That’s the story.
In actuality, even factual and cited posts will get you shadowbanned if your opinion is contrary to the mainstream (on HN) narrative.
I think it’s more “conforming” than “constructive”.
93 karma · joined February 28, 2021
In actuality, even factual and cited posts will get you shadowbanned if your opinion is contrary to the mainstream (on HN) narrative.
I think it’s more “conforming” than “constructive”.
But insisting I care while women engage in illegal sexism for their own benefit is an abusive, one-sided relationship.
Study after study confirms that women are preferentially hired and receive privilege in education. Study after study shows women dominated fields like HR and education are incredibly sexist. Women are allowed to organize on the basis of sex for more sexist privilege at most universities and businesses. Ask any man who has worked in a majority female department if lewd comments, inappropriate pictures, etc happen there.
When women do their part to end sexism, I’ll care.
Until then, it’s just entitled whining.
HN is like any other forum which censors certain views for being controversial.
Like stating that BLM is a Marxist organization — with a citation to their founders describing it as such.
HN relies on your belief that they only ban people “starting trouble” to remove certain topics from conversation, like how Marxist activists are using historic wrongs as a way to undermine society and for their own selfish enrichment.
Certified mail to their registered agent is considered “received” by the corporation in most contexts.
Freenode is using the Libera brand to advertise their services by registering a Libera branded domain — purposefully to re-route customers looking for Libera properties.
Since Freenode is in the same industry and provides the same services, and is using the Libera brand to direct to their services, it seems particularly egregious.
Human lifespans exceed their ability to be rational leaders in touch with the modern world.
I understand even after several generations of men being abused, people aren’t ready to admit man-hating is a real problem in modern US society. I would encourage people to view education statistics where men have trailed women for forty years — yet receive no institutional support, while female-focused programs are lauded by the press. Or sentencing statistics, where the gap between men and women for the same crime is three times the sentencing gap between whites and blacks — something most of us recognize as a problem.
It’s the same thought process that blames video games for men staying home rather than assessing why they might rationally choose to isolate in a fictional world instead of embrace broader society.
- they tend to be young;
- political activists who have done nothing else;
- or drug addicts.
I can count on my fingers the number of serious progressives I’ve met who aren’t one of those things during my entire life in Seattle.
The “progressive” movement is why we have addicts encamped at a school — they’re so out of touch with reality, they view that as “compassion”.
Meanwhile, most adults realize police sweeps don’t solve homelessness, but they do prevent violent drug addicts leaving used needles all over the children’s playground.
I think there’s a lot of bias and assumption about what people want behind your comment.
Two generations of men have grown up with it.
The government decided to loot the middle class and hand it to the elite, with trillions stolen in the past year.
Your children’s future was destroyed using the COVID lockdown as a pretense for the theft.
At this point, the only fix is wiping out a lot of current, ill-gotten wealth/debt.
They’ve conflated “most purchases of a toilet seat are made by someone who buys another” and “most people who buy one toilet seat buy a second”.
There’s a small, but high volume group of toilet seat purchases — eg, office buildings or apartment maintenance.
But yeah, show someone on a blog about new GPUs an ad to buy a GPU and there’s an uptick. Turns out some of those people do want to buy GPUs.
Showing me an ad for GPUs on the YouTube page for cat videos because I visited that blog previously is weird.
Like a friend going, “so looking at these cats reminds me — do you want my friend Dave’s GPU?”
I believe that you censoring in support of defamation (knowingly false claims an ethical statement is incitement) may incur liability for HN. Incitement has a specific legal meaning (which this is not).
You seem to be directly supporting defamation on your platform, as an administrator.
That’s why it’s cut down nutrient supplements and totally remove processed hormones — not totally remove both.
The soil ecology is good at:
- turning raw ingredients into slightly more complex ones
- accessing things in the soil
- having the fungi exchange hormones for sugars
So you need to deal with adding back trace elements as part of their plant food, especially if you use the same growth medium repeatedly (eg, indoor growing).
But you can usually get away with less of those supplements because the soil ecology boosts uptake.
> This is Destiny saying that if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop property damage, it is justified. There's no two ways about it.
“If [...], then justified” is an ethical statement — and as you say, there’s no two ways about interpreting it.
You simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit your own summary of the statement plainly shows it’s an ethical statement, not an incitement to violence.
You disagree with the statement, so you’re making emotional, inconsistent arguments to try discrediting it.
The only person “weaseling” is you — who are contradicting yourself and refusing to address my points.
On the contrary, they made a clearly ethical statement you’re trying to misportray, in a way which defames the speaker.
You say “calmly and rationally”: I’ve talked about the structure of the comment and the societal breakdown/violence in which it occurred — have you?
I think understanding the violence the speaker experienced from serial arsonists is important to understanding why they’d give an exasperated endorsement of violence to resolve the situation.
> The streamer all but said, "will no one rid me off these meddlesome protestors?"
No, they didn’t — you’re just emotionally and irrationally misinterpreting them.
Since you want to talk about rhetorical techniques: defaming people with false accusations is much more common than veiled orders.
Saying “America deserved 9/11” and “I’m okay with arsonists being killed by militias when the police can no longer maintain the peace” are both moral statements about mass casualty events — but neither is a call to commit a violent act.
> “if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop [serial arsonist gangs, when the police fail to stop them], it is justified”
This is clearly a statement of personal ethics — it’s discussing the cases in which the speaker believes violence is just, not calling for specific acts of violence.
