Amadan
I will be here longer than you
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
1hr ago
When you aren't getting in snark fights with people you do a good job of representing a point of view that is rare here. It is a very unpopular point of view, so yes, people are going to be mean, and they are going to downvote you. There is only so much we can do about meanness. Personal attacks are not okay, but being edgy and condescending, rude but not quite attacking? It's a judgement call, which means some of the unkind things you think should be modded won't be.
I assure you, you are getting reported a lot and you can take satisfaction in the knowledge that we're not going to ban you just because some people really want us to ban you.
That said, a common failure mode of leftist posters here is to get in lots of fights, get reported constantly, and eventually lose their cool. We won't give you any special consideration or passes, even if you are being dogpiled. So, that's just how it is.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
3hr ago
It is not. This isn't the place for starting discussions if you have "privacy" concerns that require you to almost immediately delete everything you post. If you keep doing it you will be banned.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4hr ago
I don't recall you actually reporting any of those comments. It's rather unfair to accuse us of not meeting you in good faith when you prefer to complain in public.
Generally speaking we don't jump on every petty snipe. Calling you a "deeply unserious person" isn't very nice ( @Hoffmeister25 consider yourself chided) but you've been kind of snippy too.
Look, stay or do not stay, but you know what irritates me personally? Someone who keeps going on performatively about how they're leaving, but sticks around to keep fighting.
Fwiw I would rather you stayed, but you cannot decide you're here to poke people with sticks and then whine that you get poked back.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
1d ago
Pretty sure she set her own account to private. If Zorba actually deleted her content, I was not aware of it, or I've forgotten.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
1d ago
No, she has not been Voldemorted, and we didn't delete her account.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2d ago
And as such your response of "Can you tell me what views you think have been banned?" was disingenuous at best
No, you're being disingenuous. I will explain, though I'm clearly indulging you too much already since you are going in circles.
Let's suppose you're right and there's a "banned view." I assume you comprehend the use/mention distinction. So expressing the banned view would get you banned, but I am telling you directly that "I think expressing < view> has been forbidden" is not a statement that will get you banned, no matter what "< view> " is. For example, I did recently ban someone for suggesting a politician should be assassinated. Fedposting is what you might call a "banned view," but if you asked me about it ("Can I propose assassinating public figures?") I will tell you no but I will not ban you for asking the question.
Your "pattern matching" appears to miss the point of why people get banned. Just to use a few examples: people are allowed to talk about how blacks have lower IQs and criminal tendencies and to suggest that a fucntional black civilization is impossible. People are not allowed to just call blacks animals. If your "valid reasoning" (about black IQs and history) leads to "Therefore we should not coexist with blacks because they're savages", yes, that's a boo outgroup and a broad generalization
Same deal with "Jews history conflict insular clannish blah blah blah" -> Jews bad (all of them).
Note that you could still explicitly ask about any of those topics. ("Can I explain why the Holocaust is a hoax?" "Yes ." "Can I call Jews an inimical parasitical species who are the enemies of all non Jews?" "No." "Can I talk about how much I hate libs?" "If you can stick to specific groups and actions, not just Libs Bad.")
Bluntly, I think you know this and your fear of banning for speaking the double-secret banned topic is performative and fake. You just know what you want to say (probably some variation of "Fuck my enemies") won't be allowed. You claim to sincerely believe there is some view so banned that if you told me what it is, I would immediately ban you for saying it (and that I'm lying when I say I wouldn't.)
I don't believe you actually believe this. There is no Voldemort topic and you know it.
Up/downvotes mean very little in this context. People love "Fuck my enemies" posts, and they do not like when someone who posted a real ripper gets banned. When I warn or ban someone for making inflammatory generalizations about a commonly despised outgroup, I know my mod post will be downvoted. Most people are not principled and I've come to terms with that.
I've indulged you this long because you aroused my curiosity; I am always fascinated when people assert clearly counterfactual things about how they think the mods think. But since you're apparently just going to keep pretending there's some super-duper-secret extra-forbidden topic you can't even type for fear of getting banned, okay, carry on.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
3d ago
Generally we don't delete accounts. You can leave if you like. If you want to delete all your posts (we'd prefer you didn't) we won't do it for you.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
3d ago
No. You seem to be implying I'll ban you for saying something I don't like. We're pretty transparent about our bans, and we don't ban people for arguing with us or expressing discontent, or claiming we're "effectively banning" a particular point of view. We ban people for breaking the rules in the sidebar, and generally being abusive. So if what you want to say is "You're a shitty mod and I hope you die," yeah, you should probably keep that to yourself. But if it's something more like "I think you're a crypto-woke who's protecting Jews," well, I've heard it. I'm just speculating here since you are being so vague, but when I've told you I'm not going to ban you and you insist I will, I dunno what to say, except at this point I think you're just making up whatever "prohibited viewpoint" you are hinting at because you have a general discontent with moderation (which usually boils down to "I want to hate on my enemies more and you won't let me").
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
This breaks several rules, but mostly it's just a low effort snarl without evidence. You have a long string of these and have been skirting a permaban for a while now.
