you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
No bio...
User ID: 92
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
9d ago
I'm unsure whether these women just haven't googled the most basic facts of the career they'll spend their next 4-6 years pursuing, or whether they're semi-deliberately deluding themselves. My guess is the latter.
Being evenhanded with "both genders that fall into this trap are negatively impacted" is fine. When you claim that women are the ones who predominantly actually fall into the trap, you are making an inflammatory claim made without evidence.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
9d ago
You’ve blocked me, so I don’t expect a response, but how is not wanting underaged girls depicted sexually in video games a “feminist” thing?
Think back 10, 20, and 30 years and recall that this has a never been a partisan issue, let alone a predominantly leftist demand.
covid killed one million people in the united states. Yes, mostly old people, but we're talking about protecting old people here. No reason to pretend otherwise.
Unfortunately this site also gives him no reason to speak plainly.
Yes, I consider actual legislation passed to be more relevant than your vibes, simply because I never consider vibes relevant. A poll demonstrating that Republicans think virtual child pornography should be legal would certainly be even better.
Yes, the fact that I'm citing American legislation is off topic to what some@ was talking about, but it's perfectly on topic as a response to your comment, which discussed American audiences, an American film, and generic redditors, but never mentioned Australia.
Do you think there are going to be violent riots with the aim of massacring or expelling cis white men in the United States? What percentage of cis white men do you expect to be killed or expelled?
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
2mo ago
Historically the community has regulated love quite closely, and its recent failure to do so has led to plummeting birth rates
Big, if true.
I'm not interested in another conversation with the mod who thinks all I really want is to silence my outgroup. Happy to talk to literally anyone else, since at least two other mods have shown the ability to be charitable, even if they disagree with me. Also happy to not talk since it's unlikely either party will leave convinced.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
6mo ago
Do you think more than 0.1% of white people will be killed during a riot in at least one of the 1000 largest US cities in the next 10 years?
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
1yr ago
Leave the rest of the internet at the door
Somebody, somewhere, resorting to dishonest rhetoric is not a license to retaliate here.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
10d ago
I agree it'd be nice to have a "job in your field" statistic. It'd be nice if OP would provide one before baselessly claiming that one gender is delusional.
All this is now verboten. All games have some random fucking girlboss lecturing you about your privilege. There are no more offline servers. All behavior is closely monitored and you get suspended. Mods get you banned. It's the worst fucking dystopia I could have ever imagined being a 90's PC gamer.
I am a white man who games fairly regularly and I have never had a lecture about my privilege, nor have I been banned.
I'm also sad about the death of LAN parties, but it feels very weird to complain that social norms (and their enforcement) on non-LAN servers are not the same as on LAN servers. On a LAN server the enforcement comes from your friends, but external enforcement is absolutely required for public servers. Rule enforcement means that League of Legends today is much more enjoyable today than it was in 2012 (because there is less flaming and intentional feeding), and definitely better than if there was no enforcement at all.
Yes, lament the death of LAN servers, but try to appreciate that a tyranny under social-defectors is not actually better than tyranny under a company preventing that defection. Ultimately public servers are common spaces, while your basement is private.
I mean that the mods don't care about whether he says that, regardless of the fact that it's literally false and solely exists as rhetoric.
I don't hold voters or commenters on this site to any standard because the whole point of mods is that "the people" lack the coordination to have/enforce healthy norms.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
8d ago
Looking at actual legal policy passed by politicians, the principle piece of legislation seems to be the PROTECT Act, which, among many other things
Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Okay fine, but that act includes lots of other provisions. Fine, how about the previous Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996? I literally cannot find a record of a vote (if that sounds impossible, please, somebody show me up). I can, however, find the court case that ruled it unconstitutional.
The majority had 3 Republican justices (Kennedy, Stevens, Souter), and 2 Democrat (Ginsburg, Breyer), and one concurrence (Thomas (R)).
I find these examples more convincing than your vibes and lived experience, so I'll reiterate: being against virtual child pornography sees bipartisan support.
