Ah the accusation. The exclamation point of the enlightened.
Ah the accusation. The exclamation point of the enlightened.
That… utterly failed to address my point. Or even come close to it.
And then it got solid upvotes.
THIS is an example of… ah fuck it.
Well that would be an example of automation that needs improving.
That’s what software developers do, right?
Ya I know.
Thing is, I’m an outlier. I post strange stuff. And the 99% is the opposite. So our ideas of what’s comfortable may differ.
Or maybe I’m just posting to the wrong subs
Our posts and comments are the treasure here.
A better analogy would be a bank. You deposit some money and then the bank says “this is my money”.
That would be fucked up. Right?
Is it just the subs I go to or does this place go torches and pitchforks on anybody with a strange idea?
Something algorithmic. I have a couple ideas in that direction.
Assuming a good moderation automation, what good reason would anybody have for wanting the job?
An unjust system is a filter that prefers stupid. I think that’s fair to say. And with time the stupid only amplifies via positive feedback.
So it’s a choice between stupid and chaos.
Hmm, tough choice.
No power to the membership. All power to the moderators. No courts. No legal process. Moderators’ rule is law. No necessity to even explain or justify their actions. As if it were their house.
Then stupidville suits you.
Tell me what my agenda was.
yes.
I think I’m going to tune my feed.
I just posted a nice post
I asked for speculations. I received nitpicking.
Then my post was removed. Citing “sealioning and having an agenda”. No details offered about what or how.
But it was suggested that I contact the moderator who removed it if I have any questions.
But the name of the moderator was not provided.
Stupid upon stupid. Stupid membership and moderators. Stupid meat between 2 slices of stupid bread.
You people are too stupid to pour piss out of a boot.
In my state, getting certain government benefits, over the past decade, was a matter of five minutes on the phone with an official.
As of this year it’s a scary maze of a paper application. The online application process is “temporarily out of service”. Conversation with a relevant official is no longer offered. And while you were trying to make sense of all that we stopped your benefits.
What we’re seeing here is a way to stop providing benefits, but without the legislative hassles.
Yes, “humanity” is heavily tied to those hormones. And humanity is also motivated by much other than those hormones. So to conclude that without hormonal influences we would necessarily abandon important projects like “keeping the population maintained” seems rather hasty.
So let’s consider some more interesting results than “we would all just die”. Because no doubt they exist.
Come on, exercise your speculation muscles.
One example of the power of sex hormones : our obsession with titties (and related sexy stuff). A huge amount of popular music and advertising treats that obsession as its foundational strength. A glance of nipple is like lightning. A bared breast becomes the talk of the town. Porn is massive. Why? Because our sex hormones told us to think that way. Whole multibilliondollar industries depend on it. My mind reprogrammed. My aesthetics turned.
I don’t know about you, but I find the idea that my mind has been manipulated like that to be concerning.
And then when it’s an entire population being affected like that. It’s huge. Like beyond the internet scale huge.
I meant sex hormones. Creating this powerful mental influence, coloring how we see and think. Urges to fight and fuck. Aggression. Obsession. All that.
I guess I wasn’t as clear as I thought.
(In my title, I’m trying to be clear yet succinct. Stick to terms everybody can understand. Deliver it all inside 50 characters or whatever the limit is because everybody skips the text. So I’m honing that craft)
Woah, I didn’t know that. Ya I definitely don’t want that stuff running around in my head.
Have you heard the one about St Augustine?
But it’s our conversation.
You imply that the server has greater value than the conversation. That isn’t so.