naraburns
nihil supernum
No bio...
User ID: 100
naraburns
nihil supernum
4mo ago
Yes, but humans are also biologically selected for certain patterns of collective action - thats part of normal evolution for a social species.
...did you even look at the link, maybe? Or read what I wrote about reductionism not being useful in the context of this conversation? You're not saying anything I don't know, but perhaps more importantly, you're not saying anything you shouldn't anticipate me knowing. In the end, we're presumably all just subatomic particles doing what subatomic particles do! Your question was "why is it egregorian and not just normal evolution" and my answer was "because evolution describes biological patterns and arrangements, while egregores describe social patterns and arrangments." Your response appears to be "nah those aren't different things" but they are at least as different as diamond and graphite, for which we have different words despite their consisting of the same atomic substrate.
Maybe it would just be simpler to point out that British-descended humans in Britain, America, and Australia clearly share "normal evolution" in common--but not egregorian memespace?
Or maybe I just don't understand your question at all.
naraburns
nihil supernum
5mo ago
We already told you to use the contact form. Or you could respond to this comment! Spamming the site does not endear you to us.
naraburns
nihil supernum
5mo ago
This is sufficiently "culture war" that you should post it in the Culture War thread.
naraburns
nihil supernum
5mo ago
What is up with the top-level post here (I am unable to get a direct link)? It says "Removed" but no modhat comment.
It looks like that user went through and deleted all their own comments.
naraburns
nihil supernum
6mo ago
I do not even know whether it is possible, but I can't think of any reason why we would do that.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
It's highly relevant, because I am trying to figure out what the actual infraction is, and one of the ways I'm going to do that is by comparing what I did to seemingly similar behavior from others.
No, don't compare yourself to unmoderated comments; we don't (can't) moderate every rules violation, because we don't even see most of them. Most of the time, a comment has to get reported first.
So you're saying that if I'd sprinkled in a few hedging words, there wouldn't be a problem? Or if I'd specified "Republicans" and "Democrats"?
"Republicans" and "Democrats" is probably still too general, because those are not meaningfully homogeneous groups beyond the fact of their group membership. You need to specify to a meaningful degree. "People who believe in God" is a very general group, but you can say some things about them in a permissible way. And I definitely didn't say "sprinkle in a few hedging words and there won't be a problem," I said something more like "hedging and honest self report can be mitigating factors, provided the rest of your comment isn't too blatantly terrible in other ways."
That is me characterizing the pattern of thinking I am talking about, as exemplified in the excerpt I quoted.
But first, you never say "suppose someone thinks that..." and second, your characterization slips into weak man territory. Remember, you opened with:
This epitomizes general differential expectations of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are regarded (and to a shocking degree, regard themselves)
So this sets the expectation that you think that conservatives (as well as liberals) think, concerning conservatives:
FEMA death camps, Birtherism, Jewish Space Lasers, etc... They're dumb, they're ignorant, they can't help themselves and we shouldn't expect anything of them.
It's impossible to tell, from your comment, whether you include yourself in "conservatives" or "liberals" so it's impossible to tell, from your comment, whether you are hiding your own views behind a neutral "some people think" point of view, or what. If you're going to run with a "some people think" argument, then you need to be either steel manning it, or proactively providing evidence of what those "some people" actually think.
naraburns
nihil supernum
9mo ago
It wasn't me, but several of my posts on reddit were included in the maintenance of a cultural Marxism "thread" (maybe on CWR?) for a time, that included numerous materials. But at some point the creator deleted it, presumably either by quitting reddit or by being banned from it. This was not my first post on the topic, but Google is not helping me find older ones and I haven't got the bandwidth just this moment to dig up the others.
naraburns
nihil supernum
11mo ago
I don't know! That's definitely a question for @ZorbaTHut.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
I’m not sure to what extent can it even be called a culture war topic.
...
It’s like when Blue Tribers today think that...
Well, at least to that extent, right?
CW thread.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
Long form and relitigating every frame hinders the ability to develop models to apply to new situations.
Inflammatory comments and shorthand integration-by-reference hinder the ability to create 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.
That's the goal--it's right there at the top of the page! Of course, the community is what it is; personalities and culture and such are bound to develop and play a part. The goal of moderation is to do what we can to preserve the foundation in the face of that.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
So it would at least be good to specify the viewpoint from which you're judging a particular claim as inflammatory.
As with all rules, it's the viewpoint of the best judgment of the moderators.
I personally don't think there's anything inflammatory at all about "women love a killer".
That's why I referenced the specific/general rule there, rather than the inflammatory one.
Is no one allowed to post under the assumption that HBD is true unless they include a link to a list of HBD 101 resources laying out the supporting evidence?
