SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I was going to post this to a particular story, but thought this might generate more attention and discussion as a general submission.
Seriously, what is going on with all these troll mods? Just because you disagree with someone, thus earning a "disagree" mod, does not mean that person is a "troll." To steal a definition from Urban Dictionary:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Just because you disagree with someone, does not mean they are trying to do the above. Be faster on the "disagree" and slower on the "troll." Under such abuse, it is hard to have a good discussion and, in itself, is trollish behavior by "generally disrupt[ing] normal on-topic discussion." Other than people disciplining themselves, a concerted effort to police such abuses, or making moderation logs public on the bottom of a comment where the score is shown now, I'm unsure of what to do about. As it stands, it is getting increasingly ridiculous to read what discussion is here on any topic remotely controversial, and is expanding outside of even those. It is starting to drive me away from the site, and I'm somewhat confident it is doing the same for others. I'd be interested to see what others think about the depth of the problem, if they even believe it even exists at all, and what solutions you all have for it.
[Ed note. This story is published exactly as received. First off, it bears repeating that complaining about moderations in the comments often leads (rightly) to an off-topic moderation. That is a contributing factor to my decision to run this story. Secondly, moderation is something that I on occasion have found I've fat-fingered and given a different moderation than expected. Thirdly, in the grand scheme of things, a comment's moderation is — relatively speaking — small potatoes. It is NOT a measure of your IQ or value as a human being. or standing in the community. Just accept that stuff happens and that as likely as not, someone will be along to moderate it the other way. Which is a good opportunity to say: PLEASE USE YOUR MOD POINTS! Lastly, if you think a comment was moderated in error, then send the CID (Comment ID) link e.g. "(#876543)" in an email to admin (at) soylentnews (dot) org. Keep in mind however that we are all volunteers here and there most likely will be a delay between when you send out an email and when we can get around to it. --martyb]
[Updated: 20190823_111312 UTC See comment from JR who far more precisely and eloquently expressed the idea I was attempting to. I concur with his assessment. If I want people to upmod a comment of mine that I believe was unfairly downmodded, then I need to be willing to upmod other's mis-modded comments. For perspective, so far this month, anywhere from ~150-~350 mod points were used in any given day. It bears repeating: use your mod points!]
(Score: 5, Funny) by Bot on Friday August 23 2019, @07:35AM (6 children)
When I mod somebody 'troll' I imply that person is ugly, green skinned and living under bridges.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @07:39AM (3 children)
Maybe we need a +1 Strength mod.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @07:57AM (2 children)
Muscles, or smell?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday August 23 2019, @09:01AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @10:13AM
Different AC here, but no. Being part of the conversation is why we post, not some kind of karma cookie. Up mods are just a byproduct of our contribution.
We object to punitive down mods because that suppresses our part of the conversation. I'm not saying there aren't times a down mod is appropriate, because there are. But karma is not our objective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @08:13AM (1 child)
trolls are made of rocks. well-known fact.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @10:16AM
Which is why we suck at Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Friday August 23 2019, @08:38AM (13 children)
Rehash is the software powering this site. I'm pretty sure it's not the software that does these troll moderations (well, in a sense it does). Thus the topic of this post should be Soylent, not Rehash.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Friday August 23 2019, @08:58AM (2 children)
Yes, I know. But if moderations are meaningless then we might as well simplify the software by removing those parts that are involved with moderation, comment filtering and maintaining karma.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @10:11AM (1 child)
yes. but that's a different discussion.
first you figure out what the community wants (and that discussion is filed under "soy"), then you decide how to bring it about (and that is filed under "rehash").
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday August 23 2019, @11:07AM
You are not reading what I have said.
This is a counter to martyb's assertion that moderations should be ignored or disregarded. If they should be ignored - which is NOT what I am saying - then why did we spend all that effort implementing the entire system of moderation? In fact, because we have expended that effort it indicates that, at some time in the past, we actually believed that moderation was important. I believe it still is. I am debating the need for moderation and not arguing for a change in the software. Moderation was important, is important and, providing it is not abused, it will remain important.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday August 23 2019, @11:23AM (4 children)
I stand corrected - I can now see the point you are making. It is the topic indicator that you are objecting to - correctly in my opinion also - and not to my comment which I how I had interpreted it.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday August 23 2019, @05:01PM (3 children)
I guess I should have been more clear (I thought "topic" would be clear enough, but I obviously was wrong). Yes, it was the topic indicator that I was talking about.
BTW, on the topic of using the mod points:
Back when mod points were given only occasionally, I tended to use them all; after all, you never knew when you'd get the next ones (also, I suspected that using them all might increase the probability to get new ones sooner). Now as I have them everyday, I've become lazy in moderating. I can imagine I'm not the only one. So maybe that change overall had not as positive effects as one might expect.
Do you have any data on how the amount of moderation changed after the change in awarding moderation points? (Probably not immediately afterwards, because habits take time to change, but a curve of moderation activity a few months before and after the change might show some effects).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Saturday August 24 2019, @03:07AM (2 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday August 24 2019, @08:14AM (1 child)
Who chooses who gets mod points? Based on what criteria?
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @10:39PM
I think the GP and GGP were referencing quantity of mod points, not adding some sort of other requirement or hoop to jump through.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday August 23 2019, @12:16PM (2 children)
I've added 'Soylent' to the topics. I haven't removed 'Rehash' because some have already seen it under that topic and might use that as a search key at a later date.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @09:58PM (1 child)
Sorry about that. I swear I looked for that option and didn't see it. If I had, I would have used that is a much more appropriate option. But, the ones I did see, "Rehash" was closest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @10:01PM
When I go to submit a story, this is what I see:
/dev/random
Answers
Business
Career & Education
Code
Digital Liberty
Hardware
Mobile
News
OS
Rehash
Science
Security
Select Topic
Slash
Software
Techonomics
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Friday August 23 2019, @12:42PM (1 child)
Never knew that...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @05:53PM
I mean, who cares about what a semi-retarded mod flares you? they are engineers for the most part so they know shit about what they talk about (but they always do so with a know-all attitude)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Friday August 23 2019, @09:45AM (29 children)
So exactly how is one SUPPOSED to mod inflammatory babbling?
It is a huge problem on this site. What should be discussion about some specific technical issue gets filled with pages of off topic, trollish, inflammatory blather about "alt-left" "alt-right" or whatever that borderlines on spam. Perhaps that political jargon mean something to a few people, but for most it is meaningless and annoying. If there is an opinion in there, nobody sees it.
Several posts at the top illustrate how they fit in multiple categories, but it seem natural to call the poster a "troll".
Quite frankly, it has gotten to the point where I usually just leave it because I will run out of mod point too quickly modding all of that crap down.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 23 2019, @10:31AM (8 children)
Parent is already at 5 insightful, so I'll just repeat:
If a post is bringing up the same old trope - either side of a tired debate only tangentially related to the current discussion, particularly when there's nothing new or interesting in the post... is it anything other than trolling for a response "from the other side?"
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by isj on Friday August 23 2019, @11:32AM
If a post is only vaguely related to the topic and doesn't bring anything to the table I mod it off-topic.
