Amadan
I will be here longer than you
No bio...
User ID: 297

fwiw, I was on the fence about whether this post should be approved. First-time poster with a rather dry summary of a 2014, very academic book. Huh.
My first thought was that this was generated by an LLM, probably by someone establishing a new alt with innocuous posts. I realize that's somewhat uncharitable to you, @radar, but experience makes me suspicious of someone who appears out of nowhere to drop a post like this, with no introduction. There is nothing rule-breaking about the post itself (unless it was written by ChatGPT, and I'd be surprised if you admit it), but while we're going to leave the post up, if you keep posting things like this that tell us nothing about you and seem like an LLM could have written them, I will shadowban you.
This is one of the things I hate about the dawn of AI. This post could have been written by a human. It could have been written by an LLM. We can't know for sure. From what I hear, a lot of teachers who require written essays in their classes are pretty near to giving up because they can't ever be sure (or prove their suspicions) either.
This is not much more than a "boo my outgroup" with "vast, vast majority" used as the thinnest of veneers over an absolute generalization.
Undoubtedly there are many people who fit your description, but "My enemies are soooo dumb, and they're all gonna get what's coming to them" isn't adding anything valuable to the discussion. Keep that to your own bubbles.
You've been warned before about posting nothing but one-liners, and when you make it an attack, you're becoming an aggressive nuisance. Stop this.
Kulak is LARPing an imagined history, not reading the historical texts that he actually refers to. The ancients were extremely conscious of the perils of violence, and, though not always uncomplicatedly, prized mercy and reconciliation as well.
This is basically everything Kulak writes. He makes up a version of what people in the past thought, from the ancient Greeks to the American founding fathers, that bears no resemblance to anything they actually wrote, but in Kulak's version always boils down to "Violence, violence, and more violence."
I'd say he's historically and culturally illiterate, but accuracy isn't the point. It's all a con to convince other people that violence is the answer (to everything).
I can't say I have seen any clear examples of that. In fact, I had you pegged as a clear instance of the "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" sort of authority.
You're wrong.
All of this could have been avoided if you didn't think it is a good idea to exempt users "in good standing" from the rules as written
That is not what happened.
I have honestly tried to hear you out, but everything from your initial complaint and your report to this convinces me that you have no insight and are so wildly off base that even the most basic statements you make do not conform to the visible evidence. Whether you actually believe everything you say or not, there is nothing to be gained here. You are unhappy with moderation (specifically, mine). You are not alone. Duly noted.
I will leave your report for another mod to adjudicate (as I always do when people report me).
Unofficially it looks like he may have been banned for breaking with the rationalist consensus on race and IQ.
You do not know what you're talking about.
TheMotte is rationalist-adjacent because of our origins, but we (and especially the mod team) are not enforcing some kind of "rationalist consensus" on anything, least of all race and IQ. Hylnka was very open about his disdain for HBD and HBD posters. Most of the mods are also critical of it and HBD obsessives to varying degrees. What consensus were we trying to enforce?
A week before he got banned he alluded to having been threatened with a ban if he didn't "bend the knee"
Hlynka said a lot of stuff that was rank bullshit.
and the fact that his ban was announced as a top level post without citing any specific rule-breaking comments would seem to suggest that whatever happened to justify his ban happened out of the public eye.
This was officially the post that finally earned him a permaban, but it was really an accumulation of posting over months and months, during which we repeatedly asked him to stop doing that (I mean, we literally told him "Please stop doing this or eventually we will have to permaban you and we really don't want to do that"!)
Is there an epic blowout in some mod's DMs that we never got to read?
No. He did argue with us in DMs, but it was not much different from what he was saying in public: that we should be quicker to ban people and we should especially ban the people he didn't like, and police the place up more. Meanwhile he'd continue aggressively attacking the people we weren't banning.
