cartman
5hr ago
Hello, thanks for the welcome.
I won't deny I have a habit of responding to the posts that seem egregious to me with rhetoric in kind. This is true. I can work on my charitability.
I don't want to come across as if I'm complaining about the moderation (I think it's fine) but I am a bit confused about the rules of engagement here and would like some clarification before posting further so that I don't get unceremoniously permabanned. If this comment is unacceptable on the forum please feel free to delete and continue the convo in messages, but I am actually asking for clarification in good faith.
First of all, am I being moderated for the tone/content of my posts or for ban evasion as a suspected alt? I'm assuming from your comment that there was a previous user on this forum who used to engage similarly to me and was banned for it. If that's the case and you think this person is me, then what can I actually do to make you believe otherwise? I recognize as a moderator the need to restrict ban evasion from problem users, but from my perspective I am unaware of previous users having similar rhetoric (and it seems onerous to expect me to write deliberately in a different tone or avoid certain topics) so what is my recourse to avoid a permanent ban for this reason?
Secondly, my understanding was that as a new user all my comments have to be approved by moderators before becoming public. Until this comment I had not received any mod feedback. If it is not just ban evasion I'm being modded for, is it only this most recent comment that goes over the line into being problematic? If not, does this comment act as a warning that all of my previous posts were unacceptable?
I'm not trying to be deliberately difficult here, I actually don't understand or know the answers to these questions. I'd like to retain the ability to post here, and in order to do that I need to know where the line is.
cartman
14hr ago
Right, but these 'malicious actors' could be anyone, even the parents themselves. I don't think parents should have a special right to make these decisions for their children if their interests are not aligned with their child's. I can't remember the exact details, but there was a news story a year or two ago about a couple whose child died because they refused to get a basic medical treatment for religious reasons.
In such a case, do you think the parents have the moral right to refuse treatment for the child? (I believe in the case I'm thinking of the child was a newborn, so the question of consent was obvious).
If you answer negatively to the above (as I do) then we switch from having a discussion about what is absolutely allowed or not allowed to one in which we must judge the pros and cons of taking away agency from parents depending on what the issue is.
I largely agree with you that children can be convinced of anything depending on the right context, but here is my main contention with your points: The key difference between a groomer targeting a child and a doctor performing a surgery is their interests; the latter is doing so based on what they believe to be in the best interests of the child based on medical/scientific literature, the former is doing so for personal reasons.
Malicious actors can convince children of things, but that does not mean any expert telling any child about a solution to their medical issues is grooming them. You might want a parent to sign off on antibiotics, but I hardly believe that if a doctor came up to a severely sick child and recommended they start antibiotics, you would label them as a groomer.
cartman
15hr ago
Can you elaborate on what you want me to respond to? Are you referring to singers who in the past were castrated for their singing voices? I don't think that was a morally good practice.
I obviously would agree that 'abduction of minors for sinister purposes' is bad, you literally put sinister in the description. I suspect we disagree on what sinister purposes refers to, so you need to describe something more specific if you want to prompt my thoughts to see our differences of opinion.
cartman
16hr ago
I will repeat: do you think children can consent to surgery for appendicitis? treatment via antidepressants? Antibiotics?
cartman
16hr ago
Do you actually not understand the difference or did you just want to get a cheap dig in?
Do you see all medical interventions in under-18's as 'grooming'? No? Just the one you already have a prior about not liking?
If I'm wrong please tell me how. There's a huge host of reasons why they are different, but I'm only going to bother explaining them if you're not going to respond with another sarcastic one liner that is indistinguishable from an inflamed partisan spouting nonsense about 'the transgenders grooming my kids to want to be raped'.
cartman
17hr ago
It's preposterous and totally insane sounding because you analogized a situation where a child is raped without consent to one where the child willingly undergoes a medical procedure (regardless of whether you think it's warranted or not). That is a preposterous and insane analogy to make so it's no wonder that's what your conclusion is.
cartman
1d ago
You and the other so-called 'partisan hacks' don't get to say you're right because a coin came up heads despite a poll saying it had a 60% chance to come up tails. The fact that you 'correctly predicted' an event has little inherent bearing on whether your reasoning was correct.
I'm incredibly tired of hearing this talking point. Did you correctly predict the election map in 2020? in 2016? Do you have a better record overall than the pollsters you critiscize? What reason do I have to believe that you are not a broken clock that is right twice a day?
On the other hand, you're fine to critiscize OP calling someone a crank with no substantive reasoning.
I thought we were discussing the impact of Trump as president vs the counterfactual world where a democrat is president. Abortion does not get repealed with a left leaning SC which would be the case under a democratic president. So clearly the trump presidency had an impact in this regard.
I notice I'm a bit confused by your response. You admit that the abortion change was a pretty big swing. Do you think there's no issues at all remaining on Trump's/republicans agenda for this presidency that will differ significantly from a Democrat? The tariffs and not certifying elections are still points to implement that would affect a lot of people. If RFK gets into some important FDA adjacent position, changes to water fluoridation or vaccine availability will have large impacts on publish health.
