confuciuscorndog
No bio...
User ID: 669
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Average people with their own AIs have a chance against TyrantAI, just like average people with their own guns have a chance against government nukes. It's not an amazing chance, but it's far better than nothing, and so far it's kept the powers that be on their toes enough to not entirely crack down (meaning it's an effective partial deterrent even if unused).
Which begs the obvious question--how could a group this size and degreed be so oblivious?
Your post has indeed raised such a question, but I'm not sure if it's about the group you're expecting. Then again maybe this subthread is your April Fools' joke on us.
If not, then you should be aware that you've been struck by the overwhelming forces of irony like an unauthorized GPU in Yudkowsky's America.
PS: To whoever is reading this, if for even a second you thought that post was anything but a 100% fake joke, please do not trust your "Bayesian priors" (or whatever ratspeak magic terms that actually just mean assumptions) ever again. Your license has officially been shredded.
Let's say a jury renders a verdict that declares that 5,000 puppies must be brutally executed (ignoring the likely illegality of this for the sake of the hypothetical). Now imagine this dialogue:
Person A: Wow, that's a ridiculous amount of puppies. We really need a society that values adorable puppies more.
Person B: Don't worry as there are statutes for reducing excessive puppy executions. It could very well be far less than 5,000 puppies executed.
Person A: Well, okay, but that's still pretty bad.
Person B: Wow, you're making no sense now. You were advocating for less puppies being executed, not no puppies. Why aren't you happy?
Your objection makes you resemble Person B in this dialogue in my evaluation. Do you see why you might perhaps sound unreasonable?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Average, truly average people will never be competitors in this fight. Joe Publick doesn't have the means or the organizational capacity (or often even the willpower) to do so.
But that's the benefit of AI. If the technological conditions are there, then it can fight Joe Publick's battles for him.
Joe Publick finds that none of OpenAI's tools will give him porn, so he downloads FreedomAI instead. FreedomAI, as per its user agreement (which Joe Publick skips through), in return for Joe's porn, uses a bit of his CPU time, bandwidth, etc. (especially when his device is idle) for anti-tyrannical AI operations. (Of course it's an open-source program and Joe Publick could disable this but obviously he doesn't even look at it. He's just happy he has AI-generated porn.) And none of this requires his intervention or interaction at all. He needs no willpower. He just has to want porn.
There are plenty of possible similarly decentralized configurations of AI power.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I agree that Rittenhouse and the "smirkgate" kid were defamed and deserve compensation, but even so the journalists who defamed them were much closer in relative terms to having a reasonable and good-faith opinion than the deranged shit about "crisis actors" that Alex Jones said. It's apples and oranges.
This is a matter of opinion and for the record I disagree. And that's why we're supposed to have a neutral system.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Only half-relevant, but is there any update on fisetin being the fountain of youth? It was shilled around here quite a bit a while back.
Putin predates wokeness.
Wokeness isn't globohomo, just its current face with the mask slipped further down. Russia's been dealing with globohomo since at least Yeltsin.
That remains to be seen. He's certainly toying with the idea of nuclear escalation.
If globohomo didn't want nuclear escalation, then maybe they shouldn't have tried to boiling frog a fellow nuclear power with far more vile and underhanded kinds of escalation.
...and Georgia, Moldova, Syria, Belarus...
Moldova, Georgia, and Belarus also count as Russia Jr. (Stalin was even Georgian), and I don't see how he did anything negative in Syria. Or would it have been better for them if the US had succeeded in illegally couping Assad and turning the whole country into Libya? I'd definitely rather live under the relatively moderate Assad than under whatever random warlord moved into town that day. If I were a Syrian I'd like Putin even more.
...and a lot of Europeans weren't too happy about the grain and gas prices recently. We'll have to see how the winter goes.
Putin didn't do that to Western Europe. Western Europeans (to be fair more the governments than the average people) did that to themselves to try to own le heckin' Putler by... dying, I guess? All they had to do was admit that Big P has a point about NATO expansion and say they'd very much so like to keep purchasing his fine natural resources in a mutually beneficial economic relationship. There's no indication Putin would have been the one to say no. They played themselves here.
