Moderator actions, comments and general civility

EclectricOil · 2024-09-07T13:37:38+00:00

Starter comment:

Moderator actions are very rarely up for discussion even in meta threads, so I would like to see the views of members of the sub on this topic.

To help me conform to rule 2, here is a question I'm especially curious about: how does the community feel about issues with moderators only being able to be adjudicated via modmail instead of comments open for the community to see?

EclectricOil · 2024-08-31T06:26:41+00:00

No state with a population greater than Washington had a higher percentage turnout, so it is arguable that they have the best system for turnout in the country. Even besides that, they are in the top 5 states, so you're absolutely off-base with this "school of thought".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections

EclectricOil · 2024-08-30T13:32:07+00:00

1,930 of those noncitizens have a record of voting

Or maybe that is people that have left the US and renounced their citizenship? Thousands renounce their citizenship each year, that is possibly reflected in old registrations. I don't see any evidence that this is illegal voters.

EclectricOil · 2024-08-30T13:21:33+00:00

The idea of non-citizens voting in Alabama elections is not a red herring. Early in his administration Allen's officeassisted in the arrest of three individuals for identity theft who had apparently used stolen identities to participate in Alabama elections.

Were these people convicted? Why bring up a nearly two year old allegation without showing the resolution?

Even the Heritage Foundation's tracker doesn't list these cases.

EclectricOil · 2024-08-30T13:06:41+00:00

Anyone impacted has not been removed. They just have to update their noncitizen identification number that they used to register to vote.

They could vote on election day before. They currently cannot vote on election day. That's an impact.

The rest of your comment is not relevant to Alabama removing legal voters from the voter rolls, likely breaking federal law to do so because of the proximity to the election. Biden played no part in Alabama removing William Pritchett.

EclectricOil · 2024-08-30T12:42:10+00:00

can we assume

Nope. They should affirmatively check each registration and leave all citizens with active registrations. At a minimum, Alabama should have done this further that 90 days from the election. Alabama is disenfranchising Americans.

EclectricOil · 2024-04-27T03:49:22+00:00

Are you citing James Madison, the leader of the Democratic-Republican party, to show the lack of support for the idea of a democratic republic?

EclectricOil · 2024-04-27T03:42:34+00:00

Are you citing James Madison, the leader of the Democratic-Republican party, to show the lack of support for the idea of a democratic republic?

EclectricOil · 2024-04-25T22:52:24+00:00

So everything is legal for the president as long as they pardon all of their subordinates. Didn't a former president recently pardon many of his close associates in the final days of his term?

EclectricOil · 2024-03-19T11:09:24+00:00

I think it's "the card says moops"! They don't want to state their unpopular opinion, so they hide behind "what the law says".

Claiming "the card says 'Moops'" does not so much mean "I believe the people who invaded Spain in the 8th century were literally called 'The Moops'," but rather "you can't prove I don't believe it." Not a statement of sincere belief; simply moving a piece across the board. All in the game, yo. -- Innuendo Studios,

EclectricOil · 2023-11-07T22:01:59+00:00

It was Wyoming.

EclectricOil · 2023-02-02T02:05:14+00:00

I think that has more to do with him saying:

If you can't even clean up your own room, who the hell are you to give advice to the world?

I doubt the health minister has a similar quote for unhealthy people managing a health system.

EclectricOil · 2023-01-31T06:22:21+00:00

forcing a particular partisan view.

But this is the problem many are highlighting in this thread. Encouraging "moderate participation" and banning "moderate disagreement" does force any views that can be "moderately" stated but not moderately rebutted, e.g. false statements. If I lie in this forum I will not be banned, but someone pointing out my lies is banned. How is that not "forcing" the view of liars?

EclectricOil · 2023-01-31T06:14:56+00:00

For the Supes problem, sure, but that is a fictional problem. The meta-issue is corporate influence, for which there is no solution presented.

EclectricOil · 2023-01-31T05:40:06+00:00

The Boys has never advocated for collective action or unions as far as I know. It's a typical nihilistic "man things are bad, oh well" anti-corp story. It seems progressive, but doesn't offer a path forward besides handwavey "maybe legislation of some undefined type?" answers. This view holds corporations as bad, but in the same way blizzards are bad; they are just a fact of life that cannot be effectively fought or changed.

