justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
Once upon a time I was a Republican and then I went to college and turned into the leftist liberal progressive Democrat that hides under your bed and no I am not a man and yes I’m addicted to downvotes, every time I get one it’s like a bump of that sweet smoking gun. Also I do 99% of this on mobile in my bathtub, so if I don’t respond to you it’s because my screen was too tiny to read everything before I got out of the bath.
User ID: 2254
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
Can you give me some examples of what you consider to be aggressively performative economic, political and social rights & opportunities?
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
What is wokeness, specifically?
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
I wish again I could properly express my sincerity when I say your-this response is very much in line with the kind of conversation I am looking for and I am verily satisfied and optimistic. I made specific claims and feel you are directly addressing them, therefore listening to me, and continuing the conversation yadda yadda. That's the best anyone can ask for on this forum.
"You think it does, I think it doesn't. C'est la vie."
and
"This is an obvious strawman"
and
"the question, "Is it reasonable to ask the question, 'Do leftists care about child rape,' and it is it reasonable to answer it with 'No?'" and these are 2 fundamentally different questions and you are eliding between the two."
and
"the words you added to your synopsis of my comment fundamentally changed the meaning of my comment."
and
"Where did you ask this question?"
are all elements of your response I think are valid and worth time and attention to answer because they are, at least to me, objective rigor and commentary. Unfortunately, I just don't want to do that right now and likely won't in the future if I don't now in this response. And honestly, if I'm not willing to take the time to respond to your points the way I want you to respond to mine then the onus is on me to concede and take responsibility for inappropriately closing the argument. My apologies for the frustration, -50 points to house Leftist, I shouldn't start debates if I'm not willing to see them to the end. Since I am not responding to your points, I think it is fair to say you are correct. I dunno, if I say, "Cats don't drink milk." and you say, "Yes they do." and then I run off without responding, the winner that's left is "yes they do" unless I come back and pick back up the argument.
Anyway, long-winded way of thank you for responding, sorry, I'm wrong, and trying my best to point big arrow signs that say "THIS IS WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR".
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
Then it looks like the moderation on this site isn't for me. If your intent is for this site to be "a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases", then when two people are clearly not on the same page about what "shady thinking", much less what counts as "responding", is, the only person who had the authority to provide guidance is you. I thought this place was trying to consider itself a debate club and like any, any debate platform, there has to be a moderator to keep the conversation from getting derailed, otherwise, yes, it devolves into trying to parse out and agree on what the hell the other person is even saying. By you not checking that 07mk is actually responding to what I'm saying, you're signaling that other users can get away with the same behavior I'm pointing out. Nobody wants to argue with someone they think isn't listening to them, so all that you have left is an echochamber.
That is to say, I do feel like you are listening to me in this particular response, and your answer is "Hell no." I wish I knew a way to illustrate the full sincerity of when I say that is perfectly acceptable to me. I don't want to moderate this site, you do, and I appreciate a succinct and clear answer.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
SteveKirk, why do you keep making unnecessary little zingers like "all their little tricks are so clever"? I could also do a little zinger along the lines of, "watch out, they're trying to make you gargle sand again", but that is escalation and devolves the conversation and this isn't the place for that. I don't understand what you want out of the forum if, seemingly, all you want to do is make little barbs at leftists that piss them off and goad them into stinging you and derail the conversation.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
I seriously think "Mod's Choice" AAQC is a really great idea. It shows what the moderators of the site are looking for while giving out that sweet internet recognition that encourages people to make more posts like the AAQC. Or people can just ignore it and go for the mass-approval AAQCs and still feel satisfied their contributions are being recognized.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
I agree, having sex with someone who lied to you isn't practicing safe sex. But then, does the argument "prep is a drug for gay people to attend orgies because they keep having sex with people who lie to them" valid from my example? No. Firstly, because it's anecdotal, and secondly, the anecdotal evidence already contradicts your claim that prep can "easily be replaced by safe sex practices". Do you believe my roommate is responsible for his boyfriend lying about getting tested? Because I don't think so.