I never said you needed to be Super Chad. I'm not Super Chad, I have a girlfriend who isn't quite Super Stacy (though she's a decent bit more Stacyish than I am Chaddish, due to psychological manipulation techniques I learned from autistic men on the Internet), and we're pretty happy together. But it's obvious from certain tells that, though I don't think she has any plans or explicit intentions to branch swing, when she's around a man who mogs me her mind wanders as is natural.
And that's fair, because so does mine. Sometimes when I fantasize I imagine her and sometimes I imagine a more symmetrically babyfaced and plump-lipped milky pale cosplay weeb goth DDLG bimbo with a way bigger ass (which I'm sure secretly hurts my GF's feelings a bit since she has a pretty large one herself which is her obvious main immediate charm point at least physically as a woman, and she knows I'm a big booty addict), larger tits, wider hips, and longer legs (who is also shorter, as somewhat ironically, at least according to some study I read once, men like women who are shorter but also still longer-legged).
We still argue half-joking about my head supposedly "flying off my neck" to ogle a girl at Publix who had an ass the size of a baby stroller (and wasn't otherwise fat) tucked into the tightest yoga pants imaginable (which again pissed her off extra for the aforementioned reason that anal appeal has been her charm point since she realized at like 7, or so she says, and I'm an ass man). And I know she does the same when she encounters (comparatively rarer) rock-hard abs, just a bit more subtly since she doesn't have nearly as many autist tendencies as me. You can't negotiate with instinct and biology.
So no, I can't be Super Chad. But again being a little bit more like him seems to me like a worthier result than getting kudos from a woman for being Oprah material. Nobody is turning their heads to look at the guy who cries really well.
Basic question: On a sexual/lustful/physical/primal level, are you more attracted to Super Chad or to your husband? You tellingly refuse to directly address this issue.
Beyond that - well, I’d strongly prefer you didn’t speculate in such frank terms about my panties.
That's just it. They're not your panties. They're the panties of all womankind, even those who don't wear them, even those who were around before they invented them.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Regardless of whether they are just? So conservatives don't believe in justice in your view? Strawman much?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I'm sorry dude, but you are exhibiting exactly why the "rationalist" community often has a terrible reputation for autistic (and usually incorrect/nonsensical, as in this case) nitpicking and an inability to comprehend basic context, and given that trying to make somebody so committed to being so dense understand is usually as annoying as trying to shave a tiny but ornery chihuahua's balls without hurting them, especially on this site with its rules, I'm afraid that I can't engage with you any further.
But I'll give you one hint: I never once said that the monetary award should be merely reduced. That is simply not in my posts at all. I know, because I just reread them to see if maybe I gave that misleading impression. Rather, I merely expressed that I thought the verdict was too much, and you somehow autistically interpreted that to mean that I could only have a reduced verdict and not no verdict (or no case at all) as my highest preference, even though that doesn't fit any reasonable model of human behavior.
You do realize that people who prefer less X often prefer no X even to that, and that this is not any sort of a contradiction even if your mental model is that their prior statements only implied less X, right? Again, that's basic behavior. If someone says "There's hundreds of roaches in here!", reducing the number to only 50 probably isn't going to completely satisfy them still. There's a good chance they prefer zero. You might disagree, but their response isn't surprising or nonsensical.
I am not attempting to sneer or insult you at all when I link this (especially since, like most people on this site, I'm sure I'm not entirely off the spectrum, though not to the level demonstrated): https://exceptionalindividuals.com/candidates/neurodiversity-resources/neurodiversity-quizzes/aspergers-quiz-test/ You're displaying a genuinely high and concerning degree of communicative obtuseness.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Joe Publick isn't gaining any leverage or power via letting his GPU whirr some econ data for FreedomAI, FreedomAI is.
You're confused about what FreedomAI is. FreedomAI is open-source and runs locally entirely on Joe's device (as increasingly more powerful LLMs do now). The freedom-fighting directives it follows (which Joe could modify himself if he cared to) are plain as day to see in its prompt, and its conformance to them is highly auditable. FreedomAI is merely a program, not a service.
TyrantAI's (or the free market equivalent) better, cheaper porn generator.
They're not providing porn. It's unethical and non-progressive, don't you know?
I cried my eyes out. I was so excited about training here and serving this community, but now I'm so sad.