I don't recall ever modding a post troll. Perhaps because I stay away from the US-centric political discussions.
I do wish for a "uninsightful" moderation sometimes when a poster clearly didn't even read the summary and just posted a knee-jerk reaction.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday August 23 2019, @11:41AM
I would choose Off Topic.
And I agree that repetitive or inflammatory babbling is Trolling. But simply having a different, even extreme in your eyes, point of view is simply that - someone who has a different point of view. Those who live outside the USA see this all the time. Supporters in the US of either party claim that the other is at the opposite end of the political spectrum, whereas to those outside both US parties are to the right of centre although one is significantly more than the other. So if we sometimes express our political point of view we are seen as extremists or communists! Are we really trolling by expressing our viewpoints? I would argue not.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday August 23 2019, @01:53PM (5 children)
As someone who was hit just a couple days ago with a Troll mod that was pretty clearly a Disagree mod (others counteracted the downmod before I'd even noticed), and been mod-bombed in the past (and was targeted for a mod-bomb on the green site back in the day as well):
If your response to an on-topic viewpoint backed by science and reason is to immediately downmod it as "Troll", then I'm going to assume that you did so not because you believe what I said was trolling, nor because you have any interest in honest debate, but because you've abandoned debate in favor of an online attempt at argumentum ad baculum. If you find yourself reaching for the mod dropdown because there's a well-reasoned post that disagrees with the things you believe to be self-evidently true, then you might do well to see if you can respond effectively to the point, or consider questioning your self-evident truths. The main reason that is preferable is to reduce the odds you go through life believing in self-evident truths that aren't true.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday August 23 2019, @03:09PM (3 children)
When you call up Scott Bakula and get him to argue for you?
Oh. Joking aside, good point. Assuming the poster's references aren't from obscure and suspicious sources. And their refs actually support their viewpoint, not directly contradict them 2 sentences in lol
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday August 23 2019, @04:02PM
More generally, argumentum ad baculum is about applying intimidation rather than facts or reason to try to win a debate. "You say those things, I'm going to hurt you!" is the basic form.
If the posters' sources are obscure or suspicious, then counter their point with less obscure and less suspicious sources, or demonstrate that their sources are not to be trusted. For instance, if your opponent cited the Daily Stormer, you can either show that the specific story is wrong by demonstrating that their description of events fails to match the video footage of the event shown by MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, Fox News, and the BBC, or you can argue that the Daily Stormer is a Neo-Nazi propaganda outlet and thus is not to be trusted on its own.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday August 23 2019, @04:05PM (1 child)
AKA argumentum ad mentulam.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @04:32PM
Sed mentula mea maior et crassior est.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 23 2019, @04:00PM
My "Troll Test" is this:
Does the poster appear, through the content of their writing, to be smelly, fat, and sitting under a bridge just waiting for innocent passers by so the poster can assault them with his boring, redundant, long winded recitation of sticky arguments which mostly serve to impede progress?
Posters' self regard for the amount and quality of scientific or otherwise reference material and research supposedly backing up their opinions, and likewise their self opinion of the reasonableness of their stated positions have little standing.
Maybe we could also add a "-1 do not enjoy this conversation" mod?
I still can't keep myself from occasionally feeding the trolls - if for no other reason than to get a more well rounded picture of their point of view.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 23 2019, @04:16PM (17 children)
If you think it's a genuinely held belief by the poster and is on-topic, not at all. There are no Uninsightful or Bloody Stupid moderation choices for a reason. Downmods are supposed to be for things that are not part of a conversation likely to be of interest to anyone, not for things you don't like. I don't find ari's socialist prattling particularly Interesting or Insightful (occasionally Funny though), so I pass it by entirely rather than downmodding it. Azuma's nonsense I often give a bit of -1 to when it's not directed at me because the insults are a textbook example of trying to piss people off rather than have a genuine discussion of any sort, even heated.
tl;dr Upmods = "this is worth discussing", Downmods = "no conversation of perceived value to anyone will come of this"
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:44AM (2 children)
Oh horseshit. You don't like that I'm direct, in your face, and not "playing by the rules" you expect people you pin as "leftists" to play by, e.g., that I don't whine for civility above all and I'm not afraid to dirty my hands with your blood. You hate prey that bites back, or worse, prey that acts like a predator.
ALL my conflicts with you come down to the fact that you are as self-centered as a gyroscope, as dense as neutronium, and would be a civilization-ending disaster should you ever gain any appreciable amount of political power. You say you base your worldview on "liberty," but you then redefine liberty to be "free to make whatever choices one has available," regardless of what those choices may be and no matter how horrible. Any objection, such as "a starving man is not in any practical sense of the word free," is met with whataboutism, Gish Galloping, obstruction, juvenile attempts at mockery, or plain ol' ostrich-posturing.
Do you really think we don't all have your number at this point?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 24 2019, @04:24AM (1 child)
Exactly. Thanks for the fine example.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:37AM
You have been pegged, TMB. Better to accept it than to fight it, as that only ads to the disemblence of your persona.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 27 2019, @02:16PM (13 children)
Repeatedly lying again and again, for years at end, doesn't make those posts useful even if the poster believe them.
Give me a '-1 Compulsive Lier" mod and I'll stop using the Troll one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:53PM (12 children)
Not gonna happen. Incorrect information needs a rebuttal not a moderation. There is a reason we don't have Like/Dislike as mods.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:12AM (11 children)
Sorry, mate, if you really believe that you are naive.
I can bury you in one hour under an amount of incorrect information you will need a lifetime to "rebutte" - simply because it's cheap for me to lie and expensive to you to prove that I'm lying (it's called the Gish gallop [wikipedia.org])
And can repeat the process every day - and you say this won't make me a troll? Do you give strong warranties that you'll revert every troll mod if I try?
Fact: "You are abusing your position of power. It's clear you do, even if you do it unconsciously and believe you are doing a good thing"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:48AM (9 children)
Correct. That you're already a troll would render it irrelevant. Now if you were earnest in all of your postings it likewise would not make you a troll, only incorrect. You know, like you are right now. Trolling requires intent to wind people up, as you very well know.
No, I'm abusing the meaning of the word "troll". And you a little bit for the pure kek of it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 28 2019, @01:15AM (2 children)
Still an abuse, with consequences made possible only by your position. So, bottom line, you are still abusing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 28 2019, @02:06AM (1 child)
The day an admin can't mock a user for saying/doing something bloody stupid is the day every admin across the world retires.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 28 2019, @02:16AM
Meh, for some values of admin.
You'll have to demonstrate your claim that what I said is bloody stupid before mocking me, have you not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 29 2019, @03:01AM (5 children)
I don't read people minds, I can't know if the other person is earnest or actually trolling; even more so on a forum (see Poe's law for example).
As such, I don't have any moral qualms in applying a "Troll" mod after I'm seeing that behavior over years and in spite of arguments demonstrating the falsity.
And no, I'm not troll-modding genuinely expressed opinions - i.e. "I think/believe", "to my mind", etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 29 2019, @04:17AM (4 children)
You don't need to read minds, you just need to have interacted with another human being once or twice.
