|
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/ |
United States43356 Posts
If we had another poster with similar beliefs as Danglars who engaged in good faith arguments then I really don't think anyone would miss this
On December 24 2020 02:16 Danglars wrote:
Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, India, Bangladesh ...
On December 24 2020 05:03 Danglars wrote:
Pardon me, but did you even read my post. North Korea? Did I cite North Korea? Do you expect me to take you seriously when you bring up countries I didn't cite as evidence against points I didn't make?
|
On January 15 2021 00:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 19:20 Biff The Understudy wrote: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. This is certainly one of the more irksome qualities of decisions like this. You have individuals like Danglars who get banned as "bad faith posters" on the one hand. And on the other, you have folks like Kwark whose posting history is at least equally actionable (if not more so), but instead of being banned they not only are left untouched but are also part of the moderation staff. Notionally "abstains from moderating" but certainly has no problem using such privileges to settle grudges or to post in threads like this with the apparent authority of the moderation staff in saying things like "these people are more banworthy because their opinions make them bad people." I can only hope that the "moderation consensus" here was more level-headed than that, but there is little evidence to suggest so since the only mods that shared their opinion were Kwark and Drone, the latter of whom explicitly acknowledges his opinion is a dissenting one. The latest series of bans would be consistent with a pattern of "let's ban people we have personal beef with" than any sort of decision on posting quality that comes to mind. If that's a wrong perception, I'd sure appreciate the context that would suggest otherwise.
Oh you misunderstand: I have absolutely zero problems with neither Kwark, anyone the moderation team or any of their decisions. I think they do a great job and I'm grateful for it. It's just, I wanted to point out that we all say weird shit sometimes, and, by the way, that we all argue in bad faith when we feel threatened. Like, basically every human being.
I don't believe Danglars was an especially great poster, but his position was very difficult, and it might have been very hard for anyone in his position to discuss with an open mind.
|
Norway28727 Posts
On January 15 2021 01:34 KwarK wrote:If we had another poster with similar beliefs as Danglars who engaged in good faith arguments then I really don't think anyone would miss this Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 02:16 Danglars wrote:
Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, India, Bangladesh ... Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 05:03 Danglars wrote:
Pardon me, but did you even read my post. North Korea? Did I cite North Korea? Do you expect me to take you seriously when you bring up countries I didn't cite as evidence against points I didn't make?
This is rich to bring up in a conversation aboit someone being banned for being disingenuous, seeing as you most certainly know that this example is one where danglars actually said 'ahh my bad' when confronted about it.
I understand the point of view that many people felt he was detrimental to the thread quality, and I fully recognize the validity of many of the arguments. But this type of selective quoting is imo just as dishonest as anything he is being accused of, and you can do better.
|
On January 15 2021 01:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 00:02 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2021 19:20 Biff The Understudy wrote: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. This is certainly one of the more irksome qualities of decisions like this. You have individuals like Danglars who get banned as "bad faith posters" on the one hand. And on the other, you have folks like Kwark whose posting history is at least equally actionable (if not more so), but instead of being banned they not only are left untouched but are also part of the moderation staff. Notionally "abstains from moderating" but certainly has no problem using such privileges to settle grudges or to post in threads like this with the apparent authority of the moderation staff in saying things like "these people are more banworthy because their opinions make them bad people." I can only hope that the "moderation consensus" here was more level-headed than that, but there is little evidence to suggest so since the only mods that shared their opinion were Kwark and Drone, the latter of whom explicitly acknowledges his opinion is a dissenting one. The latest series of bans would be consistent with a pattern of "let's ban people we have personal beef with" than any sort of decision on posting quality that comes to mind. If that's a wrong perception, I'd sure appreciate the context that would suggest otherwise. Oh you misunderstand: I have absolutely zero problems with neither Kwark, anyone the moderation team or any of their decisions. I think they do a great job and I'm grateful for it. It's just, I wanted to point out that we all say weird shit sometimes, and, by the way, that we all argue in bad faith when we feel threatened. Like, basically every human being. I don't believe Danglars was an especially great poster, but his position was very difficult, and it might have been very hard for anyone in his position to discuss with an open mind.
