banned
His profile says banned on request, people do it from time to time if they need to spend more time away from the community for whatever reason (like real life work).
I’m sure he’ll be back.
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.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
12d ago
If you don't like the commentary, yes, go do something else. And I did not read the OP as suggesting or advocating for assassination, which makes your pot-shot seem disingenuous and contrived.
Your constant low-effort sneers and pointless posts (and self-admitted drunkposting) are becoming very annoying, and if you don't stop, you're going to get banned.
SteveKirk
12d ago
Conservatives were stupid enough to think these weapons were only going to be used against Osama bin durka durka jihad, which is why all the original "counter-terrorism surveillance tools" had foreign activity requirements.
None of them ever suggested using them against domestic political opponents, and naively believed Democrats would also consider that out of bounds.
If I was going to own up to how stupid I think conservatives and their politicians are, I would be at it all day and inevitably get banned.
...because anyone who doesn't publically "support diversity" is shamed, made a pariah and possibly fired.
Observe the posts in subreddits for individual cities, inquiring about neighborhoods to live in. Every one is looking for a "diverse" area.
Try posting that you want to live in a white neighborhood, and see how quickly you get banned for "bigotry" or "hate speech", with a mod note referring to you as "scum" or some similar endearment.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
12d ago
From my limited understanding, the president is the head of the executive, and any democratic legitimacy of the federal bureaucracy ultimately comes from the fact that the bureaucrats are enacting the will of a democratically (or however you call the electoral college system) elected president.
Again, this is how it's supposed to be, on paper. But that matters as much as when Bart Simpson was sent back to kindergarten:
Bart: Lady, I'm supposed to be in the fourth grade.
Kindergarten teacher: Sounds to me like someone's got a case of the s'pose'das
The law isn't what's written on paper, the law is whatever is enforced. There's how the "employee handbook" says a workplace is supposed to work, and then there's how the workplace actually operates. (The very existence of "bothering by the book" and malicious compliance illustrates that there's a difference between the two, sometimes rather vast.) The written constitution is like an ignored, out-of-date employee handbook.
For one thing, do you really suppose the Supreme Court would play along with that?
Maybe, maybe not. But it won't matter.
If they do not, should the rest of DC also pretend that the Supreme Court does not exist?
Absolutely yes. Because there's no actual enforcement mechanism for SCOTUS decisions, except the willingness of the executive to heed them. From the federal court system's own webpage:
The judicial branch decides the constitutionality of federal laws and resolves other disputes about federal laws. However, judges depend on our government’s executive branch to enforce court decisions.
And from Cliff Notes:
The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. The Court relies on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its rulings. In some cases, the Supreme Court has been unable to enforce its rulings. For example, many public schools held classroom prayers long after the Court had banned government-sponsored religious activities.
(DC still hasn't given Mr. Heller his permit.)
the long term effects of establishing that the federal bureaucracy is independent of the president would likely be violent.
Not really. I mean, sure, maybe a few people might resort to violence, but only a few hundred at most, and they'll all be lone actors independently pursuing disorganized, poorly-targeted acts of domestic terror. Nothing that the FBI and ATF won't be able to handle (particularly given that at least half of our would-be rebels would be receiving "assistance" from someone in the pay of the FBI). Maybe you get a few more "Oklahoma City"s, but, as in that case, the perpetrators will accomplish nothing but creating martyrs for the other side, tainting their own side by association, and getting themselves executed (assuming the state takes them alive at all). And once a sufficiently-strong example is made of these people, most everyone else will be disincentivized to follow in their footsteps.
Felagund
14d 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.
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
14d 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?
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
14d ago
Unfortunately, if manufacturers of self-driving cars can be sued for all accidents in which self-driving cars are involved (the "caused" part doesn't come into play until the lawsuit is underway), self-driving cars are essentially banned. The cost of covering that liability is staggering.
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
14d ago
On the one hand, I think you raise valid concerns that are worth considering. On the other hand, people have been saying "pretty soon you'll have banned all the interesting posters" since like, 2020. And I think this place is still doing pretty ok.
Looking at the list of people who have been permabanned on the new site, the only posters on there who I consider to be serious losses are Hlynka, fuckduck, and we can add FarNearEverywhere on a technicality until she decides to come back. So that's not a huge list. Most of the accounts that get permabanned are literal trolls or spam accounts.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
14d ago
With all due respect, "I do what I want" is not a viable approach to building a quality space. FNE was given a warning, not a ban straight off (presumably because she is a good poster and it wasn't a serious infraction), and that's all that it needed to ever be. It was because she chose to escalate things that she got banned temporarily, and it was perfectly reasonable.
FistfullOfCrows
15d ago
While we're dreaming can we get omnibus bills to be banned? Also make a law where anyone in congress/the house can put anyone else present on the spot for knowing the bill's text from memory. If he doesn't know it verbatim then the bill is delayed until everyone involved( yes every single one) learns what it says.
Further make it so you can't add random bullshit to a bill in an amendment.
plural
15d ago
Yeah, and it shouldn't matter either way. If you think it's important to tease apart the minutiae of this example in defense of something that is clearly not pornography then I'll take this conversational detour as an agreement that people deciding that things need to be censored or banned based on a passing familiarity with the content should be ignored.
Trump banned diversity training in the goverment in his first administration. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/09/25/trump-executive-order-diversity-training-race-gender/3537241001/
In contrast Biden administration was super woke. Trump and people like Rufo will work together anyhow. I wouldn't have too high expectations, but there is going to be considerable difference even from a mostly ineffective Trump who pushes right a bit, versus a Biden administration pushing quite far left.
There are those who want a neutered right, and frame the alternative with negative exaggerations and fearmongering. The reality is like Democrat administrations purged a lot of people in the goverment to put their own loyalists in charge, it isn't only fair for the right to do this to govern in a different manner than that, but also the only way to change things.
Wanting a neutered right, is not the agenda of genuine moderates but people who are on the same side as Biden.
How we got here was through Republicans like Romney called moderate but who supported BLM. And through liberals, framed as more moderate than they are, but who actually are quite far left culturally and implemented those changes. Only a political coalition that genuinely opposes the intersectional agenda can genuinely push it back.
The right is the only coalition push back these things. Can the center do this? Well, some of the people called far right, or considered part of the right if one tries to objectively judge how much they pander to different identity groups, ironically people like Trump are closer to the center than many other people (falsely) labeled moderate like Mitt Romney.
Those usually carrying the moderate or liberal labels, are insufficiently against the whole woke agenda, and too much for it. So they won't push back and can't put it away. What some of them seem to be doing is to sometimes try to pretend they are already doing this. So there isn't going to be a genuine attempt by liberals and people like Romeny to put the woke away, but there might be attempts to define wokeness narrowly, and still support the same agenda. The limited hangout maneuver.
In my opinion, the most likely path for making idpol unfashionable is a foreign-policy presidency. Doesn’t really matter who. We’re not getting a “fresh prince” decade by cranking up the domestic outrage.
Yes, but that will solidify idpol and it will still be fashionable but not dominating the national conversation, until the focus passes and a new Floyd hysteria emerges. That something isn't as discussed as much as previously, does not stop it from being a problem. Moreover, it can coexist just as it continues to coexist with covid focus or the Israel conflict with Palestinians. Moreover, foreign policy presidencies tend to be presidencies engaging in idiotic destabilizing expensive wars that make the MIC richer, but are actually damaging towards their country and the world. Which isn't to say extreme isolationism is the solution.
Identity politics are always here to stay, the question is if we got a sane and fair arrangement, or one that gives valid reason for people to oppose and incentivizes political conflict. Which doesn't change unless the ideology of modern new left liberals and even those in the establishment conservative parties who aren't actually conservative who agree with them stops being influential. Because it is an agenda that does try to screw over, and increasingly at that, the progressive intersectional coalition outgroups, such as white Christian men. The way to have peace, and to relax culture war intensity is to enforce something better and more even handed. Which as is the case always with even handed policies, sharing elements with other groups, shares in a vein diagram ground with the genuine far right. Additionally, it is itself definitely seen by those with the new left liberal agenda as far right, and labeled at such. Although, that isn't actually accurate, and has to do with the strategy of the far left to label everyone other than them with pejoratives.
What is important to understand is that we are never going to get a fair arrangement that reduces culture war intensity, under the hysteric paranoia of the far right, that leads people to oppose reasonable positions because they associate them with the far right. In fact there are issues where even the most hardcore people on the far right have legitimate grievances about their favorite groups being mistreated. And it is in fact possible and preferable to the current situation to share grounds with anyone on issues they have a point, and refuse to share ground with them where they are wrong.
From liberal-ish space, what would aid to relax tensions, is an attitude of compromise and understanding that there has been a real problem of cultural/identitarian progressive overreach. That overreach and progressive extremism also relates to the neutering of the right.
sodiummuffin
15d ago
Maybe you're thinking of some particular subset that I'm not, but not that I've seen? Anime loves high-school, so a lot of characters are 16-18, and a fair number are 13-15 too. Reddit famously once (temporarily) banned subreddit mod holofan4life for posting a picture of Kaguya from the romantic-comedy Kaguya-sama in a bikini. (Presumably for "sexualizing minors" either because she's 16 at the beginning of the show or because her breasts aren't big enough.) Outside the school settings ages still tend to be pretty young and often feel like they were chosen at random, Yoko Littner is canonically 14, though it's not mentioned in the show. I'm less familiar with videogames but I think a lot of visual novels have school settings, and the characters in the aforementioned Atelier Totori range from 13-17.
Of course, the same is true for whole swaths of western media, like the teen sex comedy genre of movies, or teen dramas, both of which can have outright sex-scenes without anyone of note screaming about how that makes them "child porn". Some media from SJW-adjacent people will engage in the ridiculous business of deliberately writing characters to be 18+ because they believe it would otherwise be immoral to depict them sexually, but it's still not a mainstream taboo. Now, I think SJWs would probably go after those if they could get away with it (and probably have something to do with there being less teen sex comedies nowadays, though mostly for other reasons), but they're too obviously mainstream to act like they're doing something weird. Anime-style media is an easier target because any free-floating feeling of weirdness can be converted into talk about how something feels "creepy" for "sexualizing minors", without consciously thinking about how the same standards would apply to western media that doesn't feel "creepy".
plural
15d ago
It absolutely is a leftist demand, but it only applies to things that aren't western. Anime style can only be attractive to people who are pedophiles. Therefore anyone attempting to be attractive in anime style is appealing to pedophiles. When I think back 10-20-30 years nobody would give a shit about this at all. Sailor Moon would be re-edited for American audiences now with more modest clothing and all sexual innuendo changed to say "pickles... .. ... farthead" or whatever they change many modern japanese translations to say.
Because it doesn't matter it's just a videogame or an anime and only children watch those and if you watch or play them you're a child and probably a pedophile if you enjoy anything not western.
This is a huge vibe I get from literally anyone trying to crusade against "underaged girls" being exploited in the videogames. Of course they'd never say that but every other aspect of their political and cultural bent is left, they just happen to also think that underage anime girls presents some kind of major moral issue because they're fighting pedophiles.
Not many people gave a shit about trying to censor American Beauty and those that did certainly aren't the same people that give a shit about a 100% more tame anime visual novel coming out now that will get rejected from steam while "Hitler rapes all the milfs" will be sold without problem. A japanese visual novel will get rejected from steam for an underage girl wearing a towel for a scene but a western visual novel about underage siblings engaging in incest and cannibalism, that's fine, the art style isn't even anime. Or even outside of mainly sexual content something like the Witcher or Cyberpunk is fine for twitch but I can guarantee if the characters were anime-looking it would be banned, or maybe if they were simply produced outside of the western-okay-to-be-sexual sphere and anime-looking is just a happenstance.
Sure there are some hardliners that don't want any sexuality in anything and will side with the crusaders but the crusaders are faux fighting pedophilia and they're almost entirely left wing. Why? I don't know in either case but the only people that I've encountered that care and are happy when steam bans a visual novel that has like a two second scene of an "underage" girl in her underwear are all left wing, to the point that it's most of their commentary on reddit dedicated to it.
shale fracking revolution in the oil/gas industry
That is a fair one, but It's also a very good example of just what I'm saying. I was part of the few people on the quite unpopular side of the oil industry here in Europe in the 10s when it was banned, for the same reason I'm on this side of this issue now.
If the UK wants to make such regulations it will reap the same sort of benefits: no toxic chemical pollution or chinese crap botnets, but also no innovation in these respective sectors.
It's a choice.
"Being forced to not have default passwords is not a significant barrier to innovation,"
You can not like that enforcing common sense rules to an industry through state mandates is a barrier to innovation all you want. It's not going to stop being true. The debate is only on the magnitude of the effect.
What are you going to do about your concern?
I don't buy chinese crap that spies on you, I tell people not to buy chinese crap that spies on you and I shame people who do so in my social circles.
Hell, I've spent years of my life writing symbolic execution software used specifically to make edge devices secure, some of which you may be using right now. What have you done?
hydroacetylene
15d ago
Hlynka got permabanned.
some
16d ago
Another aspect of Australian life in which feminist ideology is given an outsized influence is this list of video games banned there, which doesn't cover even all cases of questionable Australian censorship authorities decisions. Atelier Totori was in other jurisdictions given at most a T rating, was in Australia rated as 18+, with the justification famously being "High Impact Sexual Violence". Some are RC'd due Australia's drug prohibition extending to fiction, but others for depiction of apperence of minor sexuality. Determination of who "appears to be, a child under 18" is subjective and fraught with many issues including racial bias, as a 25 old Anglo is on average more visually and vocally distinct from a 15 year old Anglo, than a 25 year old East Asian is from a 15 year old East Asian. Anime artstyle compounds this problem as it has less age indicators than a realistic one, meaning that if one determined to get a game or anime banned, it is harder to find evidence characters are of age.
Hilariously there have even been cases of works of art intended to viewed by women, such as "otome" games, deemed to be offensive to what is thought to be an interest of women as a class, Refused Classification and thus banned.
Further evidence of its feminist alignment is the censorship of materials of adult materials, featuring confirmed adults, if by some arbitrary criterion they are deemed to look too young. Why is this evidence? Because men do but women do not place a premium on youthful features.
As for the alleged mass murder of women epidemic in Australia: in 2022 and 2023 (ignore the irrelevant graph which depicts only a subset of homicides, look at the table) 168 men and 72 women were murdered there. "World Ends, Women Most Affected" doesn't capture the extent of pro-women bias in what is deemed relevant by the media, at least this (obviously ficticious) headline implies both men and women were harmed in equal measure, the present scare takes the less victimized gender and makes it the primary victim.
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
16d ago
@FarNearEverywhere isn’t technically banned right now but she set her account to private. I think she’s chosen to leave of her own accord.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
16d ago
I think Ahh French was banned for a few days, and FarNearEverywhere was banned but is back? I am not sure. Apparently someone named boo was banned forever. Capital Room was also banned but is back. I do not keep track of this but there it is in the moderation log. (I assume everyone can access this, as I can by going to the Changelog and tabbing over.)
Yeah, it's strange. I got curious, so I decided to poke around in some of the links gattsuru provided. There's talk about toxic governance, but very few specifics. And I've seen stuff like that, and I know it can be hard to make a truthful list that would convince an outsider. But still, it feels weak, a lot of words talking around issues, from people who can't or won't come to a point.
One part, about banning one person (JR), seemed to be a controversy over whether a defense contractor (Anduril) should be allowed to sponsor the project, with the losing faction being "NATO defense contractors are what prevent Russia from conquering Ukraine and the rest of the world", and the winning faction being "defense contractors kill people and are icky and we don't want their name near us" (various positions were put forth, but I can't come up with a coherent charitable interpretation). One thing that jumped out was that the mere fact of his applying to become a Board observer was treated as a problem. And what really got my attention were the comments by people speaking in support of him that were "flagged by the community and temporarily hidden".
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/why-was-jon-ringer-banned-from-github/44114
That led back to this earlier thread (also linked to by gattsuru) where JR was opposed to reserving a board seat for a woman. The conversation went as expected, these days: he's out of step with the progressive majority.
And those led to this Reddit post, where JR says goodbye in a fairly professional manner:
https://old.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1cd5fod/in_case_im_unable_to_return_wish_you_all_the_best/
But the Reddit comments had links to a bunch of stuff, including this (somewhat overheated) explanation, which is solidly culture war, and which apparently got the authors banned immediately:
https://github.com/nrdxp/rfc-evidence/blob/master/rfc_evidences_experiences.md
And then this bit of aftermath, again mostly notable for the attitude of the moderators and the content of the flagged comments:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/delroths-muting-in-the-moderation-matrix-room/44090
I still can't figure out what side of the culture war the people fleeing the project are on, and that's probably intentional.
orthoxerox
I realized I can change my flair color to Barbie pink
16d ago
I am back from my digital Lent. What have I missed? Have any regulars been permabanned while I was away?
Quoting for people even lazier than me:
Claims that ‘we are not coming for your X’ when creating morally-superior-from-some-angle alternative Y are simply not credible. Creating Y, in practice, inevitably means calls to tax, restrict and often ultimately ban X, even if customers still want X.
In this case, it is obvious, many are not bothering to hide their intentions. Many of the people I know who are vegans absolutely want to come for your meat, and even your dairy. They are building alternatives in order to do this. They bide their time only because they do not have the power to pull it off, but they will absolutely impose first expensive mandates and then outright bans if permitted to do so, and would do so even with no good alternatives.
They certainly would do so if they could point to ‘meat alternatives,’ even if we all knew they were expensive and not the same. They would gaslight you about that, as other movements continuously gaslight us about other cultural trends via the full four-step clown makeup. And they think they are morally right or even obligated to do this
I love "four step clown makeup." He understands exactly how they think: that it's noble to lie to the proles to con them into "progess" by hook or by crook.
The same people will tell you it's a paranoid conspiracy that menthol cigarettes are being banned even though it's literally happening right now, and the fuckers celebrate it when they're not trying to gaslight you.
It's what I meant by the disgusting dishonesty and disrespect that makes me so furious at their lies. Treating other people as meat puppets to be manipulated "for Progress."
Or to be able to say to the right people, "The Motte? Yes, I used to visit it, but they banned me."
More options
Context Copy link