The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Schoolmarmery
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The comment thread here–more of a forum, really–hews close to free speech absolutism, but there are a few stipulations that should be spelled out ahead of being actively enforced:

  • No advocation of illegal activity (obvious)
  • No sharing personal information about people who do not want the information shared (no “doxxing”)
  • No racial or ethnic slurs or dehumanizing language (“the 2%” or other witty plays on contemporary phrases are fine, but vulgar terms that keep people who would otherwise join the discussion from doing so will be banned)
  • NSFW images demarcated as such
  • No comments being repeated verbatim in multiple threads (no “spamming”–this will only be regulated if it’s especially blatant)

Mocking my implementation of these rules is, of course, permitted!

 
• Category: Ideology 
Hide 46 CommentsLeave a Comment
46 Comments to "Schoolmarmery"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Reasonable policies to keep comments threads functional, but if my experience is anything to go by, you will be inundated by whiny complaints (but muh free speech) from people who have never run a forum or discussion community themselves.

    That said, I once did a survey in which I asked my readers about my moderation policy (amongst other things). The vast majority of them said it was just right – neither too harsh, nor too lax. So you can be reasonably sure that the quibblers are in the minority.

    • Replies: @TWS
    If I had more than one 'Agree' to give I would, but as Ron is as parsimonious with agree's as he is generous with his love of his Hispanic fellow man, I'll just agree heartily here.
    , @Bill Jones
    I never realized you had a moderation policy so you're prolly doing it right.
  2. What I’m concerned with is 2 things:

    1) That it happen in real time, at least for the non-problem commenters.

    2) That the policy is clear, as you just made it.

    As much as I like Steve Sailer’s posts, and commenters, (1) comes into play unless you live on Sailer-time, and (2) has come into play only a few times for me, << 1% of comments, but I never got straight what the problem was.

    BTW, I've put in your regular ordinary cuss-word here and there, and have seen no censoring. It's funny that Zerohedge has now got asterisks to replace all that, and it's just stupid-looking. I guess if it got out-of-hand here, the site would just seem crude, but it's probably best to have a hands-off policy on that. Ron Unz might write in if you're being crude as all hell.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'm not going to approve comments, only ban offending IP addresses.
    , @Mr McKenna
    Steve's blog is extremely busy. I presume he has assistance with it. From personal experience, I will attest that it can be very frustrating trying to maintain a conversation with any of his 'favorites' whose remarks appear instantly (you can tell by their timestamps) while mine sometimes wait days before appearing. It makes it seem as though I can't hold up my side of a conversation, but you know what? It's just Internet Yammering and doesn't count for much in the Grand Scheme of Things.

    OTOH, it's a principal reason I tithe toward the Derb instead :)
  3. @Anatoly Karlin
    Reasonable policies to keep comments threads functional, but if my experience is anything to go by, you will be inundated by whiny complaints (but muh free speech) from people who have never run a forum or discussion community themselves.

    That said, I once did a survey in which I asked my readers about my moderation policy (amongst other things). The vast majority of them said it was just right - neither too harsh, nor too lax. So you can be reasonably sure that the quibblers are in the minority.

    If I had more than one ‘Agree’ to give I would, but as Ron is as parsimonious with agree’s as he is generous with his love of his Hispanic fellow man, I’ll just agree heartily here.

    • LOL: Tusk
  4. Karlin 86s people who criticize him. Especially for the way he poses. I guess this will get me the old heave-ho here. Even though there is nothing whatsoever wrong with what I said, which is the truth.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    You don't need to worry, Ob. From what I've seen of yours, there's no censorship on stupidity, as of yet.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Insults =/= criticism (you having provided no explanation why supporting nuclear power makes me stupid or a shill, or how being a futurist and having participated in historical recreation makes me "always wrong"). I just deleted your comment, but on glancing through your comments archive and realizing that you have a consistent record of contributing abusive and negative value comments on both my and other peoples' posts, I decided banning you would be no loss either.
  5. @Anatoly Karlin
    Reasonable policies to keep comments threads functional, but if my experience is anything to go by, you will be inundated by whiny complaints (but muh free speech) from people who have never run a forum or discussion community themselves.

    That said, I once did a survey in which I asked my readers about my moderation policy (amongst other things). The vast majority of them said it was just right - neither too harsh, nor too lax. So you can be reasonably sure that the quibblers are in the minority.

    I never realized you had a moderation policy so you’re prolly doing it right.

  6. @obwandiyag
    Karlin 86s people who criticize him. Especially for the way he poses. I guess this will get me the old heave-ho here. Even though there is nothing whatsoever wrong with what I said, which is the truth.

    You don’t need to worry, Ob. From what I’ve seen of yours, there’s no censorship on stupidity, as of yet.

  7. On the schoolmarmery – censorship front, would like to put a quick note here re a major episode of censorship that has just taken place in France and on Google’s YouTube –

    Shutting down the quite appealing group of female ‘identitarian’ musicians known as Les Brigandes, who have apparently also been intimidated into shutting down most of their blog and website … A few of their vids are still online elsewhere, quite worth a look, link just below

    Associated with the more elder Le Pen, and with a male artistic director who is in some videos, Les Brigandes actually also represent a group of families which began to live together as a ‘clan’ in a small town in the south of France

    Tho most videos had French subtitles, here is a great one still online with subtitles in English, referring to the infamous ‘Uncle Ted’

  8. “No racial or ethnic slurs”

    It will be unfortunate if this stipulation includes slurs that only refer to non-whites.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    "Chinks" O.K.? "Honkey"? "Krauts"?"Russkies"?
    But not "Niggers"?
    Etc.

    Gets better.


    No advocation of illegal activity (obvious)
     
    Illegal where? Defined by whom?
    USA. O.K. The owner is both citizen and resident there so makes sense. Anywhere else ...why?
    And, that's the first "rule".

    So, if we here, say, advocate, any activity which goes against Beijing hold on power...?! Or Kremlin?
    Or Brussels?
    How about Ankara?

    Can't say that the author lost all my respect (in real, practical, world), but he's firmly defined as "cuckservative" from now on.

    I do read posts from progtards too, vegans, Islamist fundamentalists, climate change fanatics etc.

  9. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "No racial or ethnic slurs"


    It will be unfortunate if this stipulation includes slurs that only refer to non-whites.

    “Chinks” O.K.? “Honkey”? “Krauts”?”Russkies”?
    But not “Niggers”?
    Etc.

    Gets better.

    No advocation of illegal activity (obvious)

    Illegal where? Defined by whom?
    USA. O.K. The owner is both citizen and resident there so makes sense. Anywhere else …why?
    And, that’s the first “rule”.

