cjet79
Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds
Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds
User ID: 124
cjet79
9hr ago
I'm aware they will be, the standard you applied is hilariously low that again, even many of the users here who hate me found it questionable.
And the ban length was commensurately low. You were part of a crackdown to stop a trend that I was noticing. I don't dislike you in any way, if I did I'd hand off moderation of you to someone else. I pointed out to another user that suggested you should be given some leeway because you might not have noticed the other ban, that the ban I handed you was to give notice to other users. If you and others are more careful about posting heavily "boo outgroup" top level posts then I am happy and mission accomplished.
I'm sorry that you were the particular example, but also not sorry, because the punishment was minor, the correction seemed necessary, and you did violate the rules as I interpret them.
It would probably help your argument you apply the rules fairly if you didn't contradict yourself in the same paragraph.
Admitted lack of clarity on my part. Bigger candidates tend to have more other stuff swirling around them. Its the other stuff that is fully open to discussion. Like the mamdani post where he wanted to arrest the israeli guy. If the post is just "mamdani is an idiot" that is bad and boo outgroup, but myself and other read the post as "can mamdani even do this, what would even happen" and that led to interesting other discussion. It also implied that the motivation for the orginal post wasn't entirely just "mamdani said this stupid thing". However, if a no-power position candidate says something stupid or does something horrid there often isn't much else to discuss.
It is coincidentally easier to not fall afoul of the boo outgroup posting for higher level candidates, because you can easily make it not just about the fact that they did something terrible. BUT no level of high level candidacy is an excuse for a pure or heavily boo outgroup top level post.
And your post did fall afoul of that. And your post seemed to be a specific one-upping of the platner stuff, which you alluded to in your first sentence. That is specifically what we are trying to avoid, a sort of one-upping back and forth of culture warring where this thread is just turned into another battle ground.
When people who have every motive to say otherwise were telling you that it was weak, it was probably very very very weak in actuality.
I think many people interpreted the ban wrong. We don't have many tools here. One tool is warning. Another tool is temp banning. And the final tool is perma-ban. In my experience plenty of people tend to ignore warnings. There will be accounts with dozens of warnings that they never act upon. And then the first time we actually ban them, suddenly they make an attempt to modify their behavior. Some of the other mods are more willing to play the "warn repeatedly" game. I'm not. In most cases I'm doing a temp ban. If it is worth it for me to defend and promote a rule, its worth it to impose some consequences on the user that broke the rule. I consider 1-3 day bans basically a slap on the wrist. 4-15 day bans a serious infraction. And anything above a 15 day ban our alternative to a perma ban.
I'm happy to engage in discussion on the ban mainly because it serves the same purpose as the ban, highlighting what behavior is not ok and what might get a future ban. This is probably getting too low in the discussion to even be viewed by most people. If you are still pissed at me and think I have wronged you, and you want another mod to review it all, then just report this comment or the comment where I moderated you. We do not approve our own comments. So someone else will come along and look at it.
cjet79
17hr ago
We generally moderate what is reported. If you want me to go back litigate your posts that were not reported then simply report your posts and add them to queue. They will likely be ignored, but if you really want me to look at them and let you know if they are rule breaking I suppose I can do that. The outcome will be that either I ignore it like most reported things or I hand out warnings/bans.
The object level issues are not in contention from me.
The level of candidate doesn't matter. A post just about Trump being a cheater, or Kamala sleeping her way to the top could also be dinged under these rules. I'd maybe be more lenient if the candidate was more well known, usually there are side issues for higher level candidates that the poster might care about and call out.
cjet79
1d ago
Probably ask yourself why you want to share or discuss a particular story.
There was a legitimate question in the mamdani story "can he even do this" and a discussion of why it's a horrible idea for him to do this.
If your purpose in sharing something is more like "look at this horrible thing my out group did" and "does everyone else think this is as horrible as I do". Then you should stop and reconsider.
cjet79
2d ago
If you cannot shake your fist at a cloud on themotte where can one do so?
