plural
1yr ago
There's no reason to talk about Jan 6 on themotte. The topic exists for one person and they hold it hostage as a one man army. It's pretty remarkable but I don't have the wherewithal in me to withstand the scrutiny.
It feels like what would happen if ChrisPrattAlphaRaptor showed up any time you mentioned COVID to disprove you or interrogate you as if you were a collegial equal. And it's not even solely about that kind of engagement, the obvious amount that this matters to ymehskhout is so large that I'd feel uncomfortable with any engagement at all because without full agreement I'd be immediately be dealing with a hostile adversary who knows far more about this than I do and is schooled in the subject much more than I am as well.
It feels like that guy who posts about Ivermectin and Scott. He probably knows what he's talking about more than me, but it's obvious from the persistence on a specific topic alone that something altogether alien to me is happening for them that's not happening for me and I'd rather just skip and move on to the next topic than engage.
plural
1yr ago
I'm not saying I agree with Nybbler. Someone behaving poorly does not excuse behaving poorly yourself. That edit's purpose is to be a petty insult, if it wasn't there'd be no reason to mention the person you're insulting. You could have easily just left the name out, but you wanted it to be insulting. I was asked to review the original post before I went into the thread and I thought it needed a warning because of the way it just called out another user seemingly for no reason. But after reading your post in response, the edit of that, and then the edit of the original post. It's just pure insult and pretending to be otherwise. I can understand banter and swipes and barbs to people with whom we disagree. But you go out of your way to humiliate and troll other users and get away with it because they made a mistake and were wrong and you are right. It's an aggressive and uncharitable trend you make a habit of and it disappoints me immensely that you can just get away with it because you do it with a smile and a bunch of links.
plural
1yr ago
Focusing on a single person for no reason to expose them as a bad faith actor is trolling. People are not ants in an antfarm. Not giving a person any time to respond at all before you make a top-level post detailing how wrong they are and pointing them out by name over and over is not the act of a person engaging in a debate. It's rude, tactless and unnecessarily aggressive. But it's clear to me that you are either unable to understand how your actions can affect other people or simply don't care. You wrap it all up in nice-seeming language but it's not. These are things you do to people you see as enemies. We're supposed to be having discussions and arguments with people that we may disagree with but they're still people. You are not treating people who disagree with you as people, you're treating them like they're enemies that need to be dissuaded or dismantled. Charity: from where I'm sitting you give it to no one.
plural
10mo ago
Your mod warning might be right, but this post is an example of being a bad mod. You mocked three users to various degrees of uncharitability and antagonism and then warned them when you could have just warned them. And I'm not saying you need to be a robot or in deference to other posters all the time, just you know, mod comment gooder.
plural
1yr ago
Smirkgate kid got all his cases dismissed for being "objectively unverifiable" so the media's response was just non-actionable opinions. Which means they're broad or vague enough that you can't objectively say they're false. Though he did settle with CNN and The Washington Post before the trial was dismissed so he got something.
Other kids at the school trying to file a suit pseudonymously had their case thrown out for being pseudonymous but it was also stated that it would have been dismissed anyway because of the same reason as above.
plural
1yr ago
Can't say I agree with the discrepancy in time between the two posters ban lengths. It gives the impression that being antagonistic first is less against the rules than being antagonistic toward someone being antagonistic. Also, your flippant antagonism toward the person you're banning should get you banned as well if we were all playing on the same field.
plural
4mo ago
It's also not a fair hypothetical unless you think there's no difference between incest and sex. There's not a different name for playing tennis when you do it with your family.
The indirect hypothetical has more to it but I also wouldn't hire any of my family as a doctor, a contractor, to clean my house, be my personal trainer, but I also think this also works from the other way around. A lot of people who are of certain professions wouldn't want to have to do it for a family member either and wouldn't want their family to participate in helping them financially, and it's probably very much related to shame but mixing personal life and work is just innately uncomfortable for some people.
It's a wide net though to catch shame and discomfort or government compulsion. If the idea is that it's fake in the sense that being a model, actor, streamer, artist, athlete, is fake either because it's something that people would do for fun or it's not particularly hard, then I get that angle a lot more but then I'm not sure what the validity is for. I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed of their relatives for playing videogames on twitch and wouldn't tell anyone about it or watch them do it, but a lot of people wouldn't read their novel written by a family member if they thought it was too prurient or violent or was just something they were culturally opposed to. I'm sure there are many people ashamed of family members being janitors. garbage men, house cleaners and wouldn't hire them or recommend them to friends.