I'd personally rather you were. Factually incorrect but genuinely believed comments do contribute positively to the conversation because they invite correction. Kind of like Keynesian economic theory but it actually works. They should either receive that correction by a comment so that the whole community can benefit from your information or left alone if you're too lazy. Hiding them only allows the stupid to fester.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 29 2019, @05:07AM (3 children)
Should I understand you place jmorris outside human race?
'Cause his statements on facts are lies quite often, I'm simply tired to assume he's believing so falsities and obstinately refuse to correct them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:31AM (2 children)
You're saying you don't have the stamina for rational debate so you try to silence the opposition? Yeah, I figured as much.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:51AM (1 child)
Well, do you? I didn't find any of your rebuttals to jmorris lies.
So, what is it: you believe him or don't consider truth important or don't have the stamina yourself or ... what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 30 2019, @12:41PM
Plenty of people are generally quicker on the draw for those of his that I deem absurd and I see no need to post a comment along the lines of "What he said!".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @01:14AM
He really is. "He may talk like an idiot, and act like an idiot, but don't let that fool you, he really is an idiot." Groucho Marx, Duck Soup, 1933. Fascist days, if you know what I mean.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:55AM (1 child)
-1 Flamebait
-1 Flamebait
Minus One. Flamebait
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @07:55PM
OK, OK, so in other words "troll" is overused and other down mods should be considered first. But down is still down.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Friday August 23 2019, @10:10AM (28 children)
I am writing on SN about my experience with police harassment of myself, and my 20 years experience with this means that I actually know a few things about actual current operations. I call it Reverse Social Engineering, when years later you realize someone you knew wasn't who you thought they were, and start to piece together what they were doing and why.
You will find in response to my comments and in my downmods, a consistent pattern of dismissive responses that often include a troll downvote. I will argue with anybody, but these people know they can't argue with me.
Sites like Hackernews, Steemit, Raddle, Reddit, are I believe integrated directly with the police and result in any account I make there being dealt with completely differently, as if no one sees what I post and only police respond, and then only to call me crazy. I learned on day 1 at hackernews you are not allowed to be skeptical and must be a mozilla fanboy, and that they aggressively silo/shadowban accounts.
SN has been, thankfully, different, and I have been able to say my piece and no one can make it disappear, get silo'd. I took a long time to decide whether to post here with my real name, but it is I believe the only place on the internet where I can.
So I came here to say that when TPTB do not want you to see something, you are likely to find a comment calling a person crazy, a troll downmod, etc. Because paid soldiers really do sit at eglin AFB and fret over what people like me are posting, and there are people who are actually paid to try to minimize the operational data leakage of the people who are targeted but managed to survive. And hasbara, where everyone who can't be brainwashed into loving apartheid must be put on a list and dealt with.
On other sites there are also big upvote brigades, that's how I learned things like 'thconsciousresistance', disobedientmedia.com, caitlin johnstone and v4vapid were cops. If you DON'T see the effect of mechanized downvoting and infiltration of activists, you should be suspicious. FYI reddit/r/conspiracy is entirely cops, make sure everybody knows that. And the site like amitargetted.com or zersetzung.org are also run by police to trick people like me into asking help from our abusers.
I recommend to the mods here to take inventory, as you are a group of people who works well together and has a basis of trust, somewhere you and your relationships are drawn out on a board and a team of pschologists is developing an operational plan to make you all hate each other so this site gets taken offline. Distrust in the mod system as a result of systemic abuse could be a part of something like this.
So beware. The troll downmod issue is like a sharkfin for what we are dealing with, and the thing the sharkfin hates the most is anyone daring to publicize its operational patterns.
They could of course just leave us alone and let us talk freely, but apparently someone with a lot of power really hates this idea. Which is why it is important for us to not be stooges.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @01:41PM (6 children)
I'm not a cop. But I think you are crazy, yet I will still read your contributions. Wanna be our replacement MDC?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 23 2019, @03:12PM
I'll confess to drawing parallels between GP and MDC.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday August 23 2019, @04:13PM
>I'm not a cop
this is what a cop would say.
To GP: the best place for sowing propaganda is in comments and discussions. This is why I don't consider view count or moderation as indicators that I am browsing good material.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:48AM (1 child)
He's not at all crazy. If anything he's entirely too sane, and speaking from experience. It is not paranoia when people actually are out to get you, and being well-adjusted to a sick society is not a sign of a healthy psyche but an ignorant and/or defeated one.
See, not everyone who seems crazy is actually crazy. Some of them are, but others may just have insight into society or human nature you don't. "Doesn't jibe with my worldview at first blush" is not the same as insane; examine *why* there's a mismatch. Now if the reason turns out to be something like "the Reptilians of Zeta Reticuli are trying to get us all to kill ourselves in nuclear holocaust so they can feast on our souls," then yes, it's time to pull out the C-word.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Saturday August 24 2019, @01:47PM
Thank you for saying this.
I have read all conspiracy literature I can find, this is just one of the traits that I think makes me interesting to the watchers.
When I grew up, I really believed what I was taught, I was an honors history student who was actually trying to understand locke and hobbes when I was 16. I participated in every class discussion and kindof thought the other people in my class, a few of whom went on to harvard, were kindof dull in the head.
I have to be really careful what I say not to lose any credibilty, because what undercovers have done to me in numerous instances, in numerous cities, is outright crazy, I hardly believe it, or it astounds me. I can't believe anyone would consider this type of harassment and infiltration a day job, it boggles my mind.
I can just say that I can't relate to what they are doing at all, it is unamerican and against everything in the constitution.
So I don't know who is at the top of america's totem pole because the system operates so opposite to how it is advertised, that it has competely shaken my trust in what it is. Now I honestly don't know what it is. All I know is it is total bullshit to think you have privacy, free speech, freedom to assemble or civilian control of government, and that something behind the scenes jumps around local police and courts running undercover operations that are outright silly, or more like what one would expect in east germany.
Like at an open mic night attended by ~20 people, would you espect the MC to be an undercover cop? True story.
But if someone wants to talk about freedom or progress in america, you need to first talk with someone who tried and failed, and knows what you are up against. And if you read the intercept articles on the resistance to the pipelines, or black lives matter, it is going to confirm exactly what I am telling you.
People who want to cast people like myself, who are really trying to reduce it to the actual problem of rights and governance, who did survive intact, are i suspect from what I have seen the real danger to the system. It's not like after responding a hundred times peacefully to the most outrageous betrayals and insults is enough to get a pass, or somehow escape the web. No, proving that you are better and capable of rising above makes you *more* dangerous apparently from what I can tell, so you get *more* harassment. Which is also what is inhuman, you couldn't pay me to do this eternal investigation stuff to someone breaking a law they don't even know exists.
There is a book about amish war resisters to world war I, where this farmboy resisted the draft. They put him in leavenworth and beat him every day for months, then brought him out for a trial without a lawyer, and beat him during the trial, and he never fought back until he really felt he was finally within an inch of his life, and he finally took a hail mary swing at the sergeant beating him.
Then they said he wasn't a pacifist and gave him a life sentence for lying to escape the draft.
This is why the alien thing sounds right sometimes even though I have no evidence, because the system is so mean it feels inhuman when you come up against it.