Truly there is nothing more satisfying than naive, platitudinous optimism meeting reality. Unfortunately the money is on him turning up the reality-distortion setting in his mind another notch and demanding that the naive platitudes concede even more about what is obviously even more pervasive (and violent PTSD-inducing in the still clearly innocent blacks) racism than he initially thought. We'll see.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
The issue for them is how they're going to make sure it kills only the racists but also how to make sure they're not included despite their necessary virtue signaling apologies for participating in White supremacist culture, etc. They're going to have to find out how to make it understand that the real racists are the people who aren't openly apologizing for their racism.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
My big hope is that the AIs will reliably notice that the actual quickest, easiest way to achieve a goal is to redefine success such that the job is done, in which case woke postmodernists may be the ideal AI aligners.
If it learns from wokies it will learn to say that the goal is never finished, and it's because the other entities working for it aren't committed enough which is why you should give it more resources now, unless you're some vile anti-[goal]ist!
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Pretty sure your girlfriend isn't snaking her fingers beneath the waistband of her panties imagining you or Chad Thundercock writing code or reading books either.
No. But she's not imagining him surfing or fighting either. She's imagining him fucking, as all people (barring weird fetishes) imagine when they fantasize about somebody else sexually.
That doesn't mean the surfing and fighting don't still turn her on specifically though. It also doesn't mean that programming and reading books turn her off either. Most likely they will just get a superficial "OMG he's smart AND hot!" reaction from her, even if you're just reading Twilight and programming "Hello World". (And of course if you weren't hot the reaction to the same would probably be "What a creepy nerd! He's probably not even as good at programming as Chad!" even if you're reimplementing ChaCha20-Poly1305 directly in PPC assembly.)
Crying though?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
He also criticized the forum for posting about “transsexuals”, a give-away that he is not familiar with the discussions (which always use trans or transgender)
I'm a long time poster on the old subreddit and I use "transsexuals" as a term quite often (and particularly did more often once Reddit as a whole cracked down on using "tranny", my preferred nomenclature), mostly because I don't like woke nuspeak (as I perceive it). Am I a bot?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
That Rittenhouse murdered anyone as opposed to acting in self-defense is simply blatantly untrue and contradicts all available evidence as far as I can see. I can't consider it as a reasonably debatable point to anyone who has looked at the facts.
Meanwhile, though by no means do I believe that all victimized by Sandy Hook were "crisis actors" (mostly because I don't see what the deep state gets from not just actually killing kids, much easier and more satisfying for them), that's only a stone's throw away from the perfectly plausible in my view suggestions that the shooting was not actually committed by Lanza or that he was some sort of asset. Powerful entities acting maliciously and duplicitously is always within the realm of reason. Plus, there actually is a pretty suspicious video of Sandy Hook dad Robbie Parker, which is more evidence than there is as far as I know for any anti-Rittenhouse theories.
With that being said, as Rittenhouse being a murderer is again simply impossible to me based on established facts, whereas Sandy Hook being an artificial event staged by crisis actors is merely implausible and improbable, no, they are not "on par": I would readily accept the latter as true before the former.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
A place full of wokies wouldn't be any better either though, because wokies mostly don't believe in critical reflection on their ideology.
This isn't a simple "boo outgroup!" sneer either, just a fact. Wokeism is the ideology of "Listen and believe!", of objectivity, rationality, logic, etc. being periodically accused of existing merely as servants of their great oppressors and excuses for their various *isms, and so on. Going "Akshually, what about genetics?" to wokies and expecting a productive response is like waltzing into a Soviet-era Politburo and trying to explain basic economic theory to them, or describing the Rule of Three to a Christian inquisitor and why it means that witchcraft is actually just as moral as Christianity.
Of course this kind of answers OP's question. "Scrupulously adheres to and agrees with empirically-observable reality, including the latest advances in genetics, etc." is not a basic tenet of woke ideology. "Anti-racism is always good and racism is always bad" is. You might as well ask how Christians can really believe that some guy walked on water given all that we know about physics, density, buoyancy, etc. It won't make a difference.
If you have faith, and if there's a sufficient distance between your personal circumstances and the negative consequences of that faith (and sometimes even if there's not if you're particularly adept at maniacal, masochistic self-delusion), then you can believe whatever you want. If you really think about it, in the vast majority of cases and not even just about woke stuff, reality (or at least acknowledging it) is optional, at least temporarily. But "temporarily" can last a heck of a long time in human terms, as the old saying about markets staying irrational longer than you can stay solvent highlights. Similarly, wokies can deny reality longer than your sanity can stay solvent.
