cjet79
Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds
Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds
User ID: 124
cjet79
2yr ago
I'm sorry that came across as a suggestion. It was not. It was a warning. The warning laid out is: stop doing this or you risk being temp banned next time I see it.
If you see the red text it is always a warning unless explicitly called out otherwise.
cjet79
2yr ago
Hylynka has been in the queue too much lately. Some of the other stuff would be difficult to explain why it's bad. This one was straightforward enough.
And I am currently as strict as I always am. Amadan is the nice one. If amadan leaves the queue clear for too long then I start to notice. If I start to notice I put on my mod cap until I stop noticing.
cjet79
2yr ago
The LLM disagrees with me as well, and for basically the same reasons: it's been trained to think that.
Yes, yes, we're all brainwashed
"Being English has nothing to do with ethnicity", yes I would say that is the perspective of someone who has been brainwashed.
Don't call people brainwashed. The user you responded to baited you, and you took the bait. And worse, you trained them that the snarky response is what gets you to actually make an effort and respond.
Effort responses for effort posts. Mod reports for low effort snark.
cjet79
2yr ago
Just leave the conversation if all you are going to say is a snarky comment.
cjet79
2yr ago
And then they get reported for antagonism, which is somewhat accurate, but then when I see where the antagonism originates I go and approve the comments. It creates work and headaches for the mods.
Regardless of how people feel about being personally insulted or antagonized we generally don't like to allow it. Because then we end up with an environment where such behavior is pervasive.
cjet79
2yr ago
mindlessly parroting progressive propaganda like a good little stooge.
5-day ban
cjet79
2yr ago
It would be better to just drop the conversation altogether rather than leaving comments like this.
cjet79
2yr ago
This comment got a report for "leave the internet at the door". I'm going to comment even though this is not a warning, because last week someone else got a ban for complaining about some subreddit drama that they shared as a top level comment. So some clarification needs to be made:
What makes this post different from the last one is that most of the personal trouble that WhiningCoil might have gotten into is left out of the post.
However, this post isn't necessarilly a good example, because it is skirting some other rules. There is a bit of consensus building equating pride month with "far-left politics". This is not written in a way to include everyone in the conversation as a result the comments that try to push back all start on a semi adversarial footing. They can't question your viewpoint without also making it a criticism of you.
cjet79
2yr ago
This comment would be a better fit for the sunday questions thread. Its a little short and lacking meat as it is.
Try to avoid top level comments that amount to:
"[a thing]. Discuss."
cjet79
2yr ago
Just watched The Machine in theaters. Really loved it. It was funny, a bit gorry, cool action scenes, over the top ridiculous, and had a bit of real emotion. The most disappointing thing about it was that me and my friend were the only ones in the whole theater (except for one teen couple that kept going in and out of the theater to possibly hookup).
cjet79
2yr ago
Ugh, this is exactly how I felt when I wrote the original post.
Did you read the rest of my post? I spent multiple paragraphs talking about how I'm vaguely aware of the man and his presidency.
I went back and edited the wording. It says war-hawks instead of military industrial complex. If you feel this is wrong too, I don't care. I'd beg you not to tell me if I thought that would work.
Have you ever been dragged along to a social event that you have no interest in? Maybe its a church event for a religion you are not a part of. Or maybe its a sport that you don't care about. Or maybe a political rally with the wrong team. Anyways, you try to make the best of things and spark up conversations with people. You always start the conversation NOT about the thing you don't care for. You avoid the topic as much as possible. But it doesn't matter. In the end you are screwed, because everyone else is here for that one thing. And the conversation will ALWAYS go back to it. Now imagine you finally get out of the event and you are outside with your friends. You are complaining "ugh it always comes back around to that topic, I just want to talk about other things with people, I only sort of care about the topic because of this one minor [thing x]". Some stranger overhears "Did you just say [thing x]!? Let me tell you what i think of [thing x]..."
I don't think I feel this way anymore after the discussion. I think I was just having a bad moment of availability bias where the worst aspects of the court system were in my face, but the everyday minor successes weren't apparent.
I also had a degree of frustration over the discussion, because I felt misinterpreted. When I get misinterpreted around here I usually feel like its more my fault then the reader's fault. At the time, the effort to clear up the misinterpretation didn't feel worth it. @netstack and @Rov_Scam had responses that attached my meta points to the object level discussion of Trump's particular court case. But I had mostly stopped thinking about Trump by the time I was done with the second sentence.
I'm like an old man with new technology when it comes to Trump and politics. I don't get the obsession with it, I mostly ignore it, and even when its shoved in my face it quickly exits my memory a few minutes later. I'm still living in the mindset of 2008 and Ron Paul's run for president. My fondest memories of Trump are when he 'got back' at parts of the military industrial complex war hawks that I feel snubbed Ron Paul back in 2008. Most of the rest of his presidency is forgotten and foggy in my mind.