If I am convincing you of something, *that* is the power I have that they don't like being outside of their control. I honestly think many of the undercovers I met thought they were being given wrong orders and honestly support bernie sanders and so tried to have fun with it and be as nice as they could, but there were others that did some extremely mean gasligthing shit to me and someone destroyed my car computer remotely which put me in real danger and is just cruel.
I am available for interviews, I'm a real person, I have a real site, I want to talk about this, I will answer all questions, people have to know what is going on. But do you think youtube is going to host this discussion? Do you think your patreon is going to work? lol nope.
Someone wrote this site is small and cops don't care etc, but the truth is you need to get the 'local' cop idea out of your head, it is now all fused together. And they are primarily concerned what 'intelligence', that means what intelligent people are doing, and in the clearnet I'm not sure if you've noticed but SN is that. This is a site intelligent people actually read from their desks like I have for years before I started posting. Yes even in the NSA, and I am actually trying to communicate with them intentionally citizen to citizen, to let them know what it like on the other end of their maniacal contraptions that focus incredible attention on someone like me, but none on people like Mr. Epstein. Which is to say, their shit is broken and they should do something about it plz thx.
Which is to say it's a living nightmare and I don't deserve it. Either admit I am brilliant and an important person who has a valuable contribution so I can live a life, or leave me alone. You can't just flag someone as a 'potential breakout artist' and then ruin their life so they can't ever live their dreams because they aren't going to lick your balls once they are successful. That' evil, that's antiamerican.
And that is what is going on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @01:28AM
Careful what you wish for.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Saturday August 24 2019, @01:53PM
Crazy people don't write as well as I do.
I've talked with two actual psychologists in two different european countreis this year and neither thought I was crazy, so you are going to have to run with a different theory otherwise, well, you are the one who is crazy.
I have extensive writings from this year on my website, meme collections, drawings, and I invite everyone who thinks something is wrong to tell me so we can discuss the matter.
Should you have less than 10k words written this year and less than a fully functioning website you manage yourself, then the situation is worse for you, you're being outperformed by someone you think is crazy.
I remind you of MDC because MDC was also a good writer with a clear voice who was generous. Also because he is one of the few people like myself who has read the works of Robert Anton Wilson and Hunter S. Thompson, so he knows like I do that what passes for writing on the internet is generally not quite up to snuff.
MDC and I tickle your brain in the same way because we represent a dying tradition you have never encountered, I would respect this gift rather than tossing turds and labels around.
Because in my opinion that's what's crazy, I wrote something for you for free, and you don't have a single thing to say about any of the ideas, you just want to label the writer who you have never met. I'd get that looked at if I were you.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 23 2019, @04:06PM (3 children)
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra [wikipedia.org]
I had a job applicant once who put his website on his resume, directly linked from the landing page was his MK Ultra experiences blog wherein he detailed his decades of troubles at the hands of the MK Ultra program. One reading this extensive account can logically come to one of two conclusions. A) subject is an extremely paranoid nutjob, or B) subject actually has a good handle on reality, but dear God I want to stay as far away from that as possible.
Seeing as the material was so casually and easily linked from the subject's job application, I'm leaning toward A), but neither conclusion merits a callback for interview.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday August 23 2019, @04:16PM (1 child)
C) subject wants to show he is trying but he doesn't really want the job so he copies some material off the net and links to it discreetly.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 23 2019, @04:41PM
Like welfare punks in the UK, C) is always a possibility, but the blog was too extensive and too clearly written by the same person writing the resume.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Friday August 23 2019, @04:28PM
I am trying to walk the middle path.
But you're right, anyone who actually was on some list, is double/triple/googleplex screwed over because any attempts they make to get help are only going to isolate them further.
Which is why I know the people doing it must be sociopaths, and this should scare you.
That's why my response, after much thought is this thing called decultification.org and myfriendsandi.org, where we as civilians need to build networks resistant to a military/police apparatus invisibly taking over the civilian population, making everything into a permanent potempkin village, which is very close to what we have now.
One thing I have noticed, fake people trying to confuse such efforts to openly discuss these programs, and people with mental illness, have a near complete inability to separate irrelevant detail from the salient, making their prose nearly impossible to read.
If you read around on my website, for instance, I try to talk about actual constructive solutions and actual ideas, rather than some hagiography.
The discussion I am trying to start however is critical, there will be no free software, open culture, privacy, representative politics, if things continue the way they are going.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Saturday August 24 2019, @03:18AM (16 children)
Why would the police give a fuck about this site? They have shit to deal with. If someone is attacking this site, it's probably some group associated with the DNC and a politician. Or possibly the NSA, they hate us tech nerds who expose them.
Seriously though your local police do not give a fuck.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 24 2019, @04:26AM (14 children)
Game wardens would be more likely given the guy who does most of the admining/coding.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Saturday August 24 2019, @02:09PM (13 children)
lol
plz check my response to the parent of this comment for my full response to his question, which I believe may also be helpful to you.
btw since we're here, I am trying to start this thing where people can debate online but I am really not a coder.
What if jmorriss and antarchus(sp) could have a SN(or elsewhere) debate where both sides are heard and publicized in a 5000 word back and forth with some loose rules?
I have for many years thought something like this should exist, but I decided to go for it and bought the domain globaldebate.net.
I think it is what the world needs, I'm tired of watching people scream at each other with no outlet for people with opposing views to engage each other besides watching propaganda surrogates on teevee.
What do you think?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 24 2019, @03:18PM (12 children)
Got the #884532 sub-tree open in a tab to do so later. You're a bit verbose for me to read unless I have a lot of attention stored up at the moment. Not "make me want to choke The Roomie to death for playing Jordan Peterson in the truck" verbose but more than I can usually read in one sitting. I can handle hours of stories or something that's informative but discussion leaves me wanting to scream "Get to the freaking point!" after two or three paragraphs.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Saturday August 24 2019, @04:38PM (11 children)
fair enough. im trying.
that is kindof the point of my idea though with globaldebate, we need to make people get to the point in confrontation with each other and give them a place to do so, so that we can find the middle ground easier and have interesting back and forth rather than having to choose which podium to to sit under.
and in our times which fabricated riot to be pro forma legally involved with...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 25 2019, @02:37PM (10 children)
Looking for your own platform for that or is that something you're saying you'd like added to SN?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Sunday August 25 2019, @10:02PM (9 children)
Both, either, all. It's an idea whose time has come.
I will eventually host such a site one way or the other, but for some reason I can see a 'soylent showdown' type of thing when two users are really back and forth in a thread and agree to a focused discussion about an issue. I think it could be productive and educational, and funny.
I think, believe, it is imperative to get people with opposing views talking more with each other and preaching less to the choir, I have this wild theory it might work against all of the pointless violence.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 26 2019, @03:33PM (8 children)
Could be done as a separate nexus but extra code would need to be added so only those involved in the debate could comment. Not a huge deal but not a write it during my morning coffee one day deal either.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Tuesday August 27 2019, @08:32AM (7 children)
That's about what I would estimate, I'm not a coder so it would take me forever.
What would it take to get that to happen? Could I somehow campaign in the community or make a formal proposal?