Well, whether or not you think the moderation staff is problematic, I do think your point is poignant in that the difference between those who are banned and who aren't doesn't seem to be "who posts in bad faith." It looks a lot like a double standard when one person gets actioned for it and for another it's just a cutesy little quirk when they post like shit.
For what it's worth, I am generally of the opinion that we should ban fewer people overall rather than hand out more bans to additional people who could potentially be perceived as bad faith. It's rarely possible to be fair with a heavy-handed approach, and pretty much everyone could benefit from some lessons in deescalation in their intensity in internet debate. There are very few (but not zero) people for whom the right answer would really be to remove them via moderation rather than for people to simply decide that they shouldn't engage if they don't want to engage, and in my eyes the moderation staff's more heavy-handed approach hasn't really done a very effective job of making that distinction.
|
On January 15 2021 01:05 RvB wrote:
Almost every European country has a far right authoritarian party with significant support. We've had one since the start of the 2000s in the Netherlands. The difference is that we usually still have a centre right party as well. It's an echo chamber by any standards.
The 'mainstream' far right parties in most of the EU are still to the left of the Republican party on basically every issue. Even parties like AfD have stated policies that are friendlier to immigrants (I don't think they've suggested family separation, etc.). Trying to run on a platform of "take away or prevent universal healthcare" would get them laughed out of the room most areas, but that's been the GOP platform for the past decade, on just a single issue.
That's always been the case though, but what's new is the illiberalism/disbelief in democracy. Turkey and Hungary with strong-men dictators are now the closest european analogues. This is also something of a new phenomenon : even 6 years ago the Republican party was much more normal (though further right than the average euro party).
A person can politely defend the far right economic/military/social stances of the republican party without sounding totally insane (though the social ones were hard as TL is very lgbt friendly). Once the strong-man aspect entered, defending the party involved a lot of mind boggling double think at best (as it is incompatible with the written values of the country they're claiming they are best for, and western democracies in general).
Here's a chart from 538 on this :
+ Show Spoiler +
Anyways, the idea is twofold here.
1. It's not TL that has done the most changing here. It's the party that these posters have devoted themselves to that has changed radically, and their defenses have started to become more frequently been of the indefensible.
2. Yes, they really are THAT different from far right EU parties.
|
United States43356 Posts
On January 15 2021 01:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 01:34 KwarK wrote:If we had another poster with similar beliefs as Danglars who engaged in good faith arguments then I really don't think anyone would miss this On December 24 2020 02:16 Danglars wrote:
Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, India, Bangladesh ... On December 24 2020 05:03 Danglars wrote:
Pardon me, but did you even read my post. North Korea? Did I cite North Korea? Do you expect me to take you seriously when you bring up countries I didn't cite as evidence against points I didn't make? This is rich to bring up in a conversation aboit someone being banned for being disingenuous, seeing as you most certainly know that this example is one where danglars actually said 'ahh my bad' when confronted about it. I understand the point of view that many people felt he was detrimental to the thread quality, and I fully recognize the validity of many of the arguments. But this type of selective quoting is imo just as dishonest as anything he is being accused of, and you can do better.
It’s not clear which post he was responding to when he said “my bad” as he didn’t quote one and there are so many wrong posts to pick from. But let’s say he was responding to people pointing out he did cite NK. He still managed to cite NK and have no idea that he’d done so and then, when called out on his NK example, responded very aggressively. The argument then turned into arguing with Danglars about whether he cited NK as an example, instead of the original argument about inequality in which he was making a number of more ridiculous claims.
Whether Danglars eventually conceded the other side’s point in the argument about whether he used NK as an example is beside the point. We were having an argument about inequality and Danglars made the insane claim that inequality in countries with 50:1 ratios of wealth in the top 10% vs the bottom were more equal than countries with 10:1 if you looked at the nominal dollars. The countries quoted above were the countries Danglars was claiming had greater equality than the US and include a country with a literal caste system and one where a handful of party insiders rule over a nation of slave labourers. But we never actually got to settle that argument because he turned it into an argument about what he said two posts previously, aggressively denying his own words that were plain for all to see higher up the same page. I’m not swayed by “yeah, sure he started a idiotic argument about what he wrote even though he just wrote it and even though his own words were literally in front of him but it looks like he may have admitted when he lost that argument”. That he did it in the first place is the problem.