    So, if we here, say, advocate, any activity which goes against Beijing hold on power…?! Or Kremlin?
    Or Brussels?
    How about Ankara?

    Can’t say that the author lost all my respect (in real, practical, world), but he’s firmly defined as “cuckservative” from now on.

    I do read posts from progtards too, vegans, Islamist fundamentalists, climate change fanatics etc.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Yeah, but it’s his sandbox. So he gets to decide who gets to poop in it and in which corner.

    If you want to open up a sandbox for the whole world to poop in you can petition Mr. Unz for a blog spot. But you have to provide a return on investment for that privilege.

    I mean from one perspective, if AE actually believes in those rules by principle or because he doesn’t want threads going in unproductive directions, he’d be a cuck to simply change his policy because you called him a cuck. Cucks actually change their minds not due to principle, but because someone tries to shame them into it.

    Peace.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Chinese, Whites, Germans, Russians, blacks. Please don't use the other terms here again. They're value-detracting. That's all I'm asking.

    As for illegality, advocacy of legal changes are fine. Advocating the commission of illegal activity (US law), similarly value-detracting.
    , @Twinkie

    he’s firmly defined as “cuckservative” from now on.
     
    People like you have managed to turn “cuckservative” into yer another whiney, meaningless term such as “racist” or “counter-revolutionary,” i.e. “people who won’t let me have my way.”
  10. @peterAUS
    "Chinks" O.K.? "Honkey"? "Krauts"?"Russkies"?
    But not "Niggers"?
    Etc.

    Gets better.


    No advocation of illegal activity (obvious)
     
    Illegal where? Defined by whom?
    USA. O.K. The owner is both citizen and resident there so makes sense. Anywhere else ...why?
    And, that's the first "rule".

    So, if we here, say, advocate, any activity which goes against Beijing hold on power...?! Or Kremlin?
    Or Brussels?
    How about Ankara?

    Can't say that the author lost all my respect (in real, practical, world), but he's firmly defined as "cuckservative" from now on.

    I do read posts from progtards too, vegans, Islamist fundamentalists, climate change fanatics etc.

    Yeah, but it’s his sandbox. So he gets to decide who gets to poop in it and in which corner.

    If you want to open up a sandbox for the whole world to poop in you can petition Mr. Unz for a blog spot. But you have to provide a return on investment for that privilege.

    I mean from one perspective, if AE actually believes in those rules by principle or because he doesn’t want threads going in unproductive directions, he’d be a cuck to simply change his policy because you called him a cuck. Cucks actually change their minds not due to principle, but because someone tries to shame them into it.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Yeah, but it’s his sandbox. So he gets to decide who gets to poop in it and in which corner.
     
    Yep.

    If you want to open up a sandbox for the whole world to poop in you can petition Mr. Unz for a blog spot.
     
    Petition....blog spot? Oh my.

    But you have to provide a return on investment for that privilege.
     
    Hahaha....I mean....anyway.

    I mean from one perspective, if AE actually believes in those rules by principle or because he doesn’t want threads going in unproductive directions, he’d be a cuck to simply change his policy because you called him a cuck. Cucks actually change their minds not due to principle, but because someone tries to shame them into it.
     
    He is cuckservative. No problem there. Some people are vegans. Some smoke. Some....etc.
    As soon as I see anyone wanting to challenge the current "globo-homo" world order, backed by....let me think...ah, yes, the US military might and ....hehe..."deplores/denounces violence".......now, that's just funny. In a sad way, that is.

    As for that "Peace"...hehe...smart, as I told you before.
    Until your side gets enough numbers, that is.
    Good strategy.

  11. I’d prefer it were “no advocation of violence” since many laws are indeed stupid. But it’s your platform so more power to you!

  12. @Talha
    Yeah, but it’s his sandbox. So he gets to decide who gets to poop in it and in which corner.

    If you want to open up a sandbox for the whole world to poop in you can petition Mr. Unz for a blog spot. But you have to provide a return on investment for that privilege.

    I mean from one perspective, if AE actually believes in those rules by principle or because he doesn’t want threads going in unproductive directions, he’d be a cuck to simply change his policy because you called him a cuck. Cucks actually change their minds not due to principle, but because someone tries to shame them into it.

    Peace.

    Yeah, but it’s his sandbox. So he gets to decide who gets to poop in it and in which corner.

    Yep.

    If you want to open up a sandbox for the whole world to poop in you can petition Mr. Unz for a blog spot.

    Petition….blog spot? Oh my.

    But you have to provide a return on investment for that privilege.

    Hahaha….I mean….anyway.

    I mean from one perspective, if AE actually believes in those rules by principle or because he doesn’t want threads going in unproductive directions, he’d be a cuck to simply change his policy because you called him a cuck. Cucks actually change their minds not due to principle, but because someone tries to shame them into it.

    He is cuckservative. No problem there. Some people are vegans. Some smoke. Some….etc.
    As soon as I see anyone wanting to challenge the current “globo-homo” world order, backed by….let me think…ah, yes, the US military might and ….hehe…”deplores/denounces violence”…….now, that’s just funny. In a sad way, that is.

    As for that “Peace”…hehe…smart, as I told you before.
    Until your side gets enough numbers, that is.
    Good strategy.

    • Replies: @Talha
    “He is cuckservative.”

    A cuck would care about you calling them one.


    Until your side gets enough numbers, that is.
     
    That’s usually called democracy. But you know us, we’d love to do things by the book...but hey, if people want to throw rules out the window and scrap, we don’t usually mind that either.

    And like I said to you before; if you want us out, keep everything nice and clean and legal and transparent and on the books. The social contract for safety goes both ways.

    Peace.

  13. @peterAUS

    Yeah, but it’s his sandbox. So he gets to decide who gets to poop in it and in which corner.
     
    Yep.

    If you want to open up a sandbox for the whole world to poop in you can petition Mr. Unz for a blog spot.
     
    Petition....blog spot? Oh my.

    But you have to provide a return on investment for that privilege.
     
    Hahaha....I mean....anyway.

    I mean from one perspective, if AE actually believes in those rules by principle or because he doesn’t want threads going in unproductive directions, he’d be a cuck to simply change his policy because you called him a cuck. Cucks actually change their minds not due to principle, but because someone tries to shame them into it.
     
    He is cuckservative. No problem there. Some people are vegans. Some smoke. Some....etc.
    As soon as I see anyone wanting to challenge the current "globo-homo" world order, backed by....let me think...ah, yes, the US military might and ....hehe..."deplores/denounces violence".......now, that's just funny. In a sad way, that is.

    As for that "Peace"...hehe...smart, as I told you before.
    Until your side gets enough numbers, that is.
    Good strategy.

    “He is cuckservative.”

