|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
ALLEYCAT BLUES51717 Posts
On January 14 2021 13:55 LegalLord wrote:
Well it’s certainly disappointing, but also par for the course with every other questionable moderation decision in the very recent history. Not much that I can say that hasn’t already been said.
no I'd really like for you to say all the things that has been said before.
|
Oh nooo, what uh, what a tragic loss to the USPMT, whatever will we doooo...
A tragedy, a crying shame, I tell you.
|
was there a specific post that decided his fate?
why now all of a sudden? i mean you could say he had it coming but thats just the thing; it was coming but never came. i dont see a post recently that was particularly bad compared to his usual posting standards so what made mods decide to take action right this moment?
partly why im disappointed that it happened now is because i half expect some trump related drama to happen between now and inauguration and would like to see what kind of shit he comes up with
|
Not intimately involved enough to know whether it is fair or not (experience makes me lean closer to it likely being fair) but it does seem to be chronologically interesting at the very least, considering everything going on and the recent spree of high profile bans.
To clarify, I can totally see how troublesome times may cause troublesome posters to cause more trouble and thus get banned. I'm guessing that's what happened - but it still gives the impression of a purge.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 14 2021 14:39 evilfatsh1t wrote:
was there a specific post that decided his fate?
why now all of a sudden? i mean you could say he had it coming but thats just the thing; it was coming but never came. i dont see a post recently that was particularly bad compared to his usual posting standards so what made mods decide to take action right this moment?
partly why im disappointed that it happened now is because i half expect some trump related drama to happen between now and inauguration and would like to see what kind of shit he comes up with
No, it wasn't a specific post. Just one of those things that added up as time went on.
|
On January 14 2021 14:47 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 14:39 evilfatsh1t wrote:
was there a specific post that decided his fate?
why now all of a sudden? i mean you could say he had it coming but thats just the thing; it was coming but never came. i dont see a post recently that was particularly bad compared to his usual posting standards so what made mods decide to take action right this moment?
partly why im disappointed that it happened now is because i half expect some trump related drama to happen between now and inauguration and would like to see what kind of shit he comes up with No, it wasn't a specific post. Just one of those things that added up as time went on.
Frankly that applies to a large number of prominent posters on TL at the moment, hoping they see the chopping block soon too.
|
Cricketer12
United States14003 Posts
On January 14 2021 14:47 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 14:39 evilfatsh1t wrote:
was there a specific post that decided his fate?
why now all of a sudden? i mean you could say he had it coming but thats just the thing; it was coming but never came. i dont see a post recently that was particularly bad compared to his usual posting standards so what made mods decide to take action right this moment?
partly why im disappointed that it happened now is because i half expect some trump related drama to happen between now and inauguration and would like to see what kind of shit he comes up with No, it wasn't a specific post. Just one of those things that added up as time went on.
how often do situations like that occur?
|
Huh. Danglars was the first person I had a discussion with in USPMT. On the one hand, in that discussion I think he exhibited some of his finer qualities as a poster: he seemed to have a sincere desire to foster dialogue with the other side, and a sense that it was important to maintain some level of respect and collegiality even in discussing very contentious and morally weighty questions with people you disagree with.
On the other hand, he showed a lot of his frustrating qualities then too. A weird caginess about actually expressing his sincere opinion, for one, and a tendency to value a rhetorical flourish over clarity. FWIW I don’t think “bad faith arguments” is quite the right characterization. I think he always saw himself in sort of an advocacy role - that his job was to fight the good fight for conservatism amidst a sea of liberals. Understandable enough, but when you approach discussion as a debater rather than a truth-seeker you can wind up making some pretty silly arguments (or just tortured wordings for some rhetorical gain). Like the time he argued for immigration restrictions despite immigrants having a lower crime rate than natives because their presence would still increase the *total number* of crimes in the US. Or the time last year he made a post sort of purporting to be an above-the-fray analysis that at least Trump’s tough-on-China policies had been strong; but he contrasted it not with Obama’s policies but with “Biden’s policies under Obsma.”
Idk, I wouldn’t have banned him, although I’ll admit I’d gotten in the habit of trying to ignore any post that seemed to me to be insincerely push an agenda, and that resulted in me not discussing with him directly for months. I guess I always thought he had plenty of good moments as a poster, and I hoped some day he’d forget about his grievances with moderation and just try to improve on his rhetorical excesses. I hope he’s not too upset about it, and that maybe he can come back some day (if he wants to).
Also, USPMT really is a veteran killer. Has me wondering who I think will be the last one standing in that thread.
|
I'm not upset about it, but I don't think it was a great decision. You're not going to stop some people from engaging in an irritating way. Danglars wasn't the only person to have this trait, and while I get why his posting wasn't beneficial, I like to think that a lot of the attendees of that particular thread were smart enough to see through his bullshit where it was bullshit, and hear some of where he was coming from when it wasn't.
That's kind of the value of the USPMT to me - people having ideas or reactions to things that exist in contrast to my own, and having a safe space for presenting and discussing those contrasts. Danglars served something of a role as a foil against the space becoming a full-on echo chamber, and while it felt like he took that role a little to hard to heart sometimes, it all came through in the filtered wash you'll apply to anyone's posting. You don't read JimmiC or GH or dmcd or kwark without the context of their previous posting, which helps inure you against some of their bias.
I lost the plot. Overall, I think the USPMT is a less valuable, but happier place for it. I wonder if that's worth the trade.
|
He always felt incredibly disingenuous to me, I get the appeal of having multiple viewpoints, but his viewpoint seemed to be something he never seemed willing to fully commit to and it made every discussion he was involved in into nothingness. I'd rather we had conservatives who were able to say what they believed and why they believed it clearly and engage in a discussion with at least an open mind about potentially being wrong. The moralizing was also extremely old.
Like I'd find I probably agree with conservatives on a fair number of things and be able to find more common ground by talking to more of them, but I never got the feeling that Danglars was ever interested in any common ground that he wasn't already firmly standing on.
|
On January 14 2021 16:02 ChristianS wrote:
Like the time he argued for immigration restrictions despite immigrants having a lower crime rate than natives because their presence would still increase the *total number* of crimes in the US.
I know this is off-topic, but, how does this not make sense?
|
United States44450 Posts
On January 14 2021 17:01 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 16:02 ChristianS wrote:
Like the time he argued for immigration restrictions despite immigrants having a lower crime rate than natives because their presence would still increase the *total number* of crimes in the US. I know this is off-topic, but, how does this not make sense?
Because total number isn’t how you measure crime rates, it’s incidence rate within the population. If the average person is less likely to be a victim of a crime then that’s better. If immigrants commit fewer crimes then they increase the numerator by less than they increase the denominator.
|
On January 14 2021 17:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 17:01 Jealous wrote:On January 14 2021 16:02 ChristianS wrote:
Like the time he argued for immigration restrictions despite immigrants having a lower crime rate than natives because their presence would still increase the *total number* of crimes in the US. I know this is off-topic, but, how does this not make sense? Because total number isn’t how you measure crime rates, it’s incidence rate within the population. If the average person is less likely to be a victim of a crime then that’s better. If immigrants commit fewer crimes then they increase the numerator by less than they increase the denominator.
But it's still more crimes than there would have been without them? To the person who is a victim of a crime, incidence rates don't matter...
Not arguing the morality behind this btw, just the numbers.
|
On January 14 2021 13:17 Seeker wrote:
Yes, we banned Danglars. Yes, it was intentional. Yes, we are aware that the ABL is about to explode. Yes, we're ready for it. Here we go. Let's start the show...
Worst flame bait in a while? :D
|
Well, the thread needs american conservative posters though.
I can't say I liked Danglars, and clearly he didn't like me. I also have to say that imo he was an extremely emotional poster, and that I never saw him even try to listen to the other side or even attempt to reflect. He seemed to believe that conservatives were good people and liberals bad people, and that was it and that limited a lot the exchanges.
But if that's the best we'll get out of hardcore right wingers - and it seems it is, then I am sorry he is gone. I did learn quite a lot reading him, starting with why republicans think the way they do; and he did open my eyes on inconsistencies and bad faith arguments from my side, and ideas that I grew up with that I should have questioned sooner.
I wish him the very best with everything.
|
United States44450 Posts
On January 14 2021 17:28 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 17:03 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2021 17:01 Jealous wrote:On January 14 2021 16:02 ChristianS wrote:
Like the time he argued for immigration restrictions despite immigrants having a lower crime rate than natives because their presence would still increase the *total number* of crimes in the US. I know this is off-topic, but, how does this not make sense? Because total number isn’t how you measure crime rates, it’s incidence rate within the population. If the average person is less likely to be a victim of a crime then that’s better. If immigrants commit fewer crimes then they increase the numerator by less than they increase the denominator. But it's still more crimes than there would have been without them? To the person who is a victim of a crime, incidence rates don't matter... Not arguing the morality behind this btw, just the numbers.
By that argument a meteor hitting the earth would be good for crime reduction. By that argument the biggest cause of crime is sex. More people, more crime. By that argument there was less disease before modern medicine because fewer people got sick. This kind of absurdity is exactly why only a complete idiot would argue that having more law abiding citizens increases crime.
Incidence rate is what matters. If the average person is less likely to be a victim of a crime then crime is reduced.
I wasn’t previously aware that he argued that bringing more law abiding people into a society would increase total crime but I’m not now surprised to learn it. It’s exactly the kind of nonsense that I came to expect from him. We’re well rid of him.
|
On January 14 2021 17:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 17:28 Jealous wrote:On January 14 2021 17:03 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2021 17:01 Jealous wrote:On January 14 2021 16:02 ChristianS wrote:
Like the time he argued for immigration restrictions despite immigrants having a lower crime rate than natives because their presence would still increase the *total number* of crimes in the US. I know this is off-topic, but, how does this not make sense? Because total number isn’t how you measure crime rates, it’s incidence rate within the population. If the average person is less likely to be a victim of a crime then that’s better. If immigrants commit fewer crimes then they increase the numerator by less than they increase the denominator. But it's still more crimes than there would have been without them? To the person who is a victim of a crime, incidence rates don't matter... Not arguing the morality behind this btw, just the numbers. By that argument a meteor hitting the earth would be good for crime reduction. By that argument the biggest cause of crime is sex. More people, more crime. By that argument there was less disease before modern medicine because fewer people got sick. This kind of absurdity is exactly why only a complete idiot would argue that having more law abiding citizens increases crime. Incidence rate is what matters. If the average person is less likely to be a victim of a crime then crime is reduced. I wasn’t previously aware that he argued that bringing more law abiding people into a society would increase total crime but I’m not now surprised to learn it. It’s exactly the kind of nonsense that I came to expect from him. We’re well rid of him.
Yeah as long as no one involved has had one too many drinks and that people know each other properly, sex is not a crime.
Danglars doesn't have the monopoly of ludicrous claims in that thread. You've called virtually all of us rapists and terrible people out of some bizarre moral conceptions.
|
On January 14 2021 19:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 17:59 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2021 17:28 Jealous wrote:On January 14 2021 17:03 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2021 17:01 Jealous wrote:On January 14 2021 16:02 ChristianS wrote:
Like the time he argued for immigration restrictions despite immigrants having a lower crime rate than natives because their presence would still increase the *total number* of crimes in the US. I know this is off-topic, but, how does this not make sense? Because total number isn’t how you measure crime rates, it’s incidence rate within the population. If the average person is less likely to be a victim of a crime then that’s better. If immigrants commit fewer crimes then they increase the numerator by less than they increase the denominator. But it's still more crimes than there would have been without them? To the person who is a victim of a crime, incidence rates don't matter... Not arguing the morality behind this btw, just the numbers. By that argument a meteor hitting the earth would be good for crime reduction. By that argument the biggest cause of crime is sex. More people, more crime. By that argument there was less disease before modern medicine because fewer people got sick. This kind of absurdity is exactly why only a complete idiot would argue that having more law abiding citizens increases crime. Incidence rate is what matters. If the average person is less likely to be a victim of a crime then crime is reduced. I wasn’t previously aware that he argued that bringing more law abiding people into a society would increase total crime but I’m not now surprised to learn it. It’s exactly the kind of nonsense that I came to expect from him. We’re well rid of him. Yeah as long as no one involved has had one too many drinks and that people know each other properly, sex is not a crime. Danglars doesn't have the monopoly of ludicrous claims in that thread. You've called virtually all of us rapists and terrible people out of some bizarre moral conceptions. I think you missed his point. If you argue about total number of crimes instead of relative numbers then procreation is the #1 cause of crime because new babies will grow up and some of them will commit crimes. Every crime committed today is indirectly the result of someone having had sex in the last 100 years, because if they hadn't been born they could not have committed a crime.
Its a stupid argument but so is the idea that immigration is bad because some of them commit crimes, despite immigrants committing crimes at a low rate then natives.
|
Norway28929 Posts
While I agreed with and supported the ban of xDaunt, I disagreed with this decision and think it was the wrong one to make, and I think the timing is especially bad. I expect the following couple weeks to be rather eventful in American politics and I would have liked to have Danglars around - seeing that the storming of the capitol was a turning point for him, one that made him say that he retrospectively preferred Biden to Trump, was to me really interesting, as I assume he is at least to some degree a reflection of your average republican voter. I genuinely fear that we're turning into (more) of an echo chamber, and one of the things I've always cherished about the USPMT is that it's been one of the more civil places on the internet featuring posters with drastically different points of view. I have a hard time thinking of political issues where I agreed with Danglars, and it did happen that I found his opinions offensive. However, I never perceived him as disingenuous, and while he wasn't flawless in style either, I don't think he was generally any more rude than what other people were towards him.
But in spirit of USPOL, we might imagine the moderator crew as a somewhat less prestigious SCOTUS, and this is a dissenting opinion. I still respect the process and the ruling.
|
On January 14 2021 17:28 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 17:03 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2021 17:01 Jealous wrote:On January 14 2021 16:02 ChristianS wrote:
Like the time he argued for immigration restrictions despite immigrants having a lower crime rate than natives because their presence would still increase the *total number* of crimes in the US. I know this is off-topic, but, how does this not make sense? Because total number isn’t how you measure crime rates, it’s incidence rate within the population. If the average person is less likely to be a victim of a crime then that’s better. If immigrants commit fewer crimes then they increase the numerator by less than they increase the denominator. But it's still more crimes than there would have been without them? To the person who is a victim of a crime, incidence rates don't matter... Not arguing the morality behind this btw, just the numbers.
Are you seriously arguing this? Think of it that way. Let's assume crime rates are identical across the EU. Is Germany inherently safer than the EU as a whole because the EU has a larger population than Germany alone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
