-->
@Barney
And thank you for demonstrating the glitch in how you justify your decision-making.
The permanent ban on chap470: Justified or unjustified?
Posts
Total:
202
-->
@AdaptableRatman
And how does flat earth theory lead to anywhere the same outcomes as Holocaust denial?They are not comparable to be banned. At most NASA and space stuff has to worry.
It doesnt lead to anywhere the same outcomes as holocaust denial. I simply cited it as an example of a good faith denial of something that is almost universally accepted as true to show that there could be some, albeit few, holocaust deniers who do it in good faith.
-->
@Mharman
Please describe the total range of what you believe counts as "Nazi propaganda."
This feels like a game, to which i am not interested. Those are well known words, which you can figure out the meaning of from any dictionary without me providing you a thesis about how they interreact.
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Thank you for demonstrating your skills at writing strawman and ad hominem arguments.And thank you for demonstrating the glitch in how you justify your decision-making.
Thank you for actually tagging me in your latest insult aimed at me.
Well, at least now I understand why you think my explanations for banning a Nazi are inexplicably inconsistent... No, the ban has nothing to do with you. I don't know how you got that impression it in any way shape or form related to you or the tantrum you pulled after it, but I could show you screenshots from the admin chats on this issue; to which your name never came up.
That I called out your behavior in this thread, which included streams of insults from you aimed at me but passive aggressively not tagging me, is NOT about the ban on a Nazi, it's solely about your chosen actions.
That said, I must applaud your mental gymnastics... That you think calling out your shit today, was part of the decision making process for banning someone else days ago... It's simply masterful.
-->
@ultramaximus2
It doesnt lead to anywhere the same outcomes as holocaust denial. I simply cited it as an example of a good faith denial of something that is almost universally accepted as true to show that there could be some, albeit few, holocaust deniers who do it in good faith.
Ah the good ol' Not All Men argument. Interestingly, Six-Sigma teaches us that for even the very best system, out of a million trials an average of 3.4 faults will occur as extreme outliers (which for better or worse, explains awesome scientists such as Mike Hughes).
-->
@Barney
Forget 6 sigma. Nobody builds a large business with it.
Instead bean counters employ it after the business is already huge and it stifles growth
-->
@Barney
I started out here by saying this:
Most holocaust denial is probably bad faith dog whistling intended to undermine Jewish victimhood status. Little if any good faith holocaust denial
I did read the article you linked. It described the fallacy like this:
Premise P₁: A generalization holds for most cases in group G
Premise P₂: One case in G does not match the generalization
Conclusion Q: Therefore, the generalization must be false or irrelevant
The flaw lies in assuming that one or a few outliers invalidate a trend rather than prove its complexity.
So, Im not concluding that the generalization is false or irrelevant. That a user engages in holocaust denial would be relevant in concluding whether or not the user is engaging in hate speech. I dont think its definitive, but perhaps its dispositive, depending on how certain you want to be when it comes to moderation decisions. Like, what is the optimal degree of certainty when it comes to moderation? Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, reasonable doubt, etc.
-->
@Barney
It’s a pretty simple question.
-->
@Swagnarok
With an ongoing genocide (assuming that there obviously is one), I could see genocide denial as being a roundabout way of arguing that no action should be taken to stop the genocide, which is a roundabout way of arguing in favor of the genocide.
That's also nonsense.
Look at the number of people who believe Karmelo Anthony is a murderer vs those who don't.
You going to ban everyone who says he isn't because that is a round about way to argue in favor of murder?
Censorship of arguments is a slippery slope because the basic premise of censorship (of arguments) is that the judge knows the truth. The true facts or the true ethics.
-->
@WyIted
Forget 6 sigma. Nobody builds a large business with it.
Toyota quite literally built there whole business model on six sigma concepts
-->
@Barney
You’re pretty close with that definition but this is based on a simulation that was conducted. Six sigma addresses concepts of Kaizen (continuous improvement) and getting as close as possible to 0 issues by using various different methods. If there are still issues that means there’s a deeper root cause there to understand. There will never be a perfect system unless you have robots automate everything (ironically what Toyota does), but that does not account for variances and such. Six sigma is more of a problem solving tool than a way to optimize the process to 0 errors, especially when there a large variance in the subject matter (I think a debate website constitutes as variance).
