2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
it's not my case, but you know exactly what he's implying as well as i do, it honestly feels like you're just baiting him at this point
Call it whatever you want. Arguments that begin and end with "I can't explain how the world works because I will be banned, but you all know that I am correct" deserve ridicule.
NYC murder rate dropped like a stone from it's peak decades ago without any meaningful change in income inequality in the city (if anything it got worse) or ethnic makeup of groups living there
Your position is you think it took Vance restraint to not say something you can't say here because you think it will get you banned lol. Like you have this same level of restraint apparently so forgive me for not being that impressed a VP candidate rose to the level of a bad internet poster.
I don't see even the general statement being obvious at all, countries in south america have been at time at the top of the chart of violence worldwide, and it happened to countries with no linguistical, religious, ethnical meaningful fractures inside society. El Salvador recently, Colombia before.
Some of the most deadly civil wars erupted with no ethnical, religious or linguistical separation barrier
I specifically noted that, even if the statement was generally true, there are a lot of exceptions. Again, it depends on what factors you are considering most relevant when measuring homogeneity.
NYC murder rate dropped like a stone from it's peak decades ago without any meaningful change in income inequality in the city (if anything it got worse) or ethnic makeup of groups living there
This is correct. Like I said, there are a lot of factors that affect rates of violence in a community.
luciom, the only homogenous societies in south america are chile and argentina and even then not really
the rest are strongly divided
this is a good breakdown
but most south americans identify as
indian or mestizo with smaller groups of whites & blacks rounded off with the mulattoes, zambos, & asians
there's very little intermarriage between the groups - they live in different neighborhoods and even different parts of the country etc
it's very common to go to a party or wedding in south america and everyone there looks european except for the catering staff
a lot of the indians also don't speak spanish as a native language
but most south americans identify as
indian or mestizo with smaller groups of whites & blacks rounded off with the mulattoes, zambos, & asians
there's very little intermarriage between the groups - they live in different neighborhoods and even different parts of the country etc
it's very common to go to a party or wedding in south america and everyone there looks european except for the catering staff
a lot of the indians also don't speak spanish as a native language
This is also correct. And no one has said anything (yet) that will result in a ban. Amazing. See how this works.
first time i read that colombia or el salvador violence had anything to do with race
NYC murder rate dropped like a stone from it's peak decades ago without any meaningful change in income inequality in the city (if anything it got worse) or ethnic makeup of groups living there
This is correct. Like I said, there are a lot of factors that affect rates of violence in a community.
It is very likely that the Roe v Wade ruling in the early/mid 1970's greatly reduced the number of children born into poverty in NYC. The crime rate started dropping about 16 to 18 years (I just don't remember the exact number) after Roe v Wade went into affect.
In fact violent crime rates dropped throughout the US at that time (early to mid 1990's) in virtually all big cities in the US. And they all were doing different things based on who their mayor was.
It is very likely that the Roe v Wade ruling in the early/mid 1970's greatly reduced the number of children born into poverty in NYC. The crime rate started dropping about 16 to 18 years (I just don't remember the exact number) after Roe v Wade went into affect.
In fact violent crime rates dropped throughout the US at that time (early to mid 1990's) in virtually all big cities in the US. And they all were doing different things based on who their mayor was.
I know that's the freakonomics thesis yes.
Which brings us to the fact that there is actually one factor that dominates the topic of violence in society , which is the amount of poor, badly uneducated, unemployed and/or with bad job prospects,16-25y old boys/men as a % of the population.
And related to that, what society does (or what "happens") to keep them otherwise occupied. The latter is the Tyler Cowen thesis that videogames reduce violence for ex. Others claim lower participation in sports caused upticks in violence in various cases.
This is also correct. And no one has said anything (yet) that will result in a ban. Amazing. See how this works.
