|
Is anyone seeing the pattern yet of how subjective these rules are and how much confusion it creates even among the ones enforcing the rules? What chance do the noobs have?
|
|
|
|
In particular, in my view: - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it. - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views. I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists. Thank you for making clear or reiterating some of your stances on the use of these tools. I appreciate your goal here of trying to make this community largely self managing, but I would like to point something out. Currently most of the standards you just iterated are enforced already to one degree or another by the community as it is. You and the staff almost never need to pick thru these ratings except in extreme cases. I think everyone agrees minimal overlap with the trust system and the staff is preferable for pretty much all involved. The problem with this logic is your rubric is still extremely subjective, and this ambiguity is very exploitable. I would compare it to the US federal code. People commit felonies every day and they just don't know it because the laws are so obscure and countless. It creates an atmosphere of not only selective enforcement, but ambiguity in what the real rules are because penalties are applied arbitrarily. Stalin once said under his own rule "Show me the man I will show you the crime." While this is largely hyperbolic, it still demonstrates the notion that the forum exists under an atmosphere of constant fear of retaliation over any kind of dissent. As the system is now it will likely just turn into a giant toxic tumor. I have pretty much said the same for a very long time, and here we are at golf ball size. There is still time to fix it before it is just a total fucking mess that needs to be brought out back and shot in the head. I suggest you ask people to observe a standard of evidence theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. This could be enforced exactly as your above guidelines are, and people who don't follow them simply get removed from trust lists. The trust system mostly is self managing, and as it is now intervention is minimal from staff. All the scam hunters can still do everything they are doing, they just will not get the dopamine hit from dropping red ratings all day and lording over people with no evidence. Just as we as a community decide if some one is guilty of a crime or scam of some kind will be exactly how it will continue, only the rating needs to be the penalty applied after some factual evidence is presented, not before. This change will fix a lot of the rift we currently have forming in this community, and help return us to having a more productive core community. As a result people will trust it more to invest resources into it as they will not fear that they will be the next one burnt at the stake for pissing off the wrong person.  |
|
|
|
We should all be a team working for a greater goal, not fighting against each other. If anyone is considered a leech on society it should be the wealthy. You contradict yourself in your own statement. Again this is a classic case of "anyone who has more than me is bad". How about instead of focusing on them, you focus on the system that allowed them to do this? Such as the system I described above in detail that pumps the money to that class while the working class save burning currency and stay on a financial treadmill. The people who are our real enemies aren't even on that chart and no one here has ever heard their names. The people you are blaming are not our enemies, and to a certain extent we still need quite desperately. |
|
|
|
1. More multiculturalism leads to more crime.
This. Again this is noise backed by nothing. So the most multicultural country ever, the USA has high criminality because it's multiethnicity? I hope you are not serious. Now that you are done selectively editing my quote to cherry pick it, do you care to address the rest of my statement or just the part you would like to focus on and pretend it was said in isolation? Doesn't change a thing. What comes behind is not context but a joke of an explanation. Um, yes editing a quote and removing parts of my argument in fact changes quite a bit. Watch... get in me behind is not a joke.
After all, you did say that... I just removed a few key points. Is Harvard a good enough source for you? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=319762So if you are done pretending my claims are some kind of baseless extremist tripe that no one supports... There is such a thing as too much "multiculturalism". |
|
|
|
1. More multiculturalism leads to more crime.
This. Again this is noise backed by nothing. So the most multicultural country ever, the USA has high criminality because it's multiethnicity? I hope you are not serious. Now that you are done selectively editing my quote to cherry pick it, do you care to address the rest of my statement or just the part you would like to focus on and pretend it was said in isolation? |
|
|
|
Don't excuse the evils of a dictatorship.
I didn't. Don't excuse the US dictatorship either. Maduro is far better than the CIA spy that the US sent. A lot of the trouble that Venezuela is in now is not due to Maduro's faulty policies, but due to all the sanctions that the US war-machine set upon them. I could never understand how someone could say they are proud to be American.  Why is no one surprised you are fond of a Communist dictator. |
|
|
|
The idea that embracing multiculturalism would allow a culture to die is almost violent in itself. Letting other people come in an practice their culture isn't going to stop you from practicing your culture. Your culture won't die unless people decide to stop practicing it or are forced to stop practicing it. Nationalism is a mechanism by which people are forced to only accept one culture.
