Mordhau
 Survii
  • Likes received 131
  • Date joined 6 Sep '16
  • Last seen 10h
Private Message
390 535

What is this

this could mean almost anything

Capture.PNG

half of these are way too vague and pretty much push any sensible person to libertarianism

1698 1836
  • 17h
 Jax

nope they're feeding the striped boys wild McNuggets

572 805
  • 15 Feb
 Valmirius

Have no problem with it if it's disabled in ranked matchmaking servers and enabled on unranked official servers.

572 805
  • 1
  • 16 Feb
 Valmirius

When a fat middle class kid tells me that Communism is better than the welfare system when he's gonna be the first to be eaten when everyone is starving.

946 712

For the full Mordhau experience, just don't show up tbh.

32 19
  • 16 Feb
 Trevz

@Survii said:
Thank fuck for nohbdy tbh, he kept me from unsubscribing from this thread. I really thought I was the only capitalist left fighting haha

Servii Servii hes our man!
If he cant do it

Nohbdy can!

Ban Trevz?
246 88
  • 15 Feb
 Monkeytoes

Vanguard, I haven't been on these forums in a while, but as of so far from what I've absorbed from your arguments, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding on human nature. For the most part, your logic is sound, but the information under which you base your claims on is not. You fail to understand that nobody will want to work if everyone has the same amount of money. Generally, people try to get rich not to become their richest possible selves, but to be richer than everyone else. People buy the best, coolest, newest, most expensive shoes not because he/she likes how they look, but because other people like how they look, then he/she subconsciously associates the pleasure of other people liking his/her shoes with liking how they look on him/herself. If everyone had the same exact pair of shoes, no matter how comfy or cool-looking they are, nobody would like those shoes, and thus, nobody would want to work for them. Communism doesn't work because it restricts people from affording shoes that - and here's the important part - that nobody else has, and thus, no one will want to work for new shoes.

People need the right to have more money than others, however (this is a big 'however', though Vanguard, I know that you're pretty much on board with this) all people should be given some amount of equity so their potential can be explored and used to better the rest of the society. In other words, worse-off people should be given some amount of money and services so the market can weed out the smart and productive ones from the stupid and lazy ones.

Imagine you were playing a first-person shooter, and your team was being spawncamped, like really hard. You are a pretty good player, and so are a few of your teammates, but no matter what, you and your team couldn't get out of spawn. The enemy team is also pretty good, even better than your team, but they aren't that much better than your team. At this point, it seems obvious that your team sucks, which is why you can't get out of spawn, but no. The real reason why your team is being spawncamped is because you don't have the chance to get the killstreak necessary to call in an airstrike, and because the enemy team got a headstart somewhere, whether by luck or by skill (maybe you're playing CoD? Iunno). If you get an airstrike, your team can be freed, and you can finally even the odds. Sure, if you had someone with godlike skills on your team to push back the enemy team, you could escape from spawn, but it shouldn't take a god just to do such a simple task. Now, the enemy team is decked out in armor and bazookas and ammo and health kits ans machine guns, while your team only has a few pistols, even though the enemy team isn't a whole lot better than yours. What has now formed is a positive feedback loop, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. At this point, the game has gotten so stale and so uncompetitive that players from your team start leaving the server, and along with your team leaves the enemy team, since they no longer have anyone to shoot. Remarkably, everyone starts off on an equal playing field with relatively equal players, but soon enough, your team gets dominated really hard. Everyone now blames the incompetent devs for not giving the losing team some kind of spawn protection, like invincibility for the first 10 seconds after you spawn. If the Devs implement spawn protection in the game, it will become much better. In an unregulated game, the noobs will be exploited, therefore the noobs can never improve, therefore the noobs will quit, therefore the veterans won't have any noobs to shoot at, therefore the veterans will quit. In a communist game, the veterans will never be rewarded for killing noobs, therefore the veterans will quit, therefore the noobs won't have any veterans to shoot at, therefore the noobs will quit. In a somewhere-in-between game, the veterans will still be rewarded for killing noobs, but the noobs will be able to improve more easily, therefore the noobs will get better, therefore the veterans will have more of a challenge to fight, therefore making the game as a whole more fun and competitive, therefore ???, therefore profit.

Holy fuck did I just type an entire fucking essay on one analogy? I hope it makes sense to you guys. If not, then fuck.