I don't know what you're trying to say with the second part there. Exactly how is "having sex with someone who thinks talking about HIV is a boner killer" not practicing safe sex? Unless you're trying to say, "your roommate not telling people at the club he hooks up with he has HIV because it's a boner killer isn't practicing safe sex", in which I would agree that isn't practicing safe sex, but...that's not what I said my roommate was doing. I said the prospect of getting rejected repeatedly by potential hookups who do not want to have conversations about taking PREP was adversely affecting his mental health and that he was, in fact, practicing safe sex by not going to a place where the proper thing to do is explain his medical status.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
This is a very kind thing to say on a site like this, thank you for the compliment.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
It is intimately refreshing to read what you're saying because I agree wholeheartedly, except that it can't be solved by moderation. I believe moderation can solve it by setting the trend. If we can all agree what "not responding to eachother" looks like, or "debate fallacies", or "poor standard of discussion", which I think we can do, then we can start calling each-other out on it and only resort to mods for reinforcement/clarification. I swear on my pinky toe the same problem would be here if there was a healthy leftist population.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
Yes, it is my subjective opinion on moderation. I am trying to prove said subjective opinion in the most objective way I can think of. I write the report, I send it to my boss, and I've done my job. What you and the mods do with said report is not in my metaphorical pay grade to be concerned about. I'll gather my data and write some paragraphs trying to summarize it and if ya'll think it's bogus, uh. Idk, you're asking me for proof, I'm gonna whip up the proof, and if it just comes down to plain "I think this, you think that", like, that's fine. It just means the moderation on this site isn't for me.
And no, oh my Lord, I do not expect you guys to add all that extra work. I feel like I am saying these things and they're not being heard. I literally acknowledged and will do so again that ya'll are a small mod team and cannot afford extra work, so if I am going to propose a solution, it needs to be concise, factor in labor effort, and be achievable with the small team ya'll have. With your example, yes, I would like for the mods to say something like that, but no, it's not feasible to do with every single disagreement, so it should only be used when it's really necessary so as not to eat up mods' time, so there needs to be some kind of colloquially agreed upon terminology that is easily identifiable.
You think @07mk responded to what I said. I think he didn't, and also that a lot of other people just generally don't on this site in general. I would like to gather my evidence to convince you he-and-they didn't. Then after that if you still think he responded to what I said, that's totally fair. Sometimes it just does come down to "I don't agree". But at least I did my part in trying to put my money where my mouth is.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
Okay, well I think you're wrong in thinking that the charity rule means posting baileys (leftists don't care about child rape) instead of mottes (policies that leftists champion lead to child rape) is acceptable. This site is...literally called the Motte. "It's obvious this is what I'm saying" is literally the shady thinking we are trying to avoid. It's the exact same poor debating as what antifa is doing.
I mean, this debate started because you said "I don't find either of your examples to be anywhere near the level of dunking or the vitriol that's displayed by antifa here because the question of whether or not leftists care about child rape isn't pleasant, nor is it nice, but it's a real question that can be honestly, in good faith, answered as "No." because when I was a younger, more naive leftist, I genuinely didn't care about child rape or other potential negative consequences of unmitigated immigration." therefore the comment here by antifa, and IME the occasional leftists who come in "hot" here, are basically pure shit with perhaps some bones and ligaments there, whereas the comments left by right-wingers are not."
I responded with, "I don't think you can answer "do leftists care about child rape" with your own anecdotal evidence, because anecdotal evidence is bad on its own. Do you agree that anecdotal evidence is bad on its own, and do you have other evidence that "leftists don't care about child rape" other than anecdotal?"
You responded with "I'm not saying every leftist doesn't care about child rape, I'm saying leftists would absolutely, 100%, honestly, in good faith believe they care about it, but their lack of curiosity in actually checking if their beliefs about reality are correct shows that their belief about what they care about is incorrect. And, additionally, my anecdotal evidence stands because I was no means being an unusual leftist as someone who openly said that, if allowing in poor people that Republicans dislike into our country also means that some of those poor people will do things like rape more children in the USA, then so be it."
I responded with, "Okay, but why are you not saying what you think then? There is a world of difference between "leftists don't care about child rape" and "leftists are unwilling to look at the true ramifications of their policies and therefore don't actually care about the results". Additionally, you haven't responded to my claim anecdotal evidence on its own isn't valid, much less my question if you have any other evidence than that, you just repeated your anecdote, which I assume means you think that type of data is valid and you don't have that evidence, but then can you say that out loud so we can move on?"
And now it seems you don't know what we are debating about, as you said "whatever debate we're having". This is what I mean. I believe your bad debating habits have derailed the conversation. Your actual point was not "saying leftists don't care about child rape is valid", it was "I don't find either of your examples to be anywhere near the level of dunking or the vitriol that's displayed by antifa here." I think my examples do support my claim which wasn't and isn't even that there is too much vitrol and dunking on leftists but that debate fallacies were derailing conversations and driving away leftists because the mods have an unrecognized bias towards these debate fallacies.