I think you know that.
Sure we do — when society breaks down and the police can no longer maintain peace. As happened in a number of US cities this past year, when police were helpless in the face of Democrat-endorsed arsonists. Apparently, the speaker was from one of these cities that suffered from frequent, organized arson.
Regardless, we’re clearly having an ethical argument: there’s no call to violence.
> "mowing down dipshit protesters"
Your example is clearly not a call to action, it’s an example of an act the speaker would approve of if it happened — which is an ethical statement.
The speaker is not saying people should or asking people to mow down protestors: just that they’re okay with militias shooting arson gangs if that’s what’s required to stop their serial arson attacks.
> "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing."
This is clearly not a call to violence: it’s an approval of people intervening in serial arson, even if that means using force against the arsonists and lamenting that the state has failed to stop the serial arson, so it may fall to a militia. You can tell that by “if [...], at this point they have my fucking blessing” rather than any call to action.
Approving of militias using force to stop serial arsonists when the state has failed to keep the peace is an ethical statement — and one much tamer than “America deserved 9/11”. Most people believe that people have the right to protect themselves when the state fails to maintain peace.
I suspect you’re being uncharitable because you personally support the arsonists’ crime spree.
What specific violent act do you believe that quote calls for?
It creates bad incentives to have quality and agreement in the same signal.
A rental house is an asset; a house you live in is a liability.
Your argument doesn’t make sense to me if you replace “rental house” with another business:
“Why would you put your life savings into gardening equipment to cut other peoples lawns when you don’t have enough savings to also be out of work for months?”
If your point is just that you should have 6-12 months of runway before you start any kind of business, that’s lovely advice.
That nearly no one can follow and only makes sense to extremely privileged tech workers, who already have stable and high paying employment.
If you shouldn’t put your whole savings into a rental property, you definitely shouldn’t put it into a house for yourself.
You had one more paragraph with some random technical considerations agreeing with me.
Then you concluded.
You literally just repeated my point, but started with “it’s more complicated than that” — which is phrased as a disagreement with my point.
That’s a straw man (misrepresenting my suggestion as being a flat rate, even though my entire comment was about loopholes — like yours) and violent agreement (phrased as disagreement when repeating the same thing).
Your reply here is just wrong. (:
It’s happened in lockstep with the political radicalization and censorship across the internet, eg Twitter and YouTube.
Contrary to fluffy language, HN is a censorious community that uses downvotes and shadowbans to shape narratives.
Edit:
For overly literal readers — note, I’m commenting on rates not saying it never happened historically.
It went from being rare and limited to contentious topics to routinely finding quality replies buried for wronngthink.
Notice how companies like Google, FB, etc that advocate “diversity and inclusion” tend to have highly skewed politics, such as harassing and firing conservative employees.
The calls for “diversity” are the exact opposite — a call for cultural hegemony by far left views and racistly color-coordinating the population, so we have “balance” in the view of avowed racists.
The purpose is to bully anyone who opposes their racist ideology by labeling them as “against diversity” — a standard language game from fascists.
You are being gaslit.
Did you even read my post?
It’s entirely about this fact: you wrote a long rant concurring, but phrased as violent agreement.
You just pulled a single phrase out of a multiparagraph post, then strawmanned my argument.
That’s not up to the standards expected of HN posts.
Large corporations have an effective tax rate below the nominal one due to antics with exceptions — while smaller businesses get hit harder. What’s called “progressive” often ends up regressive due to the imbalance in ability to do finance trickery. Rich people will always find or create exploits in the law, so those “high taxes on mega corps and billionaires!” hit the middle class and medium sized businesses: they’re who bear the brunt of taxes, in the US.
You get out of doing that unnecessary damage by removing the game: no whatever exceptions, just a flat rate everyone pays.
What’s called “regressive” is actually progressive in that it lightens the tax burden on the middle class and medium businesses, while making the richest pay a fair share. (Also, simpler codes are harder to cheat.)
Discussing the tax burden of the poorest is a misdirection used by politicians: the poorest in the US receive more benefits than they pay, so it’s a question of how that burden is split between the middle class and the upper class.
There’s a lot of similar discussion in the marijuana community. When I used to grow (legal, medicinal) marijuana, we had a reading group about soil ecology where we discussed how fungi and roots interacted, the fungi-bacteria-animal systems, etc.
A lot of crop management can be done via cultivating “healthy” soil ecosystems.
We were able to cut down on nutrient supplements, eliminate things like growth treatments, and get rid of some infestations by adopting a perspective we were raising soil full of healthy fungi, bacteria, and animals. We also started moving spiders into the plants if we found them elsewhere in the garden.
I think “symbiotic ecology” is a topic we’re just scratching the surface of.
The level of technique is something tens of thousands of people have in my city — 1% of the few million people in the metro. There’s hundreds of similar metros near mountains, globally.
The level of information necessary for the alarms is all over the dark web, and something someone with a criminal background would be able to find and understand. Another 1% of the population.
So, 100 * 1M * 0.01 * 0.01 = 10,000.
So globally, we’d expect around ten thousand criminals with that level of climbing skill — and it’s not surprising to find a dozen of them stealing books in London. They’re going to be doing something, somewhere: it turned out to be this, here.
I think the story is fascinating, like finding a pretty flower, so I don’t share the bored cynicism — but it’s about as surprising as finding a pretty flower in a meadow.