I read you. I somewhat intentionally became set in my ways on pronouns about a decade ago. I like the 4chan ethos of "everyone is a dude" on the internet. I don't hear your tone of voice, how deeply or softly you might speak, I don't see your chest or shoulders to know how you hold yourself, and I don't see into your eyes or catch your stare. I just read the words you have written. I'm interacting with just a brain and fingers on a keyboard. A set of physical traits shared by both genders, and in doing so failing to define either gender.
Saying you are a pronoun "user" was a bit tongue and cheek. I definitely don't care about English grammar "rules". If Fuck can mean anything, so can other words. A "user" is the mind and words of person interacting with me over the internet. Maybe eliminate "person" from that definition once AIs truly get good enough (another year at this rate?).
I truly do not see you as men and women or boys and girls. It feels silly to me use gender terms in text-only online forums. If we were to meet in person, you'd absolutely have a gender term in my mind the instant I saw you. Highly likely that term would line up with what you were at birth.
cjet79
3d ago
Unless their gender is relevant to a modding decision I'm not gonna take notes or remember it. Your pronoun is user.
cjet79
3d ago
This was a bad comment. HereAndGone2 went a little too far in admonishing you so I've warned them as well.
But this demonstrates my problem with bad posts, is that they often beget other bad posts. You have both been here long enough to know better.
cjet79
3d ago
It feels criminal to me how most places are moderated.
I do like that our reputation is good enough at this point that people feel free to chime in with what they think of a ban. I remember very early days before that was fully established and some people would tip toe around us and constantly drop lines like "I expect to be banned for saying this but [this mod decision was bad]".
cjet79
5d ago
5 day ban for now, we really don't want large text dumps from AI here. Will discuss with other mods on shortening or lengthening ban.
cjet79
5d ago
I don't think any interventions were necessary anywhere. It's in everyone's interest to keep the oil flowing. Who exactly wants the money train to stop, and with what money are they gonna raise an army to stop it?
And if your answer to my original point is "oh we could have paid 95% less on intervention" then I would be happy with that compromise.
This conversation also started about Israel, how much oil does Israel have? I thought the answer was effectively none.
cjet79
5d ago
I'm confused. First I say I don't want middle east spending and intervention. Next you say I couldn't have had that opinion pre-2010s because the intervention was required for lower oil prices. Next I say we spent trillions on that intervention so it seems not worth it. Now you say that intervention wasn't related to oil prices (which I agree with) but makes your original objection seem strange and pointless.
cjet79
5d ago
Any market that sells to the world is open to world price fluctuations. Holding the position today is the same as it was back then. That also fails a basic cost benefit analysis. We spent in the trillions to decrease the price of a thing that was in the 100 billions. If we had just eaten the higher oil costs and not started wars over there we would have been better off. And its likely we would have arrived at the "American energy powerhouse" situation earlier.
So we have had lower quality of life to do these interventions. But even if that wasn't true I'd still bite the bullet of non-intervention, for many reasons.
cjet79
6d ago
I am against American funding or intervention in the middle east. But I think that position is rarest among people willing to express an opinion about the conflict, and it's also probably the most common opinion among people who are quiet about it. I've had very little success in converting interventionists of either stripe into non-interventionists.
cjet79
6d ago
I am split between love and hate for these kinds of phrases. I can appreciate the rhetoric and my favorite art form to consume is standup comedy which is basically all rhetoric. But funny and witty isn't the same thing as true or useful. Scott has a few good posts on this somewhere, but I can only remember where he makes the case that we haven't really been trying 'debate' and instead only been trying rhetoric: Guided By The Beauty Of Our Weapons.
I'd like to encourage people not to try and make more of these phrases, because most people horribly fail political touring tests. And instead of making gotcha phrases they instead make what I'd call a shitstorm of stupidity. The phrase betrays such an extreme ignorance that anyone confronted with it can only win by walking away and ignoring them (making the idiot even more confident).
Phrases such as
“Jet fuel can't melt steal beams”
“The Earth is flat, look out your window”
“If vaccines work, why do vaccinated people still get sick?”
“If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
“If the Earth was spinning at 1,000 mph we’d all fly off.”