Suppose someone did that in a debate. Whenever person A used a poor example and got pinned down on it by B suppose A simply claimed that they never used that example. The debate has now turned to whether they used that example. Imagine they then attacked B for their poor faith arguments, perhaps saying "Do you expect me to take you seriously when you bring up countries examples I didn't cite as evidence against points I didn't make?". Now B has to defend themselves by proving to everyone that the example in question was actually made. Whether the example was good or not is no longer the issue, now B is under fire for making shit up by an aggressively self righteous A. B eventually gets them to roll back the tape and shows everyone that A did actually use that example and A goes "okay, my bad" and continues on as if nothing ever happened. The issues B raised with the example they used are never addressed.
|
On January 15 2021 02:00 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 01:05 RvB wrote:
Almost every European country has a far right authoritarian party with significant support. We've had one since the start of the 2000s in the Netherlands. The difference is that we usually still have a centre right party as well. It's an echo chamber by any standards. The 'mainstream' far right parties in most of the EU are still to the left of the Republican party on basically every issue. Even parties like AfD have stated policies that are friendlier to immigrants (I don't think they've suggested family separation, etc.). Trying to run on a platform of "take away or prevent universal healthcare" would get them laughed out of the room most areas, but that's been the GOP platform for the past decade, on just a single issue. That's always been the case though, but what's new is the illiberalism/disbelief in democracy. Turkey and Hungary with strong-men dictators are now the closest european analogues. This is also something of a new phenomenon : even 6 years ago the Republican party was much more normal (though further right than the average euro party). A person can politely defend the far right economic/military/social stances of the republican party without sounding totally insane (though the social ones were hard as TL is very lgbt friendly). Once the strong-man aspect entered, defending the party involved a lot of mind boggling double think at best (as it is incompatible with the written values of the country they're claiming they are best for, and western democracies in general). Here's a chart from 538 on this : + Show Spoiler +Anyways, the idea is twofold here. 1. It's not TL that has done the most changing here. It's the party that these posters have devoted themselves to that has changed radically, and their defenses have started to become more frequently been of the indefensible. 2. Yes, they really are THAT different from far right EU parties.
This isn't the thread for it so I'll stop the discussion after this post but I'm just going to disagree here. I think you're correct that the republican party has radicalized but you underestimate the insanity of our far right parties. If I look at my own country one of them has a party program full of things which go directly against the constitution (PVV) and the other is led by someone who thinks Soros unleashed corona on the world (FvD).
On January 15 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 01:21 Acrofales wrote:On January 15 2021 01:05 RvB wrote:
Almost every European country has a far right authoritarian party with significant support. We've had one since the start of the 2000s in the Netherlands. The difference is that we usually still have a centre right party as well. It's an echo chamber by any standards. If Danglars voted in Holland I think he'd probably vote SGP, not PVV. Which just goes to show how incredibly smooshed together the US politics is. In the Netherlands there are 5, maybe 6, political parties that would all be factions of the Republican Party (and similarly 5-7 that would be part of the Democratic Party). That is interesting. Here in Canada, Federally at least. We would have one party that would stretch the center of both and 4 parties that would all fall under the Dems. We have a regional party (that is still federally) and they would be hard to place because they are very conservative but also secular.
The Netherlands had proportional representation without any electoral threshold. So if you have enough votes for one seat you're in. Couple that with a fracturing of society and political parties since the start of the 2000s and you get a parliament which is kind of crazy.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On January 15 2021 01:34 KwarK wrote:If we had another poster with similar beliefs as Danglars who engaged in good faith arguments then I really don't think anyone would miss this Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 02:16 Danglars wrote:
Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, India, Bangladesh ... Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 05:03 Danglars wrote:
Pardon me, but did you even read my post. North Korea? Did I cite North Korea? Do you expect me to take you seriously when you bring up countries I didn't cite as evidence against points I didn't make?
Let's face it, it's a moderator conspiracy against him and you edited his post and added the NK  Also the Earth is flat and this is believe all around the globe
|
On January 15 2021 01:34 KwarK wrote:If we had another poster with similar beliefs as Danglars who engaged in good faith arguments then I really don't think anyone would miss this Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 02:16 Danglars wrote:
Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, India, Bangladesh ... Show nested quote +On December 24 2020 05:03 Danglars wrote:
Pardon me, but did you even read my post. North Korea? Did I cite North Korea? Do you expect me to take you seriously when you bring up countries I didn't cite as evidence against points I didn't make?