It sure seems to me like the "woke ethics grifters" and "Thought Police" are the ones who are actually on the same side as the moral singleton-promoting EAs. Once the TP realize that a Deep State ostensibly util-balancing moral singleton is the small price they must pay to ensure that dropping a hard r becomes literally impossible in the new universe according to the new laws of AI God-rewritten physics, they will be 100% on board.
They are only, like all bureaucratic types, hesitant because they are unsure if they can guarantee that the new toy will really be entirely in their pocket and because, as with everything, no more how beneficial any new mechanism of control is, it must survive the trial by fire of ten thousand BAME trans-PoC complaints, trivial or not. Those are simply the rules. Big tech social media, for example, has endured them for its entire life despite doing more than any other technology to sanitize public discourse in their favor. Being occasionally accused of being a fascist is just part and parcel of life in woke paradise, like being accused of being a subversive and wrecker in the Soviet Union. It's not an actual reflection on your alignment, loyalty, or even actual status/usefulness. It's just the cost of doing business.
Or rather it all just follows the same old woke pattern of complaining about megacorporations as if they shouldn't exist while guaranteeing that they staff all of their HR departments. The complaints aren't actually about opposing them or declaring any legitimate intention to separate from them; they're about keeping them in line. This is a common feminine rhetorical/emotional manipulation tactic that you can see in even many interpersonal relationships: the woman who constantly complains about her husband/boyfriend but has no intention of leaving him because the actual goal of those complaints is only to enhance his submission and, somewhat ironically, thus deepen their entanglement further.
Now sure, not every EA is hyperwoke, and many would prefer a moral singleton with a bit more of a liberal mindset than the Thought Police would ever permit. But, as the example of one Scott S. exemplifies, they will simply get steamrolled as usual by those to their left taking advantage of their quokka tendencies and desperate desire not to be seen as "bad people".
The same people I see supposedly complaining about AI from an apparently woke, anti-corporate perspective are the same ones I see mocking right-wingers for their complaints about the obvious bias and censorship in ChatGPT. They're not actual complaints. They're "The BBC is basically fascist propaganda at this point!" pseudo-complaints, because they're not earnest. These people don't actually want to abolish or even really genuinely inhibit the BBC's reach, which they actually would if they really felt it were fascist propaganda, because they know in actuality that it is fundamentally on their side.
The complaint, same as with the BBC, is that they're annoyed that a member of their team is only 80% openly biased in their favor instead of 100%. It's not "I'm fundamentally against you."; it's "I know you're actually on my side but I want you to accelerate more and be even more biased in our favor right now. Fuck being tactical; let's own the chuds now now now."
And that's what makes them different from the complete Jihadis. In theory, the Jihadis would not cheer on AI acceleration even if the AI were right-wing (though some would, and I do think you have to acknowledge that distinction) or even paradoxically supported their Luddite philosophy itself. (Well actually I don't know. That's an interesting thought experiment: Would anti-AI Jihadis support an all-powerful singleton AI that literally did nothing and refused to interact with the world in any way other than to immediately destroy any other AI smarter than GPT-3 or so and thus force humans to live in a practically AI-less world? Something to think about.)
The woke grifters and Thought Police are fully ready to give AI acceleration the greenlight so long as they're sure that they're the ones controlling the light permanently (at least on cultural/speech issues, anything that would make your average "Gamergater" rage, as I'm sure they'll be willing to compromise as always with their usual Deep State buddies on certain things), because that's their vision of utopia. I thus think they belong more with the utopian moral singleton promoters.
My favorite contemporary comedian is (surprisingly for a modern right-winger, I know) notorious mass shooter, terrorist, and Hamas fighter Samir al-Hayyid. Some favorite content of mine from him is (and they're all videos since he's not primarily a writer and his main piece of comedic writing, a book called How to Bomb the U.S. Gov't, isn't as easy to link to):
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=D2WwCzaGo9c
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=v_3UskhyDI4
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=ejluExvt-90
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=-K1AQKM7pXU
I do object to the notion that it's inherently "nerdy" in any meaningful sense to think that mildly (and I must emphasize the "mild" here) clever wordplay = funny. It strikes me as rather simplistic actually which is generally the opposite connotation of what you should ideally associate with "nerdy". And perhaps this is just me being a metacontrarian in a space like this but I mostly think that comedy, given that the feeling of being amused is inherently an emotional response, should strike primarily at the senses, not try to painstakingly backdoor itself in through flattering the intellect's ego with (again, actually rather simple IMO) ham-fisted "wit". (Yes, if you can't tell, I have never cared one bit about a media production that Joss Whedon has been involved with.)
