cjet79
Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds
Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds
User ID: 124
cjet79
2yr ago
Blues’ violent pets
This is not a term that conforms to our engagement rules. Its antagonistic in its assumptions, and doesn't even seem necessary within the context.
cjet79
2yr ago
fantasies through stereotypical jew Hollywood movie tropes about insecurities
There are Jewish people that use this forum, and writing about "jew Hollywood" is too antagonistic and boo-outgroup to be thrown out as an undefended sentence. And before you go on a rant, this statement is equally applicable to your post:
There are [group] people that use this forum, and writing about "[group] Hollywood" is too antagonistic and boo-outgroup to be thrown out as an undefended sentence.
You are allowed to not like other groups, we don't moderate on beliefs. But trying to carry the flag for that cause in every other discussion is waging the culture war. You are waging the culture war here, and we don't like that.
cjet79
2yr ago
Your power fantasies are just that, the revenge fantasies of every bullied nerd ever, the copes of someone telling himself he's smarter and better and "biologically superior" to the jocks picking on him.
This was more antagonistic than it needed to be.
cjet79
2yr ago
Killing human garbage of this sort is doing them an act of mercy they do not deserve. Beating them to within an inch of their lives is absolutely the morally correct choice here. Their lives are already not worth living, and making them continue stew in the suffering of their own making is small recompense for the suffering these people inflict upon other human beings. And before I am met with the refrain of "who are you to decide that another human's life is not worth living" know that I have the same conviction in my belief
Your post got some reports of "antagonistic", probably for the first sentence.
I get that you have strong feelings, but assigning people to the category of "human garbage" is antagonistic, and should be treated as a thing that needs to be carefully argued about. I think the post as it is runs afoul of two of the engagement rules:
-
Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
cjet79
2yr ago
I'm glad that there is now a communist statue to mirror the situation with confederate statues.
I have ancestors that fought for the south in the civil war. I think slavery was an evil institution, but it probably could have been ended without a very bloody war.
I hate communism, and I've disliked many communists that I've met (the feeling was usually mutual, "You'll be one of the first ones against the wall" they'd tell me).
All of that just to say that I feel the same about this monument and the confederate statues: what a stupid thing to argue about. Building it in the first place seems like a waste of funds when your political group is in power. I'd much rather have "my" politicians setting up some kind of bullshit slush fund project that funnels money to favored people. Its also a waste of money to take it down.
If you are local and it really bothers you that much, just resort to good old minor vandalism. The legal penalties aren't that hefty. If you are a local business person with too much to lose, just bail out a local vandal from a legal situation and point him in the right direction.
There is this general vibe that America seems to be picking up that everything political must be solved through the political process.
No! Terrible thought process! The political process has some pros. Its slow, has a lot of deliberation, optimizes for optics over all other considerations, and requires buy in from the semi-respectable class of people in society. Those are also all the cons.
There are three ways to short circuit the political process:
-
Ignoring it. Sometimes political entities like to talk a big game, but they don't have any actual power. I remember seeing this hilariously illustrated when the student governing council at my college would occasionally pass resolutions or support for foreign countries. Fucking idiots. They couldn't even dictate the menu at the school run cafeteria. Their resolutions of support were time wasters for an entirely impotent "governing" body.
-
Market solutions. Other times politics finds a problem and claims they can solve it. But unless its a public goods problem, or a tragedy of the commons, we really don't need them. Markets are great at providing goods and services. Hopefully somebody can just provide the product better cheaper and faster than the government can.
-
[other options]. I once heard of this guy. He had a tree adjacent to his property. The tree was maybe on land owned by the city. The tree would dump acorns and other annoying detritus in his pool. The city didn't really like removing living trees. Well suddenly the tree died over a very short time period. Some kind of weird ground poisoning. Strange! Anyways, tree is gone now.
cjet79
2yr ago
A few years ago I made it a habit to just call my parents on any long car drive or commute. The alternative was just mindlessly listening to the radio. We mostly share parts of our day. Having young kids helps the conversation along pretty often. As a parent its hard to stop talking about your kids, but most people don't really care to hear it. However, grandparents love hearing about their grandkids.
cjet79
2yr ago
Nature doesn't maximize suffering either. What's your point?