    A cuck would care about you calling them one.

    Until your side gets enough numbers, that is.

    That’s usually called democracy. But you know us, we’d love to do things by the book…but hey, if people want to throw rules out the window and scrap, we don’t usually mind that either.

    And like I said to you before; if you want us out, keep everything nice and clean and legal and transparent and on the books. The social contract for safety goes both ways.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @peterAUS

    That’s usually called democracy.
     
    That's usually called, in your case, waiting for the opportunity. Numbers.

    But you know us, we’d love to do things by the book…but hey, if people want to throw rules out the window and scrap, we don’t usually mind that either.
     
    Oh, yes I do know you. All by the book as long it serves you. Until you get your numbers, that is. As for the later, yep.....that's the way it's gonna be.

    And like I said to you before; if you want us out, keep everything nice and clean and legal and transparent and on the books. The social contract for safety goes both ways.
     
    Hehehe.......we both know it will be blood. How and how much, we'll see.

    How about we stop going in circles re that topic and move on?
    O.K. You have the last word here. Go for it......
  14. @Talha
    “He is cuckservative.”

    A cuck would care about you calling them one.


    Until your side gets enough numbers, that is.
     
    That’s usually called democracy. But you know us, we’d love to do things by the book...but hey, if people want to throw rules out the window and scrap, we don’t usually mind that either.

    And like I said to you before; if you want us out, keep everything nice and clean and legal and transparent and on the books. The social contract for safety goes both ways.

    Peace.

    That’s usually called democracy.

    That’s usually called, in your case, waiting for the opportunity. Numbers.

    But you know us, we’d love to do things by the book…but hey, if people want to throw rules out the window and scrap, we don’t usually mind that either.

    Oh, yes I do know you. All by the book as long it serves you. Until you get your numbers, that is. As for the later, yep…..that’s the way it’s gonna be.

    And like I said to you before; if you want us out, keep everything nice and clean and legal and transparent and on the books. The social contract for safety goes both ways.

    Hehehe…….we both know it will be blood. How and how much, we’ll see.

    How about we stop going in circles re that topic and move on?
    O.K. You have the last word here. Go for it……

  15. Numbers.

    Numbers, votes, populism – whatever one feels like calling it.

    Until you get your numbers

    Well, we’re not going to stop marrying and having kids like other people have decided to do, that’s for sure. They can opt back in and turn that franchise around anytime…seems too many of them have better things to do – I mean, judging by my co-workers and other acquaintances.

    And then there’s the converts…

    we both know it will be blood

    The last man I that believe could foresee the future is buried in Madinah. If you think you’ve got the gift, that’s great – I don’t know how this plays out other than “…You grant sovereignty to whoever You will, You take sovereignty from whoever You will. You exalt whoever You will, You abase whoever You will. All good is in Your Hands. You have power over all things.” (3:26)

    How and how much

    Well, if you feel that’s the case; I’ve posted plenty of times outlining fully legal and political options to get things done while the numbers are fully in your favor. Now, if you insist on doing it the hard way, well, OK, no sweat – that’s a choice you decide to make given all the other possible choices.

    You have the last word here

    Appreciate it.

    Peace.

  16. Good set of rules, and necessary. Yes, some items are open to interpretation, but whatever AE’s faults may include, poor judgment is not among them. The only thing I’d be keen to add is a prohibition on 2500-w0rd paste jobs from elsewhere. Links work just fine for that sort of thing.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Good set of rules, and necessary.
     
    The best kinds of rules are implicit ones that are maintained by cultural norms - “community standards - that are common to all civilizations. “Don’t be a jackass and be civil to each other” and such. Some people used to call that “common decency.” (Despite the relentless propaganda to the contrary, we used to have more of that in the purportedly eeevil racist past in this country.)

    Unfortunately for the Internet, that works well face-to-face, but not so well anonymously, because some people just have neither the sense of shame nor the fear of ass-whooping when no one can stare at their faces. So the rules have to be more explicit. Either that or tolerate endless trades of insults, trolling, diatribes, etc. And that may be fine for some people (and there are sites for that), but I get the sense that AE is more interested in generating value-added content and encouraging similarly productive commentary.

    At the end of the day, no place, digital or physical, fits everyone.
  17. Do I get a star for admirin’ the “hews”, Ma’am?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yes!
  18. @Achmed E. Newman
    What I'm concerned with is 2 things:

    1) That it happen in real time, at least for the non-problem commenters.

    2) That the policy is clear, as you just made it.

    As much as I like Steve Sailer's posts, and commenters, (1) comes into play unless you live on Sailer-time, and (2) has come into play only a few times for me, << 1% of comments, but I never got straight what the problem was.

    BTW, I've put in your regular ordinary cuss-word here and there, and have seen no censoring. It's funny that Zerohedge has now got asterisks to replace all that, and it's just stupid-looking. I guess if it got out-of-hand here, the site would just seem crude, but it's probably best to have a hands-off policy on that. Ron Unz might write in if you're being crude as all hell.

    I’m not going to approve comments, only ban offending IP addresses.

  19. @peterAUS
    "Chinks" O.K.? "Honkey"? "Krauts"?"Russkies"?
    But not "Niggers"?
    Etc.

    Gets better.


    No advocation of illegal activity (obvious)
     
    Illegal where? Defined by whom?
    USA. O.K. The owner is both citizen and resident there so makes sense. Anywhere else ...why?
    And, that's the first "rule".

    So, if we here, say, advocate, any activity which goes against Beijing hold on power...?! Or Kremlin?
    Or Brussels?
    How about Ankara?

    Can't say that the author lost all my respect (in real, practical, world), but he's firmly defined as "cuckservative" from now on.

    I do read posts from progtards too, vegans, Islamist fundamentalists, climate change fanatics etc.

    Chinese, Whites, Germans, Russians, blacks. Please don’t use the other terms here again. They’re value-detracting. That’s all I’m asking.

    As for illegality, advocacy of legal changes are fine. Advocating the commission of illegal activity (US law), similarly value-detracting.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Out of curiosity, are archaisms that have come into disrepute (at least in English) such as "Negro" and "Mohammedan" ok?
    , @peterAUS
    "value-detracting". An interesting expression and concept.

    ...advocacy of legal changes are fine. Advocating the commission of illegal activity (US law), similarly value-detracting.
     
    Man, you are funny.

    Why don't you level with us here?

    I'll do it for you; you can add if you wish.
    1. There is an organized push by TPTBs to censor online dissent. YOU are concerned you are next. What that "next" means could be tricky. From simple banning to maybe even prison time. That's the world we live in. I get that.
    2. You want to keep posting in the climate above. I get that.