-->
@Vader
In buisness market, input output is about most desired output by customers. There were cases where buisnesses intentionally produced output which was not desired by customers, to save cost, such as removing headphones slot in some smartphones. But such moves are very risky. Its not just output quality which drives buisnesses, but also the cost of input needed to produce mentioned quality, as cost of input always determines the price of output on average. Perfect system might be achievable, but its cost might be so high that its not worth achieving.
-->
@Barney
Mharman insulted you, I demanded an explanation. And you were tagged by me 2-3 times, all while ignoring what I asked you.
When you did respond, you were tooting your own horn and using sarcasm to dodge the original question.
You’re clearly too sensitive to engage meaningfully with any form of criticism if that’s seriously the best you can come up with.
That said, I must applaud your mental gymnastics... That you think calling out your shit today, was part of the decision making process for banning someone else days ago... It's simply masterful.
I’ve conducted myself diplomatically in this thread while you repeatedly engaged in bad faith. You’re cracking under pressure because you can’t handle any form of questioning.
Look at whiteflame and Vader’s responses to this thread, and then look at yours.:
Cringe and absolutely embarrassing.
-->
@Barney
lol. Thank you for confirming that you do not have a well thought out line in the sand.
Oh and this is no game to me. This is for future of the site.
-->
@Mharman
This is Adaptable's fault, not Barney's. Adaptable guilt tripped several mods here because mods let some users abuse him for too long. Now mods feel like they owe Adaptable something so they act on his will often. You can see that almost all latest bans and mod actions are specifically requested by Adaptable. He realized he can use guilt trip and fear of law to control mods here, and it will work for some time until mods get annoyed and start ignoring him again.
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Snippet from the ban log:
Holocaust denial is a well recognized form of extreme hate speech, used to justify calls for repeated genocide.
My response to your OP is #19, which included the ending statement:
One may dispute which method of murder Neo-Nazi trash would like to use on the remaining 15.7 million Jews, but let's not pretend that calls for ethnic cleansing are anything but calls for murder.
I have restated and expanded it repeatedly for you, but you keep alternating between pretending those words are not there or that they contradict themselves, or implicitly (much like Mharman is doing overtly) that you've never heard of Holocaust denial before. Now your eventual proof of the flaw is I defend myself.
Let's see, insults aimed at me without tagging me start at with your historical revision start around #105:
[Barney] answered very differently than whiteflame.
And what did whiteflame say? #84
Since it's already been clarified why we reached this decision...
Was that the big contradiction, that I explained the moderation action, whereas he merely pointed to my explanation?
is an example of you declaring that I've straw manned Neo-Nazis for calling out their mission statement.
That said... I have been putting up with a lot of pure bullshit in this thread (you even called people hating Neo-Nazis to be a an "SJW angle" to virtue signal). And under pressure from that, I did conflate you and your peer Mharman a bit, and for that I am sorry.
-->
@ultramaximus2
That a user engages in holocaust denial would be relevant in concluding whether or not the user is engaging in hate speech. I dont think its definitive, but perhaps its dispositive, depending on how certain you want to be when it comes to moderation decisions.
We are not above making mistakes, and we are also quite open to appeals from permabanned people (there's an email address specifically for it). At a rough guess, I'd say half of the permabans turned temporary. People who screw up in some of the worst ways, swear to not do it again, and we give second and third chances.
My six-sigma point was to agree with you that legit exceptions do exist for any system (might be as low as 1 out of 294,117 cases, but it occurs). In the case in question, there's no significant room for doubt. The moderation team includes a survivor of a slavery network run by Neo-Nazi and Anti-Abortion extremists, which gives us an advantage in identifying the genuine article (hence, most trolls who touch on these topics have not been banned for their poor sense of humor). Then the profile in question self identified as a "Far-right Christian nationalist" which isn't automatically damning, but when connected to other behaviors it fits and affirms the identified pattern.
And as I elaborated earlier,
Holocaust denial is all about the need murder any surviving Jews. Trying to separate it, would be like trying to separate out the orange from the citrus fruit.If people show up in KKK robes burning a cross on a new neighbors lawn, we don't need further context to know that it's not about giving said neighbor a friendly welcome.