Nature is neutral toward suffering. Eating animals for meat is slightly against suffering.
I'm glad you brought up sick animals because that reminded me that organic livestock cannot be given antibiotics. That would affect the bottom line, you see.
I'm not sure why things have to be organic?
This is not unlike atheists telling Christians what they should believe.
I happen to agree with the atheists pretty often. If you say your bible is sacred and its word is to be taken literally, and your book says to stone adulterers, why aren't you stoning adulterers? This seems fine to me to point out logical contradictions in other people's beliefs.
Vegans in my experience are first and foremost concerned with the effects of human actions.
Going back to the Amazon Rain Forest. Human action is required no matter what. Even "leaving it as is" requires human action in the form of enforcement. Its cut down the trees and plant crops, cut down the trees and graze animals, or shoot trespassers trying to cut down the trees. The same thing happened in the US, the formation of US national parks on the east coast often first involved evicting people that lived there.
Humans are a dominant species on this planet. In the West, if an area is left underutilized by humans, it is often by human choice.
I am similarly confused why this simple point is not coming through. You don't get to harm one group of animals just because otherwise another group of animals would be harmed through some other mechanism that has nothing to do with you.
It does have to do with us though. Nature needs that land. Ranchers need that land. Farmers need that land. You take raw land and you mix it with a thing, and you either wind up with a vegan approved diet or suffering animals. Torture planet isn't across the galaxy doing its thing without our input. No its like they are next door and we are shipping them food to keep the humans alive so they can continually be tortured. We could deny the torture machine resources!
I simply do not care about what's going on in nature.
I very much understand this perspective. There are no humans in nature, and so I generally don't care about the suffering taking place in Nature either. But you also said are not a vegan, and you also haven't proclaimed to care about the suffering of animals as a reason for being vegan. My point is not addressed to you. It is addressed to vegans who claim to be vegan because they care about the suffering of animals. I can't imagine a vegan walking along a path in the forest when a fawn falls off a ledge and breaks its legs in front of the vegan, the vegan steps over its trembling body with a smile on their face and say "well at least the suffering is only happening from nature's hands!" Where as if the fawn had jumped off the ledge after being scared by a human the vegan would instead cry out in horror and rush to save the animal.
I take most Vegans at their word that they genuinely care about the suffering of animals. I don't think they carve out exceptions for how the suffering was caused. I'm not likely to ask one next time I meet them in person, just like I don't go up to Christrians and ask "how do you feel about all your non-christian friends going to hell". There was one Vegan in this thread, but I think they left after getting a bit piled on.
cjet79
2yr ago
I am not a vegan, but C is where things start to go off the rails. Factory farms are optimized for profit, not happiness - they do not make concessions to reduce animal suffering except where it starts to impact the bottom line. There is no reason to think that factory farms are better than nature in this respect.
And there are things that impact the bottom line that mean better welfare for the animals. Animals that die in a high stress way do not taste as good. Animals that are starving do not taste good. Animals are not butchered while they are still alive because it can be done better and more efficiently when they are dead. Animals that are sick have lower quality meat. Injured animals can at times be nursed back to health rather than being put down. For larger animals like cows and pigs, safe pregnancies result in lower chances of miscarriage and death at birth. Minor birth defects that might impair movement are not an immediate death sentence. None of these are amenities that Nature provides.
By the time we get to E the argument is fully nonsensical. The claim that we should not actively cause harm that wouldn't exist otherwise should not be construed to mean that we must go and eliminate all harm everywhere, even harm that has nothing to do with us.