Anyway, I think if the original hypothetical is as ridiculous as saying tennis and sex are the same it's not really helpful to just up the hypothetical up a notch and say that incest and sex are the same.
plural
1yr ago
I remember the topic being disproving election malfeasance updates weekly. I don't remember how much engagement but I do remember checking out of those posts because they were the same every week where two sides simply talked past each other.
plural
2mo ago
I take everything from Gen Z with a grain of salt. I'm sure there are some people that believe these things but I really think it's all just irony and post-irony all the way down. Just replace sarcastic with ironic here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=udJw-CzX7sA
plural
2mo ago
Yeah, I hate Destiny 2 because they basically took away things I spent money on and both pvp and pve just feels like a treadmill of weekly chores/missions, but man do they know how to make shooting things fun.
FPS games aren't really my thing but I've recently heard good things about Trepang2 but it's apparently very short. I've also heard near universal acclaim for Titanfall 2 and it's, from what I've read and heard, the epitome of move fast and shoot stuff.
plural
3mo ago
Well, now you're moving the goalposts, I wasn't talking about whether they broke the rules but if they were comparable to the above post's rulebreaking.
It's not about length, you literally didn't put in enough effort for me to adequately understand what you meant by your response because it was just a vague half-answer that may as well have told him to google something. Which could have been a glib dismissal (as a sarcastic example of the responses to yours) or a genuine attempt to direct him to information but it was vague enough that I couldn't parse it.
I don't think anyone should be in trouble for their posts in that thread but if they are it should start with the OP. The OP post was literally just boo outgroup disguised as boo ingroup with some extra boo outgroup thrown in as well. The fact that you were hurt as a vegan is important but you never made mention of that in your post and kept it vague. If you hadn't been vague and said you were a vegan and effective altruists/rationalists have a good handle on explaining the rationale behind their lifestyle that isn't annoying then the responses to yours would be as bad as the one you're saying is comparable but you didn't, which is my point about being low-effort, not that you broke the rules but that you simply didn't put the full amount of effort I would expect of someone invested in the topic to give, which as a bystander makes me think you don't care all that much on the topic and the responses to yours may break the rules but don't really matter all that much because they're responding to someone that doesn't care all that much.
Maybe it's just me but I think the rules are sieved through each response made. Nearly every post three deep breaks the rules but eventually it becomes "no fun allowed", no quips, no jokes, no turn of phrases, no statement of opinions without reams of ink. If you have a problem with those posts they stem from the OP and you really have a problem with that which basically stated the exact same thing but also said "change my mind." I understand you were hurt but you really shouldn't hold onto it like this because this situation is not comparable.
plural
10mo ago
I have no idea why you've gone into multi-quote argument failure mode. I mostly agree with you and just think it's still not unlikely that they manipulated data because I'm biased that way and I've explained why.
plural
1yr ago
In the context of the show Don spent all day thinking about the guy he told he didn't think about at all. He even went out of his way to sabotage him by leaving behind Ginsberg's ad pitch so he could only do his own because he knew that his was inferior.
plural
1yr ago
Yeah, I just left the page because I didn't really know what to do for that. I felt like giving a neutral to a bad comment would be seen as poor meta-modding and I have no idea if they can still see deleted comments or if they can see the time that I rated the comment in relation to when it was deleted and I'd rather earn my bad meta-mod reputation honestly.
plural
27d ago
While you may be right, I'd quibble with considerably. Moving from Reddit is going to do that regardless because Reddit's rules make a place more left wing because they restrict what you can talk about to begin with. And you lose people that would prefer Reddit over other places and they'd probably be more left wing just going by the idea that: 1) someone using reddit at all is more likely to be left wing. 2) people leaving reddit for another site are more likely to be right wing. The entire idea that the motte leave reddit at all is explicitly right wing coded. Discussing HBD is right wing coded. Discussing trans issues is right wing coded (I say that because discussing means there's more than one view represented). In my experience discussing issues at all is right wing coded. Most of the people I know and most of the people I encounter are left wing and have no interest at all in talking about anything to do with actual issues, they have their stance they've taken and if you talk about it deeper you're a racist, misogynist, homophobe, transphobe, shitty person. Unless you're dedicated to proving right wing people wrong in every situation you're simply a bad person. I've heard this many times. And I suppose it's mostly a confluence of most people being left wing and most people really being unable to tolerate content they disagree with and being almost wholly uncurious. But all that being said, it's like IG-111, we're here because we're witches and they allow witches here. The 1000 witches problem is never really going to go away.