    What YOU don't seem to get is: what's the point of posting anything online if it's impotent?

    Now, from your point we know.
    From our point, what's the value there? You impose self-censorship in your writing and full censorship in comments. We can read CNN or BBC instead.

    My take: go for it. Censor whatever you feel...that...."value-detracting".
    Free will, brother.
  20. @Cortes
    Do I get a star for admirin’ the “hews”, Ma’am?

    Yes!

  21. @Achmed E. Newman
    What I'm concerned with is 2 things:

    1) That it happen in real time, at least for the non-problem commenters.

    2) That the policy is clear, as you just made it.

    As much as I like Steve Sailer's posts, and commenters, (1) comes into play unless you live on Sailer-time, and (2) has come into play only a few times for me, << 1% of comments, but I never got straight what the problem was.

    BTW, I've put in your regular ordinary cuss-word here and there, and have seen no censoring. It's funny that Zerohedge has now got asterisks to replace all that, and it's just stupid-looking. I guess if it got out-of-hand here, the site would just seem crude, but it's probably best to have a hands-off policy on that. Ron Unz might write in if you're being crude as all hell.

    Steve’s blog is extremely busy. I presume he has assistance with it. From personal experience, I will attest that it can be very frustrating trying to maintain a conversation with any of his ‘favorites’ whose remarks appear instantly (you can tell by their timestamps) while mine sometimes wait days before appearing. It makes it seem as though I can’t hold up my side of a conversation, but you know what? It’s just Internet Yammering and doesn’t count for much in the Grand Scheme of Things.

    OTOH, it’s a principal reason I tithe toward the Derb instead 🙂

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    See, I was under the impression that these "favorites" may have used a real email address in signing up, or just something that I wasn't aware of. The problem is that no one ever spells out the rules.

    What I do like is that Steve Sailer, if he doesn't read all of them, must seriously skim through the comments under all his posts. His responses are kind of random, but it's nice to know the host is getting your feedback for the most part. So far, for A.E. here, it's even more the case (Thanks!), but that may change when he's got 5 posts a day with > 150 comments under each one! He may have to quit his day job.

    Many, probably naive young people, write back to Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, etc, as if they read the comments. I don't think those guys would be averse to doing that, but they are syndicated all over, so how many different web sites would they have to read to keep up? I assume they'd never see it, but Paul Craig Roberts didn't appreciate (I'm hoping it was me, tearing him a new one on the Global Climate Disruption(TM) that played a part) his commenters and got commenting turned off.

    Fred Reed and John Derbyshire chime in very rarely, John Derbyshire probably as a matter of dignity and time, Fred Reed because he doesn't like to hear that he's a fool lots of the time (lately).


    It’s just Internet Yammering and doesn’t count for much in the Grand Scheme of Things.
     
    That's definitely something you've got to remind yourself once in a while.
    , @the one they call Desanex

    ‘favorites’
     
    I call them teacher’s pets, which ties in neatly with the “schoolmarm” metaphor. Steve Sailer’s censorship is quite arbitrary and perplexing sometimes. I came of age in the days of underground comics and National Lampoon, and I like my freedom, and I get angry when my freedom is checked.
  22. Cucked and statistically-incompetent… how many brackets should we put around “AE” henceforth?

    Like PCR, this is a part of Unz’s site that just became no longer worth reading.

    The notion that someone would start throwing their weight around and wielding a banhammer, mere weeks after being given a slot here, reeks of infiltration and subversion. It has the stink of the schoolmarm, and admitting as much is not exculpatory.

    No prizes for guessing the number of brackets appropriate for folks who specialise in that sort of thing.

    Palestine, 1947.

  23. @obwandiyag
    Karlin 86s people who criticize him. Especially for the way he poses. I guess this will get me the old heave-ho here. Even though there is nothing whatsoever wrong with what I said, which is the truth.

    Insults =/= criticism (you having provided no explanation why supporting nuclear power makes me stupid or a shill, or how being a futurist and having participated in historical recreation makes me “always wrong”). I just deleted your comment, but on glancing through your comments archive and realizing that you have a consistent record of contributing abusive and negative value comments on both my and other peoples’ posts, I decided banning you would be no loss either.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    Things that are too stupid to deserve the effort of criticism, like support of nuclear power, opposition to which does not need to be defended, so obvious is it to the most cretinous of living beings, barely even deserve insult. Typically, it's all ego. Can dish it out. Can't take it.
  24. @Audacious Epigone
    Chinese, Whites, Germans, Russians, blacks. Please don't use the other terms here again. They're value-detracting. That's all I'm asking.

    As for illegality, advocacy of legal changes are fine. Advocating the commission of illegal activity (US law), similarly value-detracting.

    Out of curiosity, are archaisms that have come into disrepute (at least in English) such as “Negro” and “Mohammedan” ok?

    • Replies: @Hail
    This is a reply to others upthread on Steve Sailer blog moderation, inspired by Anatoly Karlin's question.

    My casual observation suggests the iSteve blog at the Unz Review has a three-tier comment-moderation system. One reason some find the system confusing is that it is a mix of automatic and manual elements. Here is how I think it works, in descending order of how quickly a comment will appear:

    (Category 1) Automatically approved comments. These are from a list of regulars seen to be non-trolls who add to discussion. I am not sure if Anons get included in this.

    There is an impression that category-1 comments appear 'immediately,' but not always. Often it will depend on who is viewing them: I think regulars (based on IP address) are usually able to see other regulars' comments earlier than some random first-time visitor on a smartphone in Timbuktu.

    (Category 2) A first tier of moderation. Comments of this kind usually surface some hours after posting, subject to manual approval. A (2-a) and (2-b) may be distinguished, in which (2-a) are seen to be useful comments that advance discussion and tend to be approved more quickly, and (2-b) are less-useful comments, e.g. tiresome troll fights or comments that meander into ad hominem, and tend to get delayed 'releases.'

    Since the Sailer blog moves so fast and few posts get new comments after [Posting Time]+72 hours, even a few hour delay, as in (2-b), can totally deflate troll fights. A low but non-negligible percentage of total comments fall into (2-b), but there is (by design) no way to tell whether a comment is delayed because of moderator absence or that it has been "(2-b)'ed."

    (Category 3) A second tier of automatic moderation based on a set of 'trigger' words, which tends to take the longest to surface. The presence of one or more trigger words in a comment automatically toss the comment into a low-priority folder. It isn't hard to guess what kinds of words get a comment "(3)'ed.". Anyway,


    “Negro” and “Mohammedan”
     
    I believe at least the former is subject to this tripwire and its presence will tend to delay a comment's release, sometimes significantly.