If I wanted to buiild just that, something like a forum but where it was designed to let people directly argue, what framework would be best? ruby?
At any rate, thanks for your time and consideration. I will continue to think the world is upside down to the extent that everyone wants to argue but the internet offers no efficient means to do so.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 27 2019, @10:33AM (6 children)
To get the coding done? It would just take me having the time (busy as hell offline) and ability (RSI issues) to code, which I likely won't have much of until near the holidays. To get it used on the site? An Ask Soylent story with enough interest that the eds start setting them up.
For long form discussion between two people? Manual HTML files probably. Unless you're doing a lot of them you wouldn't be saving all that much time or effort by using a framework.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Tuesday August 27 2019, @07:47PM (5 children)
Thanks for this.
One more question, why doesn't my journal work? I think I'd use it if it did.
Ok one more, how do you make a an ask soylent submission? Do I just make a normal one and call it ask SN?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:55PM (4 children)
It should. Are you getting an error of some sort?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Wednesday August 28 2019, @06:52AM (3 children)
Yeah when I post to my journal it never saves, journal is always empty after save.
I would like to post an ask SN also, how do I do that?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 28 2019, @02:23PM (2 children)
You certain you're hitting Save instead of Preview on the journal? No error messages or anything like that?
Just submit a story like normal with "Ask SN:" in the subject.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:01AM (1 child)
Ah, to be public you have to allow comments. I had not done that so I think it didn't work. You might want to make that error message a little larger, but good deal.
Thank you for answering a couple questions, cheers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:32AM
Known bug, yep. It's on the very long list.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Saturday August 24 2019, @02:04PM
We are not talking about local police. Those don't exist anymore in the united states at least, they have been 'fused'. This is really bad, it means that local cops can now be called on to pull someone over because nearly anyone at the state or national level has a hunch or even wish to bother someone.
This site is of interest because intelligent people talk on it, and spies are primarily concerned with the ideas of intelligent people.
Basically they can let 100k people run totally amok on instagram for years at a time if they just knew no one in the group had an IQ over 115. They are in a contained system, they will never break out of it.
As soon as there is someone with an IQ of 130+ in that group, the 100k people become a threat to the powers that rule them, and a big one.
If they can simply track down all people with IQ above their arbitrary line, they can just monitor those people and the rest can break literally every law they want and it won't affect the system.
So if you have a website that attracts intelligent people, like SN, you are like a beacon for every spy agency in the world. They don't want to scroll through 100k rando repetetive comments from normal people, they want to track down the council of elders of their opponents, the last indian chief, etc and be the first to hear what they have to say about something and then either silence them or incorporate them into the propaganda system.
It is very complex, lookup what happens on Elgin airforce base and the executive orders prez Obama pushed through that allows the military to pay soldiers on bases to post on reddit and be reddit mods. It's a true disaster for america, really stupid. They are defending our opinions from ourselves, and calling it defense, it's nuts.
But they are doing it.
I drew some crude pictures so that anyone could understand it:
https://jmichaelhudson.net/4-important-drawings/ [jmichaelhudson.net]
I am writing partially for the human beings trapped on the other side of this system, so that they can see how it is being used by people like Mr. Epstein to attack people who believe in freedom. Which is to say, I am telling them that they can't think of themselves as the goodguys if their tools are used by the bad guys to attack the good guys, which is what is happening, right now, as we speak, and for whatever reason I find myself on the front line of this, which is also why I am posting here even though people will call me crazy, for my safety, and to minimize the chances that my considerable work is at some later date simply erased to make way for a more convenient narrative.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Friday August 23 2019, @10:23AM (6 children)
Incidentally, the implied swear word in the title of this submission may have earnt a down-mod from me (WTF), if it were possible to mod submissions. Swear words are usually used to provide emphasis to a point; which is only necessary if the argument itself is too weak to stand on its own merit. That's okay, but it tends to make people aggressive and leads to equally weak and aggressive counter-arguments. It is trollish behaviour.
(Score: 5, Funny) by catholocism on Friday August 23 2019, @12:04PM (2 children)
That's a valid fucking point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @03:30PM (1 child)
I don't think it is a fucking point. It is a fucking valid point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:41AM
No, it's a "Point, Valid, Fucking, GSO1452." Find that in the Warehouse, next to the Ark of the Covenant.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 23 2019, @04:21PM
They're also routinely used to succinctly express that which does not convey well with softly spoken words: strong emotion. Or, you know, just bad manners.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 23 2019, @09:25PM (1 child)
An elderly (well, not so elderly, but older) relative of a friend of mine isn't very familiar with textspeak and internet slang, and for some reason came to think that WTF stood for "Wow, that's fantastic!" She started using it with that meaning on Facebook, to the hilarious and confused reactions from others.
So, whenever I see WTF these days, I simply assume it means "Wow, that's fantastic!" It's useful for a chuckle in many contexts, and as a bonus avoids the profanity for those who are concerned about it.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Saturday August 31 2019, @05:22AM
When I was younger I asked naively what LOL means and my well meaning (ex) gf told me "lots of love"
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday August 23 2019, @11:40AM (1 child)
When there are lots of people replying to a comment with the same point, it is impossible to catch them all. It would be nice (I realise a big change in interface and code) to be able to respond to similar comments with one answer. It might also stop threads from exploding. I can't just respond multiple times because, correctly, I get "Slow Down Cowboy" error message.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 23 2019, @04:24PM
Interesting idea. Something like a linked "See comment #90210" that wouldn't count for speedbump purposes? Not sure about how to fit something like that into the site UI though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Friday August 23 2019, @11:46AM (30 children)
+1 Agreed and Informative/Insightful
-1 Agreed but Off-topic
-1 Agreed but Offensive
+1 Disagreed but Informative/Insightful
-1 Disagreed and Off-topic
-1 Disagreed and Offensive
+1 Funny or touche
-1 Factually false
-1 Redundant and overrated
---
-1 Spam
Notes:
1. 1-to-2 positive-to-negative modding options: It's easier to be critical. Might as well work with it and encourage it's done constructively.
2. No Underrated: If it's underrated, rate it with an appropriate mod and/or comment.
3. No Troll and Flamebait: Same as Underrated.
4. No +1 Informative/Insightful without expression of agreement or disagreement: If you can't produce the minimal cursory standard critique in the vain of "That's very interesting and good to know but I disagree / and I agree", then you're not being informed or inspired.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday August 23 2019, @12:04PM (1 child)
It's good to see some constructive thinking, but I don't think that it's always possible to agree/disagree with something: if I post "this is my experience, this happened to me", are you looking for mod-point-wielders to decide " yes, I agree that this happened to them", or something else?
On note 3, did you mean "Same as Overrated" ?
I could see a -1 Factually False mod having some misuse problems, much like the current Troll mod.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday August 23 2019, @07:27PM
The agree / disagree applies to the reader's finding flaws in the anecdote or not. The follow-up is where you'd explain "Well sure but correlation != causation since in this case you might have...".
Yup. Sorry.
