Amadan
More equal than others
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
More equal than others
10hr ago
Come on, now. I'm trying to be generous here, but "the Trump guy" who goes off using Trump phrases is noticeable, and it's not my overfocus to notice this in a thread that is largely about Trump. He's not using "superintelligence" in its normal sense, but in its Trumpian sense. I don't think you are being serious, I think you just like saying things like "TDS." There is a flip side of TDS, you know, where any criticism of Trump or Trumpish memes or Trumpish coinages triggers a knee-jerk "TDS!" response.
Amadan
More equal than others
11hr ago
If Trump were talking about a hypothetical future when SI exists, I would shrug and think he's being optimistic and grandiose, as usual, but he literally issued an Execute Order requiring the federal government to call existing AI "SI." You calling it "superintelligence" just reads like you using Dear Leader's newly-minted buzzword. I mean, I don't recall you ever using that phrase until five minutes after Trump's EO.
Amadan
More equal than others
11hr ago
And I've seen some unhinged accusations of "TDS" before, but this is pretty out there.
No, buddy. Superintelligence has a definition in AI research, and none of our existing AI is superintelligence. Trump literally issued an Execute Order requiring the federal government to call AI "SI." Federal agencies are being required to scrub references to "Artificial Intelligence" and replace it with "Super Intelligence" in all their documentation. It is absolutely retarded.
That is what I am objecting to. It's not "TDS" because I hate anything Trump does. It's annoyance that Trump issued a "deer horse" EO.
Amadan
More equal than others
13hr ago
I think "deadnaming" (neologism), or not using the "prefered pronouns" (again, recently invented set phrase) was at one point declared to be against the rules of this community.
Even if "deadnaming" were against the rules (strictly speaking, it is not - we will mod you for being an asshole about it, but not just for referring to Caitlyn as Bruce), it does not apply to technologies arbitrarily reacronymed by Executive Order.
Amadan
More equal than others
15hr ago
Well, no, you are required to uphold and defend the Constitution, and if someone literally said "I don't believe in the Constitution and I want to destroy the Republic," there'd be a good case to deny that person office. But whatever you might suspect about certain elected officials, merely holding political or religious views contrary to what the Founders would have approved of doesn't mean someone isn't capable of following the Constitution.
Amadan
More equal than others
15hr ago
Superintelligence
Please, please, please, for the love of Ahura Mazda, stop this.
I know, it's petty, and of all the things Trump has done that I dislike, declaring that AI should be called "Superintelligence" shouldn't be at the top of my list, but it is absurdity of the highest order to issue an Executive Order based on a shower thought. "Superintelligence" actually has a meaning in the AI field, and other than trolling people I can't even see what Trump's point was in doing this. Is it supposed to "own the libs" who hate data centers? Why the heck would you immediately switch to the new term like a Party member just notified of the latest un-words?
I agreed with most of the points in your top-level and thought it was a good and thoughtful post, for whatever that is worth.
Amadan
More equal than others
15hr ago
You misunderstand what we mean by consensus-building; you don't get to express disdain for your outgroup as long as you're in the majority, and you are not allowed to recruit for a cause or assume that "everyone" is on your side. It is probably true that the majority of people here are right-leaning and unhappy with the electoral results. That doesn't matter. This isn't a right-leaning forum for you to rally support against the electoral results.
And doesn't this from you: "almost certainly a sockpuppet, and very likely a ban evader, consider yourself on notice and on our radar" constitute name-calling and bullying?
No, it constitutes an observation and a warning.
Amadan
More equal than others
15hr ago
I think the clause speaks for itself, but if unclear, my appeal is to the logic that the Founder's intent should prevail and be respected.
That logic is not in the Constitution. You may believe we should "respect the Founder's intent" (and that only Christians should be allowed to hold office) but that's not what they wrote.
Amadan
More equal than others
15hr ago
What the hell? You two are behaving terribly. I just gave @georgioz a one-day ban for his "FUCK YOU" crash-out, but your much calmer but just as unnecessary ad hominems are no better. You're not arguing, you're just trading sneers and seeing who can out-condescend the other. You can take a day off too.
Amadan
More equal than others
15hr ago
FUCK YOU.
I don't know why this topic got you so emotional, but even with your long record of AAQCs, this is not acceptable. Take a day to cool off.
