@naraburns's banner p

naraburns

nihil supernum

8 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:20:03 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 100


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
naraburns


								

								

								
								
									
								
								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
nihil supernum

				
				
				

				

					8 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 04 19:20:03 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 100


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Why do you expect consistency from social posturing? The college kids chanting River to the Sea are just making mouth noises that they've been told are the mouth noises non-excluded, invited-to-parties people make.




This may very well be true, but it is not really a sufficiently effortful response for this space.  It is always the case that one possible response to $PERPLEXING_THING is "eh, nobody is serious anyway, this is all play-acting, there's nothing to be feared from play-actors, and nothing to be gained from engaging on substance and merits."  But it's rarely a charitable response (to either the person making the argument or the people under discussion) and often just false in various ways.  So if you're going to imply that someone shouldn't expect consistency, you're going to need to do it with a bit more effort.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Truth About Israeli Influence In The US
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Pretty quintessentially CW post--feel free to post about it in the CW thread.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The previous one seemed to have dropped off, it's possible we've reached a point in the conflict where the regular CW thread won't be overrun with posts about Israel.  But as you say--things have recently intensified, so perhaps a third is warranted.  I've posted it here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I have not seen a single pro-Israel comment modded. It's possible that anybody willing to write comments in defense of innocent civilians in Gaza is not as apt to follow the rules, but still it's somewhat surprising.




What's surprising is that you're still going on about this. Many people have made perfectly acceptable, unmoderated "defense[s] of innocent civilians in Gaza."  It's the rule-breaking stuff that gets moderated, and yes--there are several posters who have decided that people writing criticism of Israel should be exempt from the rules.  Well, sorry: you're not.




What if the situation was reversed???




You keep asking this, as though it were a magical talisman.  Or as though it even meant something.  Reversing the script is a common play here.  It happens all the time.  The answer here is: "the rules will continue to be enforced."






I've become blackpilled enough to believe that most jews today, deep down, want to control the world and nothing less.








Objective statement about hypothetical antisemite self-psychology. Moddable?




We have literally allowed that sort of thing from people, multiple times, for years.  Some are still posting, and are well-known here.  Sometimes they make posts like that so much that it becomes annoying, since they are just beating a dead horse instead of actually having a meaningful conversation about the topic, so they get modded for being single-issue posters. But sometimes they stay on the right side of the rules.




I'm also providing feedback on moderation / site usage for other users, who may or may not agree.




Thanks for the feedback.  You don't seem to know enough about how things are done around here to offer insightful feedback, but that's okay, we all had to start somewhere.  Hopefully you now understand the rules better, and will avoid moderation in the future by sticking to them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				World Series 2023 Megathread
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Also, how many weeks do I have before the first game? I think it's pretty soon.




The World Series starts tomorrow, 27 October 2023.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But you modded me, not the poster I was replying to




First, the bad behavior of others is not a cognizable excuse for your own.


Second, and less importantly, no one has yet reported the comment you linked to, and I had not personally seen it.  Having looked at it now, if it got reported, would I have moderated it?  Maybe, but I think I'm leaning toward no because the tone is sufficiently one of exploring-the-arguments rather than heatedly-insisting-on-a-point.  But the question is kinda moot because, again, no one even reported the comment, so I never saw it.




I am not even Palestinian, Arabic or muslim, but I would not be surprised if the heavy rhetoric here in the past few weeks had turned off that audience or anybody sympathetic to them. The 'boo outgroup' factor.




I disagree.  My impression is that the open anti-semites who dedicate a lot of time making a ruckus here have been rather thoroughly enjoying the opportunity to go all-out in their criticism of Israel, and the ones who do so while obeying the rules have not gotten moderated for it.  My impression of anyone who feels that this forum is either "too pro-Israel" or "too pro-Palestine" is that they must just not enjoy dissenting views being aired openly, because we have numerous good posters here with a genuinely diverse array of views on the matter.




I'm not saying that we necessarily need to have a heavier hand on moderation, but simply that there seems to be a slight double-standard.




