domain:astralcodexten.substack.com
daguerrean
6hr ago
- I have no reason to believe this. It may or may not be true but at this point it is not convincing me.
- Any sufficiently large-scale action is going to have a few mistakes, there will always be false positives. If we insisted on zero false positives the only solution would be to deport no one (or something approaching zero). Similar to how cops enforcing the law will periodically result in an innocent person being shot. It is unfortunate, and we should work to minimize mistakes but to some extent mistakes are a sign of things actually being done as opposed to total inaction. If we insist on 30 appeals for every person we will simply never be able to match the incoming rate of illegal immigrants.
oats_son
6hr ago
I found the video disturbing. Sometimes I have to recall how I felt watching that first video to give any credence to the other side at all, especially as it relates to the conviction of Derek Chauvin, whom I usually think should have been acquitted, but sometimes, the thought of that video pops up again and I think twice.
Obviously, it didn't justify any of the rioting, though. That was an insane year.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
7hr ago
"The fact that I would believe bad things about my enemies proves they're bad" is an UR example of a horrendously bad faith argument. This post was more worthy of a ban than the original.
naraburns
nihil supernum
7hr ago
That's not how you get a reputation. This is a reputation economy. If you contribute valuable things to it, that will increase your credibility. What is valuable in this reputation economy? Lots of stuff! Insight, novelty, effort. Original research, eloquence, reasoned argumentation. Steelmanning, deep dives, critical self-reflection. And yes--the beating heart of this space is the Culture War thread, where we discuss the culture wars--but, at our best, refrain from waging them.
We also have quiet lurkers! If that's more your jam, that's fine. Even there, you can contribute through meta-moderation and user reports.
What we don't need is more people trying to characterize this space, to place it within the culture wars rather than to keep it outside of them. We don't need more accusing mods of thumbing the scales one way or another, complaining that there are too many bad posters, too many bad comments, too much left wing content, too much right wing content, whatever--we already have entirely too much of that. The best--often the only--thing you can do to make this place better, is to write good posts.
To be blunt: I am skeptical that you "FoundViaTwitter." Right now I would guess at about 30% odds that "you" are a Turok alt. You don't write as if you are unfamiliar with this space; you write as if you are someone who has already been banned previously. But I've been wrong about this sort of thing before, and quite possibly I'm wrong now, so instead I'm trying to treat you like a new user who just found this space.
We welcome your effort, insight, etc. on whatever topics you care to write about, provided you do so within the spirit of the foundation and the intention of the rules that support it. We are less interested in having yet more off-base aspersions cast on the mod team or the site.
iprayiam3
7hr ago
That's not what I meant, Im not even that frequent a commenter here these days.
Just defending that the moderation policy isn't really along a left/right divide.
I'd say rather, it's biased against arguments that amount to 'You are moral monster and cannot be tolerated'. This was, at least online, pretty strongly associated with the progressive advance over the last decade, so I thikn reaction against this gets pattern matched to reaction against leftism.
But 3 recent moderation debates have been around:
Alexader Turok: sneering contempt for populist conservatives, from a viewpoint within the general 'right', but a libertarian/EHC perspective.
Burdensome Count: moral outrage against American nationalism from a globalist, EHC perspective, though socially somewhat conservative
Contra Whinning Coil: somebody flaming out because Whinning Coil was allowed to express racist views.
The third was kind of liberal adjacent? But more like centrist disgust at racialist remarks. All three kerfuffles though, were not about left/right, but about reacting to an argument that amounts to 'how dare they!'
To be super clear, I also flamed out of here several years ago, because I too hold some how dare they views. I don't agree with the general philosophical aims of theMotte, and think it is founded in self-destructive tolerance-maxxing. I do not agree with the axiomatic viewpoints that found the philosophy of the motte and it;s moderation.
But I simply defend that it's not left-vs-right.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
7hr ago
Who is "our", Kemosabe? Didn't you show up in the West basically yesterday?
DTulpa
7hr ago
Oh, don't misunderstand me. I was being rather suggestive with that post, pointing out that "the fact that I COULD believe it" is really, really terrible guidepost.
I didnt believe Jussie either - my only failing being the extent of my disbelief not going far enough. I was prepared to say drug deal/prostitution gone wrong. Performative self-lynching wasn't on the menu.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
7hr ago
That's the opposite of what you're being asked to do. Post. Engage. Discuss. But maybe give it a few months before getting into every mod decision.