Amadan
More equal than others
15hr ago
I find your view abhorrent disgusting and I would strip you of citizenship if I could.
Are you young? Are you white? You seem like you are from a foreign culture? You talk like your Indian.
You've been warned to stop doing this, and as I noted last time, every time you are warned you cool it just long enough to hope we'll forget.
We don't forget.
Ad hominems like this are about as clear-cut a violation of the rules as you can get without a straight-up "fuck you."
One month ban. Next time probably permanent.
Amadan
More equal than others
1d ago
Do not throw your two cents into a slapfight that doesn't involve you because you are harboring a grudge.
Amadan
More equal than others
1d ago
You posted this in two places. If you hadn't already gotten multiple responses in both places, I'd delete one. This post is borderline in itself; we try to give lots of leeway to people bringing their best and most interesting/borderline-crazy ideas, but I am already frowning at all the posts that amount to "We lost/We are in trouble/this is a disaster for us" and your entire post amounts to an appeal to a consensus that does not exist here. Since you are also a newly-rolled account, almost certainly a sockpuppet, and very likely a ban evader, consider yourself on notice and on our radar.
Amadan
More equal than others
1d ago
I'm gonna let that go 'cause it's funny, but really, not appropriate for a top-level post.
Amadan
More equal than others
1d ago
I see once more we have thought of the novel idea, "What if we could make it so our enemies don't get to vote?"
I'm sorry to inform you that if the American people want to vote for communism or Shariah law or the Hunger Games, the Constitution does not in fact prevent that.
Amadan
More equal than others
1d ago
Tried reading it once. Bailed after a chapter. I seriously do not get the appeal of some of the works recommended in rat-spheres.
Amadan
More equal than others
1d ago
Past that time, Shai LeBeouf, Shai LeBeouf, Shai LeBeouf.
Would you be kind enough to explain this to those of us who don't want to read horrible web fiction to get the reference?
Amadan
More equal than others
4d ago
Musashi, by Eiji Yoshikawa. A heavily fictionalized novelization of the life of Miyamoto Musashi, the "Book of Five Rings" guy. Yoshikawa originally wrote it as a serial, which shows as there are lots of tangents with side characters. It's obvious Yoshikawa just made a lot of stuff up, but it's great soapy fun.
Amadan
More equal than others
4d ago
Freddie at least claims to believe that genetic racial differences don't exist and all disparities are because of historical disadvantages and social inequality. I don't know what his answer would be to "Why shouldn't we research it" but I assume he would assume no good could come of it. Maybe because like Pinker, he secretly knows what the results would be, or maybe because he assumes the research would be done in bad faith and produce untrustworthy results.
Amadan
More equal than others
4d ago
Do you or @TheAntipopulist perceive any irony whatsoever when you realize you are defending Darwin and insisting he was treated unfairly, but complaining that we put up with TrannyPorn too long?
Amadan
More equal than others
5d ago
Well, of course I too think I am open-minded and available to be persuaded, and that you are not, and there we are. But to break this down to the fundamental point of disagreement, I dispute that in order to mod "fairly," one has to share political opinions with the person being modded, and therefore leftists can only fairly be modded by (or in consultation with) other leftists. May I remind you that Darwin got argued with a lot, but was actually rarely modded here?
You should know that most people aren't available to be persuaded on most things.
This may be true, but then why the fuck are we here?
No, nobody gets persuaded in one thread to change their worldview, or even their opinion on one topic. But I do think my opinions on a number of things have changed over time, partly because of my participation here. In some aspects, I have become more liberal; in other cases, much less so.
Amadan
More equal than others
5d ago
but your responses are still dripping with contempt with the "(yawn)" and the "Jesus". I have a feeling that if darwin did that to other users then he absolutely would have been told to knock it off by the mods.
Not really. It's true we discourage sarcasm and snippiness, but if you've been paying attention as closely as you claim to, you also know we generally have a pretty high tolerance for it and only mod when it does cross over into obvious antagonism or an attempt to derail threads into "Nuh uhs."
Yes, I will own that sometimes I am sarcastic and jaded. Mostly I keep it in check, but sometimes my exasperation shows. I cannot honestly say I feel much guilt over this, because I do not censure people for things I would not censure myself. Could I be more dispassionate and a model of toneless civility? Yes. I am sorry not to be able to conform to your customer service expectations. The expectation that mods are never allowed to so much as yawn at a tiresome critic is not a reasonable expectation.