This comment itself is just middling bad and devoid of value, but your history recommends a timeout of anywhere from 3 days to forever. Your last few bans were 1-2 weeks, and you have multiple comments in the log saying "Permaban next time." The fact that we haven't done this yet is because we don't actually like to permaban people, especially when it's someone like you who, when exercising a modicum of self control, is capable of being a decent poster. On the other hand, we can only say "Knock this off or you're going to get permabanned" so many times before it becomes an empty threat.
I'm going to make this one 1 week. If I were in a less forgiving mood, it would have been 2 weeks, and if I had decided to make it permanent, no one would blink. So if you come back to spew more, you'd better be on point and make it worth it.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
Why do you think I would ban you? If you want to vaguely hint that we've banned a topic, I want to know what you think we've banned, and whether I agree with you or not, I'm not going to ban you for answering the question.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
Can you tell me what views you think have been banned?
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
6d ago
Trump is a traitor to the USA, and we need to start seriously discussing imprisonment or a bullet to the brain. I'm serious.
No, we really don't.
If there is one view we are going to ban here, it's "serious" discussions of assassinations.
Despite your username, you've managed to hang around for years without being banned, but I'm giving you a week off, and if you ever fedpost like this again, I will just go straight to permaban.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
6d ago
Attempting to ban a view
This hasn't happened.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
6d ago
Yes, that was long before I was a mod. Even then, it was a temporary ban because the HBD threads had become exhausting. I personally think it was a mistake, but if one single topic is taking all the air out of the room it's tempting to be fed up with it.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
7d ago
We've been hearing it since reddit days. For how constantly we're being told we're making some views inexpressible, it's amazing how often those views continue to be expressed.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
8d ago
The mods had a little discussion about this. Your post isn't against the rules on content - "I don't want more Indians here" is an allowable opinion - but it is veering close to consensus building. (You cannot speak for how most people on the Motte feel, let alone presume to speak for the entire country.) And we have noticed that your two posts so far seem to be harping on your dislike of Indians. I'm pretty certain this is an alt you are using to grind this particular axe.
Contribute something other than how much you don't like Indians if you want to keep posting with this account.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
8d ago
Yes and no. First, "signed off on it" means literally puts his name on it. If Elon wants to send out emails that are supposed to have the weight of presidential authority, he needs to show that they actually have presidential authority. Are the heads of every government agency just supposed to assume that anything Elon says is effectively a presidential order? Lots of people talk to the president daily, but that doesn't mean all the president's friends can order federal agencies around.
If Trump issues an EO tomorrow saying "Yes, in fact, everything Elon Musk says is a presidential directive" (or at least, "All federal employees must respond to the OPM email or be fired") then we're back to testing your Unitary Executive Theory. But up to this point, agencies telling their employees not to respond to the OPM emails while they handle it are not, as several people here have suggested, committing treason or insubordination. They are being perfectly sensible in reacting to a ridiculous and probably illegal demand.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
9d ago
Even if you were commenting from an informed point of view (you are not), you are missing the point. Compromises don't mean you just throw in the towel and stop trying to protect anything.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
9d ago
Even if I bought your Unitary Executive Theory, the President has not issued any orders to the effect that OPM is now in charge of every other government agency. It's literally just Elon Musk issuing orders to his DOGE minions, who then send emails from OPM.
If Trump does indeed issue an Executive Order to that effect, or some new EO saying "Effective immediately, all federal employees with SSNs ending in an odd number are fired," it's at least a test of your theory. But just claiming everything you do is legal because the President said on Twitter that you're doing a great job is not.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
9d ago
Clearly the OPM can get emails because they spammed every .gov email they could get. I am sure that the OPM does not have the authority to demand activity reports from other agencies or threaten to fire people outside the OPM itself.
That's assuming we're actually following the law, that is. If you're asking me "Are you sure they can't get away with doing whatever Musk wants them to do because lol", no, I'm not sure. You can certainly take the position that laws are just words, words, words. It seems to be a pretty popular sentiment right now. May the victory you think this is prove to be so. I have doubts.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
9d ago
He's not speaking clearly, but basically gesturing at the classes of people he thinks are responsible and advocating we Do Something about them and their enablers, using abstruse language.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
9d ago
It's not the President asking for the information, it's an anonymous email from OPM. Which, contrary to what people keep saying, is not the "HR department" for the federal government. They have zero authoriity to do this. Musk does not have unlimited authority, transferable to whoever he has sending emails from OPM, because Trump told him to "be more aggressive."
If they are executing a request from the President, the President needs to say so.
The President can presumably ask for anyone's .gov email address, but that's not what's happening here.
Why should a government agency need permission to access your data? I guess that's a question whose answer hinges on your opinion of the government and what its limits should be. But if you're okay with the FBI and the IRS and the NSA looking up anyone they want any time for any reason, sure, then federal employees should not be immune. Or are you arguing that by virtue of being a federal employee, you should not have the same privacy rights as other US citizens?
Unfortunately, yes. We ask people not to do this, but they do. For what it's worth, it's obvious when (and who) does this.
More options
Context Copy link