@naraburns's banner p

naraburns

nihil supernum

8 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:20:03 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 100

naraburns

nihil supernum

8 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:20:03 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 100

Verified Email

More effort than this please.

My comment was not low effort

Yes, it was. You left entirely too much to the imagination of your readers.

If you think I am incorrect

It's not about whether I think you're incorrect. It's about whether you put sufficient effort into being understood. I gave you the benefit of the doubt (and moderated someone who did not) and so did not moderate you. But given your low-key antagonism here: consider yourself officially warned.

I apologize that it has taken this long to respond to the reports on this comment, but the mod team discussed it and is very broadly of the view that this is a terrible post. It's antagonistic, primarily, but also stuffs a lot of words into other people's mouths. It doesn't discuss the culture wars, but merely wages them. And this will be the sixth time you're banned for it.

I entertained the idea of making it something long term, like maybe 90 days--we used to do a fair number of those back on the subreddit. But some mods suggested a permaban, and it seems nobody could think of a good reason to not permaban you. So, that's what I'm doing.

The WMD hoax was engineered by Zionists in the American government

Single-issue posting is officially against the rules. Your cooldown on "Jews did it" arguments has not adequately expired, so I'm banning you for three days.

Way too antagonistic, dude. You've been warned about this before. Banned for a week.

While @yofuckreddit would probably have been better off making their post a bit less rant-y, sneering at them does not help matters. Please avoid this level of antagonism in the future.

Which, in this case, is probably nothing.

Why? Do you know something nobody else knows? (I mean, you may be right, but it's not at all obvious to me how you got to this conclusion.)

It pains me to read these tired talking points on the Motte of all places. This reads like the equivalent a woke college student listing off their usual combination of strings handed down to them from the hivemind.

This adds heat to your post, but no light. It's totally unnecessary. Please don't.

Please write as though everyone is reading and you would like them to be involved in the conversation. "Who cares what $GROUP thinks" is not permissible rhetoric here.

Oh it's heat to question the narrative that a government can just willy-nilly blockage, starve, bomb thousands of civilians because they're fighting 'terrorism'?

No, it's heat to make sweeping claims of attempted genocide without careful phrasing, furnishing of evidence, steelmanning your opposition, etc.

Do you have one (1) example of modding on this subject in the past 2 weeks that is targeting the pro-Palestinian-genocide side of theMotte?

I am not aware of anyone making pro genocide arguments here. You are welcome to point me to such arguments if you like. But we don't moderate substance, we moderate tone.

I have seen plenty of people calling the Palestinian population as a whole animals or variation thereof, calling for their eradication including women and children or downplaying civilian casualties as business as usual.

Have you? Did you report them? Can you link to some of them for me?

I extended this invitation here and received exactly one example in response. I found that example to be borderline at worst, and since it was made by a well-reputed user the benefit of the doubt fell in their favor. This is a reputation economy, so that sort of thing matters, too.

Is that not considered heat or boo-outgroup or was it just wrapped in enough sentences that this kind of take is novel and interesting enough?

It doesn't have to be novel or even interesting--it just has to be wrapped in enough epistemic humility, individual perspective-taking, minimally-heated phrasing, etc. I can't think of a way to successfully make a true rule-abiding argument for actual genocide here, since that would fail the test of writing about specific rather than general groups, writing to include everyone, etc. But there are many ways to argue for lots and lots of killing, or even for military action that is likely to result in collateral damage, if you make that argument in an evidence-heavy, anger-light sort of way. These are decisions real government officials have to make, after all, and so it would violate the spirit of this place to exclude such ideas from consideration.

This is in many ways unfortunate insofar as I am myself quite opposed to killing! I lean both toward isolationism and pacifism. But on this particular topic, there is a lot of heated rhetoric, and maybe there is even more heating of others' rhetoric--taking small claims and strawmanning them, basically, into genocidal mania.

The problem is not your view. The problem is that you're clearly super upset about the fact that people disagree with you, and so you have chosen to express yourself in a way that does not engender continued positive discussion on matters of substance.

you are being a little shit

You are banned. Based on past warnings and bannings, let's go with 14 days this time.

That's due to a derangement in your value system

You are free to explore value disagreement, but dropping to accusations of derangement is too much heat. I might let it slide if it were some passionate rhetoric in the midst of an effort post, but this comment seems to just be pure heat. Three day ban.

When racists in the US government diverted vaccines away from white people to black people did that hurt black people? I think it helped them.

Sure. So we should complain about racism, not divert vaccines away from black people instead.

When Harvard gives black people an advantage in admissions does that hurt or help them?

To hear Clarence Thomas tell, it hurts them. But perhaps more importantly, trying to judge "hurt" and "help" in terms of who gets to be a Supreme Court justice or Yale law professor, and who is instead relegated to graduating from a top-10 law school and making millions of dollars as a partner at a top law firm (but who doesn't get to tell her friends she went to Harvard) seems like piss-poor reckoning. It's not as though the Asians "harmed" by Harvard's racism (whites actually appear to benefit very slightly, or at least not be harmed, by Harvard's preferences) are facing a choice between Harvard and never going to college. The real harm is so slight as to be essentially invisible, except for the part where we decide to reject racism on principle instead of on the basis of who gets to have the most desirable status signals. Rejecting racism on principle is good.