There is a small jump there, but not really when it comes to reality. Think about something like the Amazon rain forest. There are three land uses: farming, ranching, and leaving alone (nature). Many vegans I've spoken with would order their preferences as (nature) > farming > ranching. But my claim is that they should have preferences of farming > ranching > (nature).
Its not that Vegans need to embark on a project to eliminate all nature. Its just that anytime nature is about to be destroyed for some other use, vegans should be happy. None of this is hypothetical, these are the actual land use debates that happen all the time. There have been at least two centuries of these debates in the United States. And some of the earliest recorded conflicts in history have had a similar theme of farmers vs ranchers vs hunter gatherers. Typically most of history is just farmers vs ranchers (China vs Mongolia), but the 20th century saw the first introduction of people that wished to return things to (nature).
A serial killer whose defense is "well in the state of nature these people probably would have been killed anyway" is just as deranged. You remain accountable for your actions regardless of what's going on elsewhere or in other hypothetical situations.
I'm very confused why you keep seeing this as a purely hypothetical question. What do you think happens to ranch land if all the farm animals go away? Usually the land used for ranching isn't great for farming in the first place. Its more likely to just go back to a wild state of nature. Or is it that Vegans actually getting their way is completely hypothetical, so we need not consider the actual implications of their policies?
cjet79
2yr ago
I've felt that it has enhanced my dreaming, but it has also made dreaming not very unique. If you offered me two options:
-
Read a fantasy story in real life. Its got cool world building, some vaguely interesting characters, and a plot that keeps you hooked.
-
Live out a fantasy story in your dreams. Amazing visuals and sensations, but you'll probably forget most of it in the morning.
I sort of prefer to read the fantasy story. I'll stay up late doing it and miss out on sleep with dreams. Now if I'm in a pastoral culture, and my first option is just "stare up at the stars" I think I'm gonna pick the dream option a little more often.
cjet79
2yr ago
I am also sort of in a divided marriage. I say sort of because my wife doesn't hold very strong political views. I also have libertarian beliefs, and I never really expected to find someone that shared my beliefs. So it has never been even the slightest impediment. If I had ever let politics become a barrier to forming relationships ... I'd have no one to talk to.
For my parents it was more of a thing of minor annoyances. It felt similar in seriousness to their arguments about doing chores around the house. The real underlying problem seemed to be that they were running out of activities to do together. The kids had left the nest. They had very few mutual friends and the few they had became either obsessed with hating trump or cheering him on. And while they could sort of stand politically disagreeing with each other, its another thing to tolerate strong political disagreement with a friend. Especially when that is all you are going to talk about. My dad was physically deteriorating, and my mom was extra busy at work right before her retirement. Their one shared project for most of their lives was working on house projects together, my mom didn't have the time, and my dad couldn't physically keep doing them.
Its all ended up better. They got some meal subscription kits, and there are more grand kids now. So they cook and drink together, or watch the grand kids together. They also bought electric bikes and went on a multi-state trip to different parks to bike together and visit some distant friends.
cjet79
2yr ago
Fair enough, I suppose I just usually associate veganism with utilitarianism on some level.
I guess I'll just phrase it as a full argument:
A. Animals suffer greatly in their natural environment. Nature and evolution have optimized for survival, not happiness.
B. Artificial environments can make concessions to animal happiness that Nature cannot make.
C. If you care about animal welfare, artificial environments that make some attempt at keeping animals happy are to be preferred over natural environments.
D. If you think artificial environments are not a net positive for animals, then natural environments are definitely not a net positive.
E. Thus if you think we should get rid of artificial environments for animals in order to alleviate their suffering, then we should also get rid of natural environments for animals to alleviate their suffering.
I believe that is the encapsulated argument that @MaximumCuddles has been getting at. Vegan's don't seem to reach point E in the argument. The logic is sound, so one of the points must not be valid from the perspective of a vegan. The question is: which points do they think aren't valid? That would narrow down a large moral argument to a specific point of contention.
cjet79
2yr ago
What job is that? In our hyper-connected world, the "problematic" things people say online, given the right amount of obsession and motivation by a "wronged" individual, can always make their way to an employer, relative, partner, or school that could lead to unwanted consequences, the worst being termination.