    A trigger word merely has to appear in the comment anywhere, including quoting a historical document or the like, and need not be used (quasi-)maliciously. Comments with tripwire words that really are maliciously used are presumably often deleted.

    These are just my impressions, but very often when a comment is highly delayed but then surfaces after a significant delay, close inspection reveals that it contains at least one likely 'trigger' word (essentially a non-polite-society word of any kind) that gets it automatically relegated to category (3).

    There were (formerly?) also some comment-feature bugs, such as that using the edit button would always toss a cat-1 comment into moderation.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Sure. Oriental is, too. Same with Anglo, etc.
  25. @Mr McKenna
    Good set of rules, and necessary. Yes, some items are open to interpretation, but whatever AE's faults may include, poor judgment is not among them. The only thing I'd be keen to add is a prohibition on 2500-w0rd paste jobs from elsewhere. Links work just fine for that sort of thing.

    Good set of rules, and necessary.

    The best kinds of rules are implicit ones that are maintained by cultural norms – “community standards – that are common to all civilizations. “Don’t be a jackass and be civil to each other” and such. Some people used to call that “common decency.” (Despite the relentless propaganda to the contrary, we used to have more of that in the purportedly eeevil racist past in this country.)

    Unfortunately for the Internet, that works well face-to-face, but not so well anonymously, because some people just have neither the sense of shame nor the fear of ass-whooping when no one can stare at their faces. So the rules have to be more explicit. Either that or tolerate endless trades of insults, trolling, diatribes, etc. And that may be fine for some people (and there are sites for that), but I get the sense that AE is more interested in generating value-added content and encouraging similarly productive commentary.

    At the end of the day, no place, digital or physical, fits everyone.

    • Replies: @Talha
    The way I see it (and I have organized and helped organize events and rallies before); no one in their right mind would go through the trouble of actually putting in the effort of organizing an event and then handing the mic to any random person who wanted to speak. Why? Because it is stupid. You do not want your work or effort derailed by; 1) morons, 2) people who will screw you over so badly, it will take you years to recover your image (think about the rally in Charlottesville) and 3) agent provocateurs (if anybody doesn't think these forums are being monitored, you are either naive or dangerously naive).

    The people who don't understand this are those who haven't put in the effort and demand to ride on someone else's coattails or have very little consequence to face if they screw up someone else's hard gains by marginalizing or derailing it.

    Peace.
  26. @peterAUS
    "Chinks" O.K.? "Honkey"? "Krauts"?"Russkies"?
    But not "Niggers"?
    Etc.

    Gets better.


    No advocation of illegal activity (obvious)
     
    Illegal where? Defined by whom?
    USA. O.K. The owner is both citizen and resident there so makes sense. Anywhere else ...why?
    And, that's the first "rule".

    So, if we here, say, advocate, any activity which goes against Beijing hold on power...?! Or Kremlin?
    Or Brussels?
    How about Ankara?

    Can't say that the author lost all my respect (in real, practical, world), but he's firmly defined as "cuckservative" from now on.

    I do read posts from progtards too, vegans, Islamist fundamentalists, climate change fanatics etc.

    he’s firmly defined as “cuckservative” from now on.

    People like you have managed to turn “cuckservative” into yer another whiney, meaningless term such as “racist” or “counter-revolutionary,” i.e. “people who won’t let me have my way.”

  27. @Twinkie

    Good set of rules, and necessary.
     
    The best kinds of rules are implicit ones that are maintained by cultural norms - “community standards - that are common to all civilizations. “Don’t be a jackass and be civil to each other” and such. Some people used to call that “common decency.” (Despite the relentless propaganda to the contrary, we used to have more of that in the purportedly eeevil racist past in this country.)

    Unfortunately for the Internet, that works well face-to-face, but not so well anonymously, because some people just have neither the sense of shame nor the fear of ass-whooping when no one can stare at their faces. So the rules have to be more explicit. Either that or tolerate endless trades of insults, trolling, diatribes, etc. And that may be fine for some people (and there are sites for that), but I get the sense that AE is more interested in generating value-added content and encouraging similarly productive commentary.

    At the end of the day, no place, digital or physical, fits everyone.

    The way I see it (and I have organized and helped organize events and rallies before); no one in their right mind would go through the trouble of actually putting in the effort of organizing an event and then handing the mic to any random person who wanted to speak. Why? Because it is stupid. You do not want your work or effort derailed by; 1) morons, 2) people who will screw you over so badly, it will take you years to recover your image (think about the rally in Charlottesville) and 3) agent provocateurs (if anybody doesn’t think these forums are being monitored, you are either naive or dangerously naive).

    The people who don’t understand this are those who haven’t put in the effort and demand to ride on someone else’s coattails or have very little consequence to face if they screw up someone else’s hard gains by marginalizing or derailing it.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  28. @Mr McKenna
    Steve's blog is extremely busy. I presume he has assistance with it. From personal experience, I will attest that it can be very frustrating trying to maintain a conversation with any of his 'favorites' whose remarks appear instantly (you can tell by their timestamps) while mine sometimes wait days before appearing. It makes it seem as though I can't hold up my side of a conversation, but you know what? It's just Internet Yammering and doesn't count for much in the Grand Scheme of Things.

    OTOH, it's a principal reason I tithe toward the Derb instead :)

    See, I was under the impression that these “favorites” may have used a real email address in signing up, or just something that I wasn’t aware of. The problem is that no one ever spells out the rules.

    What I do like is that Steve Sailer, if he doesn’t read all of them, must seriously skim through the comments under all his posts. His responses are kind of random, but it’s nice to know the host is getting your feedback for the most part. So far, for A.E. here, it’s even more the case (Thanks!), but that may change when he’s got 5 posts a day with > 150 comments under each one! He may have to quit his day job.

    Many, probably naive young people, write back to Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, etc, as if they read the comments. I don’t think those guys would be averse to doing that, but they are syndicated all over, so how many different web sites would they have to read to keep up? I assume they’d never see it, but Paul Craig Roberts didn’t appreciate (I’m hoping it was me, tearing him a new one on the Global Climate Disruption(TM) that played a part) his commenters and got commenting turned off.

    Fred Reed and John Derbyshire chime in very rarely, John Derbyshire probably as a matter of dignity and time, Fred Reed because he doesn’t like to hear that he’s a fool lots of the time (lately).

    It’s just Internet Yammering and doesn’t count for much in the Grand Scheme of Things.

    That’s definitely something you’ve got to remind yourself once in a while.

  29. @Anatoly Karlin
    Insults =/= criticism (you having provided no explanation why supporting nuclear power makes me stupid or a shill, or how being a futurist and having participated in historical recreation makes me "always wrong"). I just deleted your comment, but on glancing through your comments archive and realizing that you have a consistent record of contributing abusive and negative value comments on both my and other peoples' posts, I decided banning you would be no loss either.