Conspiratorially he and the mods knew that the 2024 election might make him a public figure and target for "journalism"
That's, uh, quite a theory all right. I know of no such discussions among the mods, and if Hylnka has become a public figure under another name I am unaware of it. And of all the regular or former motteposters who might draw the Eye of Sauron on us, Hlynka wouldn't be in my top 10.
At most, my sense is that WhiningCoil is more of a prolific and popular user that I figure you like
Your sense is lacking in perspipacity.
and my objections are "tribal" insofar as "users that Amadan likes" constitute a tribe
That you believe this confirms my belief that you do not actually pay attention to moderation and are only complaining because you have an axe to grind.
I mod people I like all the time, often with great regret. Even more often, I decline to mod people who have been reported on what I considered insufficient grounds, even when I frankly dislike that person very much.
and in your concept space, the only people who can have "good faith" objections to moderator bias are those who benefit from it
Wrong. While someone who gets modded a lot for their behavior and complains that our moderation is unfair does obviously present an obvious bias that we're going to factor in, we do hear everyone out. If I were only taking seriously people who benefit from moderation, I'd put more weight on your objections - to my knowledge, you have never been modded.
(Though maybe you think that not finding a beloved right-wing slur intrinsically funny is already sufficient evidence of bias against the Right that rises to the level of bad faith...?)
I know the history of "cuck" as a right-wing slur, and maybe you should consider that the word triggered a disproportionate response from you when @WhiningCoil was using it in a more literal sense (and talking about the historical figure Belisarius, not the poster @Belisarius).
Now if WC speaks up and says "No, actually, I did wonder if @Belisarius was into cuckolding" - well, I'll own to granting him too much charity (and give him a warning not to do that again).
Man, every single mod (and a few non-mods) tried to convince him to change tack. We tried to reason with him in public, we tried to talk him down in private. His permaban was not some sudden thing we did without warning, and I'm genuinely surprised that you missed all of this while it was going down, because we were pleading with him for months to please stop deliberately posting things he knew would earn him a timeout or we'd have to make it permanent, while half the forum was saying "Noooo, you can't ban Hlynka!" and the other half was saying "Just fucking ban him already!"
You can't just ask if someone imagines himself a great general or is a cuck with a whore wife and then say just joking.
Well, yes, actually you can, and if you had even the tiniest sense of humor, you'd know it. Just like when people ask if my username means I am a great fool.
WhiningCoil was being antagonistic and I assumed I offended him when I suspecting Hlynka was the OP
If there is one thing I am nearly 100% certain of, it is that @WhiningCoil is not @HlynkaCG. Hlynka is very recognizeable and shitty at disguising himself (he's tried a few times), and @WhiningCoil has a long history here and on reddit going back multiple usernames.
Knowing you, and your own sense of humor,
You're mistaken. I have no sense of humor, but that's in the job description.
The fact that you think I am being favorable to @WhiningCoil, of all people, or his "tribe," is much funnier than anything posted in this thread.
I have occasionally been accused of reading people wrong, and I'll cop to it when it happens. I read @WhiningCoil as injecting a bit of jocularity concerning a historical name he happened to have just been reading about. Not literally accusing @Belisarius of being a cuck with a famously whoreish wife, or being general of an empire in decline. I read it this way because I know @WhiningCoil's posting habits, and I also know @Belisarius's tendency to be aggressive and overly serious with anyone who argues with him about anything.
If the post was just an attack on a user for his username because WC didn't like him and saw an opportunity for a cheap shot, my response would have been different. Instead, I told @Belisarius to cool it because the exchange doesn't warrant this kind of heat and he is prone to escalation.
Is that a sufficient answer for you? Because that's as much as I feel like justifying myself to you, because yes, per that post you linked to, I think you're a bad faith objector whose objections are purely tribal, and I will continue to dismiss your demands that every time two people have an exchange, I carefully admonish everyone involved and make sure I am evenly distributing my admonishments along tribal lines.
Be less antagonistic, and get a sense of humor.
We miss him too. But he left us little choice.
I remember the "minorities can do no wrong, so the police had better find no wrong" attitudes of the time, and I'm very much not surprised you were mixed up in it.
