|
You wrote that before that you don't want to engage with me, yet here you are again replying to me, insulting me again.
I don't want to engage with you either, Kwark. You take any opportunity to be as rude as possible towards me. As seen in your reply where you doing your best to insult, safe knowing you are a mod and cannot be actioned upon, whereas I will be if I responded in kind. I wish for you to not in such a manner, but you continue to insist you are right in your manner, and will continue to do so. Now that is truly unpleasant.
If you truly do not want to reply to me, then stop replying to me. I too will not reply to you either. It would be to my disadvantage, but shall we agree on that?
|
Hyrule18807 Posts
On July 22 2022 06:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: A smiley is not friendly at the end of a post, it is the opposite, you should know that. It's annoying. I talk to GH, then Kwark comes in then Neb comes in with that comment. Who wants to constantly have to discuss with people acting in such a manner towards me? Does this need happen everytime?
A topic can have multiple people discussing multiple things at one time. You are assuming that every single post is part of the one conversation you are having at the particular moment. If you want to talk to GH, send a PM.
On July 22 2022 06:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You wrote that before that you don't want to engage with me, yet here you are again replying to me, insulting me again.
I don't want to engage with you either, Kwark. You take any opportunity to be as rude as possible towards me. As seen in your reply where you doing your best to insult, safe knowing you are a mod and cannot be actioned upon, whereas I will be if I responded in kind. I wish for you to not in such a manner, but you continue to insist you are right in your manner, and will continue to do so. Now that is truly unpleasant.
If you truly do not want to reply to me, then stop replying to me. I too will not reply to you either. It would be to my disadvantage, but shall we agree on that? If you don't want to engage, then don't. You are actively whining about how mean Kwark is to you and demanding he respond to you. YOU are the one engaging. Your actions do not reflect your words.
|
On July 22 2022 06:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Lets actually go through post by post shall we?
I ain't gonna read all that, you could be 100% correct and justified in all of those answers, it won't change the fact that you said I was hectoring you and being a dick and when we look at the threads you're the one who keeps trying to engage me.
|
On June 20 2023 15:14 Mikau wrote: The fact that you got warned for that post, but BJ didn't for the post you quoted is an absolute joke and proves your point excellently. It is because Drone has favourites and he has people he does not like. He has made this very clear and he does not like me.
Puttinging this in the feedback thread as requested. But Drone be at least sensible and let someone unbiased moderate me. You clearly should not be doing it in threads you participate in emotionally.
You are not the worst poster, in fact sometimes when you’re not being the white knight for Shiite posters you are not half bad.
|
Norway28278 Posts
Nobody else actually moderates it. I've had a I'm not gonna moderate the thread position for years, but lately, I feel forced to because some posters can't avoid going at each other's throats.
I warned BJ for his post in the covid thread before I saw that you had reported it, because it turned the discussion away from the topic and directed towards your posting habit. This is exactly what I want the thread to be free of, and if the posts that do this get no reaction, what inevitably happens is that the thread turns to shit because posters start arguing with each other. Your post, as I see it, is guilty of the same.
But you can rest assured that I do my very best to avoid letting personal bias influence how I moderate, and it definitely did not in this instance. You can also know that I hate doing it and I want to let the discussion flow as freely as possible, but unless people post better, I unfortunately feel like my hands are tied.
|
Fair enough, look forward to all my future low content posts where I mock people with sarcasm. Just keep it fair and let me try to be “funny” as well. 😁
Edit: and you “warned” him without making it public before I reported? Like stop with the special treatment and then publicity admitting you do it. Jesus man. How many private warnings has he got? Funny !
|
Norway28278 Posts
What? I didn't write a warning to him privately, I pressed the warn button underneath his post, then I wrote a text message explaining why this post was getting warned, exactly the same I did with your post.
And if you want to engage in posting that you yourself consider shitty posting just because you want to prove a point, then I think you'll end up proving a different point than the one you wanted to prove.
|
I don't post in there really any more but I do keep up and blackjack doesn't just post low effort sarcastic posts. In fact, I would say the amount of effort he puts in to arguing with multiple people every day is probably quite exhausting. Sometimes he goes too far, yeah, but then every time this thread comes up i notice its jimmi having a problem with someone, so clearly he's not alone in that.
|
On June 20 2023 21:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: What? I didn't write a warning to him privately, I pressed the warn button underneath his post, then I wrote a text message explaining why this post was getting warned, exactly the same I did with your post.