I work at a libertarianish non-profit. Multiple other people in the organization have gone through online harassment campaigns. One of the people in the organization has had multiple New York Times writers go after him. Quite a few people have gotten death threats, and having an online stalker that hates your guts is pretty normal to them. They have also been the target of federal government tax status investigations, legally harassed by local government entities, and have had national bureaucratic institutions ask media outlets to go after them. Many of these "cancellation" attempts have just resulted in more donations to the organization.
Functionally I'd be pretty hard to replace. I'm the only one with my job title and skill set at this place. It wouldn't be impossible to replace me, just difficult, and probably expensive.
One of the higher ups that works there and would likely have input on my firing is one of my best friends.
I can't say anything and get away with it. There are probably still fireable things I could say or do. But mostly anything in the range of what I want to say is speak-able.
I think even being self employed wouldn't offer this level of job security (you can go after customers for self employed people).
And as I mentioned above I generally don't say anything online that I'm not willing to publicly defend with my name behind it. I'd write this same stuff on facebook with my full real name attached. I don't do that because facebook discussions seemed to be mostly a circle jerk or a cess pit of terrible arguments.
At worst, some of my pseudonymous writings would be awkward to attach to my name. I've talked about things you normally don't share in polite company, or on your facebook timeline. Drug use, dating life, family drama, etc. But I think the fact that I attempted to not publicly air these things in my own social circle would absolve me of most of those issues. Close associates would read it like they read a leaked private journal.
cjet79
2yr ago
I'm not a doctor. I don't even know half of what those things are.
I have personally noticed I get weird symptoms from stress. And that is immediately what I thought of when I read your list of symptoms. When I asked ChatGPT what your symptoms might mean it said:
These symptoms could be indicative of a range of potential health issues, so it's difficult to determine the exact cause without more information and a proper medical evaluation. However, some of these symptoms may be related to anxiety or stress, as stress can cause physical symptoms such as heart palpitations, acid reflux, and muscle spasms.
Is your job more stressful? Do you play intense online multiplayer games? Do you have fewer social outlets because of the pandemic? Has your lack of drinking socially isolated you? Do you have a family that is going through any kind of emergency? Did you recently have kids? Did you recently go through a breakup? Are you having enough sex?
Could be lots of things causing the stress. Might be worth considering a non-medical intervention. Think less "what is wrong with my body" and think more "ok my body is messed up, how do i make my life more enjoying to compensate for it".
cjet79
2yr ago
Implications of space travel on the economy/culture war etc.
This tickled the sci-fi nerd inside of me. But the realist part of me has to wonder "are we just too far away from meaningful space travel to get it before AI changes everything".
Dreams and how they are totally disregarded in modern technological societies. Almost every culture throughout the world placed a large significance on dreams - now we don't! Wonder why this is and how it could play into our neuroses.
Especially interesting when thinking back to early sci-fi. Asimov was pretty interested in dreams and AI. 'Do Androids dream of electric sheep' and 'i, robot'.
I have been pretty fascinated with my own dreams for a while. I sometimes get to go on elaborate sci fi and fantasy adventures all within the space of a night. I was at one point mining my dreams for story ideas. However, whenever I hear someone else talking about their dreams my eyes glaze over with boredom. Anything beyond one or two sentence summaries feels like a social faux pas to me.
There is a concept of a "dream world" which is different and separate from the "real world". I think ancient lives and cultures spent all their waking time heavily interacting with the "real world", a land of concepts / ideas must have been strange and foreign to their lived experiences. Meanwhile, in the modern world, we all interact with the internet, which might as well be a dream world. Its all taking place in our heads. And our connection with the "real world" has stagnated.
cjet79
2yr ago
Wild animal suffering is completely irrelevant to this question.