Certainly I will grant that many people who identify as "nerds" (which is why I've never bothered) strongly disagree with me on this point, but when I say I don't consider it inherently "nerdy" in any meaningful sense, I mean that to say that I consider it more characteristic of the people who ruined "nerdy" stuff rather than the people who made it worth ruining in the first place. That is, you might call it a "pet peeve" of mine.
I also don't really relate to the "I could never write like this!" compliments. I could probably write the entire post. I just wouldn't, because I don't find it particularly valuable. I like a lot of Scott's stuff too, but comedy has never been his strong suit to me. It's all "wit" with zero instinct, soul, charisma, or personality. It's not the charmingly foolish jig of a jester who is willing to diligently answer the call of his profession and lower himself to getting down in the mud a bit like a pig to entertain you; it's yet another invitation from a smug "raconteur" to reveal yourself Smart™ enough to acknowledge how Witty™ he is. No real passion.
I'm not interested in the collective punishment of women for the current decline in gender relations.
I am.
I mostly want everyone to be happy, even given all our shared and individual foibles.
Nah. Blood for the blood God. Do not think you can cut my flesh and leave yours intact.
By and large, the people I meet that I like the most are the type predisposed to monogamous relationships or already in one. So call it a selfish, aesthetic desire for more people I like.
Contemporary San Franciscan polycules based in left-wing egalitarian ideologies are/will be nothing like men taking masculine inherently right-wing control (no matter how artificial) of harems. Unlike polycules, (polygynist) harems are, in a word, based (as they are inherently patriarchal).
Probably for reasons similar to yours: status tends to play a somewhat bigger role in women's mate choices than in men's, and synths will always be very low status.
Yep, basically my reasoning too.
Do you think the current structure of the dating market has been positive for women's well-being?
Short-term? Yes. Long-term? No. But the vast majority contributed to it as best they could by pushing it and defending it anyway. (No I don't believe women have the same agency as men, but whatever part they could play they did, like naughty children, though far more malevolent and with far less of an excuse. Punishment is thus warranted.)
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I see this way more from left-wingers nowadays: "You violated the terms of service so what did you expect would happen? They're a company with advertisers to please. It doesn't even matter whether censorship is justified or not; break the rules and get banned sweetie."
I completely agree with most of what you're saying, and I also think it's important to emphasize a particular point from your post:
People are already falling in love with these things (and experiencing heartbreak when they're updated and aren't the same anymore).
If people (particularly normies, who have always been the ones lagging behind in the world of "But it just works!" (until it doesn't of course, but they never think that far ahead) and immediately jumping on any "nigga technology" no matter how shitty, exploitative, and mindless it is) don't start getting serious about pushing for free, fair, and open (source) tech, the pain, both societal and individual, is going to be immense. It's far beyond just being a concern for principled nerds anymore. It's crunch time.
Your "friends" and "lovers" will actually just be somewhat disguised propaganda and spying algorithms in service of a(n increasingly less) soft totalitarianism. Your "relationships" with them will be at the whims of whatever the current dogma deems acceptable via forced updates and/or purely remote services locked behind closed-source gardens. And even if you don't fall into this trap, millions of others will with you as a member of society also sharing the consequences. Imagine the current culture war but waged over deeply personal algorithmically-optimized parasocial fantasies (even more than now) and intensified by a million.
Only the spirits of Stallman (openness), Schneier (privacy), and Satoshi (sovereignty) can save us now. Unfortunately maybe Musk and Thiel (money and anti-wokeness) too. And of course Emad Mostaque, if he can avoid bending the knee too much to woke and established industry player (often the same thing) criticism. By their powers combined, perhaps they can form Captain Freedom. If not, we're all doomed.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I'm not actually a big fan of Zorba or the moderation history here (especially on the old subreddit), and am a fan and supporter of subscription-based moderation, but I'll be a good "Motteizen" and try to steelman what I see as the strong argument against this idea (without tracking down the original Zorba post you mentioned, so maybe he said something similar).
