cjet79
Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds
Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds
User ID: 124
cjet79
2mo ago
I went to George Mason Econ, still live nearby, and had lots of interactions with various parts of the university over the years.
The common online reputation of George Mason is basically totally wrong. People see it as a libertarian bastion of economic and legal research. That is basically just a portion of the economics college and the graduate law department. Its a tiny minority of the university. A very online and very prominent minority that most people know about, but if you are actually on campus or working there its very different. The density of libertarian students was pretty awesome when I went there, but it is still only like 5-10% of them. The Campus Democrats and even Campus Republican organizations were still much larger.
Most of the university is your traditional state school. If anything, its a little more diverse than most state schools, because of where it is located. The Language department is still mostly as crazy as any other school. But instead of having to go anywhere to protest things, they just step next door and make trouble for conservative or libertarian econ speakers that they don't like.
The Econ department and Law departments mostly survive because they have semi-independent funding form the rest of the university. There have been multiple attempts by other departments and the university in general to impose certain hiring restrictions, or to cut off those parts of the university. Those attempts have all failed, but they were still made. The "UnKoch my campus" organization has been in an ongoing battle with GMU Econ for over a decade at this point.
So basically it is entirely unsurprising that GMU would introduce some kind of woke required course. Or it is as surprising as any random State School introducing this sort of thing.
cjet79
25d ago
Android or iPhone?
Haven't had much trouble disabling android notifications. Its all handled in a central area, and android routinely asks me if I want to remove permissions for apps I don't use.
cjet79
10d ago
As I mentioned, not too attached to the particular solution I had. Just that this is a problem. So I don't think we disagree too much.
cjet79
30d ago
Apparently the people in the San Francisco subreddit were generally supportive of this.
go after the leftist orgs funding these protests
I couldn't find any references to them doing this. Sounds like it would just be the specific protestors hit with prosecutions.
cjet79
7d ago
I've played total war 3k a few times, pretty early on. Meant to come back around to it after it got more fleshed out, and then ya CA abandoned it.
cjet79
2mo ago
I am honestly confused by your accusations.
Allow a community of like minded people to congregate on /r/themotte
Yes, we have done this, where others have not. If others were doing this, we would probably not bother.
Encourage those people to leave
Leave what? Leave reddit? No, we only encouraged people to also be on themotte website. There is no requirement or encouragement to leave reddit. I still have an account there for subreddits I enjoy.
Lock the door behind them once they do
What door has been locked? We also permabanned people over on the subreddit.
Maybe you don't like hylnka, but a lot of people did. The whole pitch on moving everybody here was that we could avoid the overbearing influence of reddit admins, but now we just have...you guys. Hylnka was a dick, and banned me at least once on themotte...but as I have pointed out before: you guys (specifically you, cjet) over way overtending this garden.
No, I like Hlynka. If there is such a thing as "internet friends" I would consider him one. I was the most reluctant among the mods to ban him, and have stuck up for his behavior quite often in the back-channels. The fact that I am the one to ban him is more similar to a "George shoots Lennie" situation. Not comparing Hlynka to Lennie, but the social dynamic of the situation where the most ardent defender of the accused who gave them as many chances as possible has to be the one to carry out the execution.
And yes you have us. This was always the agreement. If you want the reddit admins and some other set of moderators, you know where reddit is. We have gotten significantly more lenient since moving off of reddit, because there is more of a worry of eroding our user base and having no replacement source. If you want no moderation there are places on the internet like that. This isn't such a place, never has been, and never will be given that zorba will probably just shut it down if it came to that.
Most of the discussion here just sounds like (and I suspect heavily is) chatbots talking back and forth to one another. Many have pointed out that a version of a captcha for chatbots is if they are willing to say naughty words or not. What you're basically doing with this ban is saying "you have to sound like a chatbot in order to post here". I think this is a bad idea.
People are allowed to say "naughty words" here. They aren't allowed to put words in other's mouths. Accuse people of beliefs they don't hold with little or no evidence/discussion. And throw out broad sweeping insults to others.
You can say cunt, but you can't call another user one without breaking our rules. If you are not a fan of "politeness" as one of the rules of discussion, I'd again suggest that most of the rest of the internet is still out there.
Here's a suggestion for how to improve themotte and course correct it: give us something like "showdead" on hacker news. Give me the option in my userprofile to have a non mod curated experience where I can see naughty posts and interact with them. People who want the more curated experience can untick this "show naughty" option, and never have to see it. I don’t think you will do this since it takes the power of being a mod away (although keeps the practical purpose), but it would be appreciated.