To me, I read that into his willingness to throw himself behind whatever argument suited him in the moment, and sometimes he just forgot what he was arguing as the "debates" went on. This was my main problem, and he admitted as much: he wasn't here to engage in discussion, he was here to sharpen his arguments against others. Everything was a debate to him, regardless of morality or truth, and by God he was going to try to "win". Someone else put it as him being a debater rather than a truth-seeker, and I found some value in that. He was being a lawyer, rather than a seeker of justice. Except in a casual discussion forum, it's obnoxious, unnecessary, and burns all the good faith.
|
On January 14 2021 20:00 maybenexttime 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. 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?
Arguing was perhaps the wrong word to use; I didn't want to start a debate on the subject, just understand the opposing perspective better (so that I could better understand why the initial perspective was labeled ridiculous), which I have gotten from these responses. Thanks to all responders  Don't want to derail further so if anyone has anything else to add, feel free to PM.
|
On January 15 2021 02:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 01:34 KwarK wrote:If we had another poster with similar beliefs as Danglars who engaged in good faith arguments then I really don't think anyone would miss this On December 24 2020 02:16 Danglars wrote:
Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, India, Bangladesh ... On December 24 2020 05:03 Danglars wrote:
Pardon me, but did you even read my post. North Korea? Did I cite North Korea? Do you expect me to take you seriously when you bring up countries I didn't cite as evidence against points I didn't make? To me, I read that into his willingness to throw himself behind whatever argument suited him in the moment, and sometimes he just forgot what he was arguing as the "debates" went on. This was my main problem, and he admitted as much: he wasn't here to engage in discussion, he was here to sharpen his arguments against others. Everything was a debate to him, regardless of morality or truth, and by God he was going to try to "win". Someone else put it as him being a debater rather than a truth-seeker, and I found some value in that. He was being a lawyer, rather than a seeker of justice. Except in a casual discussion forum, it's obnoxious, unnecessary, and burns all the good faith.
Except this is a casual discussion forum. Team Liquid is not a forum created for political thought, rather it was created as a place for people that love Starcraft to come together about Starcraft. The general forum is an outlet for these people to express their views on other subjects. Its been very obvious for years that its been an echo chamber, what the vast majority believes and what the vast majority wants, they get. It was never in the best interest of the website to disgruntle the easily offended and not appease them by canceling people that the vast majority felt didn't conform to their views.
A few years ago there were many more people on the forums and the mods could get away with being more balanced. There were also other mods then that could stand up to the ones wanting to do the ideological canceling, its obvious that these voices have become softer and fewer. Is this the reason TL has declined? I don't think its the main reason, but its certainly the reason that General forum activity has declined a lot. There are plenty of lurkers in those threads for sure, but who is really going to post what they think?... just be strung out by a kangaroo court for stepping out of line with the majority.
It's sad to see the lengths some will go to, and the mental gymnastics needed to convince yourself that only you are correct, only your way of thinking is the proper way, and whoever disagrees... well, you can always strawman, ad hominem, appeal to emotion, ask loaded questions and good old appealing to authority... and you will always get your way, at least while you are still in the majority and the kangaroo court shares your views. These people find out the hard way that the real World does not function this way, at least in normal societies.