You're still missing the point.  You're so focused on which side you think this comment or that is on, that you are ignoring the difference between rule-breaking comments and comments that don't break the rules.  Let's look at Amadan's comment, as you quoted it:




I've become blackpilled enough to believe that most Palestinians today, deep down, want the destruction of Israel and nothing less.




Emphasis added.  Notice how that is a report about Amadan's psychology?  Notice how this is not a report about your psychology?




the whole government of Israel uses Israeli civilians as their excuse to genocide the Palestinian people




Now, you might think, "that's stupid, obviously I'm only saying things that I think."  But these are the kinds of locution that put distance between us and the issues we are talking about, and enable people who disagree with one another to speak about matters of disagreement.  The same is true of 2rafa's commentary; that user was specifically reporting on their own psychological reaction to the footage of Muslim Arab terrorists from Gaza massacring civilians.  Of course, someone might think they can exploit this by just putting "IT SEEMS TO ME" in front of every rule-breaking thing they want to say, but that is in part why our reputation economy is the way it is--the more good someone contributes to the forum, the more likely the mod team is to believe that users are in fact reporting on their psychology, rather than violating the spirit of the rules.




And perhaps the rational, pragmatic, ethical-altruist way of handling Gaza is ethnic cleansing, but still, how is that not BOO OUTGROUP?




"Boo outgroup" is a phrase that describes a claim or report that has no substance beyond serving as a "boo light" against a target.  But sharing footage of, say, 9/11 isn't "boo outgroup," and reporting it was done by Muslim Arab terrorists, isn't "boo outgroup."  A political cartoon depicting a Muslim Arab with a bomb for a turban, well, that is arguably "boo outgroup," even though it might also be an understandable reaction to having one's family terrorized by Muslim Arabs.  Criticism is not the same as "boo outgroup."  But criticism that is more heat than light often is.


Your mistake--and this is a common mistake when people get modded here--is your failure to imagine that you might have actually done something objectionable, and so you are carping on about what other people got away with.  But that's irrelevant.  You probably "get away with" bad comments too, sometimes, because we just literally don't have the time to moderate everything precisely the way it should probably be moderated.  I am doing my best to explain the rules to you so you can follow them, and you asking "but what about these other people" is not especially relevant, except where it helps you to better understand what you did wrong.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Oh it's heat to question the narrative that a government can just willy-nilly blockage, starve, bomb thousands of civilians because they're fighting 'terrorism'?




No, it's heat to make sweeping claims of attempted genocide without careful phrasing, furnishing of evidence, steelmanning your opposition, etc.




Do you have one (1) example of modding on this subject in the past 2 weeks that is targeting the pro-Palestinian-genocide side of theMotte?




I am not aware of anyone making pro genocide arguments here.  You are welcome to point me to such arguments if you like.  But we don't moderate substance, we moderate tone.




I have seen plenty of people calling the Palestinian population as a whole animals or variation thereof, calling for their eradication including women and children or downplaying civilian casualties as business as usual.




Have you?  Did you report them?  Can you link to some of them for me?


I extended this invitation here and received exactly one example in response.  I found that example to be borderline at worst, and since it was made by a well-reputed user the benefit of the doubt fell in their favor.  This is a reputation economy, so that sort of thing matters, too.




Is that not considered heat or boo-outgroup or was it just wrapped in enough sentences that this kind of take is novel and interesting enough?




It doesn't have to be novel or even interesting--it just has to be wrapped in enough epistemic humility, individual perspective-taking, minimally-heated phrasing, etc.  I can't think of a way to successfully make a true rule-abiding argument for actual genocide here, since that would fail the test of writing about specific rather than general groups, writing to include everyone, etc.  But there are many ways to argue for lots and lots of killing, or even for military action that is likely to result in collateral damage, if you make that argument in an evidence-heavy, anger-light sort of way.  These are decisions real government officials have to make, after all, and so it would violate the spirit of this place to exclude such ideas from consideration.