If you really want to focus on the SC, I can't predict the future cases that will arise there. But it should be enough to look at their past rulings to determine that they have an impact on a non negligible amount of people.
Obergefell was held up when it became contentious again in the 2010s. If that law had been repealed, do you think it has no impact on people? If it was repealed 3 years from now, would that be enough impact for you to consider?
Really? A straight married middle aged woman who dresses professionally, supports Israel, is seen as moderate by the progressives in her base, is the caricature of everything attributed to the left? I'd have to disagree pretty heavily.
I would have thought that a young LGBTQ Palestine defender who is single or promiscuous, has had multiple abortions, supports UBI, and has blue hair would be the choice of caricature for the right leaning among us. Do I misunderstand what the right attributes to the left? Is being 'annoying' and not generating enthusiasm all it takes to be a leftist caricature?
cartman
5d ago
Right, but all the other implications don't suddenly just disappear. The phrase still means what it means. I believe almost everyone would agree that 'your money is yours' has a vaguely positive connotation absent any context, whereas the reverse is true for the 2nd phrase. It might have additional meaning based on the backstory of the presidential race, but the connotations remain.
cartman
5d ago
Why do you insist that every statement has to be 100% serious and taken literally? It can be true simultaneously that he is not expressing a true belief that he has the right to rape all women, but that that is the message he is conveying with this heinous expression.
In fact, you acknowledge that he is saying it to mock people and rile them up. I agree with you. Why do think they're riled?
Do you not think that there is any correlation between saying something explicitly for the purpose of offending people and that thing being a nasty thing to say, especially when you don't believe it literally? I think that goes toward explaining my point quite well.
If you disagree, provide your reasoning about what is a nasty thing to say.
Sure, and what do you think the implications of the phrase are? In your interpretation, does 'my choice' have a hard limit at exactly the point you think is reasonable to mock (unforced pregnancies) and no further?
If I came up to you and said 'your money, mine now' you would not assume that I meant if you broke a particular clause in a contract that you would be subject to financial penalties. I think the overwhelming interpretation would be 'i control your money in every way'.
Let me ask you this: do you think Fuentes is saying the phrase as a neutral statement of fact, or is he saying it intentionally to rile people up? Maybe that answer goes toward explaining my point. No 'democrat crocodile tears' here.
cartman
5d ago
Really? Which other president in recent memory came anywhere close to denying the certification of an election?
I made a few points demonstrating why I think his presidency was exceptional. If you want to disagree, do you want to provide your own reasoning?
cartman
5d ago
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that a Trump admin would almost certainly not affect liberals complaining about it, or that a descent into fascism is so ridiculous as to be hysterical. Based on his past record, this is blatantly not true. I don't think you could actually state the former confidently about any president in history, unless you want to make a larger point that the executive branch doesn't wield any meaningul power.
But a few examples that clearly dispel your point. He had a hand in appointing SC justices who overturned federal abortion access. This affected women across the country in states that are not solidly blue. You might say they could still travel or access things illegally, but this is already a sizable effect. Further to that point, unless you want to argue the Supreme Court has no effect on any of these people's lives and could not for their foreseeable lifespans, it seems a strange argument to make that their lives will not be affected at all. Are you that confident the SC will dither meaninglessly for 40 years?
Trump's recent tariff comments. 10% tariffs on imported goods would have an incredible effect on the economy at large, and jobs nationally and internationally.
Perhaps most importantly, he whipped up a crowd around the Capitol and pressured his VP to ignore election results. What do you think might have happened if Mike Pence had agreed to go along with Trump on his scheme? You have to admit it kinda takes the sting out of mocking your friends for worrying about an end to democracy when the guy they're worried about actively already tried to end democracy as it is practiced in this country.
'Nothing ever happens' is the retreat of someone who has not yet been greatly personally affected by policy.
cartman
5d ago
It can be a form of bonding, but it's also something a lot of men just tolerate because that's just how the spaces are and you have to tolerate it if you want to play certain games. Im not sure what the ratio would be (curious now that I've thought up the hypothetical) but if male gamers were given a choice to move over to identical platforms minus 'i had sex with your mom' edgelords, I think the Exodus would be pretty sizable.
All that to say I agree it is more of a male phenomenon, but it does code as gross and offensive to even a lot of them who are found in those spaces
cartman
5d ago
I have a very hard time believing that you don't understand why this is a nasty thing to say, or why people might interpret it that way. But, taking you at your word, please consider the implications of the phrase in a sexual context.
"Oh, you don't want to have sex? Boohoo"
cartman
5d ago
And everyone who was right was a genius and everyone who was wrong was a fool (or a fraud) apparently.
This is not how probability works.
It's incredibly lazy to say that 'everyone on the right' and 'everyone on the left' called something' to make the specious point that your opponents statements are not meaningful. You might as well be saying 'my ingroup is better and more intelligent' than the outgroup'.