I think more earnest conversations would do a lot of good. I have asked a few palestine supporters how they think palenstine might treat the Jews if they were suddenly in charge. Only one was fucked up enough to say something like "exactly as they deserve". Most of them got thoughtful looks and realized ... ya there might just be another genocide going the other direction. Which turns the situation into the old joke:
They’re telling this of Lord Beaverbrook and a visiting Yankee actress. In a game of hypothetical questions, Beaverbrook asked the lady: “Would you live with a stranger if he paid you £1,000,000?” She answered “Yes.” “And if he paid you £5?” The irate lady fumed: “£5? What do you think I am?” Beaverbrook replied: “We’ve already established that. Now we’re trying to determine the degree.”
In the case of Israel we have already accepted there is going to be genocide, now how bad do you want it to be? And to whom should it be committed against?
cjet79
6d ago
I honestly can't ever remember you speaking up in approval of a ban, and a signal that always says the same thing is not a useful signal. You should probably have a rating scale for how bad of a ban you think it is, that way your signal can vary. With 10/10 being literally hitler. And 1/10 being 'ok I acknowledge this is a good ban according to policies and everyone elses preferences, but i just really dont want you to ban anyone'.
cjet79
6d ago
Hmm, somewhat the opposite. Or at least you have the causation direction mixed up.
I assume I might have to do this again soon if not enough people noticed the first two bans. Its not that I'm punishing magicalkittycat for not noticing the examples. Its that magicalkittycat is one of the examples. And hopefully the last example needed.
cjet79
6d ago
If the history of a user is part of the ban reason I'd usually list it out and link to it.
Sometimes I'm seeing a bad trend and I'll increase punishment. This has happened a few times before with low effort top posts, which are usually just a warning or one day ban for repeat offenders. The latest offender might just be unlucky more than anything.
That last paragraph was an afterthought, on its own it doesn't really stand well and the rest of the post is just describing how fucked up the politician is, which is boo out group material.
cjet79
6d ago
The point is that this is not a culture war battleground that needs to be fought over by deploying arguments as soldiers. We fall short of the ideal of a neutral discussion area, but I see no reason not to whack down obvious "battleground" type posts where the whole point of the post could be summed up as "my out group sucks". That's boring and it happens literally everywhere else on the internet.
The point is not to be a courteous battleground. It's to be not a battleground at all.
cjet79
6d ago
the very first clause reminding us that that Ingroup has some boo-worthy members too..
One sentence doesn't undo the entire point of the post. And we don't want some magic set of words to allow someone out of an otherwise rule breaking post.
And the entire point of the post is to point out that someone in the out group is doing something bad.
Someone is always doing something bad and I don't want this place to turn into a battleground where we all just publish the worst things that members of the out group are doing.
Parts of the Platner discussion struck me as much more nuanced than this. In the sense that they weren't about the veracity of the allegations but how others were choosing to respond to those allegations. Some of the Platner discussion was the boring "oh look an out group member turned out to be terrible" and that discussion should have probably been shut down.
cjet79
6d ago
This is just boo outgroup stuff. We just banned someone in the last thread for doing this.
Three day ban for you as well.
cjet79
7d ago
Im not a doctor and you are probably better off asking an AI. But I do know that the problem with distilled water is the leeching of minerals. It's not that water is supposed to provide a bunch of minerals, it doesn't.
The water that goes into you will balance with the water in your system. Which is why drinking salt water can dehydrate you. Or why Gatorade was designed to be an effective sports drink, it's supposed to mimic the balance of water in your body, to prevent the leeching of minerals or water to balance out what is being added.
If you are in the US tap water is safe and fine.
cjet79
9d ago
Apparently it's not the only story like it! That's crazy, never knew salvia was like that. I took a hit in college and definitely felt like it messed with my depth and time perception. But not nearly as crazy as this guy
cjet79
11d ago
The lack of convergence to similar outcomes is the evidence for a failure to assimilate.
The lack of convergence can be better explained by genetics than culture. Especially if you have black children of well off parents (who would be raised in a different culture) still reverting to the average of their race on a bunch of life outcomes.
If anything American culture as a whole has assimilated into black culture. Black athletes, pop stars, comedians, and actors have outsized representation.
People get culturally assimilated in the US, but not necessarily genetically assimilated.
The Odyssey sort of. It's obviously not the main plot point. But father seems way better than son at kicking suitor but.
More options
Context Copy link