Stop lobbing personal attacks, especially with no foundation in anything the person you're attacking said.
I wasn't commenting on the quality of your argument or whether nor not I agree with it. Just the tone. Even if your "you" was meant rhetorically (as I suspected it was), we're going to step in when people start posting things that seem meant to turn up the heat.
You are allowed to hate here. We are used to hate, seething hate, boiling, barely-contained rage. But we have rules about expressing it. Yes, that is frustrating to those who want to feel the hate flow through them. But unfiltered rage-posting just isn't what this place is for, as the unfiltered rage-posters are wont to tell us, before they storm away.
Oh, are we still making Polack jokes?
This didn't really read like a joke, more like yet another in your long, long series of low-effort, derogatory and antagonistic posts.
Your record is sufficiently long that you're really asking for a permaban, but since I was persuaded last time that my response to you was too harsh, and this was, as shitty posts go, fairly mild, I'm banning you for a week. But you are already on strike four.
Sorry for the heat
A rant about how much you hate your enemies and can't wait to see them get the rope is always going to be hard keep within the rules of discourse here, but all your "you" statements put this well over the line. The first part of your post was okay, but when you tell another poster that you want to see them, personally, suffer, that is too much heat.
"Oops, we accidentally invited an uncleared individual into the chat, so I'll use my OCA powers to say nothing we said was classified" is not how it works. He can undoubtedly get away with it, but there is not one person defending this as a nothingburger who wouldn't be outraged if it had been Democrats who did this. (Indeed, I suspect that the Venn diagram of "This Signal chat is a nothingburger drummed up by the Fake News" and "Hillary should have gone to prison for her private server" is practically a circle.)
Low effort. I can guess which statement in the above post you are referring to, but you don't even quote it, and if you did it would just be making a snarky one-line quip. If all you have to say is "Nuh uh" it probably isn't worth the keystrokes.
YEC is definitely more common in the US than true old earth creationism
Is it? I guess you're right, it does depend on how broadly you define creationism. (Some Christians say they believe evolution happened but God guided it, which is close to intelligent design but not quite, IMO.) But my impression at least from more intellectual and scientifically-educated creationists is that most of them don't necessarily believe the world is literally 6000 years old.
I realize that "Trust us, we know this guy is a troll" is not very satisfying. What if we're wrong? What if we are capriciously banning people on impulse? So we try to let people know that we have reasons (and reasoning) for our actions, but like I said, too much detail, or linking to his last few alts, would be telling him something about our pattern-matching.
Well, we usually don't go into too much detail- no point in giving them tips to avoid identification. But there are several active whom we see regularly.
I think a lot of it is driven by ego. "Curse those Motte mods, how could they clock a superior genius like myself? How dare they ban me? I will prove I am smarter!"
If you would like to appeal to the other mods, next time I will let them address your reports (assuming you don't leave - this is, what, your fourth or fifth flounce now?) Perhaps they will agree with you that I have failed to mod both you and the people you are arguing with properly. But I note you are already talking to other mods besides me. Perhaps some introspection would be good for everyone.
Banned for one week. You seem to be on an unfavorable trajectory.
Yeah, dude, you're being way too casual and too flippant.
I consider myself chided. And in all seriousness, I apologize that my humor offended you. But you seem pretty humorless, and you were getting into it with other people, and you are getting upset that you get back what you dish out, and if you were being perfectly civil and polite and trying to express yourself without the sneering and the quips, but people kept being mean to you, I would probably mod them, but you can't verbally spar and poke people and then come crying to the mods that someone made a 4chan joke at you.
- Prev
- Next
Watching @SecureSignals and @DaseindustriesLtd exchange vituperative personal attacks about who's the more disreputable ethno-nationalist is kind of an entertaining trainwreck, but nonetheless it is a trainwreck, collecting reports on both sides. Stop it, both of you. Dase, if you block someone, just block them, and refrain from goading finger-waggling about it.
More options
Context Copy link