This is where I would like some type of mod action that is similar to debate moderators, in which a clear direction of, "07mk, you are talking about this, and justawoman, you are talking about that. Respond to eachother so this debate can be productive instead of a bunch of hot air."
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
I replied downthread the proposed solution and went into detail. I genuinely am asking if you have read it? The one about statistics and me collecting a data pool? I feel like it has answers already to these questions on it, and no! It's not going ban crazy, and it's not using up all your energy to proof-read.
Otherwise, concretely, I want you guys to be able to identify the debate fallacies going on and tell the users who are utilizing them to knock it off so that legitimate debate can be had and you're not driving off the leftists that you want. In your first example with 07mk, is a great one; no, I think he did not respond to what I said. I first posited a) their claim about leftists' attitude on child rape couldn't be substantiated with just anecdotal evidence and b) did they have any evidence other than anecdotal. Neither of those points were addressed in their response. To me, appropriate mod action would be something along the lines of "07mk, you cannot expect justawoman to continue the conversation if you don't continue it appropriately. Please respond to her two claims a) Do you think such a claim can be substantive on anecdotal evidence and b) do you have evidence other than anecdotal, then move on to the next claim." I said in my response earlier I would be happy to document these things privately so that I had data to back my claims and also to point out these general trends and condense them into a sentence or two so that the small mod team here has concrete examples to look out for.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
Yes. I’m being facetious and tried to crack a joke at when I first posted and was also accused of being a troll by another user.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
I have finally been elevated from troll status? Don’t say more senpai, you’ll make me blush uwu
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
YES. You guys are the mods! You set the tone of the entire site! You guys should have a personal standard of what is quality post and measure it against the popular post.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
If you interpret what I’m suggesting as “pretty close to demanding that we be like everywhere else, where you won't have to read people being mean to your opinions”, then I don’t know what to tell you. I feel I have said repeatedly the problem is not that right-wingers are saying mean things about left-wingers, it’s that bad debate etiquette is so pervasive here that it’s impossible to have a discussion.
Like kinda right now. I am scratching my brain on how, despite what I interpret as carefully wording my response to be as clear as possible about my opinions, you walked away with “justawoman doesn’t like reading mean things about her political beliefs like all the other leftists online”. I literally do not care if I get downvoted a lot, I don’t care if I get vitriol thrown at me, and can you show me which part of my responses implied I don’t want to read mean opinions?
To reiterate my position once more; I do not care if I read bad opinions here. But if I can’t debate the bad opinions because my opponent won’t respond to what I am saying, then yeah, something needs to change because none of us can test our shady thinking on here if we aren’t actually doing debate.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
Okay, but we’re trying to debate and your response was “I think that leftists don’t care about child rape because of my anecdotal experience of being a leftist” and I responded with “anecdotal evidence isn’t enough, do you have evidence outside of that”, and not only have you not responded to my claim about anecdotal evidence you have not responded about providing said evidence. I’m not saying you need to agree to those points or some type of action or whatever, but you have to acknowledge those points so we can move on to the next point of debate or we are literally talking over eachother.
This is, again, illustrating the problem with the Motte. It is not that you’re a right winger insulting me a left-winger; you’re being a bad debater. Part of the rules of this site are “speak clearly”, so yes, you DO have to clarify that when you say “leftists don’t care about child rape”, you SHOULD say “policies that leftists champion lead to child rape and so on” or that “leftists believe in stopping child rape but don’t take action”.
It is sincerely a gigantic waste of time for everyone if we can’t agree on debate rules and you keep making me feel like you’re not even reading what I’m saying until I quit the conversation, which I am really close to doing. If you cannot provide evidence outside of anecdotal evidence for your claim so we can properly debate it or even just respond to my request for such I’m going to assume you’re not interested in a conversation.
I am claiming if I make an argument that Trump is a fascist, I agree, I’ll be downvoted (but like idc), and yes, I won’t be modded if I keep it civil, but also virtually all of the replies will be so riddled with logical fallacies, not to mention subtle boo outgrouping, that not only do I have no desire to continue debating in good faith but I’m at risk of losing my cool in a sea of what seems to me to be absolutely laughable debating bizarrely not getting modded and then definitely getting myself modded. I’m also claiming that my reaction is likely a common reaction most other leftists are having and therefore is the explanation for why the leftist population is nonexistent here without the other explanation being “the mods are secretly fucking elephants and flipping off liberals while they do it.”