A single link of evidence would have sufficed, and taken less time to write. It beggars belief that such a well documented and common cultural practice would be so difficult to find evidence for.
Since you keep playing the motte and Bailey game, I'll remind you that you asserted cat eating was going on as common practice IN THE USA. Even what you recommend that I look up to prove YOUR point does not actually prove the point you are trying to make!
You don't have to pretend that you're being polite when you snark to me implying I can't do a search, that I don't have a job and family as real and important and serious as yours, that I'm autistic or have brainstorms.
It is to clear to me, to you, and to anyone else reading this (god help them) that you are not being polite, I'm not being particularly polite, and we don't respect each other very much. Don't insult anyone's intelligence by pretending otherwise.
While I'm giving advice, (since that seems to be what we're doing here) I'd also recommend against engaging up until the point you realize you cannot and only then pulling out the 'I have better and more important things to do' card. You had the time to write everything leading up to this. You either play the card right away or admit that you simply don't want to engage in a battle that points out shortcomings in your thinking.
If you truly refuse to defend the things you say, then I suppose all I can say is good luck with your 'insane hours' and 'family'. May I meet you again elsewhere on this forum and obliterate you again in the marketplace of ideas.
I don't think the underrepresentation of leftists on this forum is a mystery that needs to be explained. Leftists don't come here for the same reason that you (probably) don't hang out in tankie subreddits as a commentator. Because the content is not catered to them and they don't feel welcome amidst a flood of dissent.
People go where they're wanted and when it makes them feel good to go there.
Your explanation could perhaps (I could see it) point to why the place initially lost leftists, but once that starts happening it becomes a positive feedback loop that requires no other input.
Edit: apologies if this goes against the rules of the forum , but I absolutely have to point it out in this particular case because it's deeply, ironically humorous given what the comment says. I have been blocked preemptively by this commenter
Just wanted to register and confirm that when pressed by both netstack and myself, you were unable to provide any evidence at all of what you confidently proclaimed was a "well documented and common cultural practice" in the US. Is this the case?
It's one thing to have the belief that the burden of proof is not on you in order to make your statement. (I still disagree with that stance but it would be slightly more reasonable.) It's quite another to act and proclaim as if something is well-founded, tell others they are autistic or have brainworms for believing differently than you, and then silently slink back and retreat when you cannot provide evidence for it. What would you call that behaviour in your colourful language?
I'm still open if you'd like to provide evidence. We could then have a discussion about . Otherwise, I'll have a hard time believing that you agree with the mission statement of this place to move past shady thinking and be a serious voice to consider.
cartman
7d ago
Fair enough, my interest has been peaked after more skimming so I'm going to try to look more into the issue. I admit I am less skeptical now than when I saw your post. There are some governmental reports from my country on the topic as well that I'm going to look through and compare
cartman
7d ago
I seem to be getting into a bit of a rut with my comments here (I guess I'm frustrated when people display certainty in something that I think is unfounded), but why would a venture fund leader have some premium access to the capital T truth that others do not?
Does your assessment of his accuracy change if, for example, you knew that he had spent 1 minute looking into the issue versus an hour?
Nothing about his tweet implies he looked into this issue in any depth. Maybe there ARE significant benefits that would outweigh the supposed drop in IQ. Maybe other studies found no such IQ drop at all. I have no idea whether this is true, but it seems like an error to dismiss all such claims as completely improbable right off the bat.
I'm not saying it's certainly wrong or a lie or whatever, but taking action based off this tweet seems rather premature
Edit: the report says that fluoride at DOUBLE the recommended limit had this effect. Is it really a scandal that a chemical provided above the recommendations set by health agencies would cause health problems?
Okay fair enough. I will say for the record that I am a new poster (jumped in for the discussion after election day as you noted) but have lurked reading every so often for at least a few months so I'm not unfamiliar with the forum as a whole.
I somewhat disagree with the characterization of my behaviour as 'just asking questions', but I understand how it appears that way. I do have a habit of questioning people to poke at underlying disagreements, and I can acknowledge that sometimes I do this too much or with somewhat inflammatory rhetoric, but it is usually with a goal relevant to the discussion in mind.
In this particular case, the questions regarding moderation were genuine. If there's something in the forum's history thats relevant to my moderation I wanted to know it. I did receive a message from another poster yesterday, that in hindsight, makes me think they also suspected me of being a specific different user evading a ban.
I want to stress again at the end here that my picking apart of this moderation may come across as being in bad faith, but I am genuinely attempting to understand the rules of engagement and how I would have to change my rhetoric in order to consistently participate. If I engaged less now, I might misunderstand something else down the road. The impression I get is that my familiarity with the forum is suspicious and also my asking questions is suspicious, but I felt that not asking questions would make it more likely that I was banned in the future for a reason I did not fully understand.
In any case, I will endeavour to make future posts acceptable.
More options
Context Copy link