If I own a store and exclude people of race X because I think they shoplift a lot and are a net drain on the business then that is racist

It's not racist to see facts. If there is an ethnic propensity for antisocial behavior, there's nothing wrong with taking reasonable action as a result.

...and illegal

Right, you can't just say "because black people are more likely to shoplift, all black people are excluded." Instead you should say "we need to construct a law enforcement system which makes it easier to detain and punish shoplifters." There's nothing racist about that. Oh, sure, an identitarian will say there's something racist about that when it turns out that a bunch of mostly non-white kids are the ones who end up actually doing time, but I am not an identitarian, I'm the one arguing against identitarianism.

To use your example, if I own a business and I think women are worse workers and hire them with a lower starting salary then I'm being sexist.

No, that's wrong! This is exactly my point. To call that sexist is the problem with identitarianism! Pay people whatever you want! As a job creator you don't owe it to anyone to pay a penny more than they are worth! And if they are worth more than that, someone else will pay them more. But if you're sexist, you're at a disadvantage versus others who are gauging merit instead. There are of course inefficiencies in the market, this won't work perfectly, but your responses to me are completely mis-targeted because I'm the one arguing against identitarianism! You're criticizing certain bad social practices and telling me "to combat racism and sexism I have to be racist and sexist" but all you've done is accepted the wrong definitions of racism and sexism. Once you do that, it's just "ingroup versus outgroup" all the way down, you lose the ability to complain persuasively about racial and sexual preferences because you've shown that you want racial and sexual preferences for yourself. A black-hating racist and a white-hating racist are just engaged in a game of power, there's no principle to appeal to, just pure in-group preference. But very often it is cooperation, not competition, that we need to coordinate if we're going to get stag.

Or another example, if I know race X commits crime at a high rate and I find myself walking around an unfamiliar city at night in an area with a lot of X, what should I do? Leaving the area is racist

I cannot emphasize this enough: you are just buying the wrong definition of racist here. If you disagree with left-identitarians, why would you let them define your key terms? This is what makes me crazy about the alt-right: they allow their enemies to set the poles of the debate--and that means they are destined to lose. They have lost the game before they have even begun to fight.

Identitarianism is always going to win in a democracy because embracing identitarianism gives you a bloc of perfectly loyal voters.

I agree that democracy is mostly bad and even the small protections of minority rights built into the U.S. system (Supreme Court, Bill of Rights, the original selection method for senators, the Great Compromise, the electoral college) have been much eroded by identitarianism. Proposing to fight fire with fire, however, too often just ends up getting you burned.

...you can't have race blindness because sooner or later one political party is going to learn that they can win by abandoning it.

This is a different problem, though. You're no longer arguing for "the good kind of racism," now you're arguing against the practice of democracy. Because if political parties can't divide people along racial lines, they will just divide people along some other lines. The blues and the greens of the Roman chariot races are the canonical example, I think.

The United States began as an uneasy alliance between a bunch of "white" abolitionists and a bunch of "white" slavers. Later came Germans (now "white"), Irishmen (now "white"), Chinese immigrants (now "white adjacent" for purposes of college admissions), Hispanics (usually "white" within two or three generations)... Native Americans who don't maintain sufficient blood or cultural purity become "white," many blacks "pass" as "white," the way these lines get drawn is political.

And sure, you can say "I would like these lines to be drawn to my benefit," but then you're just doing the same stupid thing the people you're complaining about (indirectly, in your selection of examples) are doing, in reverse. And intelligence is not reversed stupidity.

We aren't here to be your therapist.

While @yofuckreddit would probably have been better off making their post a bit less rant-y, sneering at them does not help matters. Please avoid this level of antagonism in the future.

"Ay! Darnell! DeAndre! Get yo' asses out here! It's time to go! Ay, who you is? Where my brothers at? Where dey at? Ay! Yo, I'm talkin' to you nigga!"

I have a hard time imagining a world in which you wrote that without expecting to eat a ban for it.

Optimize for light, not heat. User banned for three days.

Both-sidesing low-effort and uncharitable group criticism does not really cure the low-effort and uncharitable nature of your criticism. Please remember that

We want to engage with the best ideas on either side of any issue, not the worst.

you incorrectly claim I uncharitably characterized it with my question

No, on review I was definitely correct.

4 other people are replying to my question, "Yes, absolutely that is what influential gay people are doing"

Yep, you can definitely reply to them about what they have said. That would not be uncharitable. This was.

@anti_dan's low effort comment was, indeed, low effort--to the point where it might have drawn moderation if it were more directly antagonistic or uncharitable or somesuch. I don't think it quite rises to the level of calling for a wrist slap, but on a different day, maybe it would.

But you uncharitably characterizing a position on which someone else was insufficiently specific does not improve matters at all. Especially when you acknowledge that there is a broad range of interpretations, here. Picking the most outrageous, least plausible version of that and then asking for evidence has some very "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of energy. Please don't do this.

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.

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.

Feel free to post in the CW thread.

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.

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.

Pretty quintessentially CW post--feel free to post about it in the CW thread.

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.