I mean even if you think that ... wouldn't it be highly relevant to other questions, like environmentalism? If Wild animals in general suffer and their live lives not worth living, then a good utilitarian would want to pave over all of nature, yes?
Imagine there's a planet in the Andromeda galaxy where ten trillion humans are being flayed alive.
I'd certainly not feel bad about this planet being blown up by a stray asteroid. Do you feel the same way about life on Earth in general? Is the main problem with the last 4 or 5 mass extinction events that they didn't go far enough?
If something is bothering me enough I'm usually able to get out a post about it. The writing process can be therapeutic.
There are some things that don't bother me quite enough to get a post out, but they have been kicking around in my head.
-
When to NOT be inclusive (3 votes). I have a small group of neighborhood guys/dads that I like hanging out with. There is a larger group of neighborhood women/moms that also hangout. I was recently chastised for being exclusive by one of the neighborhood moms, cuz I wasn't inviting the whole group of dads to events. This bothered me a lot more than it should have, and I had some thoughts on why. But talking it out with people in person was generally enough to calm me down. I think it has wider implications, and I might have spun it out to be about people having tribes/families where they belong.
-
Road name changes. I live on a street that had its name changed. I watched the whole process. I thought it might have been of some interest for people to see a real life culture war play out. Alas, I was too bored and annoyed with the whole thing to even bother following it in real life, much less follow it online. I also would have semi-doxed myself.
-
Doxing myself (1 vote). Speaking of doxing, since we have moved to this website, and since I have a job where I feel pretty safe from unjustified online harassment. I have considered going public with my identity here. I use a real image of myself in my profile. The danger of someone going after my job is close to zero, but I still have a family and personal security. So I've mostly decided against doing this. About 8 years ago I started writing online as if I'd have to defend anything I wrote to family/friends/co-workers. I live online as if I am about to be doxxed. Its possible I could write a post about this without doxxing myself, but I find I'd be tempted to do it anyways just to make the post slightly more interesting.
-
A divided family (2 votes). My mother votes democrat, my father votes republican. They have long disagreed on politics. It was scary to see how close the Trump presidency got to actually causing my parents to get a divorce. A divorce over politics! They've mostly gotten over that, and they are back to pre-trump levels of political disagreement. I considered a post where I'd go over their history and political beliefs. And then how Trump has been the perfect scissor subject for them.
-
Beliefs Post. I thought about nominating myself to do one of the posts where you describe all your beliefs. I realized I shouldn't because it looked like a lot of work, and of the 20ish previous posts I only read maybe 2 or 3 of them. I do love navel gazing though.
cjet79
2yr ago
I'm not sure that your ethical point is really a satisfying argument to me. What is the difference between that statement and me saying "I'm really not concerned about the suffering of black people, I'm a white-centrist?" I also don't believe this is true for most humans ala pets: most humans surely care way more about their dog than someone halfway across the globe.
It wasn't really meant to be convincing. I'm fine if you value animal welfare and want to be a vegan. If you can do it while being healthy, all the better to you.
It's just that I don't care about non human entities so no arguments that appeal to their welfare are convincing to me. My viewpoint doesn't have to be universal, just prevalent enough that there are enough people to allow the meat industry to continue existing.
cjet79
2yr ago
Considering that American levels of meat consumption are unsustainable environmentally (we would need 8 earths if everyone ate as much meat as Americans), and generally seem to result in poor health outcomes, it seems that moving closer to a vegan diet would be better for all of us.
I'd jump to blaming sugar and lack of exercise for bad health outcomes before I blamed meat. Do you not think those two health interventions would be more effective?
While regenerative grazing can generate meat in a sustainable manner, it cannot do so on the scale of factory farming, and thus cannot satisfy the insane American demand for meat.
I'm curious on the numbers on this. Is factory farming more efficient land use? How much is currently being used as regenerative grazing?