This is in many ways unfortunate insofar as I am myself quite opposed to killing!  I lean both toward isolationism and pacifism.  But on this particular topic, there is a lot of heated rhetoric, and maybe there is even more heating of others' rhetoric--taking small claims and strawmanning them, basically, into genocidal mania.


The problem is not your view.  The problem is that you're clearly super upset about the fact that people disagree with you, and so you have chosen to express yourself in a way that does not engender continued positive discussion on matters of substance.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Do you think I'm stupid?




Please don't post like you're spoiling for a fight.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Speak plainly and with effort, please.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Not enough effort.  Please don't post like this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is not enough effort, and too much heat (and "boo outgroup," assuming you are not a midwit on Reddit).  Don't post like this please.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Well the whole government of Israel uses Israeli civilians as their excuse to genocide the Palestinian people yes.






Who knows how many IDF veterans were at that festival as well.




Too much heat, not enough light (or effort).


Looking upthread, I see that this is at the bottom of a chain of low-effort single-sentence back-and-forth--which you started, but which @AshLael and @sun should have known better than to feed.  This thread is a good example of why we frown at short posts, even though many short posts are good and probably in some cases we should encourage shorter posts.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Please dial down the heat a notch.  This bit is especially boo-outgroup--




Gaza is being oppwesed by Iswaew that makes me vewwy angwy ヾ( •`⌓´•)ﾉﾞ




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Hmm, would you say someone who exclusively posts about D Day in a WWII thread to be “single issue”?




At some point, sure.  Depending on how often they posted about it, whether their posts ever really added interesting information or just flogged the same dead horse repeatedly while showing no interest in entertaining the possibility that they might be mistaken, etc.




This was accusing me, or at least my information, as intentionally false.




While it is possible that you or your sources are lying, that is neither what I said nor what I meant. I suggested that the people I see making these claims appear mostly to be wishcasting, and as far as I can tell that remains true.  I don't know if you're a propagandist or just a useful tool to someone who is, but you have shown no interest I can see in discussing the hospital incident with anything approaching epistemic humility--only in spreading a particular slant on it.  Either of us, or both of us, could be mistaken about what is actually happening--that's not the point.  For purposes of the rules, your problem is that you're not writing in a way that is sufficiently open to that possibility.




Then you aimed to build consensus




No, you apparently don't know what "build consensus" means in this context.  I never made any claims about what "we" believe (or should believe), or treated my interpretation of events as anything but my interpretation of events--hence phrases like "strikes me," "I've seen," and "appears primarily."


I definitely have a substantive view on these matters, which I expressed to you previously.  But that is a separate thing from the way you have approached your rhetoric here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


This NYTimes article proves once again that we should not trust Israel’s assessments or American intelligence assessments on Israel.




This language falls on the wrong side of the "consensus building" line.  Speculative analysis by an American news organization (or Twitter randos, or known terrorist sympathizers, or...) may or may not be more reliable than official reports from American or Israeli governments; you and others are free to make the argument either way.  But this NYT article does not appear to prove anything, must less prove anything that has already been proven (i.e. "once again").  While you do not actually write the words "everyone knows," you do not present the matter as open to discussion, instead treating certain matters as clearly settled.  Your engagement on the topic (which is rapidly approaching "single issue poster" status) does not communicate any willingness to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong.  Rather, your rhetoric here looks like an attempt to build a consensus about what "we" should think on a question that is open (and may, given the circumstances, forever remain open).  That is a way of waging the culture wars instead of discussing them, and is against the rules here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Thanks for letting me know, I'm kicking this one up the chain of command.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Their combat role is supposed to be limited, due to obvious physiological differences.


I have never seen it stated in so many words, but my impression is that a big factor here is sheer numbers.  When PM Ben-Gurion implemented the draft, the population of Israel was about 1.5 million.  Israel's Muslim/Arab neighbors were not then inclined to train or field female soldiers at all, but in the fight against the existence of Israel there was no need: they were (and are) substantially more numerous.  I cannot tell you whether the Six-Day War could have been won without the conscripting of women; perhaps it is so.  But in the history that happened, conscripting of women was baked in as part of Israel's strategy, and that strategy carried the day.  So here we are.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If you’re serious about this, that’s disgusting. If you’re joking about this, that’s also disgusting.