No. Zorba has been asked about this multiple times before. He has a post somewhere about trash in a river as a comparison. The general point is that our users actually do most of the filtering for us, and mods are here as a backup to make sure there is a clear bright line.
cjet79
3mo ago
I don't think announcing the release of a covid vaccine days after the election was in any way illegal. It was probably enough to sway the election.
I don't think implying to major social media networks that the Hunter Biden laptop story was fake was illegal. It was probably enough to sway the election.
I don't think investigating Trump for nearly 3 years for collusion with Russia that ultimately turned out to be nothing was illegal. It was probably enough to sway the election.
I don't think freaking out over covid and insisting that the country completely shutdown and tank the economy was illegal. It was probably enough to sway the election.
None of these things were illegal, but they were all very very dirty and despicable. If they had just done one of them I might chalk it up to coincidence. But all of them happened, and other people can probably list their own examples. With so many events I strongly doubt they were all coincidences. I also say this as someone who never has and never would vote for Trump. I usually get sick of election politics about a year before the election. But I fully get why people have the unwavering sense that the election was stolen, while not having a single shred of "evidence" that applies to a court case.
cjet79
1mo ago
3 day ban boo outgroup posting.
The mods have warned you multiple times lately:
- https://www.themotte.org/post/921/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/197647?context=8#context
- https://www.themotte.org/post/921/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/197888?context=8#context
- https://www.themotte.org/post/930/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/200342?context=8#context
If all you want to basically say is "these people are weird and they suck" say it somewhere else. Go spend the three days saying it on rDrama to get it out of your system. They are your friends not ours. This is not a space where we seek to emulate them in any way other than being off of reddit.
Too similar to a previously banned user. Multiple top level posts, very little response. You aren't here for discussion. Permaban for now. One of the other mods might over-rule this.
Edit: post appears to have been plagiarized anyways. Ban is staying permanent.
cjet79
1mo ago
I appreciate seeing some of the actual allegations here. You might not have convinced the person you responded to, but it seems pretty compelling to me.
cjet79
8d ago
I maybe should go back and play some old Total War games. The Warhammer ones have been leaving me unfulfilled. I don't think I like the magic spells that were added for battles, and the single units that are powerhouses.
I have no particular interest in WWII, but it does seem like the genre of games I'm interested in are all set in that time period.
cjet79
1mo ago
This is not too low effort, and please do not put culture war stuff in the friday fun thread.
cjet79
1mo ago
As others have pointed out in this thread though, it likely would have been impossible for him to get and maintain an FFL without also getting heavily harassed.
If you are selling somewhere between 5-200 guns a year you are in legal grey zone. Too small for FFL. Too many sales for private sale loophole. The exact edges are unclear.
cjet79
22d ago
I still occasionally enjoy these complex games. But I also often crave simpler mindless titles.
Stardew Valley is a fun way to cleanse your palette. It can be played either as a fun cute little farming game, or you can go hardcore with twenty wiki tabs for the game open while you optimize crop planting and gift giving.
cjet79
22d ago
I agree that there should be enforcement
Then we don't disagree with each other, but we do disagree with the policies some cities have chosen.
The rest of your post seems to flow from that misunderstanding, so I don't really feel that it applies to me.
cjet79
2mo ago
I think this is a general problem that the Political/Managerial Class wants a set of cog in machine type workers. Meek, follow orders, don't rock the boat, etc. More of the propaganda gets directed against men, simply because they fit worse into that mold by default. But in my experience women that don't fit are just as likely to get ground up and crushed.
One of the great ironies of this all is that institutions can't even be bothered to reward the meek men and women they claim to want. You see, there is a dirty little secret inside every large bureaucratic institution: You can just do things. Yes, you are supposed to get approval from your three managers, and buy in from the various stakeholders in departments A-Z. And if you do the things and they are good things, then you will get rewarded. The reason it works is that the process for stopping and punishing you is often as onerous as the process you were supposed to follow to get the thing done in the first place. So your enemies either won't bother, or they won't do things the official route. Welcome to internal office politics at a large org, you are now a player and not a pawn. Hope you made some allies before you started doing things.
Large institutions always ask for pawns. Because the players figure out the game and don't need to be invited. Its not like any existing players really want to invite more competition. Being a player is how to capture big rewards, but its also big risk. I am intentionally and consciously not a player at my current job. Being a pawn is low risk low reward. But I was a player for a little while in one of my previous jobs until I sorta maxed out my leverage and kept running into past mistakes I'd made. But the player slots are stressful. I'm riding out my past rewards for now while I have other priorities in life.
cjet79
2mo ago
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.
cjet79
2mo ago
Mr Rogers was quietly Republican.
Bob Ross was a womanizer. David Bowie had sexual relations with 15 year olds during his stardom. They kind of strike me as part of the 70s era sexual liberation generation. And there are plenty of male "role models" from that generation. I just feel that after the MeToo movement that these types of men would be examples of "toxic masculinity".
