Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 11:12 am
Yeah Zompist and Linguoboy should do something about this. But do you have any proof or anything?
Page 260 of 310
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 11:18 am
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 11:31 am
There are the things for which Nort and xxx got tempbans at various points. (I had forgotten about xxx a few posts above.) Then there the case of Pabappa, who apparently left in disgust on his own accord during one of Nort's tempbans, never to return, but who is technically still a member in good standing. Back in the 2000s, on the then-ZBB, he had openly bragged about being an active member of what was, at the time, the main white supremacist forum on the Internet. Generally, back in the 2000s, the ZBB had more racist memes than an alt-right forum.
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:27 pm
I somehow missed much of this, probably because even though I technically joined a previous incarnation of the Zeeb in IIRC 2005, I wasn't really active until the 2010's.
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:35 pm
Temp ban? Why the hell are they forgiven for something they're still doing and have no remorse for? I don't give a shit if they're good at linguistics, they can contribute on Stormfront or Moldbug's forum if they want to keep being fascists.Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 11:31 amThere are the things for which Nort and xxx got tempbans at various points. (I had forgotten about xxx a few posts above.) Then there the case of Pabappa, who apparently left in disgust on his own accord during one of Nort's tempbans, never to return, but who is technically still a member in good standing. Back in the 2000s, on the then-ZBB, he had openly bragged about being an active member of what was, at the time, the main white supremacist forum on the Internet. Generally, back in the 2000s, the ZBB had more racist memes than an alt-right forum.
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:39 pm
The temp bans were in response to specific things they'd said, not their particular political beliefs.Starbeam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:35 pmTemp ban? Why the hell are they forgiven for something they're still doing and have no remorse for? I don't give a shit if they're good at linguistics, they can contribute on Stormfront or Moldbug's forum if they want to keep being fascists.Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 11:31 amThere are the things for which Nort and xxx got tempbans at various points. (I had forgotten about xxx a few posts above.) Then there the case of Pabappa, who apparently left in disgust on his own accord during one of Nort's tempbans, never to return, but who is technically still a member in good standing. Back in the 2000s, on the then-ZBB, he had openly bragged about being an active member of what was, at the time, the main white supremacist forum on the Internet. Generally, back in the 2000s, the ZBB had more racist memes than an alt-right forum.
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:42 pm
That's even worse. You can't just be all "no conflict, everything must be happy 
" about people being that way
" about people being that wayRe: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:51 pm
The problem with banning people for their political beliefs rather than offensive things they've said is that then legitimizes banning other people for other political beliefs (and while I don't think zompist would ban people for being socialists, it still opens the door to it in general).
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:55 pm
No, they should be banned for their political beliefs. The one off statements are a symptom, not the problem. This isn't some broad, overburocratic mass organization that can become corrupted to the point of danger. This is a couple guys who run a forum allowing fascists to hang around. It's pretty easy to not escalate further.Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:51 pmThe problem with banning people for their political beliefs rather than offensive things they've said is that then legitimizes banning other people for other political beliefs (and while I don't think zompist would ban people for being socialists, it still opens the door to it in general).
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:08 pm
If you legitimize banning some people simply for their political beliefs, however odious they may seem, you legitimize banning any and all people for their political beliefs, no matter what they are, anywhere and everywhere.Starbeam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:55 pmNo, they should be banned for their political beliefs. The one off statements are a symptom, not the problem. This isn't some broad, overburocratic mass organization that can become corrupted to the point of danger. This is a couple guys who run a forum allowing fascists to hang around. It's pretty easy to not escalate further.Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 12:51 pmThe problem with banning people for their political beliefs rather than offensive things they've said is that then legitimizes banning other people for other political beliefs (and while I don't think zompist would ban people for being socialists, it still opens the door to it in general).
(For the record, I got banned from r/Socialism101 on Reddit for so-called "liberalism", because I obviously was not enough of a tankie for one of the mod's tastes, so if you think that you're safe from being banned due to your particular political beliefs being sufficiently milquetoast, you're wrong.)
