GlacialTurtle @ GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml

Posts

41

Comments

62

Joined

8 mo. ago

You have 4 removed comments before the ban, the rest of your history is still very visible in your profile, so they didn’t purge your account, they removed a few comments, which is why it says, “removed by mod”. It’s funny reading your removed comments. The downvote removal is looked back on as a pretty good change. I’ve not used the site when it had downvotes, but frankly, I like that they’re gone. I don’t even know what the “main” issue is, and I’ve never heard anyone talk about it. The site has never struck me as a “Chapo” site, even though I know that is its origins. I’ve listened to the Chapo pod before, not for me, honestly. Frankly, seems that separating from the Chapo brand was the right choice.

Yes, it's been few years and I hadn't checked. I thought it had been purged entirely.

The main issue at the time was the general way admins/mods approached every issue, often in the most aggressive and hostile way imaginable and causing lots of unnecessary drama. Downvote removal and the name change of the site were part of a larger, fantastically absurd saga in which nothing was being handled well. With downvotes for example, where it was announced that any opposition to them being removed was innately transphobic, then trans users criticising this approach, only for said trans users to be banned for pushing back.

Anyway, 4 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

Not really "Holding a grudge" when I mention something directly relevant to the thread that asked about Hexbear accounts. It was just a bunch of absurd bullshit that's part of the very dumb lore of hexbear.

When someone is banned, their posts are automatically deleted, it’s not some crazy admin obsession to ‘purge your entire history’.

Nope. That's not how it worked at the time. I even still have screenshots of being able to see banned users posts still there from around this time. My comments specifically showed "removed by mod". I just checked and I can still see a post by an alt I made shortly after being banned (which was then also banned shortly after). So no, banned users did not have their posts automatically deleted.

Proof right here even.

This story does appear to be “an admin abused their power to ban me, then that admin got banned for being caught abusing their power”. Which is not uncommon in online communities.

That is not remotely what happened. The person in question continued to be a mod for some time. Their eventual banning had nothing to do with what happened to me or others.

There were multiple mods and admins acting this way around this timeframe against many users on the site, so they'd all have had to ban themselves for the same behaviour.

Edit: Actually, now checking again, and the mods account in question doesn't even have the banned indicator, so I think they may have just deleted their account.

I used to have an account. I was an old /r/chapotraphouse user before it got shut down.

A dipshit admin got mad when I referenced ridiculous drama that reflected badly on how the site was (and probably still is) being run, insisted to me that it didn't happen, banned me before I could even post a link or screenshot demonstrating it happened, purged my entire comment and submission history (mostly news and longer pieces I found interesting, nothing even remotely rule breaking or controversial) then proceeded to monitor the creation of new accounts to ban any usernames similar to mine as soon as they appeared.

All of the exact behaviour that would have been endlessly made fun of for being so extremely online and extremely pathetic on the old subreddit.

That admin/mod who did that is now also banned and their posts also purged lmfao. Hexbear in a nutshell.

This isn’t Reddit, you don’t have to reach boiling point just because you disagree with someone online.

Your original comment was dismissive of the realities of what happens to people seeking asylum, and your followup is to be a condescending prick spouting nonsense about reddit because someone challenged you on your dumb fucking bullshit where you didn't consider for 2 fucking seconds the actual reality of what these policies do to people.

Fuck off you disgusting cunt.

I have a German passport but my parents were “legal” immigrants from a non developed country. My wife is a “legal” immigrant (I’m not even mentioning skin colors because I think it’s a stupid way of trivializing one’s whole identity and life experience). They respected the conditions of moving to this country and they abided by them. But you call me a nazi because I don’t agree with your idea of who should be conditionally allowed in our country or not.

"I got mine so fuck you" classic children of immigrants who see nothing wrong with pulling the ladder up behind them because survivorship bias means clearly the system is good and my family is deserving and yours isn't.

Fuck off you disgusting cunt.

Go fuck yourself.

And the conservatives scaremongering about this are definitely good faith actors who aren't just scaremongering and harassing a tiny minority of trans athletes who do not in fact represent some massive social problem that requires national level obsession with targeting and identifying trans people to harass, with Gavin Newsom hanging around with a fascist saying "yassss besty" as he literally directly refers to a specific trans athlete to target and harass them.

