naraburns
nihil supernum
No bio...
User ID: 100
naraburns
nihil supernum
5mo 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
5mo 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...
naraburns
nihil supernum
6mo ago
They would take the lives of 1000 innocents in the most torturous way possible to save a single one of theirs.
Most of your comment falls on the wrong side of the rules, I think, but this line in particular seems like standard-issue hyperbolic propaganda. Like, show me one instance where this looks literally true, a single instance of Israel selecting "the most torturous way possible" to kill "1000 innocents" for any reason at all, much less to "save a single one of theirs."
This is (apparently!) a hotly contested issue, so I was feeling mildly reluctant to moderate you in spite of the overall badness of the comment, but that sentence in particular just struck me as entirely too much heat, directed toward your outgroup, for what looks like no light at all.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
I apologize, but to be clear it was a reference to dude's constant postings about "the Jooz." Edit: And, his reference to "dying for Isreal." So not much of a non sequitur.
Oh, your meaning was clear. But I can't ban a user for single-issue posting if everyone else keeps trotting out that user's hobby-horse for them. Israel is a foreign power. Treating it as a synonym for "Judaism" is something its advocates and critics do interchangeably, depending on the point they want to make. That kind of disclarity is objectionable, here, but so is making uncharitable assumptions about which meaning is intended.
The user to whom you were responding is not the most artful user we have, in terms of disingenuously cloaking objectionable insinuations in plausibly neutral language. But that does not excuse uncharitable jabs from other, similarly artful posters.
We want, in short, for people to have room to change their minds, however minutely. Comments like yours discourage that.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
You are so deluded it would be comical if your ideologies weren't so dangerous.
More light, less heat, please.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
This seems unnecessarily heated and low effort. Please don't post like this.
naraburns
nihil supernum
9mo ago
This is low effort, consensus-enforcing, and a bit antagonistic. Don't post like this.
naraburns
nihil supernum
11mo ago
The hypo is meant to be a highly distilled, but if it disturbs you, you're obviously under no obligation to answer.
It doesn't disturb me, and I did answer. You're the one who was complaining about how I answered.
What about other beings whose reasoning may be equal or greater to that of humans, but not necessarily the same? Does one or the other groups owe anything to the other? How are we to discern that such a group might be in our midst?
The answers to these questions will depend, inescapably, on the nature of these beings and their compatibility with human existence, especially in terms of the ability to give and receive acceptable justifications for actions. The desire and ability to coexist lead quite naturally to reasons for action. Without that desire and ability, it's all pretty moot.
Another question that I haven't been able to understand from our repartee or the entries you linked, is who gets to decide what a reasonable objection is?
We do, through the process of reasoning together.
naraburns
nihil supernum
11mo ago
I'm not sure you could draw the implication you did about outside resources, but let me be explicit, there are no other resources in the universe.
Then how the fuck was this guy feeding his family before he "came along?" For that matter, where's the rest of the "mythical land" you specified?
My goal is not to fight your hypothetical; I'm happy to do my best to constrain myself to only the impossibly limited range of facts that you happen to find persuasive for whatever reason. But you keep losing the thread; whatever else these hypothetical characters are, they are not recognizably human, in the world you've described.
you seem to have a presupposition regarding the primacy of human life
What makes you say that? Because it's wrong. I'm not assigning metaphysical primacy to anything. And I sure as hell haven't suggested that we're engaged in "pure reason." Go back and re-read the thread; you will find no mention of "pure reason" anywhere in it.
All I've done is stake a claim on morality as we understand it being a human activity undertaken by humans through reasoning processes, that is, through the activity of justifying ourselves to one another. You keep trying to challenge or argue against that for some reason (despite haven taken no clear or coherent position yourself), but your objections are complete misses; you don't even seem to understand enough to meaningfully doubt. Which would be fine if I felt like you were trying to improve your own understanding, but you strike me as far too busy being blindly contrarian to ever glean any insight, either into any particular moral theory or into the more specific things I have claimed.
naraburns
nihil supernum
11mo ago
This is borderline consensus building, and well over the line of needing to bring evidence in proportion to the inflammatoriness of your claim. Don't post like this, please.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
The mod team has discussed this comment in response to a couple of user reports. The result is mixed. I am explicitly not giving you a warning at this time--but I need to say a little more about that, because we are probably going to be dialing up the sensitivity on posts like this in the near future.
This is connected with @Amadan's moderation of @firmamenti and @cjet79's partial modhat comment about it. Since moving over from reddit, moderation has gotten both easier and more difficult in interesting ways. We have far fewer bad drive-by comments and much less brigading from trolls (although, importantly--not zero troll brigading!). We seem to have more users paying attention to AAQCs, both in terms of crafting them and in terms of nominating them, such that many excellent posts don't make the roundup simply because there are so many plausible nominations. These are positive developments!
On the downside, though, low effort comments from more regular users also seem to be turning up more frequently. There is a tendency to rely on shorthand arguments that are both low effort and obfuscatory for new users. This is understandable--as the community coheres it can often feel like certain individuals are just re-treading old ground. But that is something we want to try to mitigate. In this particular comment, your substantive position (that the primary impetus for targeting Trump is purely political, as evidenced by the ceaseless barrage of unusual, contorted, or even spurious charges raised against him) seems defensible, but the way you raise it as though it were obviously true (implicitly building consensus), without furnishing either evidence or argument, brooks no discussion on the matter. That is antithetical to the foundation of the Motte.
I will be writing a longer top post about low-effort posts in the near-ish future, but it seemed worth mentioning here to get people thinking a bit about the problem, hopefully.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
Please feel free to post this in the CW thread, along with a submission statement of some kind.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
This is a Culture War post, and as such must be placed in our weekly Culture War threads, thanks.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
Tension between the poor and wealthy neighbourhoods have been high recently with many instances of looting.
Particularly given this last sentence, your post is probably better for the Small Questions thread, or perhaps the Culture War thread.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
Assuming the topic you mean is "Twitter can expose how the media tries to manipulate you," you could have simply chosen less inflammatory examples of how the media tries to manipulate you--or even used a wide variety of examples so as to not come off as harping on your bête noire. In general, writing with great evidence, clarity, and charity is very likely to get you to a much less accusatory (or race-baiting) place.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
I am not sufficiently tech-savvy to answer your question, but I know @ZorbaTHut is always looking for volunteers to work on the codebase.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
Lesbianism is more political than biological anyway.
Your comment is a bit... curt, I guess I want to say, given the strength of its claims. To much heat, not enough light. Which is not to say there's no light there, but if you're going to assert that lesbianism is "more political than biological," that seems like the sort of thing you should say with evidence, at least a bit. You didn't even hyperlink the idiom--some amount of shibboleth-slinging is bound to crop up in any community, but still it would be better to speak a bit more plainly.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
I had initially approved this, but on further examination it's pretty political. Please feel free to post it (and, preferably, with some commentary) in the CW thread.
Choosing the username "ShockJock" and posting "just asking questions" about white-hot culture war topics, outside the CW thread, suggests very strongly to me that you are trolling.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now and point you toward the CW thread, but this is definitely not getting approved as a top level post.
Please don't post like you're spoiling for a fight.
More options
Context Copy link