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
7hr ago
Just lurk for a while, or participate without criticizing the mods imo. The context is that people bitch about the mods' decisions (whether that is to ban or not) on a weekly basis, and I'm sure they're sick of it. People have been here for nearly a decade.
There's plenty of dysfunction in the community, but it's not driven by incompetence or ideological bias on the part of the mods. Even if, I have to say, I share your frustration for the Turok ban.
If he expressed his Great Replacement desires in more formal language, perhaps referring to genetic groups instead of "mayos", would his posts be under less scrutiny?
Yes. 100%. It would be quite trivial to rephrase everything he has to say in a manner that is minimally inflammatory. Some opinions will inherently piss people off, no matter how politely stated. We account for this, and let them stand.
I'm going to sacrifice even more of my lunch-break, and take on the burden of providing an example of how Count could have made the same point without breaking the rules:
This incident highlights what I see as a structural weakness in the American legal system regarding accountability for government agents. It's interesting to contrast the US concept of "sovereign immunity" with legal frameworks like the UK's, which allows for "exemplary damages" specifically to punish "arbitrary and oppressive conduct by a servant of the government." The latter seems to provide a stronger check on potential executive overreach by creating a more direct path for redress.
If the reporting is accurate, the false notification of the man's death is particularly concerning. It points to a breakdown in process and professionalism that seems severe, even accounting for the complexities of immigration enforcement. It raises questions about the institutional culture within ICE and what safeguards are in place to prevent such grievous errors.
This seems to align with critiques, like those once made by Lee Kuan Yew, that American institutions can sometimes lack the deeply ingrained cultural norms that act as informal checks on behavior in older states. My read is that this isn't an issue of malice, but perhaps a cultural immaturity where adherence to formal process can sometimes override basic considerations of human decency, leading to outcomes that are both unjust and counterproductive.
The second version makes the exact same three points:
- The US legal system has structural flaws for redressing government misconduct compared to the UK.
- The agency's actions demonstrate a shocking lack of professionalism.
- This may be symptomatic of a broader American cultural issue related to its relative youth as a nation.
The difference is that the rewrite focuses on systems, policies, and ideas. It critiques without insulting. It frames the point about national character as an analytical observation from a historical figure, not a childish insult. It invites a counter-argument ("Actually, sovereign immunity is vital because...") rather than a flame war ("How dare you call us a steaming pile of shit!").
That is the standard. It's not about what you say, but about making a good-faith effort to say it in a way that contributes to a discussion. Count consistently and deliberately chooses not to.
The civility requirements do seem to be more stringent on the left than the right, probably because when someone insults the Left there's not a lot of push back.
We can't please everyone, but even the perception of such bias is concerning. Take it from me, that we take this concern seriously, and have been debating it internally. I'm not going to name names, but a certain someone, who is a right-wing darling, will not enjoy it if we decide that we need to make an example.
Of course, that's an extreme outcome, and we generally try not to make examples for the sake of it. Many lengthy explanations have been written about why the perception of anti-leftist bias might exist here, including even in its absence. I can't rule out that it isn't, in fact, absent, but take my word for it that we care about fairness as well as the appearance of fairness.
Mantergeistmann
7hr ago
I'd say it's more coming into a bar, and wondering why some of the regulars are discussing with the bartender whether another of the regulars (who, over the course of many nights before you got here, established a rep as a bit belligerent once they've had too many) should be cut off. Doesn’t mean it's not a drinking establishment, or that you're not welcome to belly up and order, but that there's backstory and conflict (like with any established group!) that you weren't around for. Don't let that worry you.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7hr ago
I'm sad that this has been your first week here. It's not every week that two prolific posters are banned. This is actually one of the only places left on the Internet where you can say any idea, as long as it's said civilly. Unfortunately, it can be hard for some people to keep it civil, to the point where I think many posters have forgotten what civility even looks like.
I could make an effort post on why gay sex is morally terrible and it wouldn't be moderated - as long as I wrote it as if I was trying to convince a close gay friend, using the friendly language one would use with someone you will inevitably see every day. It would be downvoted terribly, because that kind of sentiment is wildly unpopular here. But it wouldn't be moderated. If I made the same post, with the same argument structure, but with some homophobic slurs added in and in the tone of a drill sergeant, it would be moderated in much the same way you see here.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
7hr ago
We’d really prefer it if you didn’t leave… we need new people to prevent this place from slowly withering away.