All mods have misuse problems. Modding Factually false forces you to account for what's wrong with it. Modding Troll doesn't. That's to say, for what it's worth, it's more empirical.
compiling...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @01:22PM (1 child)
That looks too much like the IRS Form 1080. We need to keep it simple for IQ's under 180.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday August 23 2019, @07:44PM
The point is getting people to think through their mods. If they fail to do so but still try and think them through, it's still a win.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday August 23 2019, @01:45PM (20 children)
-1 Disagree :-). My opinion:
On a complex subject, its perfectly reasonable to keep an open mind while still recognising a valid or well-reasoned point. If these issues had simple answers they'd have been sorted out years ago and we wouldn't be debating them. Agree/Disagree, without a supporting argument, is so simplistic as to be meaningless*. To insist that you need to agree or disagree with someone's position in order to acknowledge (or make) a useful contribution to the debate is a step towards the sort of absolutism that others in this thread have been lamenting. So many of the divisive issues today seem to be rooted in false dichotomies where, if you're not "for" then you must be "against". That's in addition to situations where someone might just be providing neutral, but relevant information (e.g. linking to a relevant source) meaning that agree/disagree would be irrelevant or ambiguous (was it right to post it, or do you agree with the linked source?).
SN doesn't need to come to a consensus on the stories it runs. Whether you agree or disagree with an article should be irrelevant, and disinteresting unless you have a comment to add. Moderation should be about the quality of a comment and downmodding should be all about possible abuse - or at least gratuitously off-topic, never disagreement. If you disagree, either post your counter-argument or up-mod someone who has already done so. Of course, human beings are always going to be less than impartial in their modding, but I don't think the system should legitimise it.
I'd acknowledge that you've allowed combinations such as "Disagree but informative" (enjoy your karma!) but they still embody the idea that you need a yes/no position on everything.
As for "offensive" - the idea that people have a right to suppress anything that they personally deem offensive really shouldn't be encouraged. There is a slightly scuffed line in the sand between that and a comment that deliberately/knowingly sets out to offend or harass - and SN can't just ignore laws about hate speech and harassment - but I think Troll/Flamebait come closer to having an objective definition of what isn't acceptable.
-1: Factually false: Citation needed - either post the correction or find someone who has and mod them informative.
Underrated - +1 Agree that this is -1 redundant!
Missing options: "-1 Not Even Wrong" and "-1 Fills a much-needed gap in the argument" (joke - but they're probably easier to apply semi-objectively than 'disagree').
* In one of Terry Pratchett's books, a character was told that there were two sides to every argument - her response was "Yes, but what do you do if one of 'em is wrong?" - unusually, I think the wisdom of Pratchett missed the point: What do you do when neither of them are wrong?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Friday August 23 2019, @08:35PM (14 children)
On a complex subject you wouldn't leave a mod point. You'll comment or remain silent.
That's nonsensical. If the argument is valid and well-reasoned and you have nothing constructive to add then you must accept it and agree. Otherwise, it's not a valid and well-reasoned point or you are not a well-reasoned individual. More over, there's nothing precluding you from agreeing or disagreeing with some point but still keeping an open mind. In fact, it's required of you if you happen to be a scientist to maintain such doubt.
This is why I find agnostics to be so irritating as an atheist. No one knows what they don't know. Saying you're "keeping an open mind" despite knowing there's not a single valid argument to support the other opinion is like saying you're keeping an open mind about the world being flat. It's magical thinking masquerading as scientific rational. Do you check to see if there's imps hiding under the bed every morning? Can't be too sure. There's always a possibility... Drivel.
Laws aside, it's far easier for commenters to drop by IRC and challenge an Offensive down-vote when they're not being offensive than to challenge any other mod.
It's the duty of the person making the original comment to provide evidence to defend their claim. If someone down-votes you for lacking evidence and you can't provide them, that's a legitimate down-vote. If you had provided them then it's a bad down-vote and the staff can overturn the mod. If you provided them and someone provided a rebuttal with other evidence, that's conflicting evidence which can be weighed on by other commenters upping and downing the different comments. Either way, "Factually false" works.
compiling...
(Score: 2, Disagree) by exaeta on Saturday August 24 2019, @03:33AM (11 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:19AM (9 children)
There isn't evidence for or against the existence of unicorn riding leprechauns either. Yet when I ask agnostics if they believe in them, they deny it flat out without all this "there's no evidence pointing either way so I remain open minded to the existence of unicorns shooting rainbows of their asses". And you know why? Because it's superstitious to "remain doubtful" in some fantastic existence just because other people believe in them without a shred of evidence solely based on eye-witness testimonies from 2k years ago by goat herders that didn't even know the world was round. Why not remain open minded to the existence of Odin? Oh I better leave some frankincense on the front door just in case he exists... Can never be too sure...
What a load of cowardly hooey.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 26 2019, @09:33AM (7 children)
Other side lines taken have also failed, as the more I try to get clever, precise, sneaky, or whatever, the less they understand what I'm even talking about.
1) What could this "deity" do to interfere with our world?
If the answer's anything but "nothing", given that there's a priori agreement it's not actually done anything to interfere with our world:
2) How is this deity different from an entity that can do nothing to interfere with our world?
If a difference is claimed, you then have a crack that can be opened, so we assume this deity is insistinguishable from an entity that cannot do anything to interfere with our world, and therefore *is* an entity that cannot do anything to interfere with our world, and we continue:
3) How does the argument to suspend disbelief in your deity differ from any other argument that appeals for suspension of disbelief in any other such entity?
If a difference is claimed, you then have another crach that can be opened, so we assume the arguments are not fundamentally different, and continue:
4) If all such arguments are indistinguishable in structure, and you chose to suspend disbelief for one of them, shouldn't you do it for all of them?
... blank faces. At every step, usually. Most people are ill-equipt to think in the abstract, about entire classes of things.
I find it deeply unsatisfying that just rolling out a space-teapot seems to be the move with greatest leverage.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday August 26 2019, @05:52PM (6 children)
If this helps at all, I'm first and foremost a scientist and a skeptic and reject just about all claims made for observational evidence for any supernatural phenomena. But if I had to take a label on this stuff, it would be much closer to agnostic than atheist.
You see this is where the dogmatic atheists get a little sloppy. There quite clearly are lots of differences in different entities that we can postulate the existence of. Roughly speaking, the more specific we are in our description of our hypothetical entity, the less probable it is that we are exactly correct concerning its existence. So, the existence of a unicorn is considerably more probable than the existence of a unicorn riding leprechauns, which in turn is much more probable than the existence of leprechaun-riding unicorns that shit rainbows. The existence of a space-teapot anywhere is slightly more probable than that of one orbiting the Earth (although since teapots appear a lot on Earth, it's somewhat plausible that someone could have put one into orbit).
Consequently, the probability of the existence of a deity will vary massively depending on how that deity is defined. If I go for one of the loosest definitions I can think of: let's just say an intelligence greater than our own that exists outside of any physical universe, then you're intellectually on very dodgy ground if you want to insist that that's so improbable as to be almost impossible. We just don't have enough information either way to properly calculate the probability--but that's what agnosticism is--admitting that you can't tell one way or the other, rather than wrongly claiming that you know it's (just about) impossible.