Another example of misplaced blame would be concerns that trans women have too much testosterone or that trans men are gaining an unfairly advantage by taking testosterone (8, 11, 56, 127). Herein lies the myth that cis men, not on gender affirming hormone therapy, will claim to be a trans women to win at female sporting events. However, trans individuals use gender affirming hormone therapy to better match their gender identity, not to gain unfair sporting advantages (132). While it is true that certain morphological changes that occur during puberty may be irreversible, trans individuals on gender affirming hormone therapy clearly do not retain the same physiologic parameters as their pre-transition counterparts (12, 15, 16, 54–56, 129). It is unclear to what extent, or for how long, any hormone mediated advantages may persist once a trans individual begins regular gender affirming hormone therapy (12, 15, 53, 56, 129). It has been shown that parameters affecting aerobic performance transition more quickly than those affecting strength performance (16, 127, 129). However, excluding trans individuals does not prevent cases of athletes having hormonal advantages. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) found 93 of the 4,422 athletes tested (2.1%) to have “adverse analytical finding” for steroid use (105). WADA does not report how many of those athletes were cis or trans, however, as transgender individuals are underrepresented in athletics, it is likely that these are cis athletes (60). Besides use of exogenous hormones, cisgender individuals naturally vary in their hormonal profiles (40, 59, 66, 133). Thus, restricting trans individuals is unlikely to prevent issues of ergogenic hormonal advantages in sports.

Finally, it is well known that within sports and athletics, competitive advantage is in large part influenced by genetic predisposition (121, 134, 135). It is accepted that some individuals are born with natural advantages, however, the suggestion that trans individuals may enjoy some advantage in certain cases is regarded as unacceptable. Yet there does not seem to be a domination of sports by trans athletes if their advantage is so great. When examining issues that allegedly arise by trans athletes' participation in sports and athletics, the solutions are more driven by a political/cultural divide rather than an honest attempt to actually mitigate inequities or risk of injuries that are occurring (1, 136).

[...]

Individuals should not have to make a choice between being their authentic selves or being athletes (138). While trans athletes competing in various sports and athletic events raises interesting considerations of how certain morphologic and physiologic factors affect performance, these questions are not exclusive to trans individuals. There are wide variations within cisgender populations, even when excluding individuals with differences in sexual development (121, 139). It is expected that about 2.3% of a normally distributed population is likely to fall above two standard deviations from a population mean. These exceptional individuals may be those who are gifted and excel at some sport or athletic performance (121, 135, 140). In contrast only 0.5%–0.6% of the population identify as trans (60). There is no concern for restricting individuals who are exceptionally large or small, those who are genetically gifted, or those with differing hormone concentrations or muscle mass, so long as their gender and biologic sex align (120, 121). The disproportionate focus on the relatively small portion of the population who are trans seems based on the belief that cis men, who cannot succeed in sports among other cis men, would choose to misidentify as trans women to gain an advantage in sports against cis women. However, there are no legitimate cases of this occurring. An individual's sex does not determine their success or failure at any athletic event despite the high level of competition. This can be demonstrated when looking at not average outcomes, but the level of overlap among outcomes. The exclusion of trans individuals also insults the skill and athleticism of both cis and trans athletes. While sex differences do develop following puberty, many of the sex differences are reduced, if not erased, over time by gender affirming hormone therapy. Finally, if it is found that trans individuals have advantages in certain athletic events or sports; in those cases, there will still be a question of whether this should be considered unfair, or accepted as another instance of naturally occurring variability seen in athletes already participating in these events.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/

There is no legitimate debate. It's scaremongering.

But sure, "complicated issues" requires paling around with a fascist like Charlie Kirk and talking about how he's correct, backing down immediately when challenged on using "weaponize" to accurately describe conservative attacks on trans people and being asked to target and harass specific trans athletes based on nothing.

Just like "complicated issues" requires reaffirming conservative framing of immigration and adopting language about how immigrants are stealing welfare money and smuggling gangs requires further militarisation of borders and out of country processing of immigrants.

You're the useful idiot that the thin end of the wedge is for.

The 3 sample bullets are vapid and meaningless at best. "Not being ashamed of your country" = stop talking about and stop doing anything about racism and sexism and bigotry. "own the failures of Democratic governance in large cities" has no detail, but it's Third Way so that will be "immigrants are bad and we need more homeless sweeps and subsidies and tax cuts for businesses".

