naraburns
nihil supernum
No bio...
User ID: 100
naraburns
nihil supernum
10mo ago
some Japanese megacucks
This kind of thing just degrades discourse.
Banned for a week.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
I get modded every time I outright say "These people want to mutilate and sterilize children."
You were most recently moderated here. Let's take a look at what Zorba said about it:
...right now you're drawing a direct line from your opinion of the outcome to what you believe is the activists' intention, and that direct line implies cartoon-supervillain evil.
And is probably wrong.
So either bring evidence or knock it off with that kind of rhetoric.
This does not quite fit your interpretation of why you were moderated. In your case, you stated your view without bringing evidence. This post did the opposite--brought evidence, of a kind, while failing to state a view. The best way to avoid moderation on high-heat issues is to carefully bring both evidence and argument, along with a heap of charity for the outgroup.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
If a black comedian had these lines in their act it would be a non-issue.
This is not a comedy forum, though. This is a discussion forum. I'd like to say our standards are "higher" than the average comedy club's, but... let's say instead that they are at least quite different.
The argument was that there’s a communication style among black folks that can be jarring and intimidating to people not used to it, and this was a not even very egregious example.
...phrased in an inflammatory way, and attributing it (as you've done) to "black folks" instead of to specific individuals or even specific groups.
If a white person gave such an example in Polite Society they might very well lose their job over it, but we are supposed to be able to violate those kinds of norms here.
Only to the extent necessary to optimize for light. Just because you're allowed to express your views about racial differences does not mean you are allowed to express them in ways that are unnecessarily inflammatory, uncharitable, etc.
naraburns
nihil supernum
4mo ago
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.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
Your comment is almost all heat.
I even happen to be in complete agreement with you that critical theorists, with the assistance of corporate media, are 100% gaslighting the American public on these matters. I share your anger about that. But the point of this space is not to vent our anger at one another or at our outgroups. There are times and places for that sort of thing, but this is the space where we try to have difficult discussions with people who disagree with us.
And you were just warned about this, not long after a ban of a day, and a ban of a week. You've got to cool down. This time you get two weeks to do it.
naraburns
nihil supernum
6mo ago
Hmm, would you say someone who exclusively posts about D Day in a WWII thread to be “single issue”?
At some point, sure. Depending on how often they posted about it, whether their posts ever really added interesting information or just flogged the same dead horse repeatedly while showing no interest in entertaining the possibility that they might be mistaken, etc.
This was accusing me, or at least my information, as intentionally false.
While it is possible that you or your sources are lying, that is neither what I said nor what I meant. I suggested that the people I see making these claims appear mostly to be wishcasting, and as far as I can tell that remains true. I don't know if you're a propagandist or just a useful tool to someone who is, but you have shown no interest I can see in discussing the hospital incident with anything approaching epistemic humility--only in spreading a particular slant on it. Either of us, or both of us, could be mistaken about what is actually happening--that's not the point. For purposes of the rules, your problem is that you're not writing in a way that is sufficiently open to that possibility.
Then you aimed to build consensus
No, you apparently don't know what "build consensus" means in this context. I never made any claims about what "we" believe (or should believe), or treated my interpretation of events as anything but my interpretation of events--hence phrases like "strikes me," "I've seen," and "appears primarily."
I definitely have a substantive view on these matters, which I expressed to you previously. But that is a separate thing from the way you have approached your rhetoric here.
naraburns
nihil supernum
6mo ago
Is the goal to know the man better? Assuming you're shtupping his daughter, he may prefer to keep you at a healthy emotional distance. I think "the standard" is avoiding each other whenever possible, and at Thanksgiving watching football in the same room without ever making eye contact.