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:16 pm
There is no "uwu political beliefs" each of them carry weight and have meaning. If you insist on keeping people who get out their calipers and complain about racial intelligence, that's on you. It's not a slippery slope. By that logic, banning people for anything could lead to corruption, because who knows when they could go overboard!
Seriously, your fears are unfounded. On the off chance they do start acting tyrannical instead of cowardly, that would be a time to complain. But taken in isolation, nobody is an any danger unless you are a fascist.
As for Reddit, there are like how many mods on the big subreddits? That is a bit more liable to being fucked up and is not an apt comparison to literally two men.
Seriously, your fears are unfounded. On the off chance they do start acting tyrannical instead of cowardly, that would be a time to complain. But taken in isolation, nobody is an any danger unless you are a fascist.
As for Reddit, there are like how many mods on the big subreddits? That is a bit more liable to being fucked up and is not an apt comparison to literally two men.
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:25 pm
What one can do is set clear guidelines for what expression is acceptable and what is not acceptable and punish those who violate them, particularly repeatedly, rather than judging people based on their inferred privately-held beliefs. One can make rules like that expressing racial prejudice is unacceptable which people can then be held to. Such a rule would be far more objective and just because you can point to definitive actions that violate such rules than merely banning people because you've decided that they are "fascists" independent of what they have actually said or done. BTW, your example of "get out their calipers and complain about racial intelligence" would be an example of something that would violate such a rule.Starbeam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:16 pm There is no "uwu political beliefs" each of them carry weight and have meaning. If you insist on keeping people who get out their calipers and complain about racial intelligence, that's on you. It's not a slippery slope. By that logic, banning people for anything could lead to corruption, because who knows when they could go overboard!
Seriously, your fears are unfounded. On the off chance they do start acting tyrannical instead of cowardly, that would be a time to complain. But taken in isolation, nobody is an any danger unless you are a fascist.
As for Reddit, there are like how many mods on the big subreddits? That is a bit more liable to being fucked up and is not an apt comparison to literally two men.
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:28 pm
What Starbeam said. Travis' argument that, in theory, zompist might start banning people for being socialists, doesn't make any sense to me because, first, this is zompist we're talking about, and second, if zompist would suddenly do a heel turn and start banning people for being socialists, whether he had or hadn't previously banned people for being fascists wouldn't make a difference anyway.
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:30 pm
Your beliefs affect your actions, and if people find out you express them publicly elsewhere, that's on you. Obviously you cannot mind-read, nobody was suggesting bans over thoughtcrimes. The issue is they actively take part in nazi forums and have expressed nazi beliefs. The way to see if it's genuine or continued is confrontation, god's gift to communication; not by hiding and praying nothing erupts.
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:32 pm
That's basically the argument for the rule of law. Thing is, while I'm generally in favor of the rule of law in real life, I think that in the context of online spaces, the traditional anti-legalist arguments from Chinese philosophy are more convincing.Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:25 pm
What one can do is set clear guidelines for what expression is acceptable and what is not acceptable and punish those who violate them, particularly repeatedly, rather than judging people based on their inferred privately-held beliefs. One can make rules like that expressing racial prejudice is unacceptable which people can then be held to. Such a rule would be far more objective and just because you can point to definitive actions that violate such rules than merely banning people because you've decided that they are "fascists" independent of what they have actually said or done. BTW, your example of "get out their calipers and complain about racial intelligence" would be an example of something that would violate such a rule.
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:42 pm
See also Mike Masnick's idea that content moderation is impossible to do well at scale: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/11/20/mas ... o-do-well/
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:45 pm
Raph, i like you, but i think you're overcomplicating this present situation.
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:46 pm
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 1:47 pm
All good all good. Anyway, I do hope Zompist sees this thread. Or something. I don't understand why anyone so fearful would moderate or not pick other people to do so. What is there for him to worry about?
Re: Random Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2025 2:01 pm
Well, wouldn't that be a breach of the house rule "don't gang up on someone with unusual views"? Or are you suggesting a recruitment drive?
It also seems contrary to the sentiments behind the instruction, "Don't insult entire groups of people. That includes any ethnic group, sex, sexual preference, political party,...".