If you're serious about this, it's textbook shaming, which is against the rules.  If you're joking about this, you've failed to speak plainly, which is also against the rules.


This is a pretty minor infraction, all things considered, but... a little more effort, please.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Fuck off and don't call me a little shit




Please don't get dragged into this kind of back-and-forth sniping.  I understand that you were directly provoked so I'll leave it at a warning, but the thing to do when provoked is report and don't respond.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


you are being a little shit




You are banned.  Based on past warnings and bannings, let's go with 14 days this time.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There seem to always be a reaction like this that presumes the only relevant question is the cause of the overrepresentation rather than the meaning or impact of the overrepresentation.




No, this is definitely not what I'm getting at.




There is goig to be a certain impact of this Clark Kent dual-identity when so much policy is controlled by people who identify this way.




I certainly don't deny that!


But "Clark Kent dual-identity" is the fruit of identity politics across the West, and everyone is playing the game.  As far as I can tell, Pete Buttigieg has a federal sinecure because he likes to have sex with men; he certainly didn't have any of the experience I would expect a Secretary of Transportation to have, and if he wasn't gay I doubt he would ever have been more than a mayor, and maybe not even that. Sometimes when I say this, people tell me I'm not being fair, but like... here's an interview with the Secretary of Transportation from this past summer, where the bulk of the content is about gay stuff, and Buttigieg's actually job only comes up in connection with criticism of DeSantis.  Or in connection with race, consider Kamala Harris, or Ketanji Brown Jackson, or Sonia Sotomayor.  These are women who revel in not rising above their identities, but in sinking into them, doing their jobs not for the good of America generally but for the good of their racial in-group.


I think this is bad, but I also think it is dishonest to pretend, or imply, that Jewish people somehow have a corner on the phenomenon.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


On a similar note, a 2015-esque 4chan meme posted yesterday got 15 million view on Twitter.




I would be very interested in a high-effort response to the highly memeable reply, "Impressive, very nice.  Now let's see the Muslims."


Jews (and, in particular, Ashkenazim) are certainly overrepresented in a lot of interesting places.  But my impression is that this is surprisingly true of many minority ethnicities and religious groups--almost as though having a mainstream upbringing results in a milquetoast adulthood.  Or, alternatively, that being heterogeneous to the modal citizen of your country is quite naturally going to result in placement at one of the bell's tails.  Whatever the case, "look at all the Jews in high government office" is a classic cardiologist problem.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for October 20, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


aren't those scriptures referring to if your family denies the truth of the Lord? Not just like, in general?




I am very much not a theologian, but a plain reading of the New Testament verse (as well as the Genesis verse it derives from) appears to suggest that a family unit is comprised of a husband and wife plus children--but the children are expected to eventually grow up and leave to form their own families, which become their first priority.


The Psalm is less clear to me, maybe because Christians gloss it with the bride-and-bridegroom thing that the New Testament does with Christ and the Church.  But on a plain reading, the Psalm again seems to suggest that when the bride goes to marry the king, she's supposed to focus all her energies on him instead of on her family, because the king is super cool.  Assuming the psalmist is David, though, it kinda reads like he's being a judge in his own cause...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is your third "low effort antagonism" warning this month.  Banned for a week.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This seems like a "debunking" with real "We Did It Reddit!" energy. The video I've seen of the actual crater does not appear in any plausible way the result of an "airstrike."




Both the misfire hypothesis & the airstrike hypothesis hold equal weight.




This strikes me as complete FUD.  Every claim I've seen suggesting this was anything other than Hamas weaponry (whether as a false flag or just incompetence, who knows) appears primarily based on "but I want it to have been Israel, so let's imagine the possibilities, shall we?"


The American Press are stenographers for terrorists is a much more parsimonious response to this particular series of events.