Edit: to address directly your question of “What else is it you want to say that you think you wouldn't be allowed to say here?”, I believe it is, “I literally can’t argue with this trashy argument because it doesn’t even fit the definition of the argument. Do you even know how to have a conversation, random_Motte_user, much less want to? Like how am I expected to work with this? Mods where are you guys isn’t this supposed to be a debate club? Why are all the users absolutely shit at debating.” Or something less inflammatory.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
Okay see this is what I am trying to illustrate as bad debating. The question of “whether or not leftists care about child rape” isn't a real question that can be honestly, in good faith, answered as “No.” solely because of your anecdotal experience of not caring about certain potential negative consequences of unmitigated immigration when you identified as a liberal. Anecdotal evidence isn’t enough to make declarations like that, because, uh, I’m so liberal I sat under the Democrat tent on election day and advertised Harris yardsigns and I care about child rape lmao. Does my experience trump yours? Does yours trump mine? Like how am I supposed to argue with that? That’s why I believe in the spirit of debate anecdotal evidence holds little weight compared to objective evidence and I would like to see if you have other data pools to prove that “leftists don’t care about child rape” otherwise…I dunno what to tell you other than we’re not debating anymore lol.
It’s terribly frustrating that the far more rich response I had typed while at the laundromat got deleted because my stupid timer went off. I’m going to try to think out loud for a second.
I think it can sound corny, but I want to follow the lessons I learned in my high school statistics class because I think they can apply here to answer your what I think is a critical question.
Since I’m making an objective claim about a general trend, I need the data to prove it, right? Charts that don’t have data behind them are literally air. The claim is that I think the moderators on this site are unintentionally allowing debate fallacies which is driving away the spirit of debate here and therefore the leftists. Ok. One data point I have is that I think therefore I am and I’m really, really liberal (blood bleeds blue and I feel a spiritual connection to donkeys). However, literal one data point for one data pool is also the makings of a useless chart.
Therefore, I would be happy to include in my lurking routine for this site privately copying comments on my note app I believe need to be modded but aren’t being modded and how I think they should be modded but aren’t. I can do this for months so that I have an appropriately large data pool.
What to do with the data? Bear with me, but what follows is an X and Y axis yadda yadda. If my claim is that certain types of debate fallacies are not being appropriately squashed and therefore facilitating an unwelcome environment due to the large conservative majority, I should be able to a) define what those fallacies are b) sort the comments I collected into said fallacies by highlighting which parts I think demonstrate them c) count the number of fallacies and d) declare the amount to be demonstrative of an unconscious bias.
Alright, so hypothetically I’ve proven my claim with valid evidence. What’s next? From my experience on heavily moderated Discords, the most effective way to stop trends in conversations is to know what you are looking for, tell the commenter to stop, and repeat until most regulars know if you do x you’ll hear y, so that the majority of offenders are newbies unfamiliar with the vibes. If I’ve done my math correctly, I should be able to condense the data into like one or two sentences and be like “look out for that”.
After that, I can privately send you and other mods the whole thing. It is the best objective method I can think of at the moment to prove my claim, and also a way to condense a complex solution. Look it’s also hard because I think everyone’s a special snowflake and deserves unique consideration blah blah blah but also I think there’s, what, two mods? I think ya’ll don’t have enough bureaucracy to do that. The question of “how to moderate a community” is one that will never have an answer but should still be asked. All things considered, I do appreciate the effort and think there is genuine charity in the mods’ efforts.
Edit: And no I don’t think banning will work because you will drive away otherwise potentially valuable contributors who just aren’t familiar with the rules and vibes. I think what will work instead is clear, consistent and concise moderation: “please don’t do x, read the sign please”. It’s exhausting as a moderator to give a lot of chances for repeat offense before resorting to banning but I believe eventually the community will self-moderate.
Edit edit for brevity and a little humor to lighten the air: Or, you know, as a liberal, like, raise your taxes and get some more bureaucratic administration to reinforce your in-need-of-redefining environmental regulations, Orange Man Bad, yo.
It is uncharitable, because that is not what it is exclusively used for. I know this because my roommate has HIV. He got it because his boyfriend at the time has AIDS and didn’t know it because he didn’t get regularly tested and lied that he did. You can get HIV by coming into contact with the blood or sexual fluids of someone who has HIV or AIDS and isn’t taking the ART drug that arrests the development of HIV. Using a condom isn’t very safe, because it only takes a trace amount of said fluids to infect you, unless you are actively taking prep. When my roommate went for his monthly testing, he came back positive and was devastated.
