banned
netstack
Texas is freedom land
19d ago
If you were a relatively fresh user, I’d warn you to put more effort and tact into your position. If I thought you were being facetious to make a point about 2rafa’s subject, I’d remind you to speak plainly.
Neither of those things are true. You have a long history of one-liners and a longer history of insisting one particular group is actually the worst. I conclude that you’re proudly ignoring our rules about evidence and effort specifically to remind everyone that you despise your outgroup.
Banned for one week.
Skulldrinker
19d ago
I got banned off of Hinge and I have no idea why. I had barely had any engagement for weeks, Im not in the habit of sending angry or creepy messages. I think I said "Nice shoulders" once. Appeal rejected with no further details.
I suspect the culprit was "My Most Controversial Opinion Is: political slogans are not a personality" which I suppose qualifies as [Bullying] if you have ACAB BLM Free Palestine Something Something Capitalism in your profile, as so many do. Men who fish for a hobby are also being bullied on Hinge, apparently. It was the last change I made, after getting tired of seeing all the empty acronyms.
Now I can stop torturing myself at least.
Wasn't there a guy in the movie who'd eaten a Big Mac (no fries) every day for like 30 years and seemed fine? For me a lot of movies in this genre end up saying something slightly different from what they intend. (also the way they are interpreted by extremists on both sides of the aisle)
Another example is "Bowling for Columbine" -- Moore establishes that Canadians have lots of guns, then goes around Toronto walking into people's houses because their doors are unlocked. The logical takeaway seems to be that "has lots of guns" is mostly not correlated with "has lots of high-school shootings" or "has high crime cities", and it would be best to look elsewhere; ofc the left's takeaway as I recall was "guns are bad and should be banned" and the right's "Moore wants to take our guns, fuck him" -- so what can you do I guess?
(The difference between the two movies I suppose is that "there is something about America other than the raw number of guns that is leading to school shootings/violent crime" is a more interesting thing to notice than "living exclusively on burgers and XL helpings of fries and soda is bad for you".)
quiet_NaN
21d ago
I think "someone says something with is laughably wrong and also outrageous on the motte" does not warrant a top-level post.
We have our share of trolls and Nazis. Every once in a while we get an holocaust denier. I am sure that I could make a civil argument about why we should kill and eat all the people with the letter x in their legal names as a matter of national policy without getting banned for it.
I think it is important to establish that a lack of refutation is not the same as silent approval. Trolls can make outrageous statements a lot quicker than anyone can refute them. See xkcd.
I mean, mods could use the "Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be." rule to shut down such comments, by ruling "denying humanity to a significant portion of extant h. sapiens is a claim which is so inflammatory that you should require ten recent articles in top-notch scientific journals making that claim as evidence" (and then relying on the fact that this level of evidence can not be met).
But this would also put us on a slippery slope to tone policing. As the late Niemoeller observed (paraphrased): "First they came for the holocaust deniers, and I said nothing because fuck Nazis. Then they came for the blacks-arent-humans people and I said nothing, because fuck racists. Then they came for the genetic-IQ-difference crowd, and I said nothing because it was not a topic which interested me. Then they came for me for using a generic masculine form and nobody was left to speak out for me." So I am kind of fine with the odd Nazi comment as a price to pay for having a forum where any opinion can be expressed, because some other controversial opinions are at least interesting.
Throwaway05
21d ago
It's a good thing I took my Ritalin and have a psych textbook open, or I'd have permabanned for the aggressive attack with education at a vulnerable juncture /s
Excellent! Using the knowledge we just discussed, which PRNs would you administer to yourself for that aggression???
-Lowkey I use the generic vs. brand name basically based off what's easier/quicker to spell.
-B-52 is the medical slang for that PRN regimen, don't see people abusing it (if that's what you meant by that comment).
-Medical beer works great! We need to bring it back.
-In the U.S. we have sandwiches on deck for just this reason.
I see your other reply with chatbot Charlie but I'll ignore it because why more word when less word good.
On paper you have a risk of increased adversed events (most notably respiratory depression) when those two agents are mingled.