That depends largely on the tone of the post. A factual and charitable but non-inflammatory post that leads a person toward uncomfortable conclusions is a very different thing than a meticulously-researched-and-linked post that paints whole groups of people in demeaning or derogatory ways using needlessly hostile language.
In this particular case, I would point out for example that while drawing comparisons between urban crime today and literally barbaric behavior in the ancient world is different in tone than straight up referring to a group as "barbarians." The objection might be--"well yeah, but if it quacks like a duck..." and I am totally sympathetic to wanting to resist the pejorative treadmill. Fortunately, the rules are not self-enforcing, and the mod team is comprised of reasonable individuals doing their best to prevent this from becoming a community where one particular sort of person just comes to vent their spleen.
The most we can do is our best.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
Meanwhile OP doesn't have any goal besides idly amusing himself with rhetoric and all of his logic will never lead him to the truth, only to "owning the libs".
This is all heat and no light. Don't post like this please.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
In simpler words, who gives a shit? u know what I meant.
Too much heat--better to step away from the conversation than let others get to you.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
You've got eight comments in the mod queue and all of them are ban-worthy. Looking over your brief history here, this appears to be a troll account. Banned.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
please stop reading dystopian fiction and watching anime
This is not a helpful, insightful, or interesting response--it's just a sneer. You have establishing a long history of low effort antagonism so I'm banning you for a week. Expect this to begin escalating sharply if you don't shape up.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
Pretty quintessentially CW post--feel free to post about it in the CW thread.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
I have not seen a single pro-Israel comment modded. It's possible that anybody willing to write comments in defense of innocent civilians in Gaza is not as apt to follow the rules, but still it's somewhat surprising.
What's surprising is that you're still going on about this. Many people have made perfectly acceptable, unmoderated "defense[s] of innocent civilians in Gaza." It's the rule-breaking stuff that gets moderated, and yes--there are several posters who have decided that people writing criticism of Israel should be exempt from the rules. Well, sorry: you're not.
What if the situation was reversed???
You keep asking this, as though it were a magical talisman. Or as though it even meant something. Reversing the script is a common play here. It happens all the time. The answer here is: "the rules will continue to be enforced."
I've become blackpilled enough to believe that most jews today, deep down, want to control the world and nothing less.
Objective statement about hypothetical antisemite self-psychology. Moddable?
We have literally allowed that sort of thing from people, multiple times, for years. Some are still posting, and are well-known here. Sometimes they make posts like that so much that it becomes annoying, since they are just beating a dead horse instead of actually having a meaningful conversation about the topic, so they get modded for being single-issue posters. But sometimes they stay on the right side of the rules.
I'm also providing feedback on moderation / site usage for other users, who may or may not agree.
Thanks for the feedback. You don't seem to know enough about how things are done around here to offer insightful feedback, but that's okay, we all had to start somewhere. Hopefully you now understand the rules better, and will avoid moderation in the future by sticking to them.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
Do you think I'm stupid?
Please don't post like you're spoiling for a fight.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
Well the whole government of Israel uses Israeli civilians as their excuse to genocide the Palestinian people yes.
Who knows how many IDF veterans were at that festival as well.
Too much heat, not enough light (or effort).
Looking upthread, I see that this is at the bottom of a chain of low-effort single-sentence back-and-forth--which you started, but which @AshLael and @sun should have known better than to feed. This thread is a good example of why we frown at short posts, even though many short posts are good and probably in some cases we should encourage shorter posts.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
aren't those scriptures referring to if your family denies the truth of the Lord? Not just like, in general?
I am very much not a theologian, but a plain reading of the New Testament verse (as well as the Genesis verse it derives from) appears to suggest that a family unit is comprised of a husband and wife plus children--but the children are expected to eventually grow up and leave to form their own families, which become their first priority.
The Psalm is less clear to me, maybe because Christians gloss it with the bride-and-bridegroom thing that the New Testament does with Christ and the Church. But on a plain reading, the Psalm again seems to suggest that when the bride goes to marry the king, she's supposed to focus all her energies on him instead of on her family, because the king is super cool. Assuming the psalmist is David, though, it kinda reads like he's being a judge in his own cause...
I did not understand your question at all!
I think the answer will depend on where one draws a number of lines within important continua. Not everyone agrees (as far as I know) on the extent to which human civilization (and related egregore(s)) has or has not guided human biological evolution, so I didn't want to hinge my argument on prior agreement on that particular point. But I'm sure there is more than one way to usefully conceptualize the problem; if you prefer, for example, it wouldn't be incompatible with the substance of my post to suggest instead that competing egregores are at issue.
More options
Context Copy link