1. More multiculturalism leads to more crime. Culturally homogeneous people share the same values and are less likely to get into conflict because they understand what is expected of each other. 2. Cultures can be displaced. It is not like oh don't let them have their own little pocket of culture over here, it is more like OH MY GOD THAT FLOOD OF CULTURE IS WASHING EVERYTHING ELSE AWAY. So yes, too much of another culture DOES STOP you from having your culture, especially when the other culture is willing to actively achieve this through violence and higher birth rates, while the multicultural pay for it via their taxes. 3. Nationalism doesn't force anyone into a culture. Are you really claiming the USA is a monoculture? Is not the USA fairly nationalist? Do we not have many ethnic cultures that all share the culture of The United States? You know how they got there? Slow assimilation over time, which is what does not happen when immigrants flood in enmass. |
|
|
|
I don't like Elizabeth Warren's proposal because I don't see a direct purpose behind it. What is it trying to accomplish other than "stick it to the rich"? Taxing wealth isn't going to provide anything for the poor. The green new deal is a great plan that will accomplish many things. Our goal shouldn't be to stick it to the rich for the sake of taking their money.
AOC's 70% progressive-income-tax proposal is very bad, but it's a lot better than any wealth tax. The economy could basically continue, though very fettered, under such a system.
This is flatout a lie and propaganda from the rich. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/4/18168431/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percentMIT’s Peter Diamond and Berkeley’s Emmanuel Saez relaunched this debate with a landmark 2012 paper that argued for a 73 percent top income tax rate in the United States. 2016 paper from Benjamin Lockwood, Charles Nathanson, and Glen Weyl argues that confiscatory taxation would be good for the economy because it would discourage talented people from entering lucrative lines of work I agree there seems to be too much focus on pretty much anyone who has more than you being automatically bad some how and therefore an excusable target to rob. I however don't think any of these plans are viable. Regarding the paper, perhaps instead of taxing people so much they leave, we should end the easy money inflationary casino banking system we have that is creating these market distortions that are causing all of these problems to begin with. All the engineers, doctors, and scientists we need in their specialized field of training are seeing their investor and stock market buddies make bank doing nothing all day and leaving the jobs where we need them because it pays more. The only reason that works is because The Federal Reserve Bank is pumping a fire hose of fiat cash into these markets in various forms. This also causes distortions in the valuations of raw materials and no longer fairly represents their true market value, causing all kinds of problems up and down the supply chain. The reason everyone feels like they are getting fucked is because they are, just not in the way they think. They are constantly robbing buying power out of your wallet while simultaneously taxing you more (IRS is the collection arm of The Federal Reserve Bank) as your dollar amount of pay goes up to keep up with inflation. You are now "making more" even though the buying power of each dollar is less. So while the people playing the casino game have a tap into the easy money, the remainder not drawn in by the cash are left to run society at rates that are not in proportion to what they should be buying power wise. There is a giant boot on the neck of the US and the world economy and it is called The Federal Reserve Bank. It is holding us down while it slowly bleeds us dry until the point we can not resist any more. Then it will clean our bones, then crush them up for fertilizer. They have done it before, and they are doing it again if we don't stop them. |
|
|
|
So you don't have a problem with the concept of children not being humans until a year of age? Right, because that's exactly what I said. Well you mentioned the fact that Nazism was mentioned quite dismissively when there are some very valid reasons to make the comparison. Do you deny these events are part of the history of the US, and that these new laws are opening the doors to all kinds of abuse? |
|
|
|
As a doctor, I had some interesting points I could have made here, particularly in relation to those posted by theymos, but I see it's taken us less than 10 replies for this thread to degenerate in to accusations of eugenics and Nazism...
So you don't have a problem with the concept of children not being humans until a year of age? Or the fact that these new laws will allow the killing of born children, which would then easily degenerate into a Eugenics program from there? These are not wild baseless accusations, America has been here before... Hitler himself even mentioned American Eugenics programs for giving him inspiration for some of his laws. |
|
|
|
The wealth tax is actually unconstitutional. The 16th amendment says The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration The 10th amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. As such, since the constitution only allows congress to tax incomes, and not assets, a wealth tax is unconstitutional. The estate tax is constitutional because it is not actually taxing assets directly, but the transfer of assets from the deceased to their estate. So with this said, the states would be allowed to levy a wealth tax -- just not the Federal Government, right? If it is unconstitutional, that applies to states too. |
|
|
|
|
This is going to put SO MANY unhinged leftists in prison... that is assuming it ever becomes a thing at all.
|
|
|
|
|
This problem needs to be fixed at its source. The Federal Reserve Bank.
|
|
|
|
It could be worse...  |
|
|
|
Last answer. I'll let you alone with your shit after that. You didn't say "the left", you said "political". Not sure why you expect me to address what you mean and not what you said. Also Orwell wrote a whole book critical of Communism called Animal Farm so...
His books don't talk about left and right but about control of the powerful over the people through manipulation and language transformation.
There is no political stance in Orwell's work concerning economical regulation, market or anything like this. It's only about institution, language and freedom.
Can't do better than to give the quote explicitely saying "his books doesn't talk about left or right". Who said anything about jail? Can you even remember your own statements from one moment to the next? Your whole post is just irrelevant, period.
My bad here, I'm not 100% English fluent. Wrote jail as a synonim of "scrutiny". Your interpretation of 1984 is a stretch at best. Frankly I doubt you have ever read it.
I don't give a fuck what you doubt. Orwell doesn't need to be blatantly for right or left to describe tactics the left are very thoroughly abusing.
There is a tremendeous difference between "criticizing a left tactic" and "criticizing a tactic that the left is currently using" and if you can't see it I can't do anything for you. It is alarming because it means he is actively unwilling to view any information that does not reaffirm his already currently held belief system. This is dangerous because these people then essentially become puppets for the media.
You're talking like YOU are not subjected to confirmation bias. It's not surprising you think yourself above this. You're not. Since they are unhinged and excuse violence, this is a real physical threat not only to people who disagree with them, but the entire nation as this pattern of denial of reality combined with the excusing of violence will lead to civil war. The media will continue to hype people up with lies, the left will go too far, and some one on the right will defend themselves and the left will again form more mobs to demand retribution regardless of who is at fault. Then a feedback loop of violence will erupt. That is why this is alarming.
...
P.S. Speak for yourself. Some of us work very hard at making sure we get diverse views on information. Not all of us are as lazy and uniformed as you, stop making excuses for your ignorance and do something to change it. No one is going to spoon feed you the truth, you have to seek it. Anything blasted in your face has some kind of agenda that is not in your personal interests, because that is the job of the media, to hide embarrassing truths and sell comfortable lies.
Yeha I know I will never be at the level of godly TECSHARE who has read everything, understood everything, and keeps himself informed from all political sides in an unbiased way. That's all for me. Bye. Nope. I just tend to not stick my nose into subjects I don't already understand unlike you. There is a difference between pretending to understand and actually understanding, maybe you will figure that out some day. Why You Can't Argue with a Leftist |
|
|
|
Yeah this kind of logic certainly won't lead do genocidal eugenics programs. Thanks for another gem from the mind of MOgliE.
I'm litteraly saying abortion must be allowed but considered last resort and first duty of society is to promote prevention methods... How's that even slightly linked to your answer? Oh perhaps your general dismissal of the debate, your default to relativism, and perhaps this... Good to know thinking there is no absolute answer here is the same thing for you than supporting genocidal eugenics programs For me anything below 1 year old isn't really humand because that's more or less the age you get self-consciousness which is the real difference betwee human and animals. But that's not something socially acceptable I guess ^^ No slippery slope here, even though we are already well down that slope sliding away... Which is, clearly, an opinion brought here only to show that there are even more extreme positions than the ones I was criticizing. I'm explicitely starting my post pointing out that extreme opinions shouldn't be taken into consideration. I'm sorry it's hard for you to consider that someone can be aware his own opinion shouldn't be applied on a practical basis. I considerer anything under 1 year old isn't really human. I also know it wouldn't do any good to apply this opinion on a real life society. I said it explicitely. So shut the fuck up and as usual try to read before answering something completely irrelevant. Thanks for yet another brilliant gem from MOgliE. I read your words just fine. Children under 1 are not human in your opinion. Got it. Carry on Dr. Mengele. |
|
|
|
maybe you want to make an actual point?