I do think that you're posting this in bad faith, however. Considering your examples of most upvoted comments are sitting at 7, 10, and 18 votes and your summary of each being both inaccurate and uncharitable. Why did no one respond to your HBD post about white suffering, because almost no one cares about HBD anymore. The idea that HBD has been talked about to death has been talked about to death, here. But you made it very clear in your post that you didn't believe what you wrote, it wasn't a trick like that post about one movie destroying a child's brain. Do you believe that no one read your disclaimer or that no one here respects steelmanning an argument they don't believe? Is that why you didn't bother to link to it? You brought up none of those rebuttals yourself but instead make a top level post calling people out who actually had the courage to make a post about something they believe and you're mad because they got a marginal amount of internet points and that nobody brought up your own points. It's hard enough to have the energy to argue your own thoughts, now you want us to argue yours as well.
plural
1yr ago
I don't see any of that in the modhat reply. I think you should separate a person from their posting patterns outside of when they make mod decisions because it's not fair otherwise. You seem to be making an assumption about what they mean when they say groomers and then ignoring the clarification and saying they're lying. That's just wildly uncharitable. If you will just say that someone's opinion is not what they say it is and it's only what you think they actually mean then there's nothing to be done about meeting a level of discourse you apparently want which I guess is not meeting expectations and definitions that you've made up that they don't agree with.
I mean sometimes it's clearly apparent to me that the rules are not enforced equally, especially to those who are mods but in general it's mostly people who are known. I'd prefer the rules to be far more laissez faire. The post you linked to I wouldn't ban you for but I do think it makes a particularly uncharitable argument that's clearly done in bad faith and with a style that's teetering toward unhinged. nara said you might be suicide by modding there and this post certainly doesn't help that case. Especially when your responses to people asking you questions about that post is simply to do that extremely obvious bad faith argument dance where you just ask an extended series of questions in multiquotes and then disregard or ignore the responses. And it all seems to come back to you making an assumption about what another person is actually saying. I mean if you're going to approach every response or criticism as someone doing a dogwhistle that they say they're not doing then you may as well get banned and only talk in a forum with yourself because clearly that's the only person that can wade through that expectation with clarity.
plural
1yr ago
I mean you're right, it's just signalling. I'd bet those people who said they'd never eat at Chik-fil-A are lying or simply don't like it and happen to be telling the truth for that reason. I've seen numerous woke people just give up caring when it comes to boycotting anything they like. Sure, Chick-fil-A and In & Out* are "piece of shit" companies but they still order it anyway they just make sure to let you know that it's wrong to do it. It's also possible there are people taking a principled stand that just don't talk about it but every single person I've met, or seen online, who's talked about this issue (and recently, too) has admitted that Chick-fil-A is a bad or piece of shit company and then still bought Chick-fil-A.
People I've seen, for the most part, have no idea about the object-level reasons why someone or something is bad. It's the same for anything political, really. They get given a vague idea by someone else who summed it up and their mind is made up. JK Rowling might be a perfect example of most of these people being the most informed about the reason why they're supposed to hate, but I bet none of them know what she's actually said. They just know that she's anti-trans. But they'll still see the next Fantastic Beasts movie and buy the next Harry Potter game.
I will admit this is stronger on the left side of things. The not knowing part, but I wonder if that's partly because of their cultural dominance and maybe the fact that right side people maybe feel like they need to look everything up several times to verify it because they don't trust a left source which would be most of them. And part of the cultural dominance is keeping the signals straight and in line with each other. On Reddit right now there were about four or five coordinated stories about Jordan Peterson crying about being called an incel by Olivia Wilde. But actually he cried for incels in general but nobody read the actual article or the video it was about. Most people repeated things about him that were patently false to signal to everyone that they know he's bad news. I bet they believe it. Once it's about politics/culture war information becomes useless. It's shocking to me how cavalier people are with their hatred.
*I'm not sure that In & Out has even done the getting sullied with a game of telephone thing, but simply being openly Christian is mostly enough and the rest is filled in with whatever their head made up, incidentally this is why Chris Pratt is a "piece of shit". I've heard this about him several times. But I bet you they still see the next Chris Pratt movie and then make a big point to complain about him when they don't even know what he's bad for except that he's Christian and/or Republican.
plural
6mo ago
Everyone has an anecdote about living in the world and spending money (existing within the economy). I've literally never been the victim of a prosecuted or investigated crime. If you went into a forum that was specifically for people that had been victims of muggings regardless of their obvious bias on the situation they're going to chime in with their anecdotes about crime data because they have anecdotes to share. This just seems like a silly overreaction to an unwanted response.
plural
9mo ago
Well, I know that it's not apples to apples because of inertia and expectations but, right now, top level threads get much less engagement and very little debate compared to top level comments in the cw thread. And I still view being buried as a positive thing for broader engagement. Long endless threads on particular topics become dominated by whoever has the biggest hobby-horse investment in the topic and there's just endless multi-quotes between people arguing about nigh useless minutiae that a casual debater/observer has no interest in. Refreshing the topic constantly allows it to return to a state of wider focus. This is just my experience with forums and "general threads".
plural
1yr ago
I was trying to imply you didn't do that but what it would be like if you did.