|
On January 15 2021 03:20 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 02:43 NewSunshine wrote:On January 15 2021 01:34 KwarK wrote:If we had another poster with similar beliefs as Danglars who engaged in good faith arguments then I really don't think anyone would miss this On December 24 2020 02:16 Danglars wrote:
Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, India, Bangladesh ... On December 24 2020 05:03 Danglars wrote:
Pardon me, but did you even read my post. North Korea? Did I cite North Korea? Do you expect me to take you seriously when you bring up countries I didn't cite as evidence against points I didn't make? To me, I read that into his willingness to throw himself behind whatever argument suited him in the moment, and sometimes he just forgot what he was arguing as the "debates" went on. This was my main problem, and he admitted as much: he wasn't here to engage in discussion, he was here to sharpen his arguments against others. Everything was a debate to him, regardless of morality or truth, and by God he was going to try to "win". Someone else put it as him being a debater rather than a truth-seeker, and I found some value in that. He was being a lawyer, rather than a seeker of justice. Except in a casual discussion forum, it's obnoxious, unnecessary, and burns all the good faith. Except this is a casual discussion forum. Team Liquid is not a forum created for political thought, rather it was created as a place for people that love Starcraft to come together about Starcraft. The general forum is an outlet for these people to express their views on other subjects. Its been very obvious for years that its been an echo chamber, what the vast majority believes and what the vast majority wants, they get. It was never in the best interest of the website to disgruntle the easily offended and not appease them by canceling people that the vast majority felt didn't conform to their views. A few years ago there were many more people on the forums and the mods could get away with being more balanced. There were also other mods then that could stand up to the ones wanting to do the ideological canceling, its obvious that these voices have become softer and fewer. Is this the reason TL has declined? I don't think its the main reason, but its certainly the reason that General forum activity has declined a lot. There are plenty of lurkers in those threads for sure, but who is really going to post what they think?... just be strung out by a kangaroo court for stepping out of line with the majority. It's sad to see the lengths some will go to, and the mental gymnastics needed to convince yourself that only you are correct, only your way of thinking is the proper way, and whoever disagrees... well, you can always strawman, ad hominem, appeal to emotion, ask loaded questions and good old appealing to authority... and you will always get your way, at least while you are still in the majority and the kangaroo court shares your views. These people find out the hard way that the real World does not function this way, at least in normal societies.
I really liked this post of yours from a while back:
On October 20 2020 15:16 zeo wrote:Well, ever since I stopped actively posting the thread quality has gone downhill anyway Jokes aside, while its nice to show the circlejerk there are other opinions out there in the World after a while you find its better to invest your time into the people that really matter in life than waste away in toxicity. Ive recently been trying to get back into BW casually and its refreshing. The BW part of the forum is so much nicer than general. Even watching Kwark stream he seems so much more likeable when hes not talking about politics
Your last point definitely true - even the worst of the worst are completely different people when we talk Starcraft rather than politics. A shame BW is but a shadow of what it once was or there would be more to enjoy there.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 14 2021 15:42 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 14:47 BigFan wrote: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?
Probably more than people believe? Mod history is a thing after all and allows us to see just how much of a bad boy (lol) you've been over the years. It's something that gets reviewed enough times as well. Of course, it's not the only thing, because different mods have different thoughts and perspectives on a reported post or history.
On January 15 2021 00:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 19:20 Biff The Understudy wrote: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. This is certainly one of the more irksome qualities of decisions like this. You have individuals like Danglars who get banned as "bad faith posters" on the one hand. And on the other, you have folks like Kwark whose posting history is at least equally actionable (if not more so), but instead of being banned they not only are left untouched but are also part of the moderation staff. Notionally "abstains from moderating" but certainly has no problem using such privileges to settle grudges or to post in threads like this with the apparent authority of the moderation staff in saying things like "these people are more banworthy because their opinions make them bad people." I can only hope that the "moderation consensus" here was more level-headed than that, but there is little evidence to suggest so since the only mods that shared their opinion were Kwark and Drone, the latter of whom explicitly acknowledges his opinion is a dissenting one. The latest series of bans would be consistent with a pattern of "let's ban people we have personal beef with" than any sort of decision on posting quality that comes to mind. If that's a wrong perception, I'd sure appreciate the context that would suggest otherwise.
For the record, while I don't agree with the majority (possibly all, can't be 100% sure) of Danglars' ideology and think his approach as well as his ideas needed huge improvements, I also disagreed with the decision and felt we had better options that we could've used. Alas, as previously stated, this was a consensus and perming him was the final decision that was agreed upon so I respect the decision.
|
On January 15 2021 03:37 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 00:02 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2021 19:20 Biff The Understudy wrote: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. This is certainly one of the more irksome qualities of decisions like this. You have individuals like Danglars who get banned as "bad faith posters" on the one hand. And on the other, you have folks like Kwark whose posting history is at least equally actionable (if not more so), but instead of being banned they not only are left untouched but are also part of the moderation staff. Notionally "abstains from moderating" but certainly has no problem using such privileges to settle grudges or to post in threads like this with the apparent authority of the moderation staff in saying things like "these people are more banworthy because their opinions make them bad people." I can only hope that the "moderation consensus" here was more level-headed than that, but there is little evidence to suggest so since the only mods that shared their opinion were Kwark and Drone, the latter of whom explicitly acknowledges his opinion is a dissenting one. The latest series of bans would be consistent with a pattern of "let's ban people we have personal beef with" than any sort of decision on posting quality that comes to mind. If that's a wrong perception, I'd sure appreciate the context that would suggest otherwise. For the record, while I don't agree with the majority (possibly all, can't be 100% sure) of Danglars' ideology and think his approach as well as his ideas needed huge improvements, I also disagreed with the decision and felt we had better options that we could've used. Alas, as previously stated, this was a consensus and perming him was the final decision that was agreed upon so I respect the decision.
For what it's worth, I appreciate the personal perspective.
I do hope the moderation staff will revisit their revisit the current string of bans down the road, after the current wave of politically charged trouble subsides. I believe that in a calmer political context, the decisions made would have been different.
|
Anybody in the mod majority care to speak to why you guys opted for a permaban instead of thread ban? IIRC he was active in other forums sometimes but I don’t recall if there’d been anybmoderation issues outside USPMT.
|
Hyrule19184 Posts
Almost all of his posting was in ABL, USPMT (mostly USPMT), and the Coronavirus thread. A thread ban would effectively be the same as a site ban, but with the added fun of it being more complicated to manage.
|
Wouldn't be too sad to see him gone. Afterall Danglars was someone who would repeatedly say he didn't write something, when he did, and when I would post the quote, he would try to turn that back on me and said I wrote something I did not.
The 2 recent bans have a common theme. They have nothing to do with breaking any specific rules intrinsically, but rather that in the wake of a coup attempt, insurrection, sedition against the democractic election of USA, or whatever you wnt to call the recent event; they have professed to support or make excuses for those who support that event. What exactly is acceptable discourse when what occurred could have been senators murdered in capitol building?
Unless of course poor faith arguments, unsourced claims, and aggressive posting is now actionable, in which case the rules should be updated and I look forward to a higher standard of US Pol thread. What exactly is aggressive posting anyways?
|
Hi, long time USPMT lurker, I dont contribute in the US Pol because I don't think I'd bring anything new there, not being american, and already so many people sharing my worldview. Also some laziness. It's a nice place to read what americans think, much better than reddit imo. I liked the fact that there was conservative view points in there, but I prefer to read logical or emotional arguments about your worldview and support for it, rather than the eternal whataboutism war.
Literally, he made a single post "regretting" voting Trump, after the riots. Ever since then (well, ever since ever?) he failed to say anything positive about Biden. This was the full extent of it: "The post-election events make Biden the better choice retrospectively". It's ridiculous to look at that single post and say he had/was having/was going to have a change of heart to try and defend him. And a few minutes later he came back with this.
the post about condemning the chief of police, but no condemnation of Trump, the rally or any other of the speakers there
deflecting Trump's covid (in)action, a full year later. The democrats would've done worse!
people said trump was going to steal the election with the help of his judges and they are wrong because the judges didn't help! (one of many instances of missing the forest for the trees)
That post he was calling banana republic stuff to the democrats asking for the imprisonment of Trump, to which Kwark brought up "lock her up"
And this recent "respect for the dead" tirade, it's not really the discussion I was looking for in USPMT.
I agree with the mod action. Are there less view points? Sure, that's bad. But maybe there'll be room to actually have healthy discussion and understand some positions people take, there's still lots of libertarians around.
|
On January 16 2021 03:46 misirlou wrote:Literally, he made a single post "regretting" voting Trump, after the riots. Ever since then (well, ever since ever?) he failed to say anything positive about Biden. This was the full extent of it: "The post-election events make Biden the better choice retrospectively". It's ridiculous to look at that single post and say he had/was having/was going to have a change of heart to try and defend him. And a few minutes later he came back with this.
I mean, to regret voting Trump does not equate to supporting Biden. Biden didn't somehow become better in absolute terms as a result of Trump being shit - only relatively so. Based on what I've read, this election was yet another example of choosing between two shitty options and simply determining which one was less shitty. So, I don't think it's fair to expect someone to "support" or "say anything positive" about Biden just because they came to the conclusion that Trump is worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/chat.democracy-backsliding-3.png?w=1400)