Your claims about why leftists are being banned and rightists are not: well, I flatly disagree, I think you are wrong, I think you are arguing that the sky is green and gravity is sideways, and I think nothing I say is going to disabuse you of this because we had almost this exact same exchange a year ago and nothing has changed. Yes, I am being a bit sarcastic and jaded with my "sky is green and gravity is sideways" crack because I am exasperated.
But as per your suggestions:
Hire a genuine leftist or two into the mod team and then consult them when issues arose in regards to modding leftists.
First of all, I reject your implicit assumption that the mod team is all rightists and we are biased against leftists. You are simply - pardon my exasperation - not just wrong, but fucking wrong. Maybe none of us qualify as "leftists" nowadays, but we are definitely not all rightists. Honestly, I think only one of us identifies as rightist and one another identifies as moderately conservative. Like, that's it, man. So how "leftist" do you think your proposed sensitivity consultant mod needs to be to restore fairness to moderation?
Have stricter rules regarding tone when it comes to users interacting with other users.
We could do that. Back on reddit, we'd occasionally have periods we tongue-in-cheek called "reigns of terror" where for a week or two, tone moderation became much stricter and bans were handed out more easily. Usually this was when we sensed the temperature going up and an increase in antagonism and low-effort sneering making conversations less pleasant. There was, unsurprisingly, a mixed reaction to this, with some considering it a needed corrective, but most thinking it was just mods going off on a power trip (and of course, always, always, we were persecuting viewpoints we didn't like). We haven't done it since coming here because the community is smaller and we really don't want to hand out bans like candy. But honestly, I just mostly disregard your opinion of the tone here since you're clearly only seeing meanness in one direction and you only care about meanness in one direction. I will say that most of your proposed rules from NeutralPolitics are more or less the rules of the Motte. You are not wrong that we don't enforce them that strictly, and perhaps not as strictly as we used to. So it is worth discussing amongst ourselves. Maybe it is time for a "reign of terror" or at least a "reign of increased strictness."
But here is the problem: none of that would make you happy. Because you are the kind of person who will never believe that we are being fair, no matter how we adjust the dials. So, there is that.
Amadan
More equal than others
5d ago
As the "bad mod" (yawn) who "chased Darwin away," let me point out that no one is keeping him away. And I personally have committed to not trying to rub my last post that apparently shamed him into silence in his face if he ever returns, even though I absolutely do not respect how he tucked tail and ghosted when finally pressed on some bullshit he'd been saying for a long time. But I cannot promise others will not.
About liberals: you are right and you are wrong. Leftists do not get extra mod scrutiny. Jesus, how many times do we have to go over this? Once again, in the same thread we're being accused of being extra-strict with leftists and also of giving them too much leeway because we don't want to drive them off. Look, it's a known problem. The site has converged mostly to the right, and leftists get reported more, and the mods are very aware that a leftist is going to show up in the mod queue more often and thus we cannot help but be hyper aware of leftists who are annoying people. And we have to balance "Is this person really out of bounds?" with "Are we just seeing this person more because everyone reports him?" It's... the Darwin problem, basically.
We still have some liberals here (raises hand) and even a few leftists. Yes, I get that it's hard to be a leftist here. I sympathize, but also I don't. This, also, is old ground I'm repeating for the umpteenth time, but the convergence here is not because we drove away all the leftists. It's because leftists drove everyone else off every other site, and we still see the pattern here where sometimes a leftist will show up and participate for a while, and then leave in a huff when they realize they're not allowed to just call people Nazis and that we don't ban leftist-feeling-hurting viewpoints.
That was a ramble, but I feel like a lot of you are just rehashing things we already know. So, like, what are your concrete proposals?
What's the difference between someone who benefits from being born in the right place and someone who benefits from being born into the right caste/family?
What makes you any more deserving of your unearned accident-of-birth benefits?
You're on thin ice with the race-baiting triumphalism you've been ramping up again lately. I'm letting it go because we certainly have white nationalists who say things just as bad about their outgroup, but your history is particularly bad and you're only getting a pass because your last final warning was seven months ago. But I can very clearly see that you're having fun trolling again. I still don't think banning you would be any loss.
More options
Context Copy link