Granted, the way this thread has gone, I am outright surprised no one has tried to defend the KKK as a peaceful organization.
-->
@Barney
The moderation team includes a survivor of a slavery network run by Neo-Nazi and Anti-Abortion extremists, which gives us an advantage in identifying the genuine article
What?
Edit: The Twelve Tribes cult, maybe?
-->
@Barney
I don’t think you should get attacked for it and you can see where you drew inferences to hate speech. I think the problem even if people are not conveying it properly is
1) deleting some of the material or recording it so you can point to the infraction
2) addressing if there was actual hate speech, attacks, or a call to action. I think this is the larger point. Was he using a dumb belief to harass, attack, or slander someone. Just believing in dumb things does not qualify as hate speech
3) the general opinion of the community is that more moderation is bad (tend to lean this way) but also think 0 moderation is also dumb as fuck and there needs to be a more consistent way to identify banable offenses.
Hate to give credence to this but it is just factually inconsistent. This guy got banned for it and Wylted and Mharm are doing a debate about it and they won’t be banned. (They are more active users and they shouldn’t be banned for this as I don’t think the topic qualifies as hate speech). But pointing out inconsistency with applications of it. Which I’m sure is the point of that debate.
PROOF OF CORRUPT MODS
They allow Mharman to do it???
Why do they ban Chap470 and allow Mharman to do same stuff?
Ban it all.
-->
@Barney
Holocaust denial is all about the need murder any surviving Jews. Trying to separate it, would be like trying to separate out the orange from the citrus fruit.If people show up in KKK robes burning a cross on a new neighbors lawn, we don't need further context to know that it's not about giving said neighbor a friendly welcome.
I have read that a lot of it comes from anti-Israeli propaganda in Islamic countries because it undermines the rationale for the creation of Israel. Then the seed of disinformation is planted in the marketplace of ideas where perhaps it flourishes in hate.
-->
@AdaptableRatman
The allow Mharman to do it???Why do they ban Chap470 and allow Mharman to do same stuff?
Ironic that permabanning chp470 brought 10x more attention to their comment than it would have otherwise gotten and directly led to that Holocaust debate.
The existence of the debate is not evidence the mods are inconsistent it's actually evidence that the narrative presented in this thread is wrong
I think the debate is largely a way to challenge consistency. One has to be wrong. Either the Ban is wrong if the debate is allowed or the others should have the same consequences (they shouldn’t). It’s an interesting way to prove a point. Granted the debate is more of a troll and the other seemed genuine. But still it does highlight there has to be consistency with applications of things.
-->
@Vader
Toyota quite literally built there whole business model on six sigma concepts
Pewdie pie and Mr beast became deca millionaires without it. You got any 21st century examples of businesses needing that shit or is it a way to bloat an organization with bulshit
Thank God I was demodded before this. This is something that would make me step down.
-->
@WyIted
Imagine someone who is young and naivd taking the debate to troll or just experiment.
Now if they ever go to Germany or sonewhere, they can be deported and banned. Furthermore, idk how clear it is to all yoyng teens that this is not a legally tenable stance to even jokingly defend.
I thank God I didnt get baited to this ever.
Some here are 13-16 man. In a way it is better Mharman accepts it than them, for their legal status later.
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Imagine someone who is young and naivd taking the debate to troll or just experiment.Now if they ever go to Germany or sonewhere, they can be deported and banned. Furthermore, idk how clear it is to all yoyng teens that this is not a legally tenable stance to even jokingly defend.
And? What of it?
I've critiqued China and the Uyghur genocide enough that it's questionable what'd happen to me if I ever tried to visit the country. I've been even more virulent on the subject of Russia. I've called out Armenian genocide denialism by Turks, so I guess that takes Turkey off the menu too.
Should any of these topics therefore be off-limits on DART? Just because an authoritarian regime halfway across the world has banned it? Why are foreign governments entitled to a veto over US cyberspace?
Now if they ever go to Germany or sonewhere, they can be deported and banned
Playing on fears doesnt really work on people above 130 IQ. Only stupid people prefer safety over freedom, and they usually get neither as a result.