𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠 @ ChairmanMeow @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

916

Joined

2 yr. ago

Your sidebar also says:

Small instance with respectful moderation staff

Yet here you are, telling another user who tried to give you constructive criticism to "grow a pair", "pound sand" and that they're "tolerant of such bigotry". That doesn't seem very respectful to me. You could also have addressed the criticism directly, but opted to instead misconstrue the argument and presented a slippery-slope fallacy.

If you're not going to treat other users with respect, then that's a block from me.

Your sidebar rule explicitly talks about "hatred". But I don't see that at all in this comment. At worst it's a critique of the US education system, which at this point I don't think either side of the political spectrum is really happy with. It's also well-known that the state of education differs greatly between US states.

If he commented something along the lines of "Probably the USA, because you have to be a moron not to know this", I could see your point. But they didn't. They didn't even pass any value judgment about Americans at all.

It could even be a sarcastic reply, because the OP also posted what state they were from, so they "probably /s" are from the US.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about this user and their mindset when they wrote this comment. As you've seen from the immense feedback you got, the vast majority of users heavily disagree with you that they violated the sidebar rule. Being too heavy-handed on the moderation damages communities, it does not protect them.

In my opinion, this user should have been let off with a warning, and the comment should have stayed up because it requires a very subjective reading for it to come close to violating the sidebar rule. Alternatively you could have issued a warning and removed the comment if you want to err on the side of (excessive) caution. But a full ban was not appropriate.

... How is this "hatred"?

ICBMs are spaceflight rockets, imo it's best to count them. The US hasn't had such large accidents with ICBMs, mostly minor ones.

Even if we exclude those it's not true. The US has sent significantly more people into space than the Soviets did, so NASAs accident rate was lower (hence safer), even if the absolute number of deaths was higher.

The Nedelin disaster claimed more lives than NASA did over its entire existence.

Indian

According to Krafton's statement the remaining employees are getting their bonus though.

So this is the application form:

Mamdani was born in Uganda to a Ugandan father and an Indian (Gujarati) mother. Which box would you tick?

Mamdani opted to tick "Black/African American" as well as "Asian", and at the "Other" box wrote "Ugandan".

I personally fail to see the problem. Given the constraints of these boxes, this seems to be the most accurate way of describing his ethnicity? Am I missing something here? Why is NYT presenting this as an issue at all?

Trump saying he's white despite him being orange seems like a bigger discrepancy.

because you can be watched or recorded as you were filling it out

You expressly can't do this. This is why there's a voting booth and observers who make sure you're alone in the booth. And after you fill out the ballot, it gets folded inward and placed in a box that is closed off until election day is over. There's no way to verify who you voted for, as your name isn't on the ballot.

In your home, someone could force themselves in, force you to vote for someone and verify you did so.

With anonymous voting at a polling place, sure someone could force you to go there, but since the vote itself is anonymous (and there's people around to check it is), they would never be able to verify that you indeed voted X or Y way. It's also why most countries ban taking pictures of your vote; no proving to anyone how you voted!

I made it up.

"Turns out all we needed to travel forwards in time is to burn homophobes!"

That's not specific to having a constitution. Judges in the Netherlands for example also cannot do a judicial review to determine the constitutionality of any passed laws. And that's with a written constitution. There's also no supreme court. The closest thing is the Raad van State (the "state council"), which evaluates all laws on proportionality, constitutionality, and executability, and then advises the government what to do with a law. It's convention that that advice is followed, but it's not required.

There's still a judicial challenge happening. And just because the UK doesn't have written constitution doesn't mean there's no constitution at all. Most of it is even written down, just not in one place.

Not sure that matters too much, frogs in the US are boiling fine too. The constitution can be brushed aside just as easily.

This is a very typically American point of view, which tends to lump a lot of people together as "liberal" despite this internationally not being the norm at all.

Here's a definition of liberalism:

Liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology that emphasizes individual rights, liberties, and limited government. It promotes ideas like free markets, free trade, and social equality, while often advocating for a strong emphasis on individual autonomy and civil liberties.

Note specifically how it says individual rights. The idea with liberalism is that if everyone is similarly unrestrained by the government, and has the same civil liberties, there is an even playing field in which individuals can personally grow and excel. This neatly links together with the liberal belief in a free market, free trade, etc...

A strict liberal idealogy will also adopt several progressive policies w.r.t. civil liberties, like gay rights (as this causes social equality -> level playing field for competition). But liberalism is still a strictly capitalist idealogy, with a strong emphasis on the free market and free trade.

Generally, this individualistic approach to rights is considered socially progressive and economically right-wing. And we see that this is the case in most countries around the world, e.g. Australia's liberal party or the Dutch VVD. The Dutch VVD is a good example to look at here, they are considered very firmly right-wing, but their party platform most closely matches to that of the DNC. In the US, the two major parties are both righg-wing, one is a moderately progressive right-wing party (with some left-wingers in there, but they aren't very influential w.r.t. party policy because it's such a small minority) and the other is a conservative/authoritarian right-wing party.

Because both parties sit firmly on the right of the spectrum, they've come to distinguish themselves on social policy rather than economic policy. They've remapped the progressive-conservative axis on the left-right axis and called it a day. But in most countries, these axes are very much distinct. Here's the "political compass" for the Netherlands for example:

Note how there are only two fairly fringe parties to the right of the VVD. Also it's interesting to note here that the PVV (the "far-right" party with the bird symbol near the bottom) isn't even all that far right. Their economic policies aren't actually all that focused on free market dynamics, and they do promote certain social policies. But their hardline immigration stance pushes them very firmly in the conservative camp. And although there's certainly a correlation between left-progressive and right-conservative, there are still major differences between the parties along this diagonal axis.

Generally, actual left-wing people (be they progressive or conservative) don't like being lumped in with liberals, because they don't focus on as much on individual freedom but rather on collective freedom and on policies that benefit the collective. Hence their insistence on actually looking at the full political spectrum rather than the simplified/reducted version of it.

You're not wrong that people in the US tend to call liberals "left-wing", but it's a very reductive, American perspective not shared by political scientists or the rest of the world.

That's a pretty fair point, though I assume a spare powerbank would solve the problem nearly as well (albeit slower and with a cable).

Screwdrivers are pretty entry-level tools though.

I've never had one of those actually work...

Why the fuck did he sign it