Consumerism is poison.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 26 2019, @09:39PM (5 children)
Your current sloppy definition isn't currently unambiguous enough to discuss, it bifurcates into two possibilities - one such thing that is capable of interacting with our universe, and one such thing that is incapable of interacting with our universe. The former falls into the field of being scientifically evaluable, and particle physicists and cosmologists can give a very clear answer that the probability of there being such interactions is vanishingly small, and they will be vanishingly small in effect such that they won't cause any effect significantly distinguishable from how one would expect things to behave in the absense of such interactions. The latter falls outside the domain of science, and is in no way interesting to discuss, as it matters not in any way whether the thing exists or not. So you may as well include the shitting of rainbows to that definition, it makes no difference.
Oh, if you want as sloppy as possible, to increase your probabilities, you can even drop the intelligence clause. If you can persuade an igtheist that there's possibility of existence in the absense of that clause, then you can start to debate how much intelligence such a thing might be capable of posessing and expressing. However, that's a big if, I can warn you now that the success rate is 0%. (Yes, that's a NTS fallacy, deal with it!)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday August 27 2019, @01:21PM (4 children)
As stated previously, if I add too many specifics, the probability of existence may decrease. Which is exactly the objection I have against dogmatic atheism--many of those people assert a very specific prediction as definitely true without evidence to support it.
I tend to agree there's currently no credible evidence available for the interaction of a deity with our universe although even then I'd argue it's tough to accurately estimate a probability. What's the probability for example, that there's some fundamentally different physics that we haven't yet discovered that would permit such interactions in the future or that the physics is different at a different region in space? One in a billion, or one in a thousand? Is one in a thousand vanishingly small in the context of this discussion?
We weren't arguing over whether or not these concepts are interesting to discuss. My objection is against atheists that insist that all non-atheists are objectively and unquestionably wrong, often to the point that they will even ridicule them. It's not just disrespectful, it's hypocritical, because they're asserting a truth that simply cannot be known. They maybe get bogged down in the very detailed specifics of faith based religions and assume that every non-atheist has beliefs that are about as improbable, when clearly that's not the case.
Consumerism is poison.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 27 2019, @02:08PM (3 children)
You'd need to define "such interactions" before that could be answered. If the interactions were anything apart from all-but-indistinguishable from them not being there at all, then the probability is vanishingly low. (So if you want a non-vanishing probability, you're looking for a new force that has almost no effect.) Sean Carroll can explain why, using all the correct terminology.
You seem to think that scientists believe in absolute truths, in the same way that theists so often do. They don't. Truth is relative to what we can test, and immediately changes in the face of incontrovertable evidence. We know only that we have the best possible model at the moment, that's all, not that that model is an actual truth in itself. Sometimes, we have contradictory models e.g. the interpretation of quantum interactions, but we know that at the moment we have no way of testing which one is right or wrong, so we agree to let them all be considered valid science, as they all explain everything that is presently testable. Some prior interpretations have been discarded, Einstein made sure of that, as quantum theory forced him to up his game and precisely codify the implications he objected to. I think about 8 competing interpretations still coexist.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday August 27 2019, @02:50PM (2 children)
I'm still not entirely convinced that we know that it's "vanishingly low", if that means something like a 1 in 10^12 chance or lower. I agree that we don't need it to exist to explain all our current scientific observations but that still doesn't mean it's practically impossible. Consider as just one example, AIs in a computer game arguing whether a human player exists that is running the game. For their entire recorded history, their world has obeyed the game's physics, yet the probability is not vanishingly low that a human player will load a mod or hack the game's RAM and change the rules in the future. That's just a variant of the simulation argument. Sure, it's vanishingly unlikely that any human will find evidence of such a thing in, say, the next ten thousand years, but that's absolutely not the same thing as the probability of the hypothesis being correct being vanishingly unlikely.
For a less outlandish example, what about free will? I'm not convinced it really exists but plenty of atheists believe in it. If it gives human minds a way to influence events at the quantum level, then initially at a small scale, that's a type of interaction that is "all-but-indistinguisable from [it] not being there at all", but, due to chaos theory, it can have huge effects on the world as events unfold over time. Does known physics make it vanishingly unlikely that a deity could interact with the universe in a similar way?
You misunderstand me. Good scientists do not. The more dogmatic strain of atheists act as if they do.
Good, that's basically my position too. It's the skeptic's position. The bit I have a problem with is that you seem to be making claims of the "vanishingly low" probability of the model changing at a future date in ways that could make atheism less likely to be correct. Look at how often our theories of physics are revised. I'll grant you we seem to understand the events we currently observe at a much finer grain than ever before but we have no idea how much there is that we don't know.
Consumerism is poison.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:03AM (1 child)
Not that I don't enjoy some sophistry every once in a while but opening up the definition of deity is just another excuse for magical thinking. Why not argue for skepticism on the matter of the world being flat since we haven't determined the dimensions or "flat"? Why not say gravity isn't the work of infinite angels dancing on the pin of needles? This post-modern Derrida framework resolves nothing and certainly adds nothing to the practice of a moderation system.
Keep the philosophic banter to the comments. It doesn't deserve moderation since you can't logically critique wordplay anyhow. Maybe a "+1 Found Godo" and "-1 Waiting for Godo" should be reserved for the lot of it. Though I'm sure someone will complain it ought to be "-1 Found Godo" and "+1 Waiting for Godo".
compiling...
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday August 29 2019, @10:49AM
Flat-Earthers aside, I expect the (meta)physics of the Earth's geometry is a less popular topic than reasoning about deities. Some people are much more concerned with deities because they could have implications for their destiny, perhaps after death (Note: I am not attempting to argue for an afterlife here myself--just discussing what concerns are popular) if not in life. For the Earth's geometry, we seem to have a model that works well enough to satisfy most people in their daily lives. It's probably something to do with our social ape brain, often being more interested in other minds than the minutiae of one particular (apparently) inanimate object.
See my argument earlier about more specific definitions being vastly less probable.
For stuff that goes on within our universe that we can observe and measure, there's very little room left for magical thinking because we've left very few gaps. Outside of space and time, though, we have no, or almost no, information at all, to make claims about the existence or non-existence of anything. Hence an agnostic saying that there's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity is being more intellectually honest than a devout atheist that simply insists that deities do not exist.
You could ask, if a deity is somewhat like a conscious mind, then why should such a thing be more likely to exist in such a realm than anything else of lesser complexity, such as a block of cheese. First off I'm not completely convinced that a block of cheese isn't more complex than the fundamentals of a mind (not a brain). Secondly I think people instinctively get the idea that the conscious self that has subjective experience could very well be something distinct from the stuff that we study through objective physics. We experience space and time and matter and forces, but we seem to be a point of view onto them. In that way it's easy for people to suppose that a consciousness could exist outside of the universe, hence the plausibility of one out there that we could call a deity.
I've no idea whether that's a coherent argument, but it's damned hard for any atheist to refute it!
Consumerism is poison.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Wednesday August 28 2019, @11:14PM
I think the idea is that humans could have souls or that our conscienceness exists beyond that of matter.
