banned
somedude
16d ago
Oh man I just went back and had a second look at the exchange where you guys supposedly banned him for "single issue posting" a few weeks ago. Turns out @self_made_human didn't realize which parts of the mod system were publicly viewable and the listed reason for the ban was actually:
Jew-posting with a boner so hard that the fig leaf fell. Build off Amadan's recommendation to ban him if he did it again.
But gosh golly gee whiz, I thought he was impartially banned not for the content of his existing posts but for failing to post upon a wide enough variety of subjects? You know, that incredibly important rule about the number of subjects one posts about? The one that totally isn't an excuse to punt people who post about the wrong things.
While I'm at it, here's a reminder of how Zorba phrased it:
Just go post about something every week! Here's a nerd making goat noises! Here's some nerds comparing cards in a game they've never played! Here's another nerd taste-tasting AI-created cocktails! this is not hard
Because I figure we're about halfway to the point where "just post a youtube video about goat noises or something" suddenly becomes "ackshually we have to feel like they're good posts with sufficient effort" or whatever.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
16d ago
But gosh golly gee whiz, I thought he was impartially banned not for the content of his existing posts but for failing to post upon a wide enough variety of subjects
That is correct. He was told to occasionally do something other than Joo-post. You thinking it's some gotcha that @self_made_human likes colorful mod notes is in character, since last time this came up, you made quite a deal out of it.
Because I figure we're about halfway to the point where "just post a youtube video about goat noises or something" suddenly becomes "ackshually we have to feel like they're good posts with sufficient effort" or whatever.
Yes, if we tell you to stop single-issue posting and you take @somedude's advice to spam threads with ChatGPT posts and YouTube videos about goat noises, you will get banned. When we ask people to do something or not do something, the intent is to improve discourse. The rules are not a legal contract where you can "get away" with shitting on their intent as long as you argue that you teeeeechnically (insert nasal whine here) followed the letter of them.
Also, keep golly-gee-whizzing me because you cannot contain your animosity if you would like to further test our catch-all "Being egregiously obnoxious" rule. You have a track record already of basically telling people that you think the rules are meant to be shat upon because you don't like the moderation here. You created this account just because you had a hate-boner for Hlynka. You're clearly a long-time member/alt with a grudge, and you only have been given this much latitude because we are so tolerant, even of haters who want nothing more than to shit on us. But that tolerance is not unlimited.
Feel free to elaborate. It's not the EAs that are able to ban meat, lab grown or otherwise. It's the state, which has just now banned lab grown meat apparently in order to "steal a march" and prevent itself from banning real meat.
Stellula
5d ago
A lot of the posters here are just very bad communicators who are good at writing gigantic, very low entropy walls of text.[1]
Those walls of text have become semi-required by the moderators[2].
Thus: normal posters don’t post about any of these (interesting almost always fruitful for discussion) topics because they don’t want to get banned. I suspect that most of the interesting people have already left the party, but unfortunately I don’t know where went.
[1]: If you are into cryptocurrency, watch the episode of Alexi Friedman with the founder of Cardano on it. He talks for like 6 hours and says NOTHING. This is a good example of what a 2024 motte poster does in most top level posts.
[2]: Yes cjet as you say every single time anybody complains about this topic there is no length requirement. And yet: yes there is.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
18d ago
In this thread we're talking about a government action. It doesn't really make sense to say that the government banned something so that the government wouldn't mandate it.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
17d ago
Modern new left liberalism is a very radical ideology that doesn't get sufficient negativity for it.
No it isn’t. The world bank, WHO, rules-based-international-order of neoliberalism? That’s about as nonradical as you can get. Aggressively not radical. It files the sharp edges off the communists and the reactionaries in order to keep things running a little more smoothly.
A South Africa that didn't allow parties like ANC and those more extreme, and such politicians found themselves in prison, and parties and organizations with such agenda banned
How do you think that’s enforced? How do you make sure the right people get suppressed? For every apartheid SA there’s a lovely Cambodia or North Korea or Rwanda descending into bloodshed. The best situation we’ve found, empirically speaking, is to weaponize tolerance. That’s liberalism.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4d 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.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
16d ago
Feel free to post quotes and argue about what you think they mean, what they say about some group's intentions.
Other people may choose to engage and express a different view. They may think those same quotes do not say what you think they do.
Discuss. Civilly.
If you just start talking about how you want to throw things because people with different reads are lying gaslighters, yes, eventually that will result in you being banned if you can't control yourself and can't cope with dissenting views.
cjet79
5d ago
that many of them perceive the barrier to entry to be too high.
Exactly! Its a perception thing, so I am trying to clear it up by changing that perception. WhiningCoil and others are making it more difficult by adding to the false perception. You of course are asking them to stop posting these bad interpretations of the rules, and thus discouraging posting, right?
Saying that they're mistaken, it's really not that high, isn't going to change anyone's mind.
There are different barriers to posting. One of those barriers is being afraid that the mods won't like your post and you'll get banned or in trouble. I can lower that barrier. I can't lower other barriers like "I don't know what to post about", or "I don't really want to talk about anything".
MartianNight
15d ago
For someone who uses words like “lies” and “literally” quite liberally I'd expect you to stick closer to the truth yourself. The research grant isn't about banning real meat at all. To quote:
The long-term goal of this research proposal is to explore and explicate the emerging social and bioethical implications of cellular agriculture (i.e. "lab grown meat")
So the purpose is literally “to explore and explicate”. Maybe you think there is some more sinister hidden purpose, but if so, it definitely does not literally say that the goal is to remove meat-based options, and if you think that's the actual purpose you will have to make an argument for it. (How annoying! That's much harder than simply calling people liars!)
The part that you are upset about is this:
a nascent industry that portends to disrupt traditional livestock production by bioengineering animal products through cell cultures
This is just standard fluff you put in research proposals to make the topic of your research sound super duper important: why should someone pay you USD 500,000 to study a phenomenon if that phenomenon isn't something earthshaking? It's no different from the hundreds of blockchain startups that claimed they were going to disrupt the financial system in order to secure VC funding (spoiler alert: they didn't).
But even taken at face value, “disrupting” traditional livestock production doesn't imply that real meat will be banned. It's easy to imagine a future with 50/50 fake/real meat; that would be pretty disruptive to the agricultural sector, but it still doesn't make real meat unavailable.
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
13d ago
self-driving cars are essentially banned.
I don't see why that's a problem, to be honest.
There has to be some sort of consequence for the manufacturer when self-driving cars cause an accident, same as how human drivers pay fines or go to jail. What's your preferred liability structure?
Felagund
12d ago
To the owner of the self-driving car would be another option, maybe? This seems like it would better work with cars that have a full self-driving mode, but could also be driven ordinarily.
I'm not convinced that self-driving cars would be banned, instead of just way more expensive. It would depend on how much liability they would tend to have.
FarNearEverywhere
22d ago
No.
I've put up with you doing the Nanny bit because you're a mod and you have the authority, but I'm not going to accept sneering without responding in kind.
If OP can be polite about their response, I'll be polite in return. OP goes on about "reality is only allowed to have appropriately gritty" so on, I'll respond in the same tone.
You can tell me I'm wrong, you can tell me I'm banned, but you can't tell me how to feel my feelings.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
18d ago
"Those", being the same government that just banned it?
do_something
26d ago
they went out of their way to say hypnosis porn is banned, what the fuck
I am not so surprised that someone wants rape via mind control be kicked out of their platform (or is it somehow something else?)
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
22d ago
No one is telling you how to feel your feelings. You know that having feelings and how you express them are two different things.
You get cut more slack than you know because people (including me) actually like you quite a lot, despite your inability to control your feelings and your tendency to respond to even the least little bit of poking with explosions. So be assured that the contempt you are showing me now and have shown me in the past is not taken personally.
That said: replying to a mod telling you directly to stop doing something with a foot-stamping "No, not gonna, you can't make me, you're not the boss of me" temper tantrum is an escalation with a response that you clearly chose. So yes, banned.
I don't need or want to deal with this nonsense right now, so I will let the other mods decide when or if to end your ban.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
7d ago
“There’s no realistic white nationalist movement in the country” could very well be due to the propaganda against it for more than a decade. In other words, it is as much evidence against my point as for my point. The “unite the right” event was catastrophized in the media specifically to destroy the threat of similar rallies; Nick Fuentes was de-person’d, forbidden to fly and having his bank accounts cancelled, not to mention banned by all social media giants. Literally, anti white nationalism was a major news plot point for years during the beginnings of Trump admin.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
2d ago
Lies aren't a "dissenting view." They're evil tricks by people who don't believe anything except how they want to manipulate other people.
The mods should ban liars, because right now the community has to self-organize to do it, as with Guesswho. And that kind of shunning, while necessary, also has corrosive effects on discourse. It's much healthier for mods to say "we see how you're lying to manipulate people, we don't allow forcing consensus with lies, you're banned"
A good example: you would ban someone who showed up saying "nobody is trying to take your guns, you stupid paranoid hicks. And anyway there must be something wrong with you if you don't want guns to be banned. Why do you want school shootings so much?" Because the trolling he's trying to pull is fucking obvious and you've seen the same script a thousand times before.
This is exactly the same. Get rid of it, or it makes real discussions impossible, either because the troll is allowed to enforce consensus or the community's immune response shuts it down destructively.
I will post a thousand quotes saying exactly what they're trying to do. One a day for the next three years, nonstop, until the lying stops or you decide to side with the liars and ban me.
I fucking HATE lying leftists who do the "it's not happening and it's good that it is" trick. They are evil. They are not humans you can have a conversation with because they do nothing but lie and lie and sneer. They should be banned from every community they try to pull that shit in.
You know it too. You've watched it happen over and over again. There is no value in tolerating it.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
27d ago
What do you mean by exile? Communities, insofar as they still exist, definitely do still ban and excommunicate people. But that just means those people end up in different communities.
I can think of several people who were banned from rat community spaces of the top of my head. Brent Dill for instance.
shakenvac
7d ago
Fair - there was an 'Israel' button but no single 'not Israel' button - the closest to that was Irish singer Bambie Thug who has been at the centre of some very juicy Israel/Palestine drama, tried to get the Israeli team banned and the producers prevented xirself from wearing a pro-Palestinian slogan during her performance, but I guess that was opaque to most viewers.
Armenia
Now, that was a banger!
SkoomaDentist
13hr ago
Well, the last-last one did just get banned...
Well that is a pretty uncharitable way to put things. I'm to the right of most of my social circle but I'm to the left of whatever this place is turning into. People just get sick of getting downvoted and unable to post in real time, eventually they say something rude and get banned or they say "fuck it" and leave.
When the conversation turns to being worried about trump picking his VP based on possible assassination, putting guns in holes as a generational family gun stash in your back yard, "powers that be" conspiring to eliminate people like you, heavily downvoting someone pointing out having sex with blackout drunk people is probably wrong, being afraid to leave your red state for fear of being locked up for defending yourself, practicing religion harder being the only answer to societal ills, women only being truly happy barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen....I mean the parody starts to write itself at some point.
More options
Context Copy link