What ChatGPT won't tell you is that is likely not real and just a recommendation generated by an abundance of caution. Origin was probably adverse events in people with comorbid substance use, including alcohol.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
21d ago
It's a good thing I took my Ritalin and have a psych textbook open, or I'd have permabanned for the aggressive attack with education at a vulnerable juncture /s
Thank you, while you Americans have an abominable addiction to brand names, I can understand that those are principles that'll come in handy.
Do not mix IM Zyprexa with benzos however.
I can Google that, but you're in a teaching mood, so might I know why from the horse's mouth?
Unrelated question to check reading comprehension (this is a joke). Do they use hospital prescribed alcohol to manage withdrawal in India? It's so stupidly effective and simple and I don't know why we don't do it more anymore.
Never seen it happen, and I've been here longer than I'd like. It's the usual benzos to cover the acute withdrawal, and it matches up with NICE guidance to boot.
Go assess the patient (skip if the bandwidth isn't there, admittedly). Nursing and ancillary staff are seldom reliable narrators for if a patient needs meds. Bonus points if you can learn which staff and teams are reliable for this. Sometimes you can save everyone trouble by throwing a pissed off person a sandwich. Also be aware of the risks of sedating someone you need to interview or examine later, can easily cause downstream workflow problems especially if it's a hospital setting and you are pulling in consultants.
Good stuff. I'm taking notes, albeit with the cafeteria being the way it is in the NHS, I might be tempted to steal the sandwich. Certainly not paying for one out of pocket, do I look like I make US money haha. I do prefer practical and common sense interventions where possible, Scott's story about the lady with OCD and hairdryer stuck with me.
Haldol/Ativan/Benadryl (B-52! If you've never heard the term) works well and is popular for a damn good reason. It's fine as a default.
More from hanging out in /r/drugs to watch in sheer awe at the people who choose to abuse deliriants, in the case of Benadryl, but Haldol? That's good old haloperidol and I love it like me mum.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
21d ago
Look, I completely understand that you're unhappy with what @TitaniumButterfly said, and understandably so. He's been warned by @Amadan, and presuming he doesn't clean up his act, or at least say such things in a less maximally inflammatory manner, he's probably going to end up banned.
However, your own response, especially submitted as a top level comment in this thread, doesn't fly either. I'm not going to put anything on your mod record, since you're new and justifiably incensed, but at the very least, you need to put more effort into a rebuttal. Yes, I'm aware of how weird that sounds.
If you'd just stated this as a reply, I probably wouldn't have bothered to respond or put on the mod hat, but once someone has been modded for their actions, you should leave it at that and not performatively call them out to make a rhetorical point. After all, to make a very lukewarm defense of them, they went into a great deal of explaining as to why they hold the view that they do.
Moofy
Chacrinha of Cold Brazil
23d ago
That's a fascinating sub with much wrongthink; has Reddit become more tolerant or is this sub just flying under the radar until they get the inevitable ban? I stopped browsing Reddit when they banned CCJ2, so I don't know how things go over there nowadays.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
23d ago
If you think "How dare you" is an accurate summary of why you got banned, nothing is going to disabuse you of this. Nor am I going to be disabused of the conclusion that you provide zero value here when all you post is rage and then want to come back over and over to continue bitching about being banned for it. You're lucky your "Fuck you" didn't get you a longer ban. Read the rules (including the part about accepting temp bans with some grace and maturity) and comport yourself accordingly if you want to keep participating here
Seriously, this is the weirdest post I have ever seen on the Motte. I hope that this is some kind of elaborate joke of fellow Mottizens, that I don't understand. Especially since OP cannot respond, because he was just banned for trolling. Good night sweet angel.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
25d ago
Sorry, Mods. I really tried not to, but then I did.
Yeah, you did.
History shows two previous warnings, four AAQCs. I don't see the point of a warning here, given that you obviously knew exactly what you were doing and that we don't want you to do it. Banned for a day. Please do not make a habit of this sort of thing; the bans will escalate if you do.
SkoomaDentist
26d ago
Well, the last-last one did just get banned...
marinuso
26d ago
Will Elon throttle me if he finds out I’m short Tesla stock?
You probably meant this as a joke, but I'd be wary of buying a car from a tech company. What happens in X years when they shut the servers down that it wants to connect to? Or what happens if your account gets banned?
