@cjet79's banner p




7 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 04 19:49:03 UTC

Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds

Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds

Verified Email


User ID: 124



7 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 04 19:49:03 UTC


Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds

Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds


User ID: 124

Verified Email

Despite the existence of the Polyamorous movement, most people still treat monogamy as the default. And an unbalanced gender ratio makes monogamy not possible. I think that would be the biggest reason not to intentionally unbalance the gender ratio.

I think widespread genetic modifications would mainly be used for medical reasons. To prevent specific genetic diseases. Iceland has already sort of done this for things that can be screened in embryos.

Yeah, I think part of the issue is that all big tech companies had to develop censorship technologies and capabilities just to comply with copyright laws. So once they had the process in place they thought "why are we just using this for copyright stuff?"

Were I able to dictate my preference to the big tech companies, my idealized solution would be a situation where the tech company itself doesn't police anything stricter than US guidelines, but provide an API for third parties to review and filter posts that users can subscribe to. You want to hide all posts with profanity? Choose that provider. Want to hide all posts with misgendering? There's a filter for that too. But then the user is doing the "editing" rather than the platform.

I'm even fine with the companies themselves providing those filters, because I suspect a highly requested filter will be "marketing spam". But it also seems possible that the whole "filters" issue is a self-solving problem with the way some social media properties work. You just follow people you want to hear from, and unfollow them if you don't like what they are saying. And you just don't see things you don't follow. Or shared follow lists become the norm, so instead of companies doing blacklisting of content the individuals are doing mass whitelisting.

I do wonder if Section 230 should be amended to something like "If you want the protections of section 230 you must be a 'public square' and you follow nothing stricter than US speech guidelines. If you choose to exercise editorial control, and you are responsible for what your users post".

This is covered partly by @ControlsFreak's post below.

As I see it tech companies kind of want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the protections of a free speech regime that prevents them from getting in trouble. But they also want to control speech for the sake of their brand/ideology.

Normally, yes I like when people flip the script. But the original post had generated a lot of heat already and I was in more of a damage control mode. And OP is not republican, so it wasn't really a flip the script type moment. It was sort of just an opportunity for OP to trash another group as well.

I didn't make it explicit, but yeah if someone did a flip the script and just rewrote the OP from another perspective and posted it top level they might also eat a ban.

We do allow for mistakes here. I don't think the OP was originally intending to be as antagonistic as some of their language suggests, they just weren't being careful. Once moderators have come by and said "hey you messed up and this is too antagonistic" it is not ok for someone to then pull a "flip the script" move. Because its basically flaunting the rules and the enforcement of those rules.

These are all things we are aware of.

We don't remove posts that have been publicly visible at any point for any reason. (there are extreme exceptions to this rule that have not yet been triggered, such as doxxing, or things that are illegal to share)

We do respond to stuff as soon as we see them, and part of bringing on new mods was to increase response time. We can get through the modqueue every couple of days with just two or three active mods. But with about 5 active mods, someone will get through it every day.

We do have a policy that top level stuff gets judged most harshly on multiple dimensions. Especially on low-effort posting, but also on culture-warring and antagonism.

I think the reason things do not totally devolve in practice is that neither side is monolithic. You have a pet example and the math checks out, but people don't always fit perfectly into the ideological boxes. I disagree with you on woke/progressive topics, but I'm also probably more in favor of open borders than you are. And that topic gets me dogpilled around here. And I certainly get some amount of downvotes that might make me come out net negative in those threads, but the report volume is generally very low or non-existent.

Ymeshkout also manages to make semi-regular posts about the 2020 election, and is consistently defending a minority viewpoint around here. But again, rarely any reports, and their behavior is great despite lots of disagreement and downvotes.

I'm aware enough of being a minority viewpoint that I even tried to write some helpful advice for people that get ratioed on themotte. That was before you created your account, so if you weren't lurking you likely missed it.

Yes, this is true. I'm pretty autistic and don't understand tone and norms very well, I ussually get by through mirroring.

Well this helps explain some things and makes me less frustrated with you, thank you for that.

I'd just suggest picking better people to mirror. If you have some basic negative emotional reaction to a comment I'd try just reporting it and not responding.

And more importantly, given that most of this board is anti-leftist/anti-woke in ideology, I don't see why one side of that conflict should get to use rude and antagonistic tactics, but the other side shouldn't get to use them back? That seems like it creates a clear double-standard that pushes the board in one direction only.

I think there is a reporting bias but not an enforcement bias. When I see reports there is definitely bias towards more reporting of leftists, but when I get to the thread I have to go through and read the whole thing, and I'm gonna hand out warnings and bans based on my assessment of people's behavior, not just on who is reported.

Some questions are inherently antagonistic.

Pretty damn funny to me that OP who introduced this topic using that same terminology gets a one-line 'please phrase this better', and I responding using the exact same language get a four paragraph 'you are awful, you are terrible, I'm informing everyone else reading this that you're worthless' tirade. It might look less like a double-standard if you made one post modding the actual behavior that violates the rules, and a separate post with the personal attacks?

