TropicalDingdong @ TropicalDingdong @lemmy.world

"The future ain’t what it used to be."

---

Read more

Posts

65

Comments

6,149

Joined

2 yr. ago

nope. only for charismatic megaflora/fauna

I mean this isn't really a conversation. this has been me asking as gracefully as I can to step away from the conversation and come back to it another time, and you insisting on continuing.

Ozma's ban comes to mind pretty lazily. But I'm not trying to do additional work on your behalf right now. I just had a long day and I'm done working for now.

Elon: a/s/l?

I mean any one could go find some examples from memory that they experienced. I could dig far enough into my comment history to find them. In-fact I was digging through some banned community members and found some examples just the other day.

What I'm doing is far, far larger in scope. I'm not trying to find one instance, I'm trying to find all of them. I'm also interested in correlating that to "shifts in the overall narrative" to the sub. And I'm trying to do this across several prominent subs. And I'm not doing this in an adhoc way. When I have results they'll be publishable.

I've built some of the more important tools already which allow me to pull the entire comment history of a user and perform significant sentiment analysis, key phrase extraction, etc.. but some aspects aren't reliable enough yet to be completely useful.

This is some example output using flyingsqids data: https://tmpweb.net/jS19ePfgNdz0/

(scroll to the bottom, then scroll up instead of starting at the top)

The first analysis is a "trolling/ not trolling" analysis. Then its a frequency analysis. I used squid because of their preposterous number of comments. Some weeks they were commenting almost ever 3 minutes for hours on end.

If life we're simpler I'd be further along on this project, but alas, the bills. They do not pay themselves. And its a hobby thing I'm not getting paid for, so its the last to get access to my time.

Can you look them up, and show them to me? I came close to digging through the modlog myself, to prove that the number of times in Dec 2023 / Jan 2024 that someone was banned for posting a poll showing Biden behind was 0.

Yes and no. Yes I can, in that I've built out at least some of the tools to do so. I can't in that I'm still at work today and haven't returned to that project in quite a while.

I also know that you’re lying about what “we” said before the election, what Biden’s record was before the election, what the mods did before the election (I guarantee you you cannot find stuff in the modlog where someone was banned for posting a poll that showed Biden behind or something), what “our” (my at least) goals are in all of this, and all the rest of it.

Jokes on you, I've spent almost two years developing tooling to do specifically this because lemmy still lacks an adequate external API. Unfortunately, I'm not independently wealthy and I do have a day job and haven't made much progress in a few months, but I am planning on releasing it as a public tool when I can get around to it. And considering I've finally found the line giving me shit at my day job, I'm going to have to keep it short.

I specifically am building it to document the relationship between how moderation operates as a power structure and structures narratives of the community. Its a work in progress but I've shared components of it with others (SatansMaggotyCumFart, for one, who wanted me to use it to do an investigation of UniversalMonk).

The issue is broad and isn't able to be contained to just one sub, so its going to have to span many subs, but effectively I'm testing how moderation functions to support some narratives and inhibit others.

I would appreciate if you repost this to maybe one of the debate subs that I think someone started. Its probably better to house the discussion there then to create an endless series of responses.

You do understand that your cynical lying about the past is why your camp is losing the argument? I mean, I don't dislike you, at least not personally, and and even if I have to drag you by the hair onto the right side of history, I'll at least afford you the charity required for you to fix yourself.

There is no point in bothering with conjecture regarding the bans. They happened, its documented, any one can look it up. It doesn't help your following arguments to simply lie about a reality people can easily go reference for themselves, if they didn't live the experience themselves, as many of us have. A conjecture rooted in the same cynicism that cost us the election.

Now as before, your cynical misrepresentation of the arguments which were made also works against you. We argued that without replacing Biden, we'd lose the election. And we had the same claims you are levying, here, now, levied against us them. That we were secret Trump supporters. That we were the ones costing the Democrats the election. And then, as it does, the truth of the matter has a way of finding itself out. And we who stayed focus on an accurate and valid criticisms we're proven right. In-spite of this, and this is the true cost of cynicism, you continued to reject the analysis and criticism of those who got it right. Instead of showing grace and changing, yours doubled down on your wrongness, when even the beltway insiders had the humility to recognize how wrong they'd been. No. No instead you embraced the worst instinct: to double down on the cynicism. Harris needed to pivot away from Biden's policies and political techniques to come back in the extra innings she was afforded. But no. The cynics won the side-line arguments on how to handle the extra time we got on the clock (and let us not forget, these same cynics were the ones arguing against replacing Biden), and we all suffer because.