There’s also the issue of ethics to consider: cognitive research has shown that many farm animals (cows, sheep, chickens come to mind) show many signs of intelligence similar to young children and pet animals. I've become much more open to the idea of small-scale animal farming, where animals are treated humanely, but still ultimately killed and eaten, but this still entails eating far less meat. Nutrition isn’t a serious barrier, so what’s your excuse?
In terms of ethics, I've come to realize I'm a human centrist all the way. I really don't care how smart other animals, aliens, or machines are. I prioritize humans first. The only way that I care about animal suffering is that my fellow humans are bothered about it. But only a minority seem extremely bothered about it, most people don't care, or have an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude.
The final reason is that I generally like the taste of meat, beef most of all, chicken is ok, and I dislike most pork products. I went mostly vegetarian when I was over in India. The quality of the meat wasn't great, and the quality of vegetarian food was really good. I'd probably stop eating meat if vegetarian food tasted as good, and was significantly cheaper.
cjet79
2yr ago
I've lost track of whatever specific post we are talking about. I'm probably going to say something that might make you think "why the heck didn't you moderate the post I'm talking about!" And the answer is pretty straightforward: I think I'm one of the strictest mods on the payroll right now, and also one of the least active. Former honor for strictest used to go to Hylynka. Anytime there is a mod discussion of 'should we do something about this' I usually say yes. Anytime there is a mod discussion of 'should we perma-ban this user' I usually ask why we haven't done so already. Having said that I still support the other mods and the decisions they make. They are more lenient, but I find it is often a few degrees of each other. We agree on who needs a perma-ban, I just arrive at that conclusion a temp-ban sooner than them. We agree on the posts that need moderation, we just disagree on what level of punishment/warning to hand out.
I didn't say you loved the first comment, but you're defending it by appealing to the discussion that follows it, which I think is fairly summarized as "it can trigger good discussion".
I don't feel like that summarization fits. I'm fully willing to moderate low effort top level comments, even when they spawn good discussion. If I saw a low effort "kamala is an airhead" top level comment, with no other substance, it absolutely would be a ban from me. And it would be a ban much faster than a low effort comment that just said something like "kamala is a bad presidential candidate".
We want to encourage good discussion and discourage bad discussion. And specifically we want to make good discussion visible, and bad discussion either less visible, or at least shown to be punished if it is highly visible. There is of course a huge middle ground of mediocre discussion. I think me and the rest of the mods generally don't want to get in the way of mediocre discussion.
Visible bad discussion is something I try and moderate. "Kamalla is an airhead" within a few posts of a top level comment, and nothing else in the comment would have gotten some amount of mod sanction from me. If it is buried within a discussion like 5 or 6 levels down, or buried within a comment that has other useful things to contribute I'm gonna leave it alone. Cuz at that point I've mentally catalogued that downstream thread or that whole comment as "mediocre" discussion, and I'm not gonna get in the way.
It also makes further discussion seem mostly moot -- any false/true positive discussion is ultimately quantitative and it's unlikely any of us can come up with meaningful data.
Zorba does have some data based on the reporting functionallity, and the mod helper thing.
I can only say that "don't say mean things" was the default civility norms while I was growing up, it's second nature to me, it's what I expect from my friends, it's what my elementary school teachers expected of me, and I struggle to put myself in the shoes of somebody who would rather be silent than have to talk about politics without insulting their enemies. I think people do it because they can get away with it. If you think we risk losing valuable discussion then I guess further discussion isn't likely to be fruitful.
Politics confused me for a long time growing up. Don't say mean things seemed to be the "real life" civil behavior. But then those same adults trying to teach me that lesson would make mean comments about George Bush being an idiot, or John Kerry being a coward. And it was only a few years later when I realized that same vitriol could be turned on me if I spoke up as a libertarian. I guess I grew up in a very different environment than you. Politics has always been contentious in my mind, and aside from some early interactions when I didn't understand the game its never really felt personal. To me its looked like two sports teams yelling at each other and hurling insults. I think a lot of people like me sort of expect that norm, and they get confused when someone is upset about the ra-ra-ing. I guess its a cultural difference.