And if you want to engage in posting that you yourself consider shitty posting just because you want to prove a point, then I think you'll end up proving a different point than the one you wanted to prove. Just a fluke that you warned him before you saw the report then… 😁 my bad.
Oh I think my jokes will be super funny to me. If they are mean and not funny to others I now know that is OK with you! And I only am a jerk to those who have been to me not just to everyone shotgun style so I won’t feel bad about it all. So no worrying about me Drone.
@jock he puts some effort in writing them, almost none in reading or understanding what’s written back to him, hence the long shitty discussions that never get to a point. Just people mad at BJ for his sarcastic digs that miss the point and him mad back at them.
|
On June 20 2023 21:25 Jockmcplop wrote: I don't post in there really any more but I do keep up and blackjack doesn't just post low effort sarcastic posts. In fact, I would say the amount of effort he puts in to arguing with multiple people every day is probably quite exhausting. Sometimes he goes too far, yeah, but then every time this thread comes up i notice its jimmi having a problem with someone, so clearly he's not alone in that. I'm just happy I'm not getting blamed for his repeatedly self-acknowledged jerky posting anymore.
|
If you just read the Covid thread you will see more than 10 people have a problem with BJs posting, in fact pages and pages about it. It is a repeated topic that comes up in both threads often. Drone just decided to warn me about it and suggested I post it here so as a rule follower I did that.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36709 Posts
On June 21 2023 01:01 JimmiC wrote: If you just read the Covid thread you will see more than 10 people have a problem with BJs posting, in fact pages and pages about it. It is a repeated topic that comes up in both threads often. Drone just decided to warn me about it and suggested I post it here so as a rule follower I did that. Tell all those people to report him then. If BJ is really being that problematic, then I'll take care of it.
|
Norway28278 Posts
Bj has been reported on multiple occasions and many different moderators have rejected the reports.
|
On June 20 2023 09:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2023 05:13 EnDeR_ wrote: As someone who had zero sex education, I'd just like to say that it would've been nice to not get all my sex knowledge from porn videos -- my expectations and reality were wildly out of sync. I can't remember exactly, but I must have been around 10-12 when I watched my first porn video and definitely not older than 13. If you're teaching about vaginal sex, I don't see why you shouldn't teach about other types of sex including oral. Call me old-fashioned but I don’t think anyone should be taught how to give a blowjob until they learn how to give a proper rimjob
While we're opening this thread again can I get an explanation on this one? It's his joke about teaching children sex acts. Is that one of the reports that's been rejected? If it has why is that okay with someone?
|
Norway28278 Posts
I just flat out don't see that one as actionable. It's clearly an attempt at a joke. It'd fine if you don't think it's funny but I don't see how it's offensive or insulting. (That said, I wasn't the moderator who rejected this report.)
|
So his 'joke' that added nothing to the discussion is fine because it's a joke, people pointing out that joke added nothing to the discussion get warned, and BJs snarky response to the warned people are once again fine?
And this isn't a one time thing either, this is how it routinely goes whenever anybody gets warned.
And you can't see how that seems incredibly biased to most people?
|
On June 21 2023 08:25 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 01:01 JimmiC wrote: If you just read the Covid thread you will see more than 10 people have a problem with BJs posting, in fact pages and pages about it. It is a repeated topic that comes up in both threads often. Drone just decided to warn me about it and suggested I post it here so as a rule follower I did that. Tell all those people to report him then. If BJ is really being that problematic, then I'll take care of it. The thing with BJ is it us generally not one post, he either uses sarcasm to purposely piss people off or just constantly changes the goal posts to get his digs in. I’m not even sure he should he be banned. But what is really irritating to all the posters that interact with him is he is an asshole and when they tell him that he cries victim and Drone swoops in and says poor BJ he is so nice and you guys are mean sometimes actioning those who have hit back at him. Drone has wrote how he gives him “special consideration” (Drones words on why he treats BJ special) much like he did with danglers GH and so on.
What I would like , and most would like (other than BJ) is no special treatment. Either let him deal with the consequences of being a non stop prick or when he is a prick call him out about it, not just those who are pricks back.
From this morning, is it banable, no. Has he pissed off yet another person just trying to have a regular conversation. And Of course he has. It’s his sport and Drone gives him special rules and treatment. Drones obsession with being a white knight for shit posters is the bigger problem than BJ. Like 3 years ago basically everyone liked Drone, now tons do not and it has nothing to with drones posts on subjects in the thread, he generally thoughtful and well informed. It is that a moderator is not supposed to blatantly pick favorites and give them special treatment and he picked someone to be on the special list that actively tries to piss people off and “pwn the libs”.
BJ pissing off yet another poster, one I’m not sure I’ve ever seen mad before.
On June 22 2023 21:08 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 20:42 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2023 20:23 Simberto wrote:On June 22 2023 19:22 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2023 19:04 Simberto wrote:On June 22 2023 18:10 BlackJack wrote: fwiw I don't think the gas stove ban is done for efficiency purposes but health purposes, e.g. triggering asthma. Or at least that's how they are selling it. Electric stoves are still considered fine and as far as I know they are pretty comparable to gas stoves in energy efficiency. I've lived in Florida most my life and we don't even really have gas stoves there (only 8% of homes from what I just googled). We don't really need to heat our homes so we don't have gas hookups in the first place. I've used gas stoves while living in other parts of the country and I generally find them much nicer to cook with, but it's generally not something I care about in the least. A big advantage of electric compared to gas, even when at simiar energy efficiency, is that you can power electric stoves with renewables. You cannot power gas stoves with renewable energy. I don't think they work with hydrogen, and using renewable energy to synthesize methane is another massive energy inefficiency that usually makes it prohibitively expensive. Edit: regarding obesity On June 22 2023 18:36 BlackJack wrote:On June 22 2023 18:14 Magic Powers wrote: Not being conservative doesn't automatically make a person pro-science. This should be fairly obvious.
Regarding the obesity crisis, it is definitely correct that it's caused in very large part by genetics. What is not true is the claim that that's the only cause or the claim that individual cases of obesity cannot be combated with diet and exercise. I don't believe these claims were being made though, because the precise phrasing is important.
“The number one cause of obesity is genetics,” she said. “That means if you are born to parents that have obesity, you have a 50 to 85 percent likelihood of having the disease yourself, even with optimal diet, exercise, sleep management, stress management.”
This quote pertains to the genetic desease, NOT to the process of weight gain or weight loss. The part of the quote "[...] even with optimal diet, exercise, sleep management, stress management." refers to the genetic desease. The disease itself will be present regardless of lifestyle choices, and it's caused by genetics. That's what it says, and that's completely true.
Furthermore, an individual finding it within themselves to lose weight is not the same thing as a population doing the same. The process for an individual is indeed mainly diet and exercise. But people wrongly assume that that's all there is to it. There are a number of factors, among them being 1) accessibility of (especially cheap and tasty) calorie-dense food, 2) environment (family etc.), 3) occupation, 4) mental state, and several others. Note that I haven't even mentioned genetics. I'm demonstrating how complex weight loss really is for obese people. We can tell a person to change their diet all we want, it will only happen if the circumstances are conducive to the necessary behavioral changes. Just explaining to people why diet and exercise helps them lose weight and encouraging them to do it isn't going to do anything to solve the obesity crisis by and large. This is what Cody Stanford says (paraphrasing "willpower is not the answer") and once again it's completely true.
I know some people have a hard time believing this. But the data strongly suggests that individuals are not at fault for being obese. The crisis started during the latter half of the 20th century and it was NOT because people suddenly lost their willpower. The truth is that many years ago the types of food that cause obesity weren't available in large quantities, for cheap and at convenient distances to the population at large. What does that even mean? Are you implying that even people that have good diet and exercise and are in really good physical shape still have a genetic disease of "obesity" that they inherited from their obese parents except that it's just in a latent form? Also yes obviously it's hard for people to avoid cheap and tasty food and exercise and do all the right things. Almost nobody wants to be fat. If people could snap their fingers and will more discipline upon themselves I'm sure they would have done that already. It's not about assigning blame or shaming individuals that are obese. It's about accepting reality and not lying to people by telling them that they have no responsibility for the shape they are in and they just got dealt a shitty hand genetically. You're right that people didn't just lose their willpower in the latter half of the 20th century and Drone is right that there wasn't some sudden uptick in fat genes in the latter half of the 20th century. One thing i notice almost completely missing from this discussion is societal change beyond the individual. We can greatly reduce the probability of people getting fat on a societal policy level. Make healthy food cheaper, make calory-dense stuff more expensive. Make softdrinks more expensive. Make water cheaper. Put less HFC and sugar into fucking everything (limit this by law or whatever). Make biking to places an easy, cheap and efficient way of short-distance travel. Have walkable cities. Both "willpower" and "genes" are pretty obviously stupid as approaches, and almost certainly being lobbied for because they don't cut into company profits. Availability and incentives simply work. If sugarwater is cheaper than healthy drinks, a lot of people will buy sugar water. If every processed food contains 10% sugar, it becomes really hard not to get fat if you don't want to put