See e.g.

Advocate for middle-class tax cuts, support public education, and propose spending cuts where needed.

Tax and budget cuts but somehow support public education.

Democrats need to stop demonizing wealth and corporations broadly.

Literally some of the most broadly popular rhetoric and language but this is the one they feel the need to not do.

Engage with small businesses, business podcasts, podcasts like “Earn Your Leisure” that reach the aspiring class, and entrepreneurs to discuss economic policies

Hand over even more of democratic policy to the rich and upper classes while claiming to stand up for working people somehow.

5. Be Pro-Aspiration & Pro-Capitalism in a Smart Way

• Recognize that working-class voters value upward mobility and economic success.
• Have a prosperity gospel aimed at the working class.
• Call out corporate abuses individually instead of attacking “corporations” as a whole.

Meaningless drivel that is largely what Democrats are already doing.

Use messengers that working-class voters trust—business leaders, skilled laborers, and community figures.

lmao business leaders.

But they'll do it all with a big hat and a folksy accent hootin' and hollerin' at a gun show this time.

In a perfect world, people would stop feeling the need to redirect every criticism of Democrats into pointing out how someone else must be worse, and maybe realise Democrats as they exist and as the party is structured is an almost useless vehicle for any meaningful change or opposition.

In a perfect world, liberals would stop idealising Democrats in the way they did in the post I was responding to, where they implied the Democratic alternative would save lives, after that party literally full throatedly endorsed genocide right up until they lost the election (and still do).

The thread is talking about how it ought to be acceptable to criticise the Democratic party, and the reality of what you're doing is needlessly deflecting back to Republicans in a context in which it's irrelevant.

What the fuck are you on about? What do you think you're responding to?

Democrats were saving lives by bombing children in Gaza.

New Left Review

Monthly Review

Brooklyn Rail, mainly an arts magazine but they have a great politics section, Field Notes, from which books like Hinterland by Phil A. Neel have been published.

Current Affairs - Useful for keeping up with Doctor Who and his amazing adventures.

I've changed it, but Nitter sites have often been incredibly unreliable in my experience. Not much use in a url if it breaks randomly, so I also put the original link in the main post just in case.

I've changed it and added original link in the post in case nitter instance fails/people want original url.

Literally in the post you're responding on:

I also remind dipshit Democrat defenders to hold Democrats to account. They ran a failed election campaign. They decided adhering to genocide was more important than winning. This is how they respond to their base expecting literally anything of them, is to resent them and tell them to shut the fuck up and plead there isn’t anything they can do so they just have to roll over.

What is it with you fucking morons who incessantly turn every criticism of the Demcoratic party into some insane notion that purely by virtue of existing they are owed votes? That's not how politics works. That's not how election campaigns work. Also, do do you think the organisations doing this didn't campaign for Democrats? Do you have any reading comprehension?

You did nothing. Now, this is what you get.

Liberals and wishing harm on others when they fail.

"You did nothing" Did you phonebank? Did you go canvassing at all? Did you deliver or distribute campaign material? Did you incessantly post online enough about how it's your duty to vote Democrat, the most significant and important contribution to every election campaign?

No? Oh, you're just still whining months after the fact that because you saw liberal orgs that actually did campaign for Democrats are not satisfied with how Democrats are responding to Republicans and the excuses they keep making?

Well, this is what you get. Clearly you just didn't want it enough.

Liberals turning into "fake news!!" idiots when faced with direct quotes of Democrats literally telling their base to fuck off and stop expecting anything of them.

The article directly cites at least 2 liberal orgs directing people to call Democratic politicians to do as much as they can to oppose Republicans, and directly quotes multiple Democrats directly relating to this and trying to insist there's nothing they can do. I don't know what more you want.

They won't because they're the ones making money from it. The only reason they care about this is likely because they don't get money from ads as they don't have any related advertising business like Google and Apple does.

It's the same as when they kicked EA off of steam. EA allowed buying DLC without going through Steam. If they're not getting a cut, but you are being hosted/distributed by them, they don't want it.

lmao like the projected assumptions I was from the US and voted in the election?

Again, did you think you were doing something that the 100+ comments in this thread hadn't already litigated, fucking moron?