Presumably you could determine the difference if you died, but most people who have experienced death are unable to share their insights.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:44AM
Bad enought that exaeta is questioning the judicial system, now he is use the exact contrary logic to attack atheism? Fie, fie, upon you, ye heretical goat bastard! May the Flying Spagetti Monster cover you in Ragu, as punishment!
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday August 24 2019, @02:25PM (1 child)
I'd agree that mod points aren't there for people who have nothing to say. I suspect that one reason that people don't use their mod points is because if its a subject they give a fig about they would rather have their $0.01 worth on the issue. However, SN still depends on people choosing to moderate rather than comment which, ideally, should be based on the quality of contribution rather than whether you agree/disagree with it.
Lets say its a discussion about a court case and someone provides a link to one document from the plaintiff and another by the defendant. That could be a great contribution to the debate, but do you "Agree" or "Disagree" with the post?
Only in mathematics and a few areas of well-understood science - and SN isn't a scientific journal. The mod rules have to cope with everything from politics to whether or not you like Name of Classic SF Novel.
(-1 offtopic) I agree that "agnosticism" as a philosophical position it (a) fails to recognise than most theologies require accepting their tenets as a matter of faith, making theism essentially a binary believe-it-or-not position and (b) sets up the straw man that science claims to be complete and have an answer for everything. I don't think its a fair reason to dismiss the idea of open-mindedness or (in the case of modding) taking a deliberately neutral position.
...and if a posting contains some points you agree with and others you disagree with?
My argument is that moderation shouldn't be an opportunity to like/unlike responses because you agree with them - it should be entirely about quality of argument or contributing useful evidence. Moderating should be like chairing a debate, and people who take it on themselves to moderate - as opposed to join in the debate - should try and suppress their own opinions and concentrate on the quality of debate. Now, that's idealistic, but having 'Agree' and 'Disagree' in the moderation categories actively encourages partisan moderation.
Define "not being offensive". Elsewhere in this thread, someone complained about the use of "WTF" in the title. WTF is (an abbreviation for) an offensive phrase - no getting away from it - although far worse is usually present in comments. Where do you draw the line? Well, look at in in context and ask - was the poster setting out to cause offence? I.e. is it trolling?
Then the criteria should be "Unsubstantiated" and apply equally to true, but unsupported, statements. Also, SN is not a scientific journal and people don't conduct a literature review and have several colleagues proof-read their draft before submission. Then, the rules have to be one-size-fits all for everything from "0.99... < 1"* through "vi is easier to use than Emacs" to "The Doctor is a martian" (the common problem with all those statements in terms of their contribution to an argument they are unsubstantiated).
* OK, trigger alert, before anybody goes into XKCD386 [xkcd.com] mode, that one is definitely false**!.
** -1 unsubstantiated :-)
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday August 24 2019, @07:19PM
That's what evidence discovery for. Evidence are presented and the other party either objects or accepts.
I'm being repetitive but that's where the comments come in. Look, the world is full of +1 Like social networking services where people meaninglessly bandwagon their tribal politics much to the satisfaction of the advertisers. For those platforms, simple and easy moderation is enough to serve their data mining purpose. Soylent doesn't exist for that. It exists for having discussion about news pieces. Hopefully, meaningful discussion. With the occasional joke. So the moderation system needs to do the opposite: To discourage mindless virtue signaling by adding a 2nd layer to the selection choices. By not satisfying people's desire to express an opinion through what we all understand to be a meaningless vote.
Taking a neutral position means not moderating or leaving a comment.
Then leave a comment. Again, optimize to encourage discourse. Not banality. Plenty of that elsewhere.
Don't have to. That's why it's a voting process. Someone mods offensive. Someone else disagrees and up votes. The definition will flesh itself out over time as it always does in society.
Again, it's about the mechanics setting the standard. It doesn't mean people will follow. It just means you optimize for it to encourage them to follow it as much as possible. It's similar to campaign political debates: There's different formats with different cons and pros, but it's generally agreed the alternative is a shouting match. Consider the kind of discussions you'd want to participate in. The kind of comments you'd want to read. Are those promoted by +1 Insightful? I personally don't.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 23 2019, @09:31PM (1 child)
Okay, I agree with your response. But what's next? The next moderator comes along and looks at this set of posts. If a post is factually WRONG, it is not a good contribution to discussion. If that post had been upmodded, perhaps one could claim it is "overrated," but simply upmodded a competing post doesn't necessarily flag a previous post as literally WRONG.
I truly don't understand why we have a bunch of moderation that seems to call for subjective moderator approval or disapproval, but don't have a way to moderate that something is literally and objectively wrong.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:35PM
I'd argue that a factually incorrect post (that isn't a troll) followed by a well-argued rebuttal is an excellent contribution to the discussion. It might be a widely held misconception to which the counter-argument bears repeating. So, by all means up-mod the rebuttal so it becomes prominent - but if you down-mod the original into oblivion then you make the rebuttal look like a straw man argument.
Again - this site is surely about the process of discussion itself - its not like Wikipedia where the outcome is supposed to be a factual reference source.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by exaeta on Saturday August 24 2019, @03:28AM (2 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:19PM (1 child)
Until a social media campaign scares your ISP in to deleting your account or un-registering your domain, or every other ISP blocks you.
Or someone just sues you for it anyway under some crackpot legal argument that costs you a fortune in legal fees to debunk.
Anyway, I'm not in the US, and if SN got blocked I'd like to know that it was by supporting someone with a good point to make, not just some troll posting random flamebait.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 24 2019, @02:48PM
Scoundrels are the ones most in need of defending. If you fail to do so, it's an absolute guarantee that one day you will be branded a scoundrel as well for no other reason than so something can be taken from you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 23 2019, @04:31PM (4 children)
Speaking as one whose genuinely held views are regularly offensive to people, screw downmods for offending. That's moderation done wrong. Frankly, we could replace all moderations with Worth Reading and STFU if you didn't mind staff bitchslapping people for using downmods for things that provoke an emotional response in them instead of things that actually detract from the conversation for everyone. That's how all moderations are supposed to be used except for Disagree (which was really me making fun of people who can't control themselves).
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday August 23 2019, @07:40PM (3 children)
I feel the same but it's a fact that people down-vote when they're offended so at least this way you could set your user filters to ignore Offensive downvotes altogether.
I'm afraid +/-1 youtube style does little to promote good discourse. It didn't do much for Google+ either. The whole point in a verbose moderation is to force people to think rather than hit that tribal +1 whenever their personal opinion are mirrored. Or at least, identify the yea-saying for what it is when it's done.
That's right there is the problem. If an interface isn't being used properly by most users, the problem is the interface.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 24 2019, @12:28AM (1 child)
Reckon anyone would get the point if I added an +-0 I'm Butthurt mod?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Saturday August 24 2019, @09:23AM
Actually neutral mods for Offensive might be useful for filters and such without actually hiding the content by default / for users while still hiding the spam crap. Yeah, that could work...
compiling...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 26 2019, @10:23AM
Ones that hook you into replying with something equally offensive, and with a righteous anger (well, they offended you *first*, right) behind them.
Ones that bait you into flaming.
Oh - we have a mod for that: '-1 Flamebait'
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves