|
Original Message From TL.net Bot: This is a Warning! Show nested quote +Suprised no-one called this out as an obviously made up internet story. Who is going to listen to some random person on their doorstep who is too young to vote, to not pay their rent?
Either that or GH is preying on the mentally and financially vulnerable. Don’t be like this. Thanks in advance for your cooperation, KwarK (Do not reply to this message. No one will receive it.)
"Don’t be like this." is not a reason, nevermind a valid warning. What is Kwark objecting to here? Normally I would PM the moderator in question, but looking at Kwarks posts later a few hours later:
On April 09 2020 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Y'all acting like you've got no idea what a revolutionary social organizer does and are completely unfamiliar with the concept. Not even disagreeing with his revolution, instead insisting that the entire idea is alien to you.
Imagine someone encouraging workers to join a union and engage in collective bargaining. This is that, but instead of exchanging their labour for money they're exchanging their money for somewhere to live.
On April 09 2020 02:41 KwarK wrote:
My objection is purely to the weird way y'all are treating his strike movement. You should be going "strikes are dumb and you are too", not "what's a strike, I've never heard of such a thing, how does it work, what stops punitive action, what are you trying to get out of it".
Judging by Kwarks's post, this is acting to disfavour mine from posting and for Kwark protecting GH. Either from accusations of a made-up story, or from that if true, that GH is preying on the vulnerable.
Mods who post in politics thread should not moderate them. They are too emotionally involved and will seek to favour those of their politics and deny the voices of those against theirs.
|
Coming from him, I wonder if it was supposed to be ironic or not
|
My advice is to just let it go, doubt it goes well otherwise.
|
I like KwarK and have no issues with his style, but this is nothing short of outrageous coming from him.
Mods who post in these threads should not be actioning people in these threads. This is so basic and yet it continues to happen.
|
|
|
It's really only the uspmt community that feels entitled enough to publicly whine about it when they get mod actioned for shitty posts.
The idea that a mod can't use mod powers on you, because he posts in the same thread as you, is particularly asinine. It's the TL equivalent of forbidding a landlord to evict people from his building because they regularly participate in the anual complex barbeque.
E: Just because the previous came off way more aggressive than I had originally intended, I want to add the qualifier that obviously not everyone posting in uspmt is like this. Just a very vocal minority that seems to not want to be regulated by what they think of as equals in discussion.
|
Branch.AUT
It's not from the US pol thread. Kwarks protection of GH now extends to other parts of the forum. GH responses to the post in thread and here just goes to show, that he is protected from criticism with additional freedom to attack other posters who are now deemed as acceptable targets by Kwark, on the basis that they dare criticise GH. See how, GH doesn't take his own advice to ignore that he posted here, prefering instead to revel in his carte blanche, mocking others.
What exactly do you think is actionable in that post? Then reverse that and explain why shouldn't GH be actioned in the next post that quotes mine?
Finally, if a mod can impartially warn and ban others then ideally that would be fine. But it has been seen to not be the case. So it is seen recently with xxio, so it is with Kwark, both opposed sides of the various political spectrum, neither should be using mod powers to silence and push discussion in the direction they want it to goto.
|
Dangermousecatdog
It doesn't matter what I think about your post. Just as little does it matter, whether you think this post is actionable. You and I are not the ones with the hammer next to their name. Do you understand this?
If you think that a post on the forum warrants moderator attention, you should report it as such.
No person is ever going to be impartial. The fact that human brains can't be impartial aside, mods have a list of past behaviour notes that go with a given report, that obviously is accounted for in moderating users. In all of TL, the ten commendments and the Terms of Use, you won't find any passage that warrants you, or anyone, impartial moderation.
In fact the opposite is true.
It is just that a few people that frequent uspmt have convinced themselves that they are entitled to impartial moderation.
|
Impartial moderating is, and should always be, the ideal standard, and something a group of community managers should strive for. It's unacceptable to me to say that because we can't be perfectly impartial, we therefore shouldn't try. That's why you have multiple mods, and that's why you have this exact forum for feedback. It's not just a whiny minority that wants fair moderation.
|
On April 10 2020 23:31 Branch.AUT wrote:
Dangermousecatdog
It doesn't matter what I think about your post. Just as little does it matter, whether you think this post is actionable. You and I are not the ones with the hammer next to their name. Do you understand this?
If you think that a post on the forum warrants moderator attention, you should report it as such.
No person is ever going to be impartial. The fact that human brains can't be impartial aside, mods have a list of past behaviour notes that go with a given report, that obviously is accounted for in moderating users. In all of TL, the ten commendments and the Terms of Use, you won't find any passage that warrants you, or anyone, impartial moderation.
In fact the opposite is true.
It is just that a few people that frequent uspmt have convinced themselves that they are entitled to impartial moderation.
You called the post a shitty post, but when I ask you what exactly do you think is actionable in that post you ignore that and reveal your actual issue is that you think that mods should be able to do whatever they want.
Why would you be communicating if you think so little about what yourself thinks? Yes, the mods have the all the mod powers and the non-mods do not. That is the nature of an electronic forum. I beleive they are a group of individuals who can be reasoned with. So I seek to reason with the group. Do you understand this?
Everybody is entitled to impartial moderation.
|
According to communication from another mod due to unrelated reasons, apparently I have been warned for making a personal attack. Just to be clear, my post was not a personal attack. I did not use abusive language towards GH. I did not insult him. I did not make any reference whatsoever to his personal characteristic except of his age being too young to vote. Which to explain if someone has taken offence to his age, that is not a personal attack. I did not call him "kid" or "boomer" as is so often used on these forums to demean others, that it is viewed as acceptable.
Why did I say he was too young to vote? As Kwark is all too aware, if others are not, GH frequently writes that he has been disenfranchised / excluded / barred from voting, but also claimes he is a US citizen. So what can be inferred but he is too young to vote? That is not a personal attack but the only implication from his own words, unless others can offer any other interpretation that should be taken instead?
Lastly, if my post can be construed into a personal attack, then by that standard what would this post be + Show Spoiler +On April 09 2020 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 20:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Suprised no-one called this out as an obviously made up internet story. Who is going to listen to some random person on their doorstep who is too young to vote, to not pay their rent?
Either that or GH is preying on the mentally and financially vulnerable.
User was warned for this post lmao. love you DMCD.
|
On April 13 2020 22:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:According to communication from another mod due to unrelated reasons, apparently I have been warned for making a personal attack. Just to be clear, my post was not a personal attack. I did not use abusive language towards GH. I did not insult him. I did not make any reference whatsoever to his personal characteristic except of his age being too young to vote. Which to explain if someone has taken offence to his age, that is not a personal attack. I did not call him "kid" or "boomer" as is so often used on these forums to demean others, that it is viewed as acceptable. Why did I say he was too young to vote? As Kwark is all too aware, if others are not, GH frequently writes that he has been disenfranchised / excluded / barred from voting, but also claimes he is a US citizen. So what can be inferred but he is too young to vote? That is not a personal attack but the only implication from his own words, unless others can offer any other interpretation that should be taken instead? Lastly, if my post can be construed into a personal attack, then by that standard what would this post be + Show Spoiler +On April 09 2020 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2020 20:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Suprised no-one called this out as an obviously made up internet story. Who is going to listen to some random person on their doorstep who is too young to vote, to not pay their rent?
Either that or GH is preying on the mentally and financially vulnerable.
User was warned for this post lmao. love you DMCD. if not a personal attack, that remains unactioned? It was certainly noticed by Kwark posting, referencing after it, but deigned not to regard that as a personal attack despite it's nature. Should I too have immunity to begin all my sentences with "lmao" when quoting someone to crow over them?
I was laughing at your accusation of me making up my organizing work and inferring I was a child preying on vulnerable people. Not that you were warned for it, just fyi.
Also Kwark isn't exactly Frank Farmer over here.
On April 09 2020 03:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 03:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
GH, you're idea is stupid and you are too. Artfully put. ...
|
On April 13 2020 21:47 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 23:31 Branch.AUT wrote:
Dangermousecatdog
It doesn't matter what I think about your post. Just as little does it matter, whether you think this post is actionable. You and I are not the ones with the hammer next to their name. Do you understand this?
If you think that a post on the forum warrants moderator attention, you should report it as such.
No person is ever going to be impartial. The fact that human brains can't be impartial aside, mods have a list of past behaviour notes that go with a given report, that obviously is accounted for in moderating users. In all of TL, the ten commendments and the Terms of Use, you won't find any passage that warrants you, or anyone, impartial moderation.
In fact the opposite is true.
It is just that a few people that frequent uspmt have convinced themselves that they are entitled to impartial moderation. You called the post a shitty post, but when I ask you what exactly do you think is actionable in that post you ignore that and reveal your actual issue is that you think that mods should be able to do whatever they want. Why would you be communicating if you think so little about what yourself thinks? Yes, the mods have the all the mod powers and the non-mods do not. That is the nature of an electronic forum. I beleive they are a group of individuals who can be reasoned with. So I seek to reason with the group. Do you understand this? Everybody is entitled to impartial moderation.
This post is a perfect representation of everything wrong with real world politics. Instead of reading what I wrote and responding to it, you made up your own twisted version of my words and argue with that instead. Thank you supporting my statement with your closing line, it gave me an intense feeling of joy.
I encourage you to once again read my previous post, and with it in mind read the OP of uspmt and the first commandment of tl. This might clear up things for you.
|
What a Frank Farmer? Google gets me a movie.
Here is the actual quote:On April 09 2020 03:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 02:41 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2020 02:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 02:13 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2020 02:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Then why gamble? liberation is always a risk. Snappy one liner you got there. You asked why gamble, and with liberation it isn't a choice. Liberation and the status quo means many people are gambling with their lives to make it to the next day. The system is already protecting their landlords whether they pay them or not (the existing legislation gives them up to a year of interest/penalty- free deferral), and I expect even more to go their way. Without demand/struggle, power concedes nothing and renters are not seeing that same relief. Many landlords, knowing they don't have to pay their mortgages are demanding payment and threatening eviction in conflict with state legislation. Without organized direct mass action renters are just going to get screwed over anyway so there isn't a choice without risk. On April 09 2020 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Y'all acting like you've got no idea what a revolutionary social organizer does and are completely unfamiliar with the concept. Not even disagreeing with his revolution, instead insisting that the entire idea is alien to you.
Imagine someone encouraging workers to join a union and engage in collective bargaining. This is that, but instead of exchanging their labour for money they're exchanging their money for somewhere to live. also this of course. When you respond to my posts, I'd appreciate it if you include and respond to the entire thing, instead of picking out the parts that are easiest for you to answer. Everything is a choice. And liberation is no different. Where we differ and will continue to differ is the end game. You seem to want everything to burn today without a thought about tomorrow. You get these renters their "union" and then the next day (because it wasn't codified in law and probably won't be), they get evicted. Now these people, who put their trust in you, are screwed not only by the status quo, but also by the "liberator'. The landlords and prop management companies are coming out ahead of this, I will agree. But that still doesn't make it the best solution. You can't opt out of a legally binding contract because "pandemic." Most cases will either be a negative mark on rental history, a small claims court brought by the landlord/prop management company, and a heavy hit on their credit rating. This all accumulates into more problems than they had if they hadn't "liberated" themselves from paying rent. And you should take into account, that not every state has a law saying rents are frozen for the foreseeable future. Only evictions and mortgage payments. So you can choose to not pay rent. You're also choosing to be evicted when the company/person isn't at risk or lawsuits. The point of the matter that I'm trying to make, is that you are offering these suggestions and rallying these people, but if your little "unionizing of the proles" don't work, and they lose their place to live, where are you? Is your place open to the people? All of these arguments are just as valid against unionization of employees. If you encourage workers to not go to work then they're risking getting fired and the organizer won't pay all their paychecks until they find new work. You're not making a new argument, you're just describing how collective bargaining works and the inherent risks of it that everyone already understands. Your entire post can be dismissed with "Yes, that's how it works, everyone understands that's how it works. The goal is through collective bargaining to avoid punitive responses by the exploitative party on the other side of the collective bargaining by demonstrating that their need for us is greater than our need for them because their profits are ultimately rooted in our labour. However the risk of failure exists and is exacerbated by the use of state force to break the strike as has been used countless times in the past". Your arguments against it amount to an entry level description of how it works. It's like you're arguing against military intervention by saying "but what if someone gets hurt, did you think of that?" But this is living. Not labor. You're exchanging money for a roof over your head. Not a place to work. You can point to the similarities all you want, but the difference is, it's easier to find a different job than it is to find a different place to live. If I am misunderstanding this entire thing, fine. But what I'm not understanding is how this is going to change anything in the long term. You're fucking with families over a month or two of rent. If you're not getting "landlords, property management companies, and leasers cannot evict residents due to unforeseen pandemics or other calamities (word it however)" into the legal framework of contracts STATE/NATION wide, then you're just setting these people to be out on the streets come July/August. Dismiss my posts however you want. Stay healthy. This is a thing where one party owns a thing another party needs but does not use it themselves and instead sells the use of it to another party to extract unearned wealth. It's conceptually on the same lines as a factory owner vs factory workers. The value of the homes isn't intrinsic, they're not printing dollars, it is the occupant that gives the homes value. If the occupants all collectively fucked off then the homes would be as valuable as an empty factory. Presumably the plan is that rather than evict everyone from all their homes and make no money for months while they struggle to replace everyone the property managers would rather just declare a rent holiday and reset. Through collective bargaining they're trying to make punitive action more expensive than cooperation. This is exactly the same logic that is used everywhere else, sure a factory could fire all the strikers for not working but then they would be stuck with all the costs of owning an idle factory while they replaced the workforce and so it may be cheaper to negotiate. Don't get me wrong, I think GH is an idealist who is going to fail because the American population has essentially no class consciousness and will happily watch members of their own class fail while believing that they have nothing in common with that person. And yeah, people trying collective bargaining are going to get fucked because the state always fucks them because the state gets paid by the owner class. My objection is purely to the weird way y'all are treating his strike movement. You should be going "strikes are dumb and you are too", not "what's a strike, I've never heard of such a thing, how does it work, what stops punitive action, what are you trying to get out of it". We don't do the last paragraph because we don't want 281 pages in website feedback. But since you suggested it: GH, you're idea is stupid and you are too.
Emphasis On April 09 2020 02:41 KwarK wrote:
My objection is purely to the weird way y'all are treating his strike movement. You should be going "strikes are dumb and you are too", not "what's a strike, I've never heard of such a thing, how does it work, what stops punitive action, what are you trying to get out of it". As can be seen Kwark has taken on himself to defend GH.
GH selective quoting. Never change GH, never change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
