re walking into a conversation that’s multiple years old and not particularly controversial and then demanding that people do the work for you in order to help catch you up. I think if you were serious about actually wanting to know it wouldn’t be difficult to do which is why it seems like you’re just wanting to be contrarian for the sake of it. Maybe you could expand upon what you’ve done so far to try and answer the question for yourself? I was responding to someone who spent a grand total of several seconds on the topic before coming to a conclusion that they felt so strongly about that they thought they would come and argue with randoms on the internet about and as far as I can tell they put more effort in than you have so far.
        4y ago
- colpabar 4y ago
  You can’t just make a claim and then not provide any evidence. If it’s so obviously “far-right” (it isn’t), prove it.
- rvz 4y ago
  The burden of proof is on the claimant (That is YOU) to give that evidence not the other way round. Telling some one to look for that evidence is not 'proof' and it is YOU that needs to provide the evidence. If it was so easy to prove, you would have already done so in less than an hour. 20 hours is plenty of time to show this proof by now, yet there is none. There is no shame to admit that you have no evidence and you made a baseless claim.
phillipcarter 4y ago
So there's some reason to say that it's inaccurate to classify the site as far-right. It did not start out as a far-right organization or anything. It's always been a troll farm whose purpose is to organize people who can take others down, but wasn't established as an alternative to stormfront or something. However, their victims are nearly all under the "left wing" umbrella. And if you go and read the posts on the maniacally long threads discussing their victims (especially the ones they've successfully goaded into suicide), it's riddled with far-right hate speech. So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck?
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >It's always been a troll farm whose purpose is to organize people who can take others down What? It was originally a forum for users of a wiki about Chris Chan. It's purpose is more about documenting what exists and discussing it. It's never been about trolling others or harassing people.
  - phillipcarter 4y ago
    It's always been about trolling and harassing. Why are you defending them?
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      >It's always been about trolling and harassing. That is not the point of the site. >Why are you defending them? Because I've been a member of communities where outsiders inaccurately describe the community to others making it seem like something it isn't.
      - phillipcarter 4y ago
  - snausages 4y ago
    'Documenting' the existence of a socially maludjusted grown man so they can laugh at him and coordinate gaslight efforts definitely counts as harassment. It's always been like this

maeln 4y ago

You can literally go on the forum and read it if you need any proof.

convery 4y ago
Just did, the latest featured thread is laughing about a Republicans silly statements. Seems to have no issues criticising both the left and the right..
- oats 4y ago
  Oh ok then, I forgot that there aren't people who are further right-wing than the Republican party...
  - convery 4y ago
    You said to read the forum, I did. Saw no comments about politics, threads of people laughing at both sides of the political spectrum (with the majority of threads being apolitical). So where's these 'far-right' people hiding?
    - mhoad 4y ago
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        It's more embarrassing to not provide evidence that is supposedly easily found when asked.
        mhoad 4y ago
        Nobody here is your personal librarian. Nobody owes you some carefully cited reply. The original point that was made is widely accepted by every neutral party familiar with the topic, it wasn’t some fringe theory. Then the replies started coming in that were at best ignorant and at worst bad faith demanding proof. It’s like trying to argue with your crazy uncle at Christmas about global warming. I’m not going to play that dumb game with you and not should anyone else feel compelled to. If you had any genuine interest in getting an answer it wouldn’t be difficult but it looks much more like you just want to be some contrarian for the hell of it.
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        I'm not saying you owe me anything. I'm just saying if you want to convince anybody you shouldn't just say there are people who agree with me but I won't tell you who they are or the examples they point to.
        mhoad 4y ago
        The point I was trying to make is that you’re walking into a conversation that’s multiple years old and not particularly controversial and then demanding that people do the work for you in order to help catch you up. I think if you were serious about actually wanting to know it wouldn’t be difficult to do which is why it seems like you’re just wanting to be contrarian for the sake of it. Maybe you could expand upon what you’ve done so far to try and answer the question for yourself? I was responding to someone who spent a grand total of several seconds on the topic before coming to a conclusion that they felt so strongly about that they thought they would come and argue with randoms on the internet about and as far as I can tell they put more effort in than you have so far.
        4y ago
colpabar 4y ago
You can’t just make a claim and then not provide any evidence. If it’s so obviously “far-right” (it isn’t), prove it.
rvz 4y ago
The burden of proof is on the claimant (That is YOU) to give that evidence not the other way round. Telling some one to look for that evidence is not 'proof' and it is YOU that needs to provide the evidence. If it was so easy to prove, you would have already done so in less than an hour. 20 hours is plenty of time to show this proof by now, yet there is none. There is no shame to admit that you have no evidence and you made a baseless claim.

phillipcarter 4y ago

So there's some reason to say that it's inaccurate to classify the site as far-right. It did not start out as a far-right organization or anything. It's always been a troll farm whose purpose is to organize people who can take others down, but wasn't established as an alternative to stormfront or something. However, their victims are nearly all under the "left wing" umbrella. And if you go and read the posts on the maniacally long threads discussing their victims (especially the ones they've successfully goaded into suicide), it's riddled with far-right hate speech. So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck?

charcircuit 4y ago
>It's always been a troll farm whose purpose is to organize people who can take others down What? It was originally a forum for users of a wiki about Chris Chan. It's purpose is more about documenting what exists and discussing it. It's never been about trolling others or harassing people.
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  It's always been about trolling and harassing. Why are you defending them?
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    >It's always been about trolling and harassing. That is not the point of the site. >Why are you defending them? Because I've been a member of communities where outsiders inaccurately describe the community to others making it seem like something it isn't.
    - phillipcarter 4y ago
- snausages 4y ago
  'Documenting' the existence of a socially maludjusted grown man so they can laugh at him and coordinate gaslight efforts definitely counts as harassment. It's always been like this