68 29
  • 3
  • 14 Feb
 nohbdy

@vanguard said:

Well then you have a lot to mix here in Br tbh. I don't even know what you gonna mix here that will make it work, and I can't honestly seeing it work unless you kill all the actual rulling class (both government and business owners) and replace it, otherwise whatever you try out here will get corrupted in a matter of seconds. Which leads us to capitalism failures

Allow me to explain my position, first of all. I think it would help the both of us in this conversation. I believe in a progressive taxation that is not too high to cause small businesses to go bankrupt as it is the most important source of market competition, while taxing the upper class' income tax more harshly to make it considerably harder for them to control the supply of goods within the market and eliminate competition. Naturally, I am in full support of the regulations in place by the US anti-trust laws and against insider trading as well. Lastly, I think that health care(emergency procedures in particular) should be considered a protective public service akin to the police or military and should thus be "free" and paid by taxation. All of this things are meant to create a better distribution of wealth, drive down prices, and improve the quality of goods through competition in the economy. If your economics are too far right-wing(laissez-faire capitalism), you end up with monopolies and predator corporations that eliminate competition and control all of the supply within the market to drive up prices, provide no economic opportunity for the lower class, and create the massive poverty you talk about. If you go too far left-wing on the other hand(command market socialism and communism being even further left), history tells us from the USSR who used a command market that great poverty happens because the lack of competition is inherent in this system and this causes a huge lack of productivity. Communism would only amplify this issue as it is even further left so it eliminates competition the labor incentives even further.

On the other hand, I think we should have significantly less government intervention in higher public education(particularly student loans) to let competition drive the prices down. The only intervention I think the government should have in higher education is preventing teaching practices that might result in the ideological indoctrination of the students. Lobbying and special interest groups causing corruption is another huge problem here in America that needs to be made illegal in my opinion. I also think that the government should regulate certain businesses that may be using unethical means of production that hurt the environment.

(continued)

68 29
  • 1
  • 14 Feb
 nohbdy

@vanguard said:

"certain failures, cerain limitations, but its framework is a proven fact to work", thats just a nice way to say its broken. I could say the same for the Soviet Socialism you know, "has certain failures and limitations, but in the end it broke with USA's and England's imperialism and now Russia can stand for its own interests, its a framework that works for countries that are under imperialist opression and its useful if you don't want to become cancerous country like Brazil, always under the boots of the rulling countries"

Sure, but the fact is that it failed the economy. Soviet Socialism failed to meet the productive quotas that the government provided because the system just is not productive and Communism would be even worse. A capitalist economy is the answer to this issue of productivity, and the issues of capitalism can be dealt with as long as government intervention is handled well.

It is a undeniable fact that this mode of production has failed hard in the wealth distribution departament in most of the countries, that is, it creates poverty like there is no tomorrow. Quite a failure if you ask me, like, a huge fucking failure actually because for instance, you know the consequence of poor police officers? Corruption, they form militias to extort the population (and the drug dealers even lmao). Poor people without legal job? Drug dealing, vehicle theft, violence etc. Society crumbles under the weight of poverty. USSR didn't failed this bad tbh.

I would actually agree with all of these critiques, so it would help if you could understand my position a bit better.

Also, "in touch with reality" is quite subjective, as the reality I live in is probably very different from yours. You could at least try to understand this?

By in tough with reality I mean the reality of human political history serving as empirical evidence. It is important to learn from the past so that we do not make the same mistakes twice.

Also mate, you decrease my urge to want to debate with you when you say shit like "you decrease my urge to debate with you". I mean, wtf you you expect me to respond to you about this? Idk really. What would you say to me if I told you something like, "you capitalist PIG, you decrease my urge to debate with you because you don't see reality as I do". Doesnt it sounds funny?

Okay it does sound funny, sorry I'll try to contain myself.

>

Not having an owner is precisely what I was talking about. If the person in a managerial leadership position has no real authority over the worker(no property rights nor being responsible for the distribution of wealth) then whether or not the workers even listen to him or her is completely subject to whether or not the body of workers also agree with the executive decision. This reduces the efficacy of the position significantly and makes the position nothing more than a motivational cheerleader rather than an actual leader.

