@Minotaur's banner p
BANNED USER: /comment/21314

Minotaur

Si vis pacem, fac bellum

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:20:22 UTC

White, right-wing, male.


				

User ID: 101

Banned by: @ZorbaTHut

BANNED USER: /comment/21314

Minotaur

Si vis pacem, fac bellum

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:20:22 UTC

					

White, right-wing, male.


					

User ID: 101

Banned by: @ZorbaTHut

Youtube without adblock is atrocious. Half the time if an ad starts my phone will just... stop loading the video indefinitely. Fucking ads.

Sound public policy requires that the movement that pushed such grotesquely unsound policy be vanquished, lest it continue to impose unsound policy on us. As such, the single most important thing that can be done in response to this is what @Folamh3 is doing.

You're trying to convince him to put out a fire while the kid with matches and a can of gasoline is still right there going nyuck nyuck nyuck. I get it, the fire is a problem, but putting it out doesn't help until Mr. Pyromaniac is down for the count.

Do you have an adblocker at home but not at work?

I stand now among the greats, unfairly persecuted for the truth -- Christ, Mandela, Minotaur.

I'd remove bans for everything except illegal content, actually. The ability to block others or simply ignore them is perfectly serviceable, and there's really no need of moderators beyond that.

When you filter against abrasive personalities, you are filtering for leftists, who are on the whole higher in agreeableness.

What does this mean? Have never heard this term before.

You're acting like a hall monitor. You're carrying water for authority despite authority not caring about you. You are licking the boot. You are kissing the ass.

It's all the same thing with different phrasings. He is accusing you of being a groupie and intrinsically low status.

  • -10

It'd look very similar, of course, much like how The Schism and Culture War Roundup largely look identical despite being polar opposites. There'd be different participants and opinions being discussed, but it'd work fine.

If you want my ideal forum, it's a place where all the banned effortposters from yesteryear are given free reign. All the best writers in The Motte's history got banned and the community has forever been lesser for it.

I'm using standard definitions of left and right here.

The rules here have always been designed to promote the kind of discussions the modteam wants. We should, then, rightly conclude that the rules, the justifications for the rules, and the endurance of the rules serve to support the vision of this community('s leadership).

Why has this community always prioritized tone policing over anything else?

Why has this community had an HBD moratorium?

Why has this community schismed and broke apart multiple times over 'witches', which are only ever right-wingers? The immediate prior incarnation had two entirely separate schisms over it: most of the right-wingers left because the mods were silencing them (or got banned, same thing), and the left-wingers left because a mod was angry they didn't get enough of them -- and then he stayed as a mod! Incredible.

Why does this community have essentially no one we'd acknowledge as bona fide Red Tribe?

The values of this community have always been the values of Scott Alexander last decade. Scott Alexander is unambiguously a leftist. Furthermore, he is even a progressive, in openly progressive-coded relationships, supporting openly progressive groups and organizations, in an openly progressive neighborhood in an openly progressive city in an openly progressive state.

What Scott considers "good, healthy discussion" is discussion not too upsetting to his progressive sensibilities. What this community considers good, healthy discussion is what Scott (before he went full greengrocer) did. It's "sane progressivism", but it's progressivism all the same.

You should understand at least a little. For all your frequent talks on honor cultures, I'd expect you to recognize that a mandate to "be kind" even when kindness is not deserved (for instance, someone is trolling in bad faith, but skirting by a banning) is anathema. It's also a prog staple.

I know you recognize it, because you frequently cop time-outs and naughty no-no's over it.

I'm not mad or trad, though.

You are, flatly, wrong.

No, I am correct. What you quoted supports me: "The Outfit", "1950's Chicago gangsters", "black Chicago mobsters".

It's not ambiguous. If you thought it was, that is a failure on your end, not OP's.

Not in evidence. Your projections.

If you want to play judge, put on your red hat and practice. Lord knows you could use it.

You make it all worthwhile.

Wish I could say the same, but the mods have always been the worst part of the community.