    Things that are too stupid to deserve the effort of criticism, like support of nuclear power, opposition to which does not need to be defended, so obvious is it to the most cretinous of living beings, barely even deserve insult. Typically, it’s all ego. Can dish it out. Can’t take it.

    • Replies: @Tusk
    Ego is believing your arguments do not need justification and that all others who fail to meet your unsubstantiated beliefs are lacking, where instead you are unable to communicate in good faith. Why bother posting at all if you're of this mindset.
  30. @Audacious Epigone
    Chinese, Whites, Germans, Russians, blacks. Please don't use the other terms here again. They're value-detracting. That's all I'm asking.

    As for illegality, advocacy of legal changes are fine. Advocating the commission of illegal activity (US law), similarly value-detracting.

    “value-detracting”. An interesting expression and concept.

    …advocacy of legal changes are fine. Advocating the commission of illegal activity (US law), similarly value-detracting.

    Man, you are funny.

    Why don’t you level with us here?

    I’ll do it for you; you can add if you wish.
    1. There is an organized push by TPTBs to censor online dissent. YOU are concerned you are next. What that “next” means could be tricky. From simple banning to maybe even prison time. That’s the world we live in. I get that.
    2. You want to keep posting in the climate above. I get that.

    What YOU don’t seem to get is: what’s the point of posting anything online if it’s impotent?

    Now, from your point we know.
    From our point, what’s the value there? You impose self-censorship in your writing and full censorship in comments. We can read CNN or BBC instead.

    My take: go for it. Censor whatever you feel…that….”value-detracting”.
    Free will, brother.

  31. Things that are too stupid to deserve the effort of criticism, like support of nuclear power, opposition to which does not need to be defended

    How’s the aire on the top of that pedestal, count?

  32. @Mr McKenna
    Steve's blog is extremely busy. I presume he has assistance with it. From personal experience, I will attest that it can be very frustrating trying to maintain a conversation with any of his 'favorites' whose remarks appear instantly (you can tell by their timestamps) while mine sometimes wait days before appearing. It makes it seem as though I can't hold up my side of a conversation, but you know what? It's just Internet Yammering and doesn't count for much in the Grand Scheme of Things.

    OTOH, it's a principal reason I tithe toward the Derb instead :)

    ‘favorites’

    I call them teacher’s pets, which ties in neatly with the “schoolmarm” metaphor. Steve Sailer’s censorship is quite arbitrary and perplexing sometimes. I came of age in the days of underground comics and National Lampoon, and I like my freedom, and I get angry when my freedom is checked.

  33. @obwandiyag
    Things that are too stupid to deserve the effort of criticism, like support of nuclear power, opposition to which does not need to be defended, so obvious is it to the most cretinous of living beings, barely even deserve insult. Typically, it's all ego. Can dish it out. Can't take it.

    Ego is believing your arguments do not need justification and that all others who fail to meet your unsubstantiated beliefs are lacking, where instead you are unable to communicate in good faith. Why bother posting at all if you’re of this mindset.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    You are the kind of sophomoric (look it up) genius who insists that one must "prove" that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

    You are the kind of shill who secretly works for industry demanding that a subject where the obvious truth is known to all "needs more study." "Needs more study" is a corporate shill talking point meant to obstruct genuine needed reform.

    I repeat in stronger terms: anyone who supports nuclear power in any way is a criminal imbecile. If you demand "proof" for this obvious truth, you are a criminal imbecile.
    , @Mr McKenna
    Life's too short. Put him on ignore and move on to something of substance.
  34. @Anatoly Karlin
    Out of curiosity, are archaisms that have come into disrepute (at least in English) such as "Negro" and "Mohammedan" ok?

    This is a reply to others upthread on Steve Sailer blog moderation, inspired by Anatoly Karlin’s question.

    My casual observation suggests the iSteve blog at the Unz Review has a three-tier comment-moderation system. One reason some find the system confusing is that it is a mix of automatic and manual elements. Here is how I think it works, in descending order of how quickly a comment will appear:

    (Category 1) Automatically approved comments. These are from a list of regulars seen to be non-trolls who add to discussion. I am not sure if Anons get included in this.

    There is an impression that category-1 comments appear ‘immediately,’ but not always. Often it will depend on who is viewing them: I think regulars (based on IP address) are usually able to see other regulars’ comments earlier than some random first-time visitor on a smartphone in Timbuktu.

    (Category 2) A first tier of moderation. Comments of this kind usually surface some hours after posting, subject to manual approval. A (2-a) and (2-b) may be distinguished, in which (2-a) are seen to be useful comments that advance discussion and tend to be approved more quickly, and (2-b) are less-useful comments, e.g. tiresome troll fights or comments that meander into ad hominem, and tend to get delayed ‘releases.’

    Since the Sailer blog moves so fast and few posts get new comments after [Posting Time]+72 hours, even a few hour delay, as in (2-b), can totally deflate troll fights. A low but non-negligible percentage of total comments fall into (2-b), but there is (by design) no way to tell whether a comment is delayed because of moderator absence or that it has been “(2-b)’ed.”

    (Category 3) A second tier of automatic moderation based on a set of ‘trigger’ words, which tends to take the longest to surface. The presence of one or more trigger words in a comment automatically toss the comment into a low-priority folder. It isn’t hard to guess what kinds of words get a comment “(3)’ed.”. Anyway,

    “Negro” and “Mohammedan”

    I believe at least the former is subject to this tripwire and its presence will tend to delay a comment’s release, sometimes significantly.

    A trigger word merely has to appear in the comment anywhere, including quoting a historical document or the like, and need not be used (quasi-)maliciously. Comments with tripwire words that really are maliciously used are presumably often deleted.

    These are just my impressions, but very often when a comment is highly delayed but then surfaces after a significant delay, close inspection reveals that it contains at least one likely ‘trigger’ word (essentially a non-polite-society word of any kind) that gets it automatically relegated to category (3).

    There were (formerly?) also some comment-feature bugs, such as that using the edit button would always toss a cat-1 comment into moderation.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Impressive theorypoasting.

    Your speculations on Category 1 comments are correct but I have no idea about any of the others. I'm not on iSteve regularly enough to get a feel for it.

    ***

    While I don't pretend to be worthy of giving any sort of advice to Sailer, I really do think his time and brilliance might be put to better effect (e.g. writing books) than moderating many hundreds of comments every day. This must take at least an hour, perhaps a couple, every single day. Unless he has a script to do it (v. unlikely) or an assistant (possible, but I suspect not).
  35. @Hail
    This is a reply to others upthread on Steve Sailer blog moderation, inspired by Anatoly Karlin's question.