This memory hole of mine gets a little awkward when I want to get involved in the culture war discussions that have spun up around Trump. I'm probably the only person in the world that hears the name "Trump" and first thinks "oh the guy that publicly humiliated John Bolton". So when an issue comes up like "Trump is being tried on a novel legal theory", or "The law was changed to allow the formerly immune Trump to be retroactively prosecuted for this law". I might be one of the rare people that is just subbing in the word "person/people" for "Trump".
It is not entirely honest for me to say "I don't care about Trump", after all, he had the great zinger on John Bolton. But my level of caring about him is obviously at such a different level then everyone else around me. It leads to situations where I can get heavily misinterpreted, and I will be genuinely surprised and confused by that misinterpretation for a few seconds before I remember "oh yeah, people care about Trump a lot more than I do".
I wonder if I'd be better served by having some tag next to my name: "No, I'm not talking about Trump" or "I'm talking about Ron Paul, not Trump".
Anyways, I got a quality contribution for a post that I now mostly disagree with, and was heavily misinterpreted. At least I had two this month and I feel good about the other one.
cjet79
2yr ago
I'm not sure why exactly you need "drama" described.
Drama is personal conflict. Its spreading rumors, playing games of 'he said, she said'. Its getting into the details of personality. Its petty. It is ultimately just about the people.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
I don't fully agree with this quote, but I agree with the gradient. Ideas are low drama, discussing people is high drama. The more personal and close you are to the people the higher the drama. Talking about distant politicians that no one here knows can kinda be low drama (but some posters disagree and don't want us to even allow insulting politicians).
Am I out of line for asking him to explain what he meant by that?
Not out of line, but this will probably be my last attempt to explain things.
I don't want to bring drama down upon us.
Wrong way to think of it. You are not sitting in traffic, you are traffic. OP both was the drama, and in danger of bringing more.
just not write ops bitching about reddit bans?
That is definitely a take-away I'm trying my best to explain how you go from high level rules to a specific takeaway like "don't bitch about reddit bans". I'm also not entirely sure that is even an accurate takeaway. I think you could easily write an effortpost about reddit bans, how you think the moderator problems are causing reddit to slowly die, how you have been banned from subreddits for seemingly minor things, etc. If you kept the post out of the specifics of "I said x, the mod then said y, then they banned me, then i challenged them in modmail with z" then it would probably be fine. Some of the responses to the original post are examples of how a top level comment could have been made and been fine.
cjet79
2yr ago
Yes, only one person (the original poster) but that's enough.
There is a different spinoff site for this sort of thing.
cjet79
2yr ago
https://pacificlegal.org/plf-supreme-court-track-record/
Was this one Pacific Legal Fund? It sounds like something they would do.
cjet79
2yr ago
If you want an easy way to avoid drama leave out the details.
No amount of details or contextualizing will save a post if it's bring drama down upon us.
Personal vendettas are unlikely to pass muster.
cjet79
2yr ago
-
All reddit mods are terrible
-
some reddit mods are terrible
-
[these specific] reddit mods are terrible.
The rule you pointed out covers 1, the op did 3 which isn't allowed cuz no drama. 2 is allowable and what the op could have said.
cjet79
2yr ago
I think the rule is good. And that this discussion could have happened without the OP violating the rules.
I also think there needs to be some place on the internet for people to discuss their feelings about the echo chambers elsewhere, and I'm not sure there is a better place at this point than here.
You can do this here. What you can't do is bring up a bunch of specific subreddits, specific people, and specific details of the situation. Leave the specifics out and talk in generalities.
cjet79
2yr ago
Did anyone watch The Machine?
cjet79
2yr ago
That's an idiotic norm and anyone who espouses it needs to be slapped so hard they get knocked into orbit.
This is not the right way to express things around here.
cjet79
2yr ago
Don't go out with that type unless you are okay with being in jail or the hospital.
You were asked to drop this. You didn't. 3-day ban.
cjet79
2yr ago
This is too antagonistic, you've had two warnings in the past for this same thing. 3 day ban.
I think if pride just meant LGB then there wouldn't be much backlash during pride month.
Gay men and lesbian women seem largely accepted by society, and I don't know of many recent controversies surrounding them.
The TQ part of the alphabet seems to be the lightning rod lately. The Ts mess with long established gender dynamics, more than LGBs ever did. The Qs often seem like they are faking for diversity points or engage in levels of ridiculousness that is hard to take seriously, for example there are popular videos out there of people identifying as birds and goblins. There is a real question of how much I have to buy into some strangers' fantasies and fetishes.
Importantly, as a matter of sheer numbers the TQ part is also a very small section of LGBTQ.
This makes me wonder if some kind of split is coming. LGBs can either continue allying with TQs and risk some society wide backlash. Or they can jettison the political hot potatoes and go fully mainstream tomorrow. I suspect democratic politicians in swing districts will be doing this, and so will large multi-national companies.
More options
Context Copy link