Now he has to drive to the city every month to take a medication for HIV, known as ART, and if he doesn’t take it perfectly, his body can develop a resistance to ART and then he is dead. I, as his roommate who shares laundry machines and dishes with him, am sure glad that regardless of his employment status, he will still have access to those meds, so that the only thing I have to worry about is him being honest in him taking them on time.
Therefore, in practicing safe sex, any current or future sexual partner of his should also be taking PREP as a final preventative measure. I’m glad that there exists silver linings for him in that he has options for his sexual partners, but before he got his current boyfriend who agreed to take PREP, many of his potential hookups weren’t taking PREP and, like, it’s not very sexy telling a cute dude at the club that “oh by the way I have HIV so if you’re not comfortable with that we’re going to have to wait a couple of weeks for the PREP to kick in”. Kinda a boner killer.
So, my roommate practiced safe sex as best as he could, and because of the lies of someone else, he got a lifelong disease that will kill him if he doesn’t take his meds every day at exactly the same time, and thankfully doesn’t have to worry that if he loses his job his boyfriend won’t be able to afford the drugs that allow him to have a sexual life with his loved one, on top of the life saving drug he takes. Does he belong in the same camp as people who spam PREP to have orgies? I confidently state no, and therefore find statements such as “PREP is just a drug used for orgies, why don’t they practice safe sex?” uncharitable.
Edit: an additional and critical counterargument; gay people are not the only people who can contract AIDS and HIV.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
In the spirit of discussion I’ll have to bite the bullet that I just am not going to say everything I want to say on my phone; I sincerely don’t believe the moderators here are intentionally letting right-wingers boo outgroup leftists and then whistling when it gets pointed out. I believe instead there is a bias problem going on and rather it’s not being recognized. I think the problem is not even specifically “right wingers are booing left winger”, it’s that in a forum trying to be a debate club, there is a lot of just bad debate happening. There is, in my opinion, way too many declarative statements about broad populations without the evidence to back it up or even visible rigorous debate. When someone says “prep is for gay orgies”, there isn’t the expected, “what is your bailey behind that motte, do you actually think all gay people demanded that drug specifically for orgies” in responses. It’s just a bunch of people also going “yes I agree, leftists can’t comprehend civilization properly” and “well, you can’t expect Democrats to know how to tell the truth”. And it happens really, really subtlety.
I swear, if there was an equally healthy population of leftists on here, you’d have the same problem. I’ve seen ya’ll mods say too many times over too many years you’re not trying to unfairly mod to believe it’s just a nothing statement.
justawoman
I’m Bernie Sanders’ personal gimp
5mo ago
I’m at the laundromat for context as to why I haven’t responded to other comments yet, since my main mode of using this site is lurking on my phone in-between things. Anyway, just to clarify, I am verily not a man. I’m just a woman.
Additionally, I try to be clear about putting subjective opinions as “I think” or “I believe” in the spirit of debate. Yes, I still believe not only subjectively but objectively social conservatism should be rejected by civilized society. But since I don’t have nor want to find the evidence suitable for making such a claim that “it’s not just my opinion, objectively social conservatism is social cancer and everyone here who believes it has drunk the Koolaid” here, and therefore can’t, I try to keep everything within the realm of what I personally think. It is just my opinion.
That is to say, a long winded way of saying I can’t represent all of leftism, anymore than I think you represent all of, uh, I dunno. Everything else? I don’t know you sincerely. I’ve lurked on here for years since reddit times and I only remember Walterodim because of the cheeky Witcher reference and Amadan because of the big red color on their name.
I wish that you would recognize the reason “leftists” come in hot “arriving” here is because, I believe, you allow a hilarious amount of boo-outgrouping from “the other side” on here without the same vigor. One of the “quality contributions” literally goes on about how leftists don’t care about raped children, and somewhere down that line someone declares proudly that prep is a drug for gay people to attend orgies. Exactly where is the charity and good faith in declaring such things? Would I really be received with such neutral attention if I said such things about other outgroups? I think the answer is no. Therefore, I hazard most leftists look at your “be charitable” rule and laugh at it because they think you seem to define “chartiable” as “don’t say bad things about conservatives at all but feel free to dunk leftists” and therefore disregard the etiquette since to them you are disregarding it as well.
I agree. I’d say Trump pardoning people who deliberately and illegally entered government property is performative social justice. What economic/political/social opportunity and right is being denied by jailing people who literally broke the law?
Therefore the claim that “wokeness” is on the letdown seems false.
More options
Context Copy link