Talk:Lemmygrad

Removed libel against me

Wisconcom, edit whatever you want on Lemmygrad, personally I think it's great if we stay relatively small because I have no desire for it to become Reddit and give us more moderation work (I am an admin on lemmygrad as well as prolewiki). There is literally no reason we would pay 10$ for a domain name and 20$ for a hosting plan to set up a fake instance when we could literally just ban whoever we want with the mod tools but whatever. However I have removed the damaging libel you wrote against me, which said that I set up lemmygrad.com and posted with my "alt" account there. Do that again and I will take legal action against you, this is not a funny joke to me, you might think we're having a good laugh with this edit war but I'm not. --CriticalResist (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand and apologize. I am not editing this site again. Let's leave eachother alone. Wisconcom (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine with me. --CriticalResist (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Ideology

Some of the stated ideologies in the infobox are not correct:

• Dengism: This is probably true as most of the users support modern China.
• Maoism-Third Worldism: The post you linked to does not represent all of Lemmygrad. A comment disagreeing with the statement "There is no exploited proletariat in the First World" has 23 upvotes and only 4 down.
• Chinese nationalism: Lemmygrad does not support the Kuomintang or Chinese nationalists, although they probably would support it in the context of the WWII against Japan.
• Social-imperialism: This depends on whether you consider China imperialist.
• Anti-science: This refers to the anti-psychiatry community which was banned months ago along with its creator Amicese.
• Han supremacy: I have never seen any Han supremacist content on Lemmygrad. The Chinese government explicitly opposes this; for example, non-Han ethnicities were not affected by the one-child policy.
• Revisionism: This is probably refers to socialist market economies like China. They could be considered revisionist if you said the same about the NEP in the Soviet Union.
• Anti-Stalinism: Most of the users support Stalin
• Putinism: Most users critically support Russia against NATO/Ukraine but a search also shows plenty of criticisms of Putin. They only support him as long as he is fighting against Nazis.
• Ukrainophobia: Opposing neo-Nazi groups like the Azov Battalion and Svoboda is not "Ukrainophobia".
• Anti-Uyghur sentiment: Like the Han supremacy claim, I have never seen anyone on Lemmygrad be racist against Uyghurs.
• Trotskyism: The Trotskyist community was just created yesterday and People's Court has already started a post on whether to ban it.
• Esotericism: Searching "esotericism" on Lemmygrad does not show any results. This may refer to Duginism, which is banned on the site according to rule 5.

Antifa1917 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe that the section "Purge of the c/Hoxhaism community and banning of its creator" adequately represents reality

The section noted above is, like the rest of this article, horribly biased in favor of the ideological prospective of the Lemmygrad moderator who wrote this article. It portrays me and the community I made as sinister wreckers who attempted to ruin the entirely rational China-worshiping online utopia that this article suggests Lemmygrad is. This section also devolves in picking out trivial details and inflating them so as to further this narrative, such as noting the news source which I supposedly used and so on, and yet failing to mention that Lemmmygrad users "countered" me with Reddit posts which were entirely baseless. I could continue to list the false claims of this section, but I am certain that this petty drama which this article attempts to incite is very exhausting. I believe that it would be best if this section would be reduced to merely statements which are factual and proven (such as that the site's Hoxhaism community was banned, etc.) and remove all of the baseless claims against me. Thank you. SociusVenger (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the section had issues and I have made revisions. Can you point out which parts of the rest of the article have issues? Harrystein (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording I used was rather strong. In my opinion, it is not so much the case that the rest of the article is factually incorrect and biased, but more the case that it documents events which are only meaningful to a particular group of people (very particular sections of the Online Left) and do not hold long-term, historic importance. Of course, I believe that such concerns would be more relevant for discussions relating generally to notability policy and such. Regardless, thank you for your consideration. SociusVenger (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)