I recognize that our new, purportedly "emotionally healthy" age would suggest you bond, say, over shared hobbies, or perhaps by sharing your individual hobbies: fishing, shooting, drinking, or for the higher-brow castes having oblique political or religious discussions. This is plausible too, though the closer you are in age to your in-laws the more likely it is to stick. On the other end of the extreme, if you have a poor relationship with your own father, some fathers-in-law seem to enjoy a kind of paternal surrogacy, especially if they have only daughters.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
This is objectionably low-effort. Don't post like this please.
naraburns
nihil supernum
6mo ago
On a similar note, a 2015-esque 4chan meme posted yesterday got 15 million view on Twitter.
I would be very interested in a high-effort response to the highly memeable reply, "Impressive, very nice. Now let's see the Muslims."
Jews (and, in particular, Ashkenazim) are certainly overrepresented in a lot of interesting places. But my impression is that this is surprisingly true of many minority ethnicities and religious groups--almost as though having a mainstream upbringing results in a milquetoast adulthood. Or, alternatively, that being heterogeneous to the modal citizen of your country is quite naturally going to result in placement at one of the bell's tails. Whatever the case, "look at all the Jews in high government office" is a classic cardiologist problem.
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
Be kind, don't weakman... I'm a little conflicted because it's presumably healthy for the Motte and adjacent spaces to be introspective and self-critical, but we're still a group, the rules still apply. "Poking fun" is always risky business under the rules anyway, but the criticism you've assembled here barely rises above the level of pure, vapid sneer. Allowing that it also applies ("often") to you doesn't really change the fact that you're essentially framing certain behaviors as low status without effortfully addressing the relative merits of those behaviors. I appreciate that you refrained from literally calling out neckbeards and fedoras, but even so what you've mostly succeeded at here is just textbook nerd-bashing. So, please don't do that.
naraburns
nihil supernum
6mo ago
Expecting historical literacy from a college-educated progressive is like expecting fluent latin from a duck.
Do I even need to tell you why this warrants a warning?
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
Trad macho posturing bullshit like this is always so laughable being posted on a community that is an even less productive use of time than some Minecraft open source project.
This antagonism gets you banned for a week. Please think of it as my personal contribution to the productive use of your time.
naraburns
nihil supernum
2mo ago
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.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
Sorry for the lateness of this reply, but you're banned for a week: egregiously obnoxious and single-issue posting (Jews).
Posting about the "mass graves" brouhaha (dare I say "hoax?") in Canada was fine; if someone else had posted about it and then you'd come in with this comment I would have hit you immediately for attempting to derail the conversation. My only hesitation, and why I discussed it with the other mods first, was that it's a bit weird to accuse you of derailing your own thread, I think? But it has this weird bait-and-switch feel to it; you were, refreshingly, not pounding your one-note piano for a change... just kidding, it was a post about Jews all along!
Don't do this.
naraburns
nihil supernum
7mo ago
Unnecessarily antagonistic, write like you want to include others in the conversation, low effort, banned for this behavior before...
Let's call it seven days this time.
naraburns
nihil supernum
9mo ago
303 Creative is a freedom of speech chase, not a religious freedom case.
What kind of speech (or silence) are we talking about, here? Are you one of those people who pedantically interjects that the civil war was a state's rights issue, not a slavery issue?
For whatever it's worth, my choice of words there was deliberately poking at the number of people calling this an "LGBT rights case." Because of course the case is sufficiently about that, that it's not entirely inaccurate to characterize the case that way, and yet flip that rhetoric on its head and certain people are bound to get worked up...
You seem to think that 303 Creative was an enforcement action brought by the state of Colorado against the company.
Sorry to have given you that impression, but no--I've never thought that at all.
the whole issue of whether or not anyone asked for a wedding website is essentially a red herring
Yes, very good--this is why I found the CNN article, and its downstream effects on conversation in my vicinity, noteworthy.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
All of his criticisms are on point, though.
Surely you don't actually mean that?
I was a bit hesitant on the mod button, for all the reasons I already mentioned. I recognize that there is some hyperbole there, and some humor, and some self-deprecation, and I always feel a bit schoolmarmish wagging a finger at that sort of thing. But like--
Literature references. Point score is directly correlated with obscurity; actually having read the the work in question is optional. Bonus points for linking SSC pieces, double bonus points if they're from 2016 or earlier.