tbf i have never seen luc post anything which i felt warranted a ban but he's had many clamoring for it
when asked for specific posts they never post any because again, there's nothing specific that he posts which is ban worthy - but he gives off "bad vibes" to a lot here and thus knows if he ever crosses any imaginary line that he'll be perma'd at the first excuse
like how we had bouton perma'd because in a discussion with a mod about a pm exchange he posted the pm in question to say something to the effect of "no that's not what happened here's the dm" and then got perma'd for sharing a dm
or like pointlesswords was perma'd for having older perma'd accounts and to my knowledge didn't do or say anything specifically which was against the rules - i personally didn't like him, he was an arrogant and obstinate guy but unless i'm mistaken, it was just a convenient excuse to perma someone who was not well liked to begin with - meanwhile we have dozens of posters in very good standing, some of which are the biggest volume posters on the site who are one their 2nd or even 3rd account
pointlesswords was perma'd for having older perma'd accounts and to my knowledge didn't do or say anything specifically which was against the rules - i personally didn't like him, he was an arrogant and obstinate guy but unless i'm mistaken, it was just a convenient excuse to perma someone who was not well liked to begin with - meanwhile we have dozens of posters in very good standing, some of which are the biggest volume posters on the site who are one their 2nd or even 3rd account
If that's true about PW then it's bad when kelhus is posting under a new account.
As far as I know, that isn't why PW was perma'd. There is a pattern in this forum where a poster is constantly disruptive, eventually gets a perma'd for being constantly disruptive, and then people freak out and say, "ZOMG, why did that person get banned? All he did was [INSERT MOST RECENT THING]."
But the person didn't get perma'd for the most recent thing. In almost all such cases, the person got banned for repeating the same behavior over and over and over, despite repeated warnings to quit.
For example, how many times was lagtight warned to quit calling gay people sodomites? 15 times? 20 times? I don't know exactly, but it was a lot. He simply couldn't or wouldn't stop.
As far as I know, that isn't why PW was perma'd. There is a pattern in this forum where a poster is constantly disruptive, eventually gets a perma'd for being constantly disruptive, and then people freak out and say, "ZOMG, why did that person get banned? All he did was [INSERT MOST RECENT THING]."
But the person didn't get perma'd for the most recent thing. In almost all such cases, the person got banned for repeating the same behavior over and over and over, despite repeated warnings to qu
He got banned for quoting the bible? I do not agree with it but yeah I guess when were on a left wing board that is what happens
As far as I know, that isn't why PW was perma'd. There is a pattern in this forum where a poster is constantly disruptive, eventually gets a perma'd for being constantly disruptive, and then people freak out and say, "ZOMG, why did that person get banned? All he did was [INSERT MOST RECENT THING]."
But the person didn't get perma'd for the most recent thing. In almost all such cases, the person got banned for repeating the same behavior over and over and over, despite repeated warnings to qu
This is accurate. All the nitpicking words and actions will not change this MO.
Also, please take this conversation to the Moderation Discussion thread.
idk, if you look at old threads you'll see a massive amount of the posters are banned - would much rather they come back than just ghost out of spite
you only need to slip up once or twice, especially under a new moderator in a different forum than where you normally post and an entire body of work of thousands of posts can be discarded
nearly everything i've posted that's got me infractions or temp bans is from stuff that i still do the exact same way to this day in the majority of the site
i don't change my behavior, i just realize "don't use this specific word in this thread" or "don't make a joke in another thread" (but continue doing so in 99.9% of the site) and can continue going along - nearly all my infractions and bans were from when i entered another area and didn't know that mod's specific rules
we have a mod who has a threatened to permaban me if i ever post a meme in one of his threads, yet memes are constantly shared everywhere on this site, there's even countless memes posted in that specific thread in question in which it's apparently not allowed
we have another mod who threatened to ban me because he learned i was doing financial transactions with people not in his thread for transactions despite that his transaction thread was specifically for people who are strangers and looking to trade with a stranger and had nothing to do with my situation - nor did he even understand that hundreds of thousands of dollars are exhanged between 2p2ers on a monthly basis outside of his thread
i blame the way it's organized here into fiefdoms because the user experience is not "oh i'm going into a new subforum i need to read the sticky and memorize the different rules for all 30 of them" it's "i'm on 2p2"
Oh I disagree with that argument, I am just clarifying the claim by lozen to rococo.
I mean in my preferred model no slur would be censored, but if you censor slur it's clear it's purely subjective, cultural, local, and arbitrary so it's previous presence in any "canon" doesn't matter.
you only need to slip up once or twice, especially under a new moderator in a different forum than where you normally post and an entire body of work of thousands of posts can be discarded
This is absurd. I am 100% positive that I would not get perma'd by a mod of any subforum on this site. Even a temp ban would be highly unlikely. And it isn't because I am habitually polite or because I censor myself. It is trivially easy to avoid bans. It's really that simple.