Production can work in this condition, history proves it. Obviously it has problems, but doesn't the model you deffend has them as well? Selfmanagement is real tbh, don't you believe workplaces should also be democratic? Because I find rather dumb that we say "hue I live in democratic country" and yet, the place where you will be most of your life, and what is actually important within a country due its huge effects on economy and politics, is a dictatorship. Bik freedoms

Government =/= the economy. We only have a democratic government to ensure that the government has the consent of the governed and to provide a representative of our national identity. Yeah, a totalitarian government would run more efficiently, but you don't need efficient executive order when our federal republic already has a centralized vertical hierarchy of political power. More efficient government is pointless, even, it's not like the governed people are "competing" for anything like the working class is competing for money.

Another problem in your argument here is that it is "labor exploitation". The employer needs the employees to keep the business from going bankrupt and is responsible for providing wages to keep them from leaving to find work elsewhere. It is a mutually beneficial relationship.

Yeah, the factory worker produces 50 shoes per hour, each cost 100 dollars but he is payed 2 dollars hour. Totally mutually beneficial isnt it. The owner has a nice mansion in the mountains, cars etc; worker live in a stupid ass house in the suburbs, barely can afford education and health system while he is the one who effectively creates all the wealth, via labour. Oh and he is the one who will get severely fucked in crisis as well, now isn't that really mutual beneficial. Guy works hard his whole life, doesn't have 1% of the wealth the owner has; he can only contemplate the results of social labour in which he had fundamental role in, while the owner has full access to it.

That sounds like laissez-faire capitalism to me which is crap, I agree. Also how the hell does a single worker create "all" the wealth himself? If you had said the whole working class then you might have had a point... except not, since the business owners do a considerable amount of work themselves and takes on far more responsibility than the working class.

And this not even metioning boss abuse and all this crap right, its supposing we live in disneyland and everything is as it should.

The only reason the business owner gets the most money is because they do their own work for the company just like all the other workers and are responsible for inner and outer workings of the business, the property itself, and providing wages to all the workers on top of it. The business owner is nothing without the workers, yes, but that in itself is only one of their responsibilities and they simply handle the most responsibility in the business. It is the most important position, so they get the most money for both personal use and for business use. End of story.

M8 think on a airplane factory, do you really belive that most of the responsability is in the owner of the business, instead of the worker who is actually making the plane, and if he does shit, the plane crashes and everyone dies, including the owner?

Yes actually, the business owner was responsible for hiring the shitty worker and allowing the shitty airplane to be sold in the first place. This responsibility falls on the owner and if the plane really did crash the responsibility falls on the business and he/she can kiss their shareholders goodbye.

Even takin what you say for granted, I still don't see how this justify you limit people's access to produced goods via paywall. Everyone has responsabilities in production, the guy who manages is just as important as the guy who creates the good, so why the fuck does the guy who manages has access to everything while the worker must get ass fucked constantly?

I already explained this. The owner takes responsibility for the inner and outer workings of the business as a whole, so they have control over the produced wealth.

As if business owners aren't the ones responsible for providing you with all your favorite goods and services, with your wages, and making the largest public contribution through tax money, and you really think there is no sharing in the fruits of our labor? This whole nonsense semantics about "labor exploitation" can really only be summed up as the self-righteous impertinence of bums that want to bring the whole of society down with them lol.

My favorite goods and services are made by working class, and I, as working class, actually create the wealth that will latter become my wage, your profit AND the taxes. Its labour what creates all the wealth, and this isn't even Marx but Adam Smith himself says this, if I aint mistaken tbh I could be wrong here. But I do belive it was Mr Smith indeed.

Yeah of course labor is what produces wealth, but the business wouldn't exist in the first place to employ the workers that made your goods if it weren't for the business owner... Don't you see how pointless of an argument this is?

You know why we went beyond subsistence farming? The desire of profit, power, the acquisition of land. A perfect example of this would actually be when the Native Americans met the Europeans. The Native Americans in North America weren't going anywhere because of their chaotic lack of centralized organization(instead, horizontally laid tribes) and that combined with their overly naturalistic culture impeded upon their ability to get past this stage. The exceptions to this were the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas, who had a significant centralization of wealth and power around autocrats and thus were able to experience huge progress as civilizations.

Also, my psychology class is where I take my understanding of human behavior. Idk about you.

Thats far beyond the point, you said that if we don't have this sense of profit, work doesn't happen, and it is bullshit as we didn't had sense of profit in the past and yet a fuckload of work was done. I'm still waiting to see you give some fundament to this idea that humans only work under behavorial conditioning.