    My casual observation suggests the iSteve blog at the Unz Review has a three-tier comment-moderation system. One reason some find the system confusing is that it is a mix of automatic and manual elements. Here is how I think it works, in descending order of how quickly a comment will appear:

    (Category 1) Automatically approved comments. These are from a list of regulars seen to be non-trolls who add to discussion. I am not sure if Anons get included in this.

    There is an impression that category-1 comments appear 'immediately,' but not always. Often it will depend on who is viewing them: I think regulars (based on IP address) are usually able to see other regulars' comments earlier than some random first-time visitor on a smartphone in Timbuktu.

    (Category 2) A first tier of moderation. Comments of this kind usually surface some hours after posting, subject to manual approval. A (2-a) and (2-b) may be distinguished, in which (2-a) are seen to be useful comments that advance discussion and tend to be approved more quickly, and (2-b) are less-useful comments, e.g. tiresome troll fights or comments that meander into ad hominem, and tend to get delayed 'releases.'

    Since the Sailer blog moves so fast and few posts get new comments after [Posting Time]+72 hours, even a few hour delay, as in (2-b), can totally deflate troll fights. A low but non-negligible percentage of total comments fall into (2-b), but there is (by design) no way to tell whether a comment is delayed because of moderator absence or that it has been "(2-b)'ed."

    (Category 3) A second tier of automatic moderation based on a set of 'trigger' words, which tends to take the longest to surface. The presence of one or more trigger words in a comment automatically toss the comment into a low-priority folder. It isn't hard to guess what kinds of words get a comment "(3)'ed.". Anyway,


    “Negro” and “Mohammedan”
     
    I believe at least the former is subject to this tripwire and its presence will tend to delay a comment's release, sometimes significantly.

    A trigger word merely has to appear in the comment anywhere, including quoting a historical document or the like, and need not be used (quasi-)maliciously. Comments with tripwire words that really are maliciously used are presumably often deleted.

    These are just my impressions, but very often when a comment is highly delayed but then surfaces after a significant delay, close inspection reveals that it contains at least one likely 'trigger' word (essentially a non-polite-society word of any kind) that gets it automatically relegated to category (3).

    There were (formerly?) also some comment-feature bugs, such as that using the edit button would always toss a cat-1 comment into moderation.

    Impressive theorypoasting.

    Your speculations on Category 1 comments are correct but I have no idea about any of the others. I’m not on iSteve regularly enough to get a feel for it.

    ***

    While I don’t pretend to be worthy of giving any sort of advice to Sailer, I really do think his time and brilliance might be put to better effect (e.g. writing books) than moderating many hundreds of comments every day. This must take at least an hour, perhaps a couple, every single day. Unless he has a script to do it (v. unlikely) or an assistant (possible, but I suspect not).

  36. @Tusk
    Ego is believing your arguments do not need justification and that all others who fail to meet your unsubstantiated beliefs are lacking, where instead you are unable to communicate in good faith. Why bother posting at all if you're of this mindset.

    You are the kind of sophomoric (look it up) genius who insists that one must “prove” that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

    You are the kind of shill who secretly works for industry demanding that a subject where the obvious truth is known to all “needs more study.” “Needs more study” is a corporate shill talking point meant to obstruct genuine needed reform.

    I repeat in stronger terms: anyone who supports nuclear power in any way is a criminal imbecile. If you demand “proof” for this obvious truth, you are a criminal imbecile.

    • Replies: @Talha

    If you demand “proof” for this obvious truth,
     
    Honestly, religions are more flexible than this. They actually attempt to convert to their side via some coherent and rational proofs. If you state someone is a "criminal imbecile" for supporting something; at least pony up one or two citations from a reputable source.

    I'm ambivalent on the subject, but this line of argumentation would lead someone on the fence like myself to conclude that your side of the argument has no substance, thus forfeiting to the other side.

    And the kicker is, the writers of the articles can say anything they want.
     
    Which you give you incentive to build your own blog and brand and drive traffic to it so you can run it just like you want to.

    Peace.
    , @Tusk
    Here you go, this is the type of person you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
    I'll not waste my time rationlising with someone unable to grasp basic epistemological truths.
  37. The very best blog commentary was on the old, and I mean a long time ago, more than a decade, comment threads for Truthdig. It was wonderful. They had no “moderation” whatsoever. Mostly, I suspect, because they weren’t up to the tech of it.

    Anyhow, on the oldold Truthdig, you could say ANYTHING. There were these wonderful, fascinating flame wars that would go on for page after page after page. It was a joy. Then the sissies got hold of the new tech and pretty soon you couldn’t say “boo.”

    I’m for complete freedom. What are you for? And don’t get all “reasonable” with me. “Reasonable” rhymes with repression.

    Unz is freer than most, but rapidly the clamps are coming down, as with everything.

    And the kicker is, the writers of the articles can say anything they want. And then they stomp down on the little commenters with the big shoe of tough love. Hypocrisy, thy name is blogdom.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    There were these wonderful, fascinating flame wars that would go on for page after page after page. It was a joy. Then the sissies got hold of the new tech and pretty soon you couldn’t say “boo.”
     
    Proof that even a blind (censored) will eventually find a (censored).

    Back in the day, before most of you (censored)‘s were born, in the mythical world of the early 1990’s, when dinosaurs roamed the land with Adam & Steve, epic flame wars brilliantly lit the cyberscape of interweb bulletin boards alongside pirated copies of 5-1/4” floppy disks of software. There was no (censored) censorship whatsoever and it was glorious. Users would gird their (censored)‘s for battle, dial up their 1200baud modems, bravely redial after hours of busy signals, then join the fray.

    It occurs to me now, in my (censored) old age, that kids today are all of a type. Snowflakes, or as I call them (censored), whether SJWs or just garden variety (censored), have the sensibilities of Puritans. Bad words you see actually cause them pain. I attribute this to our newfangled modern education system where mommies and surrogates like “teachers” immediately pounce upon any child who might utter the wrong sequence of sounds. Why I still recall, back in those dark mysts of ancient history some call the 1970’s, a time when mommies and surrogates would hear such horrible noises emanating from children, shrug their shoulders, pop another Valium, and mutter “boys will be boys” before turning up the volume on General Hospital to drown out the sounds of the fists striking (censored) skulls and wailing of (censored) mouths that frequently ensued. Today, this is called “child abuse” and the ultimate result is we must have mommies and nannies supervising every noise we make or key we stroke (is that word allowed?). Testosterone (how about that one?) must be eradicated in all its manifestations and permutations you see.