in a lot of extra work. If high-sugar and high-fat processed crap is cheaper than fresh veggies and fruit, people will by the processed crap. And start in school. Every school lunch needs to be healthy. Any food sold in schools needs to be healthy and cheap. Have restrictions on sugar advertisements aimed at kids. There is a lot of stuff we can do as a society. But it is hard, because corporate lobbying wants the opposite. Hm... Is the renewables thing even relevant anytime soon though? Don't we still require mostly fossil fuels to power our grids and the allocation of the power is somewhat fungible? In other words we would still use up all the renewable energy to power other things and it's not like we would have extra renewable energy going to waste because our stoves only use gas. I think it is, especially when considering goals like being climate-neutral in 2050 or earlier. Stoves last a pretty long time. Getting people to change out a working stove for a different one is hard, and people tend to get very angry. A much better solution is for people who would get a new stove or replace their old one to get electric ones instead of gas stoves. But that takes a long time, because people don't exchange their stoves often. So you need to start early. If you only start with this once we have the necessary renewable capacity, you waste the 10-20 years it takes for people to actually change their stoves naturally or you make everyone angry by forcing them to exchange their working stoves. It takes even longer if you consider that you need different building infrastructure for electric stoves compared to gas stoves. You no longer need to lay gas pipes, and instead you need high-current power lines. You also need to prepare municipal power infrastructure to take the additional demand that accumulates from electrifying more and more things. Once those electric stoves are in place, nothing needs to change for the people in the houses anymore. Which is good, because people are pretty resistant to changing stuff. But once they have them, their electric stoves will just keep on working. You can change the source of the electricity without the people having to do anything, or feeling any impact on their lives whatsoever. Edit: On June 22 2023 20:17 Gorsameth wrote:On June 22 2023 20:11 Magic Powers wrote: The obesity epidemic only started in the late 20th century. This cannot be explained by people lacking discipline. It is best explained by the fact that a significant portion of people were always genetically predisposed to become obese given a specific set of circumstances. That set of circumstances has arrived with the advance of tasty calorically dense foods being made available to the population at large - something that wasn't the case at any point before in human history. The fact that you make a leap to genetic predisposition lying dormant for millennia instead of just the fact that 'we' eat more fat and unhealthy food then ever before is so weird to me. I don't think it is that absurd. For millenia, storing lots of calories when you have access to them was a good survival treat. Getting calories irregularly was a problem that hindered individuals from reproduction, so dealing with that efficiently was good. Getting too many calories was never a problem in history, and especially evolutionary prehistory. So that genetic predisposition makes immediate sense to me. The problem and source of solution is still what we put into our bellies, because we cannot change our genetics anyways. But saying that we had the same genetics that lead to us getting fat when we eat too many calories for millenia is probably also correct. It just wasn't a problem, because we rarely had too many calories available. Sure, but there’s still the issue of the bureaucrats who are advocating for the bans saying their reasoning is health concerns related to indoor pollutants, not energy concerns. So we have to take them at their word because we don’t want to be conspiracy theorists. Oh damn, i nearly thought we were having a reasonable conversation, when you just wanted to find some way to pwn the libs or whatever. Why can't you just talk about the thing we were actually talking about, instead of trying to meander somewhere else so you can still "win" or whatever it is you are trying to do? I have zero interest in talking about indoor pollution from gas stoves, simply because i know nothing about it. I was talking to you about something else, so no need to quippantly jump somewhere else immediately when you fear that you might need to actually agree with me.
|
Norway28278 Posts
I don't give him special treatment. That is nonsense, as is your entire post. If someone chooses to dislike me because I am nice towards a person they don't like that is their prerogative but I really don't care.
|
On June 22 2023 22:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't give him special treatment. That is nonsense, as is your entire post. If someone chooses to dislike me because I am nice towards a person they don't like that is their prerogative but I really don't care. You trollin me here?
|
On June 22 2023 22:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't give him special treatment. That is nonsense, as is your entire post. If someone chooses to dislike me because I am nice towards a person they don't like that is their prerogative but I really don't care.
Not only have you literally said you give him special treatment, just scrolling to the last few pages of the US politics thread shows you do very clearly as well. Look at how many times BlackJack has derailed the conversation, and look how many times it's the people pointing that out that have been given warnings (and contrast that with the 0 warnings BlackJack has gotten).
Reddit moderators are less biased than you are when it involves BlackJack.
|
|
|
|