It is not beyond the point at all. http://www.simplypsychology.org/classical-conditioning.html http://www.simplypsychology.org/classical-conditioning.html This is just how behaviors are formed which has been proven through scientific experimentation.

318 668
  • 15 Feb
 arr0wmanc3r

Nice. \m/
image.jpeg

68 29
  • 5
  • 13 Feb
 nohbdy

@vanguard said:

@CrimsonKiller said:
Truth is there is no perfect system of government, both Capitalism and Socialism have flaws that can not be overlooked. However life is inherently not fair, so this can be expected. However history tells us that in most practices of socialism have gone from being good for the people to putting them in a worse position by turning communist, America would be no different if Americas standing govt is already so corrupt, who has the right to say a new governing system would change that? The USSR is a great example, They over threw the autocratic Czar (Techinacly over threw the republic that over threw the Czar but that was short lived and ultimately the USSR took the position) But the status of the low class did not change one bit, the rich simply became politically significant, generals,etc but ultimately they stooped making food and started making guns and the poor got porrer, When they were serfs they had more rights such as owning property (that which they could acquire) and they ended up having no property and the government controlled ALL assets. So when the government stooped producing enough food for focus on military, the people suffered greatly. however the capitalist United states could produce both guns and a abundance of food due to businesses being specified in those specific areas during the cold war arms race. Now I am not a advocate in any way shape or form of unchecked capitalism, I believe that there should be government intervention to prevent a repeat gilded age. But The government can often get detached from their people and their needs, winch is why We need aspects of both socialism and capitalism but to fully adopt socialism as the dominate governing system would lead us in the wrong direction. There is no way that we can ensure the government would not get selfish like what happens/ is happening in Russia or North Korea. The problem with adopting socialism in America is that America is too big of a super power to not inevitably fall in the footsteps of the USSR, America has a Big military budget, who's to say they (they being the government) will stop that or not increase that with full financial liberties? So I must respectfully disagree with that system for America. But that is not to say that it wouldn't work on a smaller scale. But that's a different discussion.

What about anarchism, or anarcho-communism comrade? What are your thoughts on it?

@nohbdy said:

@vanguard said:

@DerFurst said:

@ToLazy4Name said:

@nohbdy said:
Do you not think there is any value in balancing the well-being of the economy with the well-being of the people?

I can scarcely think of any example of how you can effectively put the well-being of the people ahead of the well-being of the economy, so no. They tend to coincide.

remove jews

What change would it bring to simply take jews out and put someone else on their place to do the same thing tho?

@ToLazy4Name said:

@nohbdy said:
Do you not think there is any value in balancing the well-being of the economy with the well-being of the people?

I can scarcely think of any example of how you can effectively put the well-being of the people ahead of the well-being of the economy, so no. They tend to coincide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

I fail to see how that's a good example lol, Vanguard. Read into the reality of it more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende#Economics

Socialism is trash.

Indeed, a poor example. I shouldn't have said that tbh you make a fair point.

I agree that socialism is trash, but I understand why left-wing likes it, especially in 3rd world countries. Gotta consider the Russian experience, liking it or not, USSR gave Russia power today, and that country is not totally a USA's bitch like Brazil is for instance. So, as a less radical measure you know, part of the left-wing likes socialism, as it might help solve this imediate problem that is USA's imperialism, thus allowing the country to develop for itself instead of developing for USA, you know what I mean?

Honestly while I would like to see an end to USA's imperialism, I don't think socialism is the way to go. The objective must not be to fuck with USA, but to abolish classes and all that thing. Socialism is not good for this tbh, as we seen in USSR, China, Cuba etc. Not only that, as Cuba is socialist but still USA's bitch; China is socialist but look at labour conditions, so whats the point really

Basically I don't see the point of it. Why go socialism when we could go communism instead that is a much better option, especially due "muh freedom" reasons.

Right because any logical mind would look at the failures of socialism and think going even further left-wing would be better... lol get out of your little fantasy world and face reality.

Communism doesn't work because it is incompatible with human nature. Humans always look for a leader to centralize the organization of people make make the executive decisions. Look at even the most primitive human tribes- you will always find at least a chieftain. Human beings are smart. Our social nature exists in such a way because we know it is the most efficient way to run a group. A common ownership of the means of production would just slow the productive rate of a workplace to the pace of the slowest individual.

You can't let everyone freely satisfy their needs, eliminate all sense of profit, and expect people to just work out of the goodness of their heart. Your comment about how everyone would just work because it would benefit the broader society is ridiculous; this is not how behavioral conditioning works in psychology. The work that benefits society does not necessarily benefit the individual. Working requires the self-sacrifice of time in their life- time they will never get back. This self-sacrifice counteracts the personal motive of improving society, so you need a third motive of positive reinforcement in the form of personal profit in addition to societal benefit in order to incentivize work.

79 36

This thread will soon be Crushed

1383 720
  • 11 Feb
 vanguard

@Survii said:
1- I read your response :D
2- Cuck only works as an insult to the left wing/ libertarians
3- Look at every communist country ever developed, even going with the Lenin-Marxist communist theory behind them- and what they all turned out like.
4- I'm not experienced here so I want an explanation: If the primary role of a communist government is to stop growth of large companies/ monopolies, who has the actual control over whether something happens or not? Surely those people in the government have control over the regular citizens, forming an inherent hierarchy that tailors towards totalitarianism?
5- Marx said capitalism would fail before communism would come into place. The capitalist world seems to be doing just fine right now imo.
6- "What Marx accomplished was to produce such a comprehensive, dramatic, and fascinating vision that it could withstand innumerable empirical contradictions, logical refutations, and moral revulsions at its effects. The Marxian vision took the overwhelming complexity of the real world and made the parts fall into place, in a way that was intellectually exhilarating and conferred such a sense of moral superiority that opponents could be simply labelled and dismissed as moral lepers or blind reactionaries. Marxism was – and remains – a mighty instrument for the acquisition and maintenance of political power" -Thomas Sowell

"It is the common error of Socialists to overlook the natural indolence of mankind; their tendency to be passive, to be the slaves of habit, to persist indefinitely in a course once chosen. Let them once attain any state of existence which they consider tolerable, and the danger to be apprehended is that they will thenceforth stagnate; will not exert themselves to improve, and by letting their faculties rust, will lose even the energy required to preserve them from deterioration. Competition may not be the best conceivable stimulus, but it is at present a necessary one, and no one can foresee the time when it will not be indispensable to progress." -John Stuart Mill

1- I love you

2- I'll apropriate your terms first, then the means of production. Its all part of a plan you cuck.

3- Yeah, they suck. Leninism-marxism has this state capitalism problem you see. Its actually quite schizophrenic, because they will claim that the proletariat is in control of the State, while who actually is in control is the bureocracy, that is a class that in theory doesn't even exist, so they deny their existence and role even.

4- Here you kinda talk about Leninism-marxism it seems because the whole government controlling things. Its different from Marx's communism, or from anarcho-communism (that as I understand it, is closest to the Marx's conception of communism). I guess the big thing is, in capitalism things get done or not based on profit logic, in communism it would be the common good. Who controls it tho?
The people, via direct democracy or something similar

Idk here m8 tbh I would be predicting the fucking future, but seeing the spanish experience and texts like the ones I posted from the medieval anarchist peasants, I belive that instead of a central government, people would form multiple "concils", with direct democracy, to decide and organize things. These concils communicate with eachother and form a complex "web" that is horizontal and independent from each other, but cooperative. All the "units" organized towards the same goal, that is the common good, which in practical terms could mean to achive better material and intelectual life quality for everyone, technological improvements, science etc.

5- Gotta look at it in global scale brother. Maybe your country is fine or tolerable, but as a whole this system is broken. Its expected that some places feels more the urge to "communism" then others. But hell, do you live in a place where there is no miserable people? If yes, then, do you know how rare this is?

6- "vision that it could withstand innumerable empirical contradictions, logical refutations, and moral revulsions at its effects"

Quotating these innumerable empirical contradictions, logical refutations and moral revulsions instead of the actual quote you did would be more constructive. It seems more like a judgement of value instead of bringing arguments and shit

" Marxism was – and remains – a mighty instrument for the acquisition and maintenance of political power"

Isn't free market, nazism etc this as well? The question is, its a mighty instrument for the aquisition and maintence of political power for who?