OP is getting their first warning ever, and most of their engagement in this thread was not rule-violating. You are on your 8th, and you are actively flaunting the rules in another comment. OP's response to modhat: 'oh sorry, didn't mean to do that'. Your response: 'i did nothing wrong'

If no one should engage with posts like the one I'm replying to, why aren't the other 10 people who have done so getting a warning?

It is possible to engage with a post that does things badly, without also doing those same bad things. Or at least it seems possible for other posters.

I literally (did)[https://www.themotte.org/post/882/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/188688?context=8#context] reply to Walterodim already, maybe you should look at my posts outside the report queue before confidently declaring what my posting tendencies are like?

That comment wasn't loaded when I was looking through the thread, so I missed it. Sorry for accusing you, but in this case I do feel like it holds up my general point. Your posting is like a mirror to those you speak with. Your response to walterodim is measured, reasonable, and without any level of flaming. If you only responded to our top quality posters you'd probably be considered a top quality poster yourself, instead of a troubled case that constantly causes us headaches.

And the only post I see by SCCReader is the reply to my own comment, I considered replying with 'Yeah of course you're right and the real answer here is that OP's premise is wrong and they're just being histrionic', but I thought that would be more rude and confrontational and not worth getting into!

You are assuming a level of equivalence there that SCCReader and others might disagree with. And the point can easily be made in a non-confrontational way. "I agree with you, but I think the point you are making that rightists mostly just go about living their lives is also true for leftists. {optional addition if you want to make a good post:} For example [x complaint about leftists is mirrored by rightists doing y](repeat for two or three different values of x and y)"

I don't respect sore losers

Would you consider the Right good losers?

I just posted about the antagonism in the top level post. Other people being antagonistic, is not an excuse for you to be antagonistic. You get a warning. Next person who responds to the top level trying to start something is eating a ban.

  • -15

As someone with Republican relatives and in-laws, I assure you that rightist whining over the last four years has been both intolerable and often scary. I can't imagine what it's like to live in right-leaning communities at a time when most believe the election was stolen and they're living under the equivalent on an anti-pope.

Bad phrasing. Don't do this. If you see someone else doing it report them, don't imitate them and start a flame war.

You have this tendency to only respond to and then imitate the maximally offensive or most rule skirting of right wing viewpoint posts. This makes your value as a "counter-viewpoint" poster very minimal. This is a forum for discussion, and there are network effects. Our best users provide unique viewpoints, follow the rules of discussion, and participate often in a positive manner. I rarely see you engage with these users. SSCReader and Walterodim have some nuanced and careful takes in this thread, you responded to neither. Both users have long mod notes of just AAQCs. Instead you respond to ArjinFerman who has long mod notes of warnings and short bans.

Your net-effect seems to be to create flame-wars here, and only engage in discussion with our more troublesome users.

Some people think we give you leniency because you have a unique viewpoint. I just want to nix those complaints right now. We provide standard leniency to guesswho. And guesswho does not provide value to most of the users we care about, so there is no reason for us to provide extra leniency anyways. As far as I can tell guesswho upsets a bunch of people because he basically holds up a mirror, but seems intent on only holding up that mirror in front of uggos. The lovely looking users that might appreciate a mirror get nothing.

everything you wrote sounds like a really unhinged rightoid conspiracy

Don't do this. Its antagonistic phrasing. There are better ways to get your point across.

mostly because it would fuel another 4 years of incessant leftist whining all around me

There were definitely better ways to phrase this. This was antagonistic.

Last Friday I was on the hunt for a Shooter game, and I had some not fully nailed down requirements for what I was looking for.

Thanks to everyone that left recommendations.

I did eventually find what I was looking for. I realized I was interested in more longer range engagements. I ended up searching the "military sim" genre on steam, and got https://store.steampowered.com/app/460930/Tom_Clancys_Ghost_Recon_Wildlands/.

It definitely has more of the long ranged engagements I was looking for, and the weapons aren't gimped to the point of uselessness for the sake of close range engagements. My average kill distance in the game is 68m, and my furthest kill is 360m.

It reminds me a lot of Metal Gear Solid V, but a little less cheesy. You also aren't a lone person. You have a squad. 3npcs on single player, but I think the multiplayer allows other people to hop in and join. It makes for an interesting set of mechanics, because you can be shot and go down easier without turning the game into a total grind. Because your squadmates can revive you.

Fun game so far, would recommend it if it goes on sale again (I got it 80% discounted).

Apparently it was possible to get white people if you asked for something like "a family enjoying fried chicken".

Ohhh, thank you! I didn't realize that was a setting.

Woke people are a recent phenomenon, I don't think you can make any sweeping generalizations about what leads them to dominate. For a long time there have been port cities that end up being a conglomeration of everyone in the trade network. If you want some existing examples of multi-ethnic cultures, look at them. Shanghai, Singapore, Alexandria, Rome, Mogadishu, Carthage, Athens, New York, Mumbai, etc. Many of these places were wildly rich and successful relative to other locations during the height of their trading.