In any smaller and more tight-knit space it takes some time to get acclimated to the local customs, but that’s just like… normal.
yofuckreddit
7hr ago
God, just the review summaries at the bottom. The way American LLMs simp the user to is just viscerally disgusting at this point.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
7hr ago
I'm getting a "you barged into our secret club" kind of vibe.
I for one do not believe you barged into our secret club.
birb_cromble
7hr ago
RFK Jr. fires two top staffers in leadership shakeup
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. has fired two of the department’s top aides in a leadership shakeup, a spokesperson confirmed Wednesday.
There are two things I'd like to discuss here: the procedural and the inside baseball.
One of the most interesting aspects of the second Trump presidency is that unelected officials are being fired, and that the news is reporting on it.
Historically, firing high ranking officials was not uncommon. In recent years, however, it seems like it has gotten more difficult to do so, up until 2025.
What has changed? Is this entirely downstream of recent court precedent, or has the executive fundamentally changed in some way compared to Biden and Trump I?
There's a lot of supposition and kremlinology below, so if you're not into that, feel free to skip this section.
Moving on, I've seen a few rumors floating around that these firings are due to the officials in question approving the Moderna COVID vaccine while RFK jr was on vacation. If this is true, and that's a big if, it's interesting for a few different reasons.
Historically, federal officials had a lot of power to ignore and subvert the will of their bosses. Usually though, it's passive behavior. Appointed bosses come and go, so sandbagging on unpopular orders is a common strategy. Sometimes (like military leadership lying about force dispositions in Syria), they'll go so far as to elide or bend the truth on topics that won't get back to the president until its too late to matter. Rarely though, do they engage in something that would go against the will of their appointed Boss in a way that is both active AND verifiable.
Give all that - if the reason for the firing is true, it has some interesting implications.
- It's possible that these officials knew RFK jr didn't want the approval to go through but did it anyway, with full knowledge of the consequences
- The officials thought they could get away with contravening the wishes of the appointee Boss without consequences
- They genuinely thought that the approval was in accordance with the wishes of their appointed Boss.
- Somehow the bureaucracy is so automated that these officials didn't even know the approval happened at all.
To be honest, I'm not sure which possibility is most interesting, because they all have a lot of downstream implications for federal government.
- If #1 is true, this is a rare case of a public official making a principled stand and accepting the consequences. I respect that, even if I disagree with the stand itself. It makes me wonder if it might cause other officials to take similar stands.
- This possibility (#2) is interesting because it makes me realize that I don't actually know what the stated purpose of agency officials is. Is their highest goal to serve the purpose of the agency, or the will of the electorate? Even if they claim one or the other, what processes do we have to ensure that's true?
- Possibility #3 is interesting because it implies that these individuals either see a VERY different RFK Jr than the public sees, or they have a fairly warped view of his positions. It seems odd that someone could climb the DC power ladder and lack the skills to suss out the intentions of their appointed Bosses, so if this is true, it suggests that RFK jr has very different public and private positions.
- Possibility #4 is more terrifying than interesting. The fact that it's boring and awful and suggests that no one actually has a hand on the tiller makes me think it's also the one that's most likely to be correct.
Totalitarianit
7hr ago
People can either read this as another unimpressive attempt by a left-leaning individual to fixate on a single tree despite there being an entire forest, or they can look at it as unintentional satire, which is what it really is. Lecturing Americans about immigration policy as if the last decade(s) of UK immigration disasters simply didn't exist is actually funny.
Your legal framework and its habit of prioritizing everyone but its natural citizens has landed the UK exactly where it is now. You brag about these laws that, while intended to protect individual rights, have led to a system where every single removal attempt is open to countless appeals and human rights claims. The UK and whatever it once was is basically done for. It's so bad that to say that it has an identity crisis is to assume that the is still has any identity left at all. This has been the UK's "infinite wisdom" which, ironically, will prove to be not-so-infinite.