The mods (i.e. the three that have discussed it publicly) seem pretty united on the stance that "it's just my opinion" is a sensible defense. For me, this is just "one man's modus ponens" and I'll easily bite the bullet: if you're insulting somebody, it's relevant to your point or you're booing outgroup. That's true if it's a factual claim and it's true if it's your opinion.
There are some opinions we don't allow. But we usually want to have good justifiable reasons for banning the expression of an opinion. My distinction about personal insults in the previous post applies here. If your opinion of another poster is that they are an asshole, then keep that to yourself. However, we definitely don't want to ban opinions on policy. That is a road that all the other social media platforms have gone down, and we think it easily strays into the mistake of "too much moderation". Opinions on politicians are pretty close to opinions on policy.
Its understandable to have your stance. IDK I feel like I've modded things like this before within the past 5ish years of being a moderator. And those mod decisions are often highly controversial with other users. It triggers a lot of their fears of "oh no they are going to start moderating more of our opinions", and we work hard to not break that trust.
cjet79
2yr ago
Are you responding to things I wrote, or to things Amadan wrote? I can't tell.
There are things that are bad but also not worth moderating. Insulting politicians falls into this category. I never said it was good for triggering discussion, I didn't say it was good at all. I specifically said it was bad.
There are two failure modes of moderation. One failure mode is not moderating enough and the place descends into a hell hole. The other failure mode is moderating too much, and the place goes silent (or turns into an echo-chamber of moderator-approved content).
Protecting politicians from insults feels like it would tend towards too much moderation.
As a practical matter, there are multiple problems with this proposal:
-
I'm not even convinced we'd gain more Kamala Harris supporters in the discussion. After all, we'd be enforcing the rule accross the political spectrum. So there would be 'no insulting Trump' rules as well.
-
Politicians insult each other all the time. There is a problem in the news where repeating someone else's slanderous remarks isn't slander. We would have the same problem here. Users that wanted to insult a politician, would just have to share some story of their favored politician insulting their unfavored politician. To stop that we'd have to get into content moderation, which has always been a line we have tried to avoid crossing.
-
Insults vs opinions are a thin line. "I hate Trump" vs "I hate how Trump looks like a fascist clown and has ruined the image of the presidency" vs "Trump is a fascist clown". All these statements are sort of expressing a similar thing. And I imagine that anyone that is seeing red from one statement would probably be seeing red from all the statements, even if the 2nd statement should be allowable under our rules. So we'd have to go through a moderation crack down just to get people to be slightly more careful with their language ... and in the end we'd gain zero additional users. Because if someone can't stand another person not liking the same politicians as them, then they probably won't fit in here in the first place, and a slightly more careful phrasing of that dislike isn't going to appease them.
cjet79
2yr ago
I'm libertarian and have a bit of experience fighting losing political battles. I have to say I'm often suspicious of any group that claims to need some form of total victory for any success to be seen. Because they tend to quickly turn towards violence when their victory is not immediate.
There should be intermediate changes in any political plan, here are some reasons why:
-
You can verify that the underlying belief system is good and useful. If intermediate changes produce obviously bad outcomes then you need to rethink stuff.
-
Your followers can be happy about something.
-
Your enemies will see you going slow and they won't all fight as if this is an existential crisis. (some minority will treat it like its existential anyways, politics attracts crazy people)
As it is, that plan is basically going to wind up being "kill my political enemies, and then things will be great".
I'm getting to this post second, even though I modded a downthread comment of yours. I'll mostly just reiterate my ending point. When you make every other topic about jewish people you are waging the culture war. You probably need to take a personal break from that topic or risk escalating bans.
More options
Context Copy link