"It is the common error of Socialists to overlook the natural indolence of mankind; their tendency to be passive, to be the slaves of habit, to persist indefinitely in a course once chosen. Let them once attain any state of existence which they consider tolerable, and the danger to be apprehended is that they will thenceforth stagnate; will not exert themselves to improve, and by letting their faculties rust, will lose even the energy required to preserve them from deterioration. Competition may not be the best conceivable stimulus, but it is at present a necessary one, and no one can foresee the time when it will not be indispensable to progress." -John Stuart Mill

Idk man, market in practice is not this healthy competition this man says you know. More often then not you have capable people who can't find a job, because market is cancer and capitalism is at crisis, that conveniently happen more often then not. Also, how is it a fair competition, since the rich kid get better envyronment, education etc, and poor kid gets fuckall and actually has to start working at 12 years old to help at home? It would only be a fair competition if starting material conditions were equal, its like in Chiv you give me a halberd and u go with fists, I trained the game my whole fucking life, and you just boght it. Its not even a competition is a massacre, and its what actually happens tbh. I told in previous post, think on a slave family against a factory owner family, and before owning that that, they owned of a plantation full of slaves right; both are now in the same market competing for the best jobs avaliable, how the fuck this is even a competition. This whole thing he says is kinda flimsy imo

And think about it, if mankind had a natural tendency to be passive, how didn't we stagnate being simply subsistence farmers? We had everything and yet we didn't stagnated. Seems to me that humans wants to improve their situation continually, and thus never stagnate because it can always be better. Everyone wants better condition, I never meet anyone that is satisfyied with poverty

934 1634

@Steve Pigeon said:

@Smokingbobs said:
The fact there's no one behind the wheel to get it anywhere is just sad.

fixed
reborn.png

accident-3-25-16_p3.jpg

803 904

@Smokingbobs said:
The fact there's no one behind the wheel to get it anywhere is just sad.

fixed
reborn.png

140 126

Truth is there is no perfect system of government, both Capitalism and Socialism have flaws that can not be overlooked. However life is inherently not fair, so this can be expected. However history tells us that in most practices of socialism have gone from being good for the people to putting them in a worse position by turning communist, America would be no different if Americas standing govt is already so corrupt, who has the right to say a new governing system would change that? The USSR is a great example, They over threw the autocratic Czar (Techinacly over threw the republic that over threw the Czar but that was short lived and ultimately the USSR took the position) But the status of the low class did not change one bit, the rich simply became politically significant, generals,etc but ultimately they stooped making food and started making guns and the poor got porrer, When they were serfs they had more rights such as owning property (that which they could acquire) and they ended up having no property and the government controlled ALL assets. So when the government stooped producing enough food for focus on military, the people suffered greatly. however the capitalist United states could produce both guns and a abundance of food due to businesses being specified in those specific areas during the cold war arms race. Now I am not a advocate in any way shape or form of unchecked capitalism, I believe that there should be government intervention to prevent a repeat gilded age. But The government can often get detached from their people and their needs, winch is why We need aspects of both socialism and capitalism but to fully adopt socialism as the dominate governing system would lead us in the wrong direction. There is no way that we can ensure the government would not get selfish like what happens/ is happening in Russia or North Korea. The problem with adopting socialism in America is that America is too big of a super power to not inevitably fall in the footsteps of the USSR, America has a Big military budget, who's to say they (they being the government) will stop that or not increase that with full financial liberties? So I must respectfully disagree with that system for America. But that is not to say that it wouldn't work on a smaller scale. But that's a different discussion.

99 120
  • 11 Feb
 Punzybobo

@Edy_Nelson said:
aaaaa.jpg

Now THIS is pod racing!

1084 1515
 DerFurst

@Stouty said:
Where does everyone stand politically?

banned

Back to the topic on hand, the rules are fine for the main forums, so long as the offtopic section can remain our safe haven - our "ghetto" if you will.

Overzealous moderation is going to kill the enjoyment of these forums if our banter and funny political talk becomes censored, even in parts of the forum where it's appropriate. Keep it in mind that while the people coming from the kickstarted do need a sanitized experience in the main forum as to not be too weirded out before being broken in, this community is weird which is what makes it so fun. Trying to moderate that out of the forums entirely would hurt everyone's experience.

99 120
  • 10 Feb
 Punzybobo

@CrimsonKiller said:
I am aware that that is a relatively isolated case of worst case sanario communism, but hay, humor...

1486538459875.gif