So while people like you brag about the process, people like me look at the results, and the results of the process you're defending are undeniable.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
7hr ago
It is very kind of you to believe that Count isn't being disingenuous. Donning saintly levels of forbearance and patience:
We're less concerned with what's in a user's heart of hearts and more with the mess they make on the floor. The relevant question for us isn't "Does he believe it?" but "Is he posting in order to start a fire?" This is where you get the "sincere troll." This is the user who may genuinely hold an opinion, but chooses to express it in the most inflammatory, condescending, and insulting way possible, because the hostile reaction is a core part of what they want. The outrage is the point, not a byproduct.
Let's grant that Count sincerely believes the UK's legal system is superior. The sincerity of that belief doesn't make phrases like "steaming pile of shit" or telling an entire country to "apply for readmission to the human race" anything other than deliberate, high-octane provocation. He knows it's inflammatory. He chooses those words precisely because they're inflammatory. That's baiting. You can already see the fish biting in this thread.
Sincerity isn't a defense for deliberately "waging the culture war," which is explicitly against the rules. He's not just expressing an odious opinion; he's lobbing a grenade wrapped in an opinion, and he does it over and over again. Whether he's a nihilist who believes nothing or a zealot who believes everything, the result for the thread is the same: heat, not light.
We don't moderate beliefs (or at least we try not to), we moderate behavior. And his behavior is consistently that of someone trying to start a fight, and then scream about police brutality.
Since I have your attention, I must remind you that you're on thin ice yourself. Your posts are popular, you've got AAQCs, but you're flying too close to the sun. Do yourself a favor, and take extra care to couch your language in a manner that minimizes opportunities for it to be misunderstood. This is for our sake too, I do not look forward to the shitstorm in the comments that will ensue if we have to bite the bullet. Don't make us, please.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7hr ago
If he expressed his Great Replacement desires in more formal language, perhaps referring to genetic groups instead of "mayos", would his posts be under less scrutiny?
I'm not a Burdensome Count sympathizer, but I am under the impression that this forum is one where you can express any idea, as long as it's done civilly. The civility requirements do seem to be more stringent on the left than the right, probably because when someone insults the Left there's not a lot of push back.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
7hr ago
I didn't. Smollett's story had more red flags than the Chinese Parliament. This one at least has the chance of being a series of bureaucratic fuckups -- those are a lot more common on the ground than MAGA fans of Empire who carry around bleach and a noose in a Chicago winter.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
7hr ago
· Edited 6hr ago
Guatemala denies that Chilean green-card holder was deported from the United States
The Guatemalan Migration Institute said in a statement that it coordinates with ICE on all deportations from the United States and that no one matched Leon’s name, age or citizenship.
ETA: The reporting in this story is horrendous.
As far as I can tell, it's possible ALL the info comes from this "Nataly". Nobody reporting on this had anyone check on Mr. Leon in Guatemala City. The story about Leon being handcuffed and his wife left for 10 hours in the immigration comes from unspecified "family", NOT from the wife. Sure, she doesn't speak English... you don't have a single Spanish-speaking reporter? This isn't a Khoisan click language, it's common!
FoundViaTwitter
7hr ago
I'm getting a "you barged into our secret club" kind of vibe. That's fair! I didn't mean to disturb whatever exactly this place is.
I'll go back to my internet space. I'm nobody, so this feels a bit silly, but this will be my final comment. Apologies for the intrusion.
yofuckreddit
7hr ago
- I also keep an internal picture of everyone in my head.
- It's cheating since your picture is on your substack, but my internal vision was fairly accurate
- If you're not exhausted, I'll echo the clamor for "do me!"
Arnaud
7hr ago
Can't speak for the cane sugar, but the gluten sensitivity thing is real from my experience.
Cut out gluten in a desperate attempt to sort out some digestive issues years ago and it helped a lot.
If I eat gluten in moderate quantities nowadays it results, like clockwork, in a headache, brain fog and later indigestion.
So yeah, sample size of one but I'm sold.
It's neither of those things. Burdensome Count is not a leftwinger. He is a beneficiary of the UK immigration policy, and therefore sees it as a smashing success.
Imagine a socially conservative Mexican immigrant, sitting outside of a taco truck, with his friends and family after Catholic Mass, celebrating his life in what was 3 decades ago, a strongly Protestant community and condemning the disruption of a recent ICE raid. This guy might be very glad for the liberal immigration policies of the past few decades and distressed by the recent reversal, while still being otherwise more aligned with MAGA populism on most other issues.
More options
Context Copy link