It’s doesn’t matter what I think. “The group of people who don’t like gay people” is a valid set of people to talk about. Referencing that group is allowed, and people are welcome to argue how large it is.
Referencing that group in a deliberately inflammatory way should not be allowed.
I’m sure there are awkward edge cases you can catch me up with, but the existence of edge cases doesn’t justify ignoring the non-edge cases.
“Tranny” exists as an inflammatory way to say “transgender person”. It is not an edge case and not defensible.
The people who use it are using it to demonstrate their disdain for transpeople which is not “writing like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion”.
When avoiding a derogatory term makes discussion more difficult you will have a leg to stand on. “Tranny” doesn’t, yet you insist on sheltering under free speech.
So I ask: how is this specific usage of Free Speech (allowing people to say “tranny”) helping us achieve our terminal value?
All of the community's rules must be justified by this foundation.
Yes, it takes judgement to decide what speech to allow. But here’s a simple heuristic:
If a word drives some people away and is unnecessary for communicating ideas, then modding its usage helps one aspect of the foundation and doesn’t hurt the other.
“Tranny” drives away certain perspectives and makes no ideas easier to communicate. So how is allowing it helping achieve the foundation?
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
11mo ago
Boy am I glad TheMotte moved offsite
This seems irrelevant to me, since
-
(afaik) TheMotte doesn't offer an API
-
charging 3rd party apps for using your API to steal your users seems mostly orthogonal to free speech
You said
If you say "Trump is a venal, fascist clown," that's your opinion, and someone who likes Trump would very likely report you for it, but you don't have to post a link to support your opinion
and
Kamala is an airhead" or "Trump is a fascist clown" are not great comments, no, but we're not going to make a rule against saying mean things about politicians and celebrities.
Despite the fact the rules clearly say that you will. Pointing out that inconsistency is not a lack of good faith.
A lack of good faith is when I say I take issue with "Kamala is an air-head" and you say "You seem to just want me to mod people who insult Kamala Harris" (a person, incidentally, that I don't admire).
The rules explicitly ask that you mod comments like this and you're refusing to. I don't think asking for a rule update to make it clear that insulting public figures is tolerated is bad faith on my part. I'm asking for consistency between the rules of this site and what the mods actually enforce.
Alternatively, you're welcome to argue that the rules don't demand that you mod that comment.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
1mo ago
I’m not arguing that the author isn’t woke. I’m arguing that the author never says “exercise is bad, don’t do it”, which is what you claimed, and which is not true.
If you think the rest of the article lets you similarly argue that the wokes have lost their minds, then you are welcome to use those other parts in your original post.
large western studios have done everything in their power to eradicate attractive women in AAA releases
I don't know how anyone can believe this unless their primary source is Internet controversies, rather than playing video games.
Here are some popular games released by large American studios with attractive women: Cyberpunk, Street Fighter 6, and Overwatch 2, Rise of the Tomb Raider (et al), League of Legends (et al), Red Dead Redemption 2, Fortnite, Alan Wake 2.
I'd buy the claim that there are more, less attractive women in modern western games than there were 10 years ago, but I don't know how you can claim the The Woke are preventing American corporations from making games with attractive women at all.
Could you show me a AAA game with more than 2 women where none of the women are attractive?
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
4mo ago
Bad word. "Doesn't like gay people" communicates the exact same thing but with less heat.
In a society where everyone was raised from birth to be vegan it’d be equally obvious a chicken is worth more than 0.1% of a human and anyone who said otherwise would be considered morally abhorrent.
What's the evidence that the SR was worsened people's lives, and what metrics are being used to assess that?
That is what you're responding to -- a causal claim.
Yes, you avoided ever stating any of your observations were causal, but you're responding to a question about causation by citing correlations. Your comment is either implying your correlational claims are evidence of the causal claim or it is a non sequitur.
Some serious stones and glass houses imo. By those standards 99% of the Internet is dumber than “midwit”.
Can we just say “they don’t seem to know much about Wikipedia’s finances”?
Don’t worry, the mods have decided that’s not a controversial claim, otherwise they’d have issued a warning for not proactively providing evidence.
More options
Context Copy link