That wasn't my contention that was the judge's contention when he struck the suit. WaPo and CNN settled the case last year. The rest of his cases were struck down by a judge a few months ago, I assumed people here would've been aware of that. I saw it Deadline with all the comments celebrating that the racists lost. I guess if no one makes a top level post about it here it might as well never have happened.
Your line of reasoning also assumes that each media outlet had the exact same level of potential culpability which would be impossible unless they all posted the same articles and made the same tweets. It's possible CNN and WaPo settled because they thought the cases against them were strong and the other outlets didn't settle because the cases against them were weaker.
plural
1yr ago
plural
1yr ago
A lot of this, not saying all, is just related to the internet and its relative anonymity. In real life I think we all calibrate ourselves to be more ingratiating to those we're dealing with and even if we're comfortable enough to have an argument with someone it's often a much less appealing proposition than being able to downvote and move on or close the tab or block because of the oft-mentioned skin in the game. Even online I think if you consider someone a friend you're going to be less hostile, less likely to argue, more likely to calibrate your opinion toward theirs if you value them as a friend. Mistake theory is how we mostly code disagreements in these conditions and I think it's much more likely to be true if only for these conditions. Someone around me starts laying into the Democrats and I can nod and agree with the rest of them because I do. Someone around me starts laying into the Republicans and I can also nod and agree because I do. These are somewhat reflective of my opinion but they're also me agreeing with them because it's easier to agree and I'd rather have a conversation with someone than an argument.
As a pseudonymous internet commenter you're willing to disagree and let your inhibitions go. The interaction is not really about getting along anymore it's about winning and getting the praise and esteem that goes along with that. You'll sandbag a win because it's in your best interests to appeal as an underdog. You're more likely to tell the truth that you've kept secret from friends and relatives but you're also more likely to lie. Everything is amped up and so much of it is about getting attention/respect that Conflict theory is not only easier it makes sense because the goal is to win and you already know you're right. Progressives control the narrative, it's obvious because of reasons A,B, and C. These are all true. I also know that none of my friends or relatives agree with this but that's D and why would I include something that undermines my idea when I have data that agrees with it? I think there's a certain level of disingenuous rhetoric that everyone engages in when presenting an argument because they're trying to "win" and often that comes off as a disconnection or inferential step away from your reality but I think a good portion of it is never really turning off the war part of the culture war. In a way it's kind of a mistake theory for conflict theory, I guess but I believe people engage in this behavior, even unknowingly, much more than they'd ever admit. This is all me probably typical-minding but it's how I explain almost everyone ever sandbagging their own position/politics to appear as a more appealing underdog for some reason.
I think you're right and the more steps removed you are from someone and their knowledge the more likely you are to look at it and think that they're smoking bath salts. Society seems to be built more towards atomization and it's a hell of an easy way to create hundreds and thousands and millions more inferential steps between each other and our trust or acceptance of one another's knowledge. I also think that it's fair to call that disconnect reaction a natural heuristic toward not being fooled. And I think that heuristic instinct gets stronger the more it's proven correct and it's often easy to prove it correct with whatever data you want that supports your disconnected feeling. It might be right or wrong but I think it's safe to say that we mostly find it wrong even if most of the time it actually is wrong because most of the time the heuristic works and that disconnection from others is often a much stronger weight toward our eventual conclusion of accepting that information than piles of links to studies/articles even if the media and academia have done themselves no favors here.
plural
1yr ago
I think certain movies are self-selected to get good reviews. It's why documentaries have almost always been very highly rated (throughout RTs lifecycle) even if they're not that good because the audience that would be willing to watch a documentary on a subject they don't have an interest in and also rate something poorly which affirmed their views is very low. I'd bet for a movie like this it's about the same sort of self-selection. People who can sense or an anticipate the presentism or pandering even just from the idea/poster/trailer are unlikely to see it and unlikely to review it. Also, RTs % system is based on if a movie is rated a 6 or higher, that's all. Every 100% RT movie could be straight 6/10 reviews across the board.
You read the first link wrong, Snatch is a 93% audience rating the 74% is for the critics rating. Just like Blade Runner has an 89% on that list because that's the critics' rating, the audience rating is 90%.
You should get a couple days ban for being so antagonistic. That edit to the original post is a shameful act for someone that's supposed to be a mod.
More options
Context Copy link