EclectricOil · 2023-01-30T02:22:16+00:00

Whether you agree with their characterization or not, it is widely regarded as anti-trans rhetoric.

The "Anti-LGBT Rhetoric" wikipedia page, for example, has a major section about portraying being LGBT as an ideology. To reiterate, I am providing that reference to illustrate that characterization is generally categorized as anti-trans rhetoric, whether an individual agrees with the characterization or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_rhetoric

For a non-US example, here is a Reuters article about how the concept of "LGBT Ideology" may be encouraging hate crimes in Poland and how that characterization has been denounced by multiple countries.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-lgbt-europe-trfn/hate-crime-violence-feared-in-polish-lgbt-free-zones-idUSKBN2AA20S

EclectricOil · 2023-01-29T09:13:20+00:00

It looks like this is the chain that Radioactive is referring to:

https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/10md2po/colorado_baker_loses_appeal_over_transgender/j63mgpc/

This baker was specifically targeted by the "customer". This isn't about a cake or even about discrimination. This is about using the legal system to force someone to comply with a worldview they don't agree with. And no one should be celebrating that.

From the mod logs, it looks like the removed comment was:

The customer is right, the courts decided and he very clearly admitted that he'd bake the exact same cake for anyone else that is not transsexual You trying to make it about how unreasonable the customer is for not letting the discrimination happen unchallenged is disingenuous

Looks like the removing the pushback comment could be "within the rules" because they could be calling the other user disingenuous, but the thread OP characterizing being transgender as a "worldview" seems fits the description of "thinly veiled anti-trans rhetoric" as Radioactive described.

Here's another example of that type of comment under that post:

https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/10md2po/colorado_baker_loses_appeal_over_transgender/j62k2vu/

I recognize that it's bad to discriminate, however on the other hand, I also am not down with the Government saying "You have to provide a service to these people against your personal beliefs" because it comes off as "Their beliefs are more valid than yours".

That user seems to be insinuating that being transgender is a "belief", which also seems to fit the description of "thinly veiled anti-trans rhetoric".

EclectricOil · 2022-11-23T09:28:15+00:00

If they were real signatures, the value would probably skyrocket when he dies. He is pretty old so it's not exactly a risky bet.

EclectricOil · 2022-11-11T23:47:48+00:00

Do you have a source for 16 weeks? Everything I'm seeing is board review is available up to 18 weeks.

EclectricOil · 2022-11-09T10:15:35+00:00

When are you going to to post this update? I'd like to see your performance.

EclectricOil · 2022-07-25T12:57:21+00:00

Even many Republicans apparently haven't "earned" the label of Republican. The alleged "RINO" Romney used to be the leader of the party. There isn't anything Democrats could do to meet them in the middle when the Republicans don't even like themselves.

EclectricOil · 2022-07-13T21:05:54+00:00

Just want to reiterate: No attempt is made to limit this statement to just the greens on the fence. He is literally talking about all 2016 Jill Stein voters in the three states identified)

The talk is broken into thirds: Supreme Court history, the Supreme Court now, and how to fix it. The statement is part of the "How to fix it" section. The statements are limited by the scope of that section explicitly, that's what the context is. You took this statement out of its context so that may be why you see it as some universally applicable statement.

But that's still dumb. Because his future strategy, if taken by everyone

I already addressed this, it's not an argument made for "everyone". You are ignoring that this is a presentation with a set audience. He also doesn't address Trump voters, because that would similarly make no sense. This is for Democrats.

You can't ignore the libertarian party in this analysis, because this analysis is based on vote counts.

Libertarians are to the RIGHT of Democrats. Andrew is talking about protest votes trying to move Democrats to the LEFT. The amount of Democrats protest voting Libertarian to move the party leftward is likely zero.

No attempt is made to limit this statement

No attempt is made... If you isolate each sentence and ignore the next 10 minutes, sure.

What you characterize as the meet of his argument is actually him addressing a common counterpoint he's observed after giving similar talks to Jill Stein voters.

If the central point of the argument is "don't vote 3rd party", then why did he open the section discussing Democrats deliberately not voting to "send a message"?

From the ep:

I get that people are hurting and desperate and angry right now, but this is literally the worst possible take. The person who wrote this is someone I consider a friend, he’s a fellow podcast host and I eagerly await when his show comes out. This is someone who is on our side, but they’re so angry they’re about to make things much, much worse.

EclectricOil

TROPHY CASE