My only points were: -Orwell isn't especially against the left, he's against manipulation through language abuse -No one here is saying we should put the kids in jail except maybe coin4commies Your whole post is irrelevant concerning those 2 parts. You didn't say "the left", you said "political". Not sure why you expect me to address what you mean and not what you said. Also Orwell wrote a whole book critical of Communism called Animal Farm so... Who said anything about jail? Can you even remember your own statements from one moment to the next? Your whole post is just irrelevant, period. That's not exactly right. The minute regulation of everyday life which Orwell wrote about existed in Fascist Germany, more recent in Iraq, but not in Spain, Italy or South American countries. However, dozens of communist nations have exhibited this kind of control and for explicitly the reasons Orwell warned.
It's fair to say that totalitarian policies do best in totalitarian countries, which would of course be "left." Where the government owns the sources of information and promulgates what it wants to the people.
It's rather easy to compare 1984 thought police to KGB of course. But the whole fake Goldstein book in 1984 is denouncing the current capitalist market and the use people in power have of war and consumation. Orwell is both against right and left manipulation, whatever the source. He denounces both of the extremes and their abuse of English language. That's his main stance. Moreover, I find it alarming that Coinsforcommies doesn't even know of the hundreds of threats against the Covington kids. That immediately shows that his news sources suppressed that, thus creating a very different reality which he fell for.
Sure, but I don't know if that's so alarming. Confirmation bias is strong everywhere on the web, I guess we all ignore things that are against our ideas not because we refuse to see them but because we're not even informed they exist. Your interpretation of 1984 is a stretch at best. Frankly I doubt you have ever read it. Orwell doesn't need to be blatantly for right or left to describe tactics the left are very thoroughly abusing. It is alarming because it means he is actively unwilling to view any information that does not reaffirm his already currently held belief system. This is dangerous because these people then essentially become puppets for the media. Since they are unhinged and excuse violence, this is a real physical threat not only to people who disagree with them, but the entire nation as this pattern of denial of reality combined with the excusing of violence will lead to civil war. The media will continue to hype people up with lies, the left will go too far, and some one on the right will defend themselves and the left will again form more mobs to demand retribution regardless of who is at fault. Then a feedback loop of violence will erupt. That is why this is alarming. P.S. Speak for yourself. Some of us work very hard at making sure we get diverse views on information. Not all of us are as lazy and uniformed as you, stop making excuses for your ignorance and do something to change it. No one is going to spoon feed you the truth, you have to seek it. Anything blasted in your face has some kind of agenda that is not in your personal interests, because that is the job of the media, to hide embarrassing truths and sell comfortable lies. |
|
|
|
Yeah this kind of logic certainly won't lead do genocidal eugenics programs. Thanks for another gem from the mind of MOgliE.
I'm litteraly saying abortion must be allowed but considered last resort and first duty of society is to promote prevention methods... How's that even slightly linked to your answer? Oh perhaps your general dismissal of the debate, your default to relativism, and perhaps this... For me anything below 1 year old isn't really humand because that's more or less the age you get self-consciousness which is the real difference betwee human and animals. But that's not something socially acceptable I guess ^^ No slippery slope here, even though we are already well down that slope sliding away... |
|
|
|
|
Ratings should not be based on subjective behaviors. This could be enforced the same way we now enforce that it is not acceptable to rate people for their opinions, in retaliation, etc. We don't need Theymos and the staff to enforce it, we just need him to step up and make it a standard that negative ratings should be given only with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. The VAST majority of any other issues can be solved with neutral ratings, or reports to moderators in the case of violation of existing forum rules.
|
|
|
|
weeew lordy
I can't tell if you're insane or just trying to troll me; maybe a combination of both. If you really want the system changed, try being more rational when presenting your arguments. Coming across in the manner you do isn't very compelling. Neither is it for TECHSHARE. I don't have anything else constructive to add to this conversation. You mean like everyone else around here is being so rational? What about here and here? No one seems to be able to address any of these points, just constant topic sliding tactics like you are doing right now with that post. Interesting this post got pulled off the top of this page. I am sure it is just yet another coincidence it was moved to the last page by a report of another post. So here I am presenting my ideas to the forum again. Anyone care to actually have a discussion about it? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