What's the "on point" criticism, here--that we quote Scott too much? What's the "bad habit"--that we don't actually read the books we quote from and talk about? (This seems clearly false!)
The fact that we have our own status games is interesting, and worth talking about. And there are surely times and places to enjoy an amusing roast. But a lot of the stuff in this list is not actually bad, and most of the rest is unobjectionable if stripped of the pejoration and mockery. To treat e.g. complex vocabulary as a signal of low status is textbook anti-intellectualism. Yes, some people use big words strictly to appear smart, but treating people that way without further evidence requires an uncharitable take on their motives. Writing lengthy posts is frequently mocked in many places on the internet, but some problems are complex and demand extended reflection--assuming you want to do more than make a joke at someone else's expense. While many of the attitudes called out in this post are indeed counterproductive or otherwise objectionable, most of the behaviors are not in themselves problematic, particularly given a charitable interpretation of the writer's intent. If we're going to criticize such behaviors, we should do it in a thoughtful way--not by resorting to mockery that seems crafted to shame others away from effortful participation and thoughtful discussion.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
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.)
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
The OP's question wasn't about what should or shouldn't be kept away from children, but whether drag is inherently sexual. That's the only question I was answering, so following that up with a discussion of what is or isn't appropriate for children seems like an orthogonal and perhaps just uncharitable response. Nothing you've said here is responsive to any of the arguments I raised for the particular claim that drag seems to indeed be as inherently sexual as blackface is inherently racial.
Saying that Makeup is done by women to add to their sexual value, so therefore anyone wearing makeup is engaging in sexual activity, and we should keep that away from children, leads in pretty weird directions by analogy.
If I am in favor of keeping children in the shallow end of the swimming pool, I must by analogy oppose tall drinking glasses, I suppose. Some slopes are indeed slippery, but you seem to have engaged the genuinely fallacious version, here. "If we stop kids going to drag shows, what's next!? Banning dances and bringing back Victorian fashions?"
naraburns
nihil supernum
1mo ago
The fact that the first person to say "hey maybe the parents don't need to know" wasn't instantly exiled and nuked from orbit is, unto itself, a dog-fucking level offense in my eyes.
This is too much heat, not enough light. Please don't do this.
naraburns
nihil supernum
10mo ago
The current release (as far as I know) of the agenda specifies that any child that expresses any interest or ideation about himself being transgender, should be immediately medically, socially and surgically transitioned, parents have no legitimate way to react to it except fully supporting and enabling it, and in case they do anything else, they should be immediately and irreversibly striped of all parental rights.
I'm not sure this even rises to the level of a weak man, though maybe you could point me to someone actually espousing precisely this position. My suspicion, though, is that this is a full fledged strawman. Please work harder to portray your outgroup's views in a way they would be likely to recognize and agree to, or barring that, at least in a way that brings strong argument/evidence that this is what they actually believe in spite of their protestations to the contrary.
naraburns
nihil supernum
1yr ago
Many people here get really fucking cringe ... Just a palpable sense of barely disguised seething towards women from some commenters.
Unnecessarily antagonistic. If you have something constructive to add to the conversation, do! Calling other users "cringe" does not contribute, and violates our rules of engagement. In my experience, rarely does the word "cringe" even get deployed outside of naked signaling. Aim for substance instead.
This is obnoxious, don't do this.
You've managed to garner a pretty impressive array of reports (nine so far) including AAQC nominations and "boo outgroup" complaints. The tone of your presentation is... excessively smarmy, I guess I want to say. It doesn't invite discussion. And yes, some portion of that may be the natural result of you Noticing things you're not, on some views, allowed to Notice. But this is not a space where you get modded for Noticing, this is a space where you get modded for not speaking plainly. Don't connect a few dots and then dangle implications, here. Make an argument. Tell us what you think the evidence on offer tells you.
More options
Context Copy link