The post Stefferi replied to explicitly identifies the Chicago mafia and mobsters multiple times as the subject in question in the opening sentences. The study Steffri subsequently linked to to support this was titled "The Black Mafia". Its abstract explicitly claims blacks played a vital role as members of the Chicago Outfit. The Chicago Outfit is a proper noun and refers specifically to the Italian-American organized crime family known to most as "the mob" or "the mafia".

Stefferi was not confused. His own fucking source shows he knew the quibble was "black mafioso", not "black criminality". He was being snide. God, why did you have to mod here, too.

I understand and respect your commitment to this community's historical traditions; it has always been more important to come down on calling out bad faith than to come down on the bad faith itself. Nerd spaces seem doomed to this particular dementation.

As someone who also honors the traditions of his people, however, I must insist on not letting such things fly. If our traditions must conflict, I resign myself to the tragic consequences.

  • -10

I'm not going to take back what I said. If that means you have to ban me, go ahead. It's more of a headache for you than me.

This community descends from a cult of personality based around a neurotic progressive who disliked a bit of the left's excesses (as they threatened him personally and he's highly neurotic), but outside of those personal threats was enthusiastically on board with the entire far-left culture.

So much so he deliberately invested the whole of his private and personal life into those far-left environments!

Of course the values this community enshrines are implicitly leftist. They're less left than they could maximally be, but nevertheless still enshrine leftist ideas.

I'm not going to pretend he's too dumb to know what he was doing.

What is it that they intend, maliciously, to happen as a result of casting more black people or showing off sassy strong independent women?

The dissolution of the social and cultural norms that produced our current civilization, because the current crop of culture-makers were taught to hate said civilization.

Tankies supporting a right wing authoritarian invasion, Neo-Nazis cheering in support of the de-nazification of Ukraine, that sort of thing.

These are precisely the things I would have expected, though. I suspect your problem is a surplus of gullibility -- thinking people mean what they say and are fundamentally honest.

If, like me, you interpret tankie to mean "fundamentally just hates America and western hegemony", it makes sense. If, like me, you think Putin is full of shit about the Nazi thing, and he's actually just mocking the west with that particular casus belli, and the Neo-Nazis are aware of it, their response makes sense.

A paper saying it's arguing against the consensus view that there wasn't a meaningful black presence in the mafia. Perhaps it's even correct! I'm skeptical, but I don't know. I also don't care -- I just wanted you to stop being dense, and not deliberately conflate "black criminality" with "black mafioso" as if they weren't obviously very different things.

That's the impression I got from you, since it's the same thing I said to begin with but you objected. If we're mutually unintelligible, consider this particular conversation closed.

The left can't meme, but it can take over. That's more useful.

(irony intended. the left meme much better than the right, they're just not funny)

I honestly don't know how you even have a conversation when the idea of neutral standards, applied regardless of actor, is one of the things under contention.

You realize all talks are for recreational purposes, not means of resolving conflicts or furthering peace between tribes, and otherwise embrace conflict theory.

Certain high-profile commenters get banned for being inflammatory

Where inflammatory is best understood as "in violation of implicitly leftist values".

I'd just like to register that it is very annoying for a non-native speaker when Americans refer to the "X-word" or the "Y-Slur".

Trust me, it's annoying for plenty of native speakers, too. I made a sacred vow that every time I see "the n-word" I raise my hands to the sky and scream nigger at the top of my lungs to balance the scales of the universe.

No woman wants an average or below average man to come up and talk with her. Yet, offline, women are approached by average guys plenty and always have been, and end up sleeping with them and forming relationships with them. Dating apps are not a real interaction, where personality, chemistry, confidence, or the vagaries of chance and a good mood can overcome a hyper-competitive low-effort meat market.

Don't use dating apps unless you're a genuine stud and can easily pull in NSA pussy. Then do whatever you want, king. But if you're a normal guy, dating apps are an unfriendly platform that emphasize your worst traits and minimize the best. You can overcome a lot by building a real rapport.