BANNED USER: By request
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
No bio...
User ID: 92
Banned by: @netstack
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
1yr 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.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
1yr 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.
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.
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.
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?
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
1yr 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
2yr 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
1yr 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.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
1yr 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.
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
1yr 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.
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?
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”?
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
2yr 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
2. TIME article from disillusioned women in EA making questionable claims of sexual assault (to which the CEO of Open Phil replied, not the organization itself, as you suggest)
I didn't really see much of a difference, but I guess I can see how some people could.
1. The widespread admonishment of Nick Bostrom among EAs after his comment on factual group differences was leaked
5. Highlights two cause areas (global dysgenic trends and the power laws of crime) that are ignored by EA as taboo.
A social taboo against talking about HBD is not feminization. It was the de facto state of society well before the rise of modern feminism and woke culture. Take a random sample of men at the gym or in an MMO and start talking about how Black people are genetically inferior and let me know how it goes. HBD is not something all men secretly believe and want to talk about (if not for those pesky women!).
Though while we're on the topic, imo the general state of HBD has been the same since at least 2013 (when I started reading about it) -- basically: "Some of EAs believe in HBD and some EAs are uncomfortable with talking about it, and some EAs support strong social norms against talking about it", which should already seem strikingly different from how its talked about in the normal population.
3. Open Phil making donations towards criminal justice causes without any evidential basis for their effectiveness
Open Philanthropy's funding for criminal justice reform has been significant since at least 2016, went down in 2020 (when George Floyd died), and then separated from OpenPhil in 2021 because they weren't as effective as global health.
As we wrote in 2019, we think the top global aid charities recommended by GiveWell (which we used to be part of and remain closely affiliated with) present an opportunity to give away large amounts of money at higher cost-effectiveness than we can achieve in many programs, including CJR, that seek to benefit citizens of wealthy countries. Accordingly we’re shifting the focus of future grantmaking from our Global Health and Wellbeing portfolio (which CJR has been part of) further towards the types of opportunities outlined in that post — specifically, efforts to improve and save the lives of people internationally (including things like distributing insecticide-treated bednets to prevent the spread of malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa, and fighting air pollution in South Asia).
-- OpenPhil
Those don't seem like the actions of an ideologically compromised organization.
4. A highly upvoted post on the EA forum titled “I’m a 22-year-old woman involved in Effective Altruism. I’m sad, disappointed, and scared.” This post then goes on to critique EA for placing too much emphasis on rationality and not enough on emotion.
I'll admit I missed this (my mistake for posting while at the gym). While I don't think "highly upvoted post on a forum" is great evidence (or I'd prove that EA is okay with Bostrom), it should certainly qualify to be included in a "summary of evidence".
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 replied to my comment less than 24 hours after the top level comment was made, so I’m skeptical “we caught it too late” is a genuine factor here.
Moreover, OP had not defended the claim at the time, but if that plays a role, maybe “be willing to defend your controversial claims if somebody asks for it” would be a more accurate articulation of the way this rule is actually enforced?
As it stands, if you mod him before 24 hours he never has the chance to defend himself, if you mod him after 24 hours then it’s too late.
I'm not asking to cancel every length post. A mod saying
Black people, whose natural inclinations are adverse to lifelong monogamy, quickly devolved back into their ancestral mating patterns when released from the straitjacket of traditional Christian morality.
Please proactively provide evidence for controversial claims when you make them
Is completely fine.
Removing the rule is also fine.
Changing the rule to allow unsupported controversial claims in effort posts is also fine.
But don't write rules that sound lovely, but which you're not willing to enforce.
But if one cancels every lengthy post which contains some claim which might be controversial and is not backed by evidence then there will be very few posts left.
I don't personally believe this. I have every confidence that OP could have omitted or supported that sentence, if they had felt like it was expected of them.
I think people fall to the standard they can get away with, and it was clear when the top-level comment was posted that the mods were never going to mod it.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
1yr 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.
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