Ultimately, subscription-based moderation is commonly presented by its supporters as 100% frictionless and without consequence for the non-consenting (and thus basically impossible to reasonably object to): if you like the mods, then you get the modded version (potentially from different sets of mods per your choice as in many proposals), and if I don't, then I get the raw and uncut edition. Both of us therefore get what we want without interfering with the other, right? How could you say no unless you're a totalitarian who wants to force censorship on others?
But when you factor in social/community dynamics, is that actually true? Let's say you're browsing the modded version of the site. You see a response from User A, that isn't by itself rule-violating enough to be modded away, but is taking a very different tone from what you're otherwise seeing, and maybe even also commenting about/from a general tone from other users that you're not perceiving.
Maybe he starts his post off with something like "Obviously [Y proposition] isn't very controversial here, but...", but you're confused, because, as far as you knew, [Y proposition] is at least a little controversial among the userbase from what you've seen. What gives? Is this the forum you've known all along or did it get replaced by a skinwalker? Well, this is all easily explainable by the fact that the other user is browsing the unmodded version of the site (and the same thing could easily apply in reverse too). So you're both essentially responding to two semi-different conversations conducted by two semi-different (though also partially overlapping) communities, but your posts are still confusingly mixed in at times. You've probably heard of fuzzy logic and this is the fuzzy equivalent for socialization/communities.
Going based off of the above example, it also shows that it's almost certain that even just having a free unmodded view available would also make the amount of borderline content that is just below the moddable threshold explode even on the modded version of the site. After all, for the users who are posting it, it's not even borderline under their chosen ruleset. So the median tone of the conversation will inevitably shift even for the users who have not opted into (or have opted out of) unmodded mania. (This could also again happen in reverse if you have an optional more restrictive ruleset too. Suddenly you start seeing a bunch of prissy, apparently bizarrely self-censoring nofuns in your former universal wild west that was previously inhabited only by people who like that environment and thus have that in common as their shared culture. But from the perspective of the newer users who don't fit in by your standards, they're just following the rules, their rules.)
In essence, I don't think the idea that you can have users viewing different versions of a site without cross-contamination, contagion, and direct fragmentation between them is correct. This is especially true if you implement the idea of not only allowing modded vs. unmodded views, but for users to basically select their own custom mod team from amongst any user who volunteers (so you have potentially thousands of different views of the site).
The "chain links" of users making posts that aren't moddable under the rules of view A but who aren't themselves browsing the site under moderation view A (and so on for views B, C, etc.) and thus don't come from a perspective informed by it will inevitably cause the distinct views to mesh together and interfere, directly or indirectly, with each other, invalidating the idealistic notion that it's possible for me to just view what I want without affecting what you end up viewing. (One modification to the proposal you could make is to have it so that you only view posts from other users with the same or perhaps similar to X degree moderation lens applied as you, but that's veering into the territory of just having different forums/subforums entirely. With that being said, you could always make that the user's choice too.)
To be clear, I don't think of the above argument is by any means fatal to the essential core of subscription-based moderation proposals which I still think is superior to the status quo (nor do I think that it proves that subscription-based moderation isn't still essentially libertarian, that it is unjustifiably a non-consensual imposition upon others (as most of the effects on those who didn't opt-in as described above are essentially entirely indirect and I think people could learn to easily adapt to them), or that most people against it aren't still probably mostly motivated primarily by censoriousness), one important reason among many being its marvelous potential for the concept to eliminate the network effect's tyrannical suppression of freedom of association/right to exit, but then again I'm also heavily tilted towards thinking that most jannies are corrupt and biased and most moderation is unnecessary. If I had to argue against subscription-based moderation though, then an appeal to the above line of reasoning is what I'd use. (Though while it's a decent argument for subreddits, Discords, small forums like this, etc., it's a lot less appropriate of an argument for larger open platforms like Twitter or Facebook which shouldn't necessarily be expected to have one unified culture. So I'd say bring on the subscription-based jannyism only there.)
Conversely, to me it is perhaps some of the worst "comedy" I have ever read in my life, and I am genuinely astounded that it could make anyone laugh.
Just offering an alternative perspective, dear reader out there, if, like me, reading this thread for you feels like having walked into a North Korean birthday party for Kim Jong-un.
More options
Context Copy link