I didn't want to look too deeply into Steve Irwin, but he mostly wrastled large reptiles into submission in his public appearances. I'll grant him as maybe a good environmentalist role model. Not quite sure how that translates as a role model for human interaction.
I think the idea of 'explicitly politically-motivated role models' is a dead end here. A role model that progressives can embrace is not the same as a loudly progressive role model.
I think it's a dead end for modern progressives hoping for straight white male role models. I think it generally is not a dead end for just about any other situation.
cjet79
20d ago
How would y'all recommend finding a personal trainer?
I want someone local, and I have a fitness goal of being in better shape for an upcoming underwater hockey tournament. But otherwise I think I'm flexible. Just don't know what to look for or avoid.
cjet79
2mo ago
This is a discussion forum for people with sometimes drastically different views. It feels like a fragile thing somedays. We are asking people to talk politely with one another when they may disagree with each other's entire existence. Most of the internet is filled with people pointing out that politeness in those circumstances is absurd. And thus most of the internet has descended into a bit of a hell hole that I cannot personally tolerate for any topic much less the topics where people might actually have a reason to hate each other.
@Tyre_Inflator and @Chrisprattalpharaptr I don't like seeing how this discussion happened between you two. Its a severe violation of the ethos we are hoping for here. 1 day ban for both of you for now. Mods will discuss this further. Those bans might be rescinded, extended, or left alone.
cjet79
3mo ago
I don't have time for this right now, but I'll leave my flag in the sand and say HBD is wrong. I'll just leave this quote here I found on reddit that does the same job as me taking the time:
Don't do this.
The purpose of this forum is to be a discussion group. This is why we don't allow people to just drop bare links at the top and say "discuss".
So either participate in the discussion, or don't. If you do not want to participate the correct action to take is to not post.
cjet79
25d ago
I don't know any of the practical details/solutions. The companies that sell sketchy products should have been trying to figure this stuff out for the last decade. If they'd dumped a cumulative 1 billion into solving problems like these how many roadblocks would remain? That is just 1% of the industry in a single year.
They didn't do that so obviously a bunch of roadblocks and practical problems remain in place.
cjet79
2mo ago
I'm well aware of the contradiction, I wrote this 5 days ago [emphasis added]:
This is a discussion forum for people with sometimes drastically different views. It feels like a fragile thing somedays. We are asking people to talk politely with one another when they may disagree with each other's entire existence. Most of the internet is filled with people pointing out that politeness in those circumstances is absurd. And thus most of the internet has descended into a bit of a hell hole that I cannot personally tolerate for any topic much less the topics where people might actually have a reason to hate each other.
Hlynka wasn't interested in maintaining decorum when it was an obvious papering over disrespectful or violent thoughts. I admired how long he was able to act on that disinterest without getting permabanned.
Personally, the masquerade is getting boring for me too. But out of respect for mod wishes, I'll try to fade out rather than flame out if it becomes too annoying to bother with.
I'm not really sympathetic to people that can't maintain the masquerade. Because I maintain it quite easily. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and just about everyone on here is a statist of some sort. I believe most of those views are morally repugnant, and any statist view is an active advocation of violence against me. I also don't consider myself some paragon of self control. I think most people have the self control muscle and exercise it all the time. If you can drive in traffic and not run someone off the road when they do something dangerous to you then you also have that self control muscle. My 5 year old kid has the self control muscle. My 3 year old, does not. So its a skill you can learn and start using as young as 4 years old.
Also according to psychology there are bunch of psychopaths just walking around among us, following the rules, and not murdering people for shits and giggles. We don't threaten to purge all the psychopaths as uncaring monsters walking among us. And the psychopaths mostly don't act like the uncaring monsters that they are, except in specific high level managerial positions where we have designated their behavior "ok".
People complaining that it is hard not to say things in an online forum where they don't need to even participate is a bit mind-boggling to me. I truly do not understand how such a person navigates their day to day life. Perhaps they have an extreme set of blinders? Perhaps they are lying, and its actually very easy to follow the rules around here, they just don't want to? Perhaps they are in a special set of circumstances where people coddle them like I do for my three year old in order to avoid public tantrums?
Yes, the alternative is prison.
There has been an ongoing debate between enforcement and cleanup.
Enforcement is mean. And it looks expensive on a per incident basis. But the main benefit over cleanup is that it stops additional people from adding to the problem.
Time and again people have opted to drop enforcement thinking that the current cleanup costs aren't as high as enforcement, only for them to be completely overwhelmed by cleanup costs when there is zero enforcement.
In the case of California cities they are now drowning in human shit on their sidewalks and streets as a result of this decision.
More options
Context Copy link