Just found this thread…but grunching from here. Is cuse even posting…
Like what happened with gangs and alcohol prohibition our drug prohibition has reeked havoc on our southern neighbors and as a result violently killed who can even count how many. Millions?
They are also one of the reasons for the rise in immigration from the Northern Triangle and one of the reasons trump was able to use that fear to get elected.
And that is just the consonances for non Americans. They have a ton of violent repercussions here too.
This, I feel, is you having an actual breakthrough here.
Here you phrased your concerns in terms to what I’ve called “controversy”… as in what might not behoove a professional politician career wise to retweet, and -not- in terms of the whatever the content itself might happen to be.
That said, someone like AOC isn’t ever going to retweet positively about sit-down strikes, secondary strikes and boycotts, or non-violent blocking of streets, freeways and railroad tracks. AOC herself has been completely tweeter-silent regarding organizing prison workers, even during this time of record prison strikes. In other words… your proposal would be way, way, way too restrictive.
There actually is a lot of support for people not posting things that might, even second-hand, so to speak, get another poster in IRL troubles with their boss/etc. I’m one of them. I’m going to suggest, once again, that this issue, directly and transparently, is what you & [color=blue]cuserounder[/color] should be using as the gist of your various proposals. For example, how about…
Where as, it is always possible to phrase something like a satirical draft in ways that don’t involve fantasizing about death, harm to beings, breaking things, or cruel or unusual punishments or predicaments;
Where as, doxing is a real thing;
Where as, some respected Unstuckers would just rather not be associated, even indirectly, with fantasies of death/etc;
Where as, these respected Unstuckers are making a perfectly reasonable request, a request that hurts nobody at all;
Be it resolved, threads that fantasize about death/etc are subject to moderation.
I thought he was doing a Kerouac impression and then strangely enough someone mentioned Kerouac in another thread. And I’m not even wearing a tinfoil condom at the moment.
You can see the switch and receptacle boxes better in the larger image. Trim plates go over the tile, no gaps.
Definitely more of the latter two. It’s a very twee house which was even more twee before the renovations. Did you also not notice the christmas bulbs and the little figurines on the window sill?
As I’m about to do it ipso facto I don’t mind doing it (but probably only today, I’d like to move on), but I don’t think it’s fruitful to litigate this in detail. But okay, this is what I wrote in 5 minutes and sent to JT during the solicitation of rules process:
I’m making these changes to it: I’m deleting out the “starting with deletion… to moderator” because that’s unnecessary, and changing “are subject to heavy moderation” to “may be subject to increased moderation” and I’m italicizing increased because there’s probably a better word. I’m also taking out “in whatever way” and replacing ‘a person or groups’ with ‘political figures or groups where most of us live’. This is the revised version for our temporary consideration, I’m bolding it.
Posts that entertain the demise or serious harming of a specific person or political groups where most of us live for whatever purpose, whether it is to express anger, incite a rebellion, or to troll people are subject to increased moderation. If your post contains a violent scenario in which political figures or groups where most of us live end up dead, make it as fantastical and preposterous as possible, post it at most once in a while, but ultimately, consider not posting it at all.
First, at the outset, I don’t care about the rule as written, throw it out and write a new one, but if people fundamentally don’t want it, what is the point of rewriting it?
Second, the part you quoted me on where I talked about subjects and predicates isn’t in the rule. The reason it isn’t in there is because that it’s part of my response to people’s concerns that defining what a “violent scenario” is is some hopelessly vague endeavor. I’m saying it’s rather easy that capture a good chunk of possibly problematic posts by literally avoiding statements that mention your political enemies getting killed by intentional violence. Think of this like the “You can’t say ‘bomb’ on an airplane” principle. I know, I know, what if you’re a bombardier?
Moving on, I don’t think I’ve changed anything substantial about the rule in my revision, so I’m going to go through the cases you brought up and see how they work out with respect to the revised rule. If you feel my revisions change something important about your points lmk but I don’t think they have.
Peep A: “I think the death penalty should be enforced”.
Not even close to a problem because people subject to the death penalty are not your political enemies. It would be a feat of notable obtuseness to think good faith discussion about the death penalty should not be allowed, although if we want to run off people who favor the death penalty, fuck them, let’s do it. In the unrevised version of the rule, I wrote specified ‘specific person or political groups’ in the first sentence, and the revised rule re-specifies ‘political figures or groups’ in the second sentence where before it was ‘persons or groups’. Does this not settle the too broad issue?
Peep B: "Let’s have a fantasy thread about who’s houses should be (safely) burnt down, with all there belongings inside"
Yeah, a draft thread with an arson list is pretty problematic. I agree that the revised rule as stated could have an arson loophole, and potentially other loopholes, like a draft thread of burning crosses in people’s yards, etc… I’m somewhat aware that this was discussed in the old place with most people who post here being pretty okay with condoning? torching a vile person’s house. Speaking for myself, I don’t think I’d flag somebody who wants to make it clear that they’re not shedding any tears over a vile person’s house being safely torched, but a fantasy draft thread about it seems like a very bad idea.
Peep C: "OK, let’s have a fantasy thread about who should have all of their belongings and assets, except the clothes on their back, stolen by non-violent con artists"
Maybe I don’t understand the inconsistency you’re trying to point out, but how would the revised rule rule out a Trading Places draft? It seems utterly fine and like a very good idea as somebody said, unless you galaxy brain people are going to suggest that the AG should trade places with an innocent person of color killed by the police.
In some cases it’s about the immoral content of the content, in other cases it’s about the bad taste of the content, in others it’s clearly very obviously problematic to be an active part of a political club (membership in which already implies some assent to its editorial leaning, and that is already pretty mean to its political opponents), that is too casual with violent posting.
Please don’t say stupid things like that since I posted the AOC tweet standard 3 months ago. Sorry to be blunt that way but there’s seems to be some condescension here that is not warranted.
That said, someone like AOC isn’t ever going to retweet positively about sit-down strikes, secondary strikes and boycotts, or non-violent blocking of streets, freeways and railroad tracks. AOC herself has been completely tweeter-silent regarding organizing prison workers, even during this time of record prison strikes. In other words… your proposal would be way, way, way too restrictive.
You took microbet’s point that AOC does retweet basically all of that, but what she wouldn’t retweet is an arson list. It’s still not only possible but true that the AOC standard is obviously too restrictive, but I didn’t say you shouldn’t post anything that AOC would not retweet, I said that as a heuristic I start getting nervous when people post about remedies to problems that AOC could not retweet.
Where as , it is always possible to phrase something like a satirical draft in ways that don’t involve fantasizing about death, harm to beings, breaking things, or cruel or unusual punishments or predicaments;
Where as , doxing is a real thing;
Where as , some respected Unstuckers would just rather not be associated, even indirectly, with fantasies of death/etc;
Where as , these respected Unstuckers are making a perfectly reasonable request, a request that hurts nobody at all;
Be it resolved , threads that fantasize about death/etc are subject to moderation.
This is a fine rule, I don’t really see how it’s that different from what I wrote except that it explains pretty fairly what the motivation for the rule is, but let’s not argue about whether it’s different or not, forget my rule now, it doesn’t exist.
Do you think the community supports your draft of the rule? Do you not think a handful of people are going to say that it’s fucking absurd to proscribe otherwise legal speech on a political forum, especially otherwise legal and morally righteous speech, because one or two laughably paranoid posters don’t want to be associated with it, and then also peace out with some donkey porn links?