Tesla employees have been caught sharing videos from the cameras on the cars. That tells me that a) they can access whatever you can, and b) there isn't much stopping even individual employees screwing around with people's cars, neither in terms of IT security or company culture.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
27d ago
Anyways look at the results and ask yourself the question about your rules bringing you to this -- what good did this ban do the forum?
We always ask that question. This is not the first time a well-liked and generally positive contributor has been (temporarily) banned. This is also not the first time that @JTarrou, specifically, has been banned. At one point he even wrote a long post about how he expected to get permabanned, no hard feelings, because he just couldn't comply with the rules about not shitting on his outgroup.
I realize there is a substantial contingent here who would like people to be allowed to post freely about how women are hypergamous bots, blacks are low IQ crime-monsters, Jews are invidious parasites, libtards should all be given helicopter rides, etc. etc. If that is the forum you would like, advocate for that but be clear about it. Maybe if that's what everyone wants, we will change our moderation and let the shit fly. But until now, the consensus has been that that is not what (most) people want, and hence that's why we mod people who cannot keep their seething hatred in check when posting. It's not like you aren't allowed to talk about women, blacks, Jews, liberals, etc., in a negative fashion. @JTarrou wasn't confused or caught unawares at crossing some invisible line he didn't understand. He knew what he was doing because he's done it (and been warned about it) before. So have 90% of our regulars who get rapped for breaking the rules, no matter how much they complain about it.
That said, sometimes there are phases where the mods all happen to be moderating more strictly or less strictly for a while. It's usually not an intentional or coordinated thing (we have not had a "reign of terror" recently, and no plans to do so). Remember those? When the forum would get so heated and antagonistic that we had to start issuing bans even for small infractions to get people to chill out? Some people thought that was necessary and some people hated it. Usually the people who hated it were the ones who wanted to shit on others. If you think we've been stricter lately, maybe it's because people have been shittier lately.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
27d ago
That's interesting. At first glance, I thought "why would Republicans support this law".
It seems like it would be better to get rid of group preferences. The problem is that, even when group preferences are banned, corporations, governments, and universities just go ahead and do them anyway.
Perhaps it's better to simply enshrine Republicans, conservatives, and Christians as new protected classes allowing the possibility of torts (or the threat of torts) to keep people from discriminating against them.
Since we can't stop disparate impact from being used as a cudgel, it's time to arm both sides of the culture war. Universities need to be sued for the fact that less than 5% of professors are Republican.
sliders1234
28d ago
I got a couple upvotes on reddit replying to a post “with bad guy Butker whose the evilest player in the nfl”
Good Guy: Butker Bad Guy: too many to name
I am not sure if the Overton window of NFL player conduct has really changed that much. I think most Americans have always had some support for traditional values and even more support a religious community to do their own thing. Explicitly stating this publicly though was banned for a while.
This also has me thinking about the right to free association. Which has largely been deleted from the U.S. constitution. I largely support a right to free association but it feels like it does need some limits. I would like a company to be able to fire some one for any reason they want. If you get promoted to CEO and your personal view is that Indians are smelly vile creatures and want to fire them just because they are Indian I want you to have that right. And ideally those Indians you don’t like get scooped up by your competitor and build a better product.
Butker’s case provides the counter-point. If the NFL decided they don’t want Catholics playing in their league who do real Catholic things and fired Butker it would cause him real harm. Go start your own football league is not viable. This happens with a lot of product too. If Microsoft decided no Jews can use excel that would be an irreplaceable loss. Jews of course could build their own excel software, but since every other organization uses excel the Jewish excel would not be compatible with the Gentile Excel used by everyone else. They could not be accountants or investment bankers because all their clients would be using Gentile Excel.
Of course Courts can come up with tests to distinguish the difference for when giving free association is non-viable. The issue here is that if you are the wrong group at the time let’s say a Catholic kicker the court could declare it is viable for him to start his own NFL to be a kicker, but also find it’s completely not viable for Jews to create their own excel.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
30d ago
I'm not sure how to bridge our different reading of the statute, but I don't agree with that summary at all. The text there [emphasis mine]:
§ 14‑12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways. No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. (1953, c. 1193, s. 6; 1983, c. 175, ss. 1, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)
This seems really clear to me that intent aside, the effect needs to be concealing the identity of the wearer. For example, the proverbial immunocompromised patient going to a hospital - we know they're not concealing their identity because their actions require the people they're interacting with to know who they are! It's true that determining whether someone's "face is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer" requires some degree of interpretation on the part of police and prosecutors, but I think that's just an unavoidable part of criminal law. The change here isn't actually a change to the need for contextual interpretation, it's just removing health as a fully general exception.
If someone wanted to take the principled stance that you should just be allowed to conceal your identity, I think they could probably make a pretty reasonable case for that, but it would be a pretty different argument than what we see the legislators and newspapers running with.
I would agree that in my example that funny hats at the mall are now banned. What I wouldn't say is that funny hats were generally banned. You can wear your funny hat to a lot of places! You just can't do it at the mall anymore. In the mask case, people that have some actual medical reason and aren't concealing their identity shouldn't really bump into much of a problem. The one area of overlap that I could see this actually being a thing is someone that insists it's medical getting into a conflict with a business-owner that just hates masks and wants them to take their stupid mask off. In the hat analogy, I would think it was weird if someone was super pissed about the funny hat change when what they really don't like is the loitering rule at the mall.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
30d ago
The problem with this formulation is that Y isn't banned unless done as part of X. In this case, what's illegal is not the wearing of a mask, it's wearing a mask to conceal one's identity.
I'm not sure I agree. I don't read any intent requirement in the text of 14-12.7. It seems like what's banned is "being in public wearing anything that could conceal your identity." Your intent about concealing your identity doesn't enter into it.
As to your examples I think it would be fair to say "they're banning standing around in front of the mall in a funny hat" or "they're banning beer in the park" but the firearm one is trickier.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
30d ago
The problem with this formulation is that Y isn't banned unless done as part of X. In this case, what's illegal is not the wearing of a mask, it's wearing a mask to conceal one's identity. People may do Y, but they can't do Y in furtherance of X. To concretize other possible examples:
-
There is a law against loitering in front of the mall, unless you're wearing a funny hat. The exemption for funny hats is set to be removed. Are funny hats banned?
-
You may not drink alcoholic beverages at the park, with the exception of beer. The beer exception is removed. Is beer banned?
-
Carrying a firearm to intimidate others is illegal, but firearms in holsters are exempted. The exemption is removed. Are firearms or holsters banned?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
30d ago
I don't know. I think if some activity X is generally banned, but with an exception for Y, then you remove the exception for Y, your action is fairly characterized as "banning Y." You used to be able to do Y. Now you can't. Sounds like a ban to me!
I know LLMs are banned here so mods please don’t ban me for this. Here is what I get from chatGPT when I ask “what does it mean for something to be low entropy in the context of the information it contains?”
In the context of information theory, low entropy indicates that the information content is highly predictable and ordered. Entropy, a concept introduced by Claude Shannon, measures the uncertainty or randomness in a set of data. When entropy is low, the data has less randomness and is more structured, meaning that there is less information content or fewer surprises in the data.
For example, a string of repeated characters like "AAAAA" has low entropy because the next character is easily predictable. Conversely, a string of random characters like "G7d2#k9" has high entropy because the next character is unpredictable. In summary, low entropy implies high predictability and low information content.
This is what I mean. Very low information, skimmable (because it’s predictable and repetitive).
I agree that “low information density” would be a better way of phrasing this, it seems like I am using this term wrong. Thank you!
Corvos
30d ago
I think it is far more likely (I'm not projecting here honest) that people are worried about making a top level post that sits at 2 upvotes and gets no engagement, rather than a fear of being 'banned' or any other mod action.
Yeah, I'd say getting modded is rare whereas having proof people aren't really interested in what you have to say is much more intimidating.
Which longtime posters were banned recently? I don't even know, there used to be a weekly thread about who got banned in the last week.
All I can think of was Hiynka and he's a far-out third (fourth?) positionist calling 80% of the political spectrum progressives.
More options
Context Copy link