We should listen to the people who got it right, to begin with, and who stayed right the whole time. We should ignore those who are guided by cynicism and fear. Sacrificing your values for billionaire donations isn't just morally abhorrent: Its also bad strategy.

Thanks Obama.

I mean, they lost. And more than just the election. They lost the battle for ideological control of how to do politics; of how to win elections, which was always the premise that justified their reason for being: Their loss is existential.

The core of their argument was that their cynicism was required to win elections. That we had to sacrifice our values, for whatever reason, to be able to "win" the election. To reiterate what our criticisms. Originally, it was with Biden. That without a serious pivot on Gaza and to right wing "enlightened centrism" that had guided his path to that point, he would lose the election. The later criticism was with Harris, and basically identical: That without pivoting and focusing on the issues the base was concerned with, that she would lose the election.

@Phillip_The_Bucket is demonstrating the same cynicism in this thread that lost the election for all of us in his fraudulent interpretation of our critique. The argument wasn't that Biden or Harris should lose. We we're point out that they were losing, and at least some of us where arguing what they needed to do to win. If you were to point out the obvious fact that Biden was polling, somehow below DJT, in Dec 2023/Jan 2024, you would get down voted all to hell, if not outright banned. You would get called a bot. Or an NPC. Or an russian operative. Or any other number of slurs. I presented a scientific analysis showing that it was statistically impossible for Biden to turn things around in March of 2024. It was removed as misinformation and I received a ban for it. This isn't conjecture. Its all documented. Ask @Return2Ozma some of the names they've been called and insults they've had to suffer for simply posting articles that actually reflect reality.

They were wrong to begin with, insisted on staying committed to something that they knew was both a moral and tactical disaster, they were wrong after Biden dropped out, they were wrong up until the day of the election, and they've been wrong since. Alternatively, the exact same critiques we've been levying for years now have become the mainstream interpretation of past events. And now, with Mandami's victory we're showing something even more powerful. That there is real power in doing the right thing and speaking ones truth. And thats simply not possible for those whose politics is based on the false validation cynicism offers.

Remember when mods coordinated to ban any criticism of BNMW / Blue Maga from all the major subs during 2024? How they the cultivated a community of briggading, sea-lioning, etc.. to try and suppress any criticism of an approach to politics that was obviously going to hand the country to Trump?

pumba

sucks about the bike mang

I mean it's kind of the professors point. He says that Putin is doing this to kill off and redefine the identity parts of the Russian population, whom Putin identifies as lazy, drunkard, directionless young men.

The universe is incomplete, which is why there is some rather than nothing. Some inequality that can't quite get worked out. It's the fly in the ointment. The rounding error that just won't quite go away.

So this guy has been getting a lot of traction lately because they basically predicted not only that the US would attack Iran, but also the specific mechanism which would cause it to happen.

I linked to the next video in the series and I think it's worth watching, especially in the context of the above figure. I think the professor is pretty cherry picked in their examples and what they choose to bring forwards as data and evidence, however, their opinion on why Putin is doing what they are doing is especially worth considering. Effectively, the professor argued, Putin is trying to use a constant state of war to reshape the Russian self image into that if a warrior nation. You can agree or disagree with the professor, which is neither here nor there.

However, and this is why is sat their examples are cherry picked, let's look at the parallels to the US with regards to using war to transform a people. I think the above point highlights the issue excellently, and those who can remember a time before 9-11 can attest. The US people changed after the war on terror; or perhaps, had change thrust upon them by a government interested in cultivating a police state style authoritarianism.

Before 9-11, maybe a few police forces has something akin to a special SWAT unit. It was headline news if they were ever utilized. Now every small town practically has a bearcat, and through the use of copaganda, the oppression of citizens with no due process and no probable cause is practically the point of one lice forces. Forces within the US used militarism, they used the war on terror to subvert the US constitution in a multi decade process to convert local police into military forces, which can easily be swept under federal control.

So when we criticize Putin for using war to remake the identity of a nation throughout the war, we should at least be consistent and consider how the US identity was remade through war. These p organs are the kinds of slippery slopes that those interested in bipartisanship committed us to over the previous two and a half decades.

I mean starting wages in fast food still like 15 an hour and it's a pretty miserable gig.

I'd rather do the interviews.

to make 120?