I don't think there have been perfect libertarian societies out there, but I don't want to "no true scotsmen" fallacy myself. I do believe that going in a libertarianish direction is generally better. And I think port cities are generally in more of that libertarian direction, so I'm going to vaguely gesture to them and say I think they are better (especially compared to alternatives available at the time of their existence).

You just seem to have this idea that racial and ethnic tension has to occur, and because libertarianism mostly ignores race and ethnicity they are allowing this fight to simmer and brew until it explodes. But I'm rejecting your base assumption about race wars. There are certainly people that I think are willing to egg on such wars, but those people are generally a minority of the populace. Sometimes a minority of the populace can have an outsized effect on politics. But its not a given by any means that their pet issue will win out and take control. Historically, religion has been a more common divider among people than race.

(nitter links)

Are these broken for anyone else? I've heard nitter is dead due to API changes.

I get that many people want to make race the way to distinguish between in-group and out-group. But that just isn't how it is for me.

My closest group of friends in college consisted of an Indian Guy 2nd Gen immigrant (libertarian), Spanish guy 2nd Gen immigrant (libertarian), Jewish guy with one grandparent that escaped the holocaust (libertarian), Danish Guy 2nd Gen immigrant (liberal/prog), and a Brazilian guy of European descent 1st Gen immigrant (libertarian). I might have been the token WASP of the group.

Its not clear to me how demographic controls would have "saved" me.

I sympathize with actual conservatives or Ron Paul style libertarians there but you kind of are asking to be dominated by the more authoritarian left due to what you prioritize.

This really feels like it needs more elaboration.

Yes, get rid of degree requirements. Some states like Virginia don't require them for passing the Bar. It's kind of insane to me that any state gates the Bar in such a way.

Its often less of a training thing and more of a hiring thing.

There are two competing ways to view jobs:

  1. A job is a thing that needs to be done. It is not something people normally want to do, so you need to pay someone to do it.
  2. A job is a societal role and measure of social standing. The best people have the best jobs, the pay is part of the package for being such a great person.

The problem as I see it is that both views are correct, but only so long as most employers view jobs in the first way "as a thing that needs to be done".

DEI is specifically trying to push a set of social standings that it wants, by make that part of the company hiring practices. That is a luxury belief for companies to indulge in. At the end of the day labor is one of the most expensive factor inputs for most companies, and being dumb about a huge portion of your costs isn't a way to run a successful company.

The type of complaints I hear from DEI people are along the lines of "you say you want to hire more female or [specifc race] programmers, but the gender/race mix of our employees is unchanged". To which the companies have somewhat hilariously responded by saying "well it was our DEI department's job to get us more female and [specific race] programmers, and they failed so we are going to fire them to show that we take this job seriously". Because the companies still view jobs as a thing that needs to be done, and DEI departments are failing to get the thing done.

Why not simply demand DEI through law?

They've tried, but the opposite has so far been more successful. I.E. banning DEI initiatives.

Why not simply use social coordination or the powers of the state to squash any actor that attempts to exploit the market forces in question?

I don't have tons of faith in the US political system. But it is pretty good at protecting wealth. DEI screws with people's ability to maintain wealth, so its been a losing prospect in US politics.

I think DEI stuff was a bit like peacock feathers in an era of easy money. It was a way to stand out in the market.

Once the easy money ended a lot of places quietly axed their more meaningful DEI initiatives. Or not so quietly did massive layoffs that just disproportionately affected those departments.

I have a cousin and some former co-workers that worked with DEI stuff. They all have expressed frustration that the companies they work for basically only give lip-service to the ideas, and that they actively avoid measuring themselves in any way that might suggest they've failed or could do better.

If DEI stuff was more meaningful and continued to exist in tighter markets, ya I think market forces would destroy it. There has been ongoing interest from investor groups on ant-dei funds. Which make a ton of sense as an investment strategy. If you were going to choose to either invest in a group of companies that pursue profit as a primary objects or pursue anything else as a primary objective, you'd probably expect the profit group to make more money. DEI is a handy categorization in that regard.

It depends on what exactly you think the "problem" is. I believe radical leftists are allowed to exist. I do not want to purge or kill them or force them into re-education camps. I simply do not want to pay for them. I ask that they tolerate me in the same way. The "problem" as I see it right now is that I am paying for them, so once I am not paying for them the problem is solved, even if they don't go away at all.

So now what?

So now I am definitely going to go complain about this on TheMotte and argue with one of the resident liberals about it, and feel a bit better afterwards even if nothing has changed. And I'm gonna dedicate some of my free time and money to making sure TheMotte stays around as a place for me to complain and feel a little better about the things I have no control over.

I believe most people share a value for wealth and money. Or at least it is a fungible thing that can be converted into other values. That is why the stock market works and publicly traded companies exist. Until DEI crap came along most of them have been legally obligated to pursue money and profit as a singular value, because that is one thing everyone can agree on.

Certain values matter way more than others. I think there are only some minimum values of non-interference that I need to live around others, and everything beyond that is just icing on the cake.