    Perhaps the greatest and yet probably unintended consequences of this strange new world is that it virtually guarantees no real rebellion can ever occur. If the little (censored) can’t even utter a certain sequence of sounds or type proscribed characters on a screen, how could the (censored) possibly conceive ideas or actions that might upset mommy or nanny? I’d like to insert a video clip of thoughtcriminal George Carlin but his (censored) is all censored in this Age of Enlightenment. Soon, very soon I’m certain, even his name - (censored) - will be censored and memory-(censored).

    Just remember children, one must never ever call, type, or even think that a (censored) is a (censored). Such behavior is not appropriate and does not add value! Mommy will take away your participation trophy if she so much as suspects you of smirking, let alone eye rolling (or for you (censored), teeth sucking). Yikes! Jiminy Cricket, did the s-word just escape my keyboard and leave opprobrious filth on your screen? Forgive an old (censored) please, I beg your forgiveness. I’m only trying to add value here despite my special challenges in cognition. I promise I will be a good (censored) from now on..
  38. @obwandiyag
    You are the kind of sophomoric (look it up) genius who insists that one must "prove" that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

    You are the kind of shill who secretly works for industry demanding that a subject where the obvious truth is known to all "needs more study." "Needs more study" is a corporate shill talking point meant to obstruct genuine needed reform.

    I repeat in stronger terms: anyone who supports nuclear power in any way is a criminal imbecile. If you demand "proof" for this obvious truth, you are a criminal imbecile.

    If you demand “proof” for this obvious truth,

    Honestly, religions are more flexible than this. They actually attempt to convert to their side via some coherent and rational proofs. If you state someone is a “criminal imbecile” for supporting something; at least pony up one or two citations from a reputable source.

    I’m ambivalent on the subject, but this line of argumentation would lead someone on the fence like myself to conclude that your side of the argument has no substance, thus forfeiting to the other side.

    And the kicker is, the writers of the articles can say anything they want.

    Which you give you incentive to build your own blog and brand and drive traffic to it so you can run it just like you want to.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    You don't even get what I said. Learn to read.
  39. @Talha

    If you demand “proof” for this obvious truth,
     
    Honestly, religions are more flexible than this. They actually attempt to convert to their side via some coherent and rational proofs. If you state someone is a "criminal imbecile" for supporting something; at least pony up one or two citations from a reputable source.

    I'm ambivalent on the subject, but this line of argumentation would lead someone on the fence like myself to conclude that your side of the argument has no substance, thus forfeiting to the other side.

    And the kicker is, the writers of the articles can say anything they want.
     
    Which you give you incentive to build your own blog and brand and drive traffic to it so you can run it just like you want to.

    Peace.

    You don’t even get what I said. Learn to read.

    • Troll: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Talha
    So you don't really have any good references then, I take it?

    Peace.
  40. @obwandiyag
    You are the kind of sophomoric (look it up) genius who insists that one must "prove" that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

    You are the kind of shill who secretly works for industry demanding that a subject where the obvious truth is known to all "needs more study." "Needs more study" is a corporate shill talking point meant to obstruct genuine needed reform.

    I repeat in stronger terms: anyone who supports nuclear power in any way is a criminal imbecile. If you demand "proof" for this obvious truth, you are a criminal imbecile.

    Here you go, this is the type of person you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
    I’ll not waste my time rationlising with someone unable to grasp basic epistemological truths.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    Incredible. Right out of the Frank Luntz playbook: "Call your opponents what you are."

    You are simply unable to grasp what I said. You actually cannot understand it. You have not addressed a thing I said. I wrote clearly and succinctly and still you totally ignore what I said in your answer. Instead you just repeat your irrelevancies. Red Herring fallacy, in case you were wondering. And I don't need no citations to identify it. I'm too much smarter than you.

    You actually think that that the sun rises must be proved. I don't have a wikipedia citation for the kind of fool you are. But you have just proved yourself a fool, speaking of proving things. Learn, I say, learn, to read. The real waste of time is you, trying to get me to "prove" the inarguable.
    , @Stan d Mute
    Why are you even replying, let alone attempting a debate, a (censored) (censored) whose
    (censored) is similar to that of a (censored)? His (censored) leaves him bereft of any semblance of (censored) most likely due to his (censored) (censored) (censored) (censored) and (censored) (censored).

    Aw, (censored) it. I not adding any value to this (censored) thread anyway..
  41. @obwandiyag
    You don't even get what I said. Learn to read.

    So you don’t really have any good references then, I take it?

    Peace.

  42. @Tusk
    Here you go, this is the type of person you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
    I'll not waste my time rationlising with someone unable to grasp basic epistemological truths.

    Incredible. Right out of the Frank Luntz playbook: “Call your opponents what you are.”

    You are simply unable to grasp what I said. You actually cannot understand it. You have not addressed a thing I said. I wrote clearly and succinctly and still you totally ignore what I said in your answer. Instead you just repeat your irrelevancies. Red Herring fallacy, in case you were wondering. And I don’t need no citations to identify it. I’m too much smarter than you.

    You actually think that that the sun rises must be proved. I don’t have a wikipedia citation for the kind of fool you are. But you have just proved yourself a fool, speaking of proving things. Learn, I say, learn, to read. The real waste of time is you, trying to get me to “prove” the inarguable.

  43. @Tusk
    Here you go, this is the type of person you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
    I'll not waste my time rationlising with someone unable to grasp basic epistemological truths.

    Why are you even replying, let alone attempting a debate, a (censored) (censored) whose
    (censored) is similar to that of a (censored)? His (censored) leaves him bereft of any semblance of (censored) most likely due to his (censored) (censored) (censored) (censored) and (censored) (censored).

    Aw, (censored) it. I not adding any value to this (censored) thread anyway..

  44. @Tusk
    Ego is believing your arguments do not need justification and that all others who fail to meet your unsubstantiated beliefs are lacking, where instead you are unable to communicate in good faith. Why bother posting at all if you're of this mindset.

    Life’s too short. Put him on ignore and move on to something of substance.

  45. @obwandiyag
    The very best blog commentary was on the old, and I mean a long time ago, more than a decade, comment threads for Truthdig. It was wonderful. They had no "moderation" whatsoever. Mostly, I suspect, because they weren't up to the tech of it.

    Anyhow, on the oldold Truthdig, you could say ANYTHING. There were these wonderful, fascinating flame wars that would go on for page after page after page. It was a joy. Then the sissies got hold of the new tech and pretty soon you couldn't say "boo."

    I'm for complete freedom. What are you for? And don't get all "reasonable" with me. "Reasonable" rhymes with repression.

    Unz is freer than most, but rapidly the clamps are coming down, as with everything.

    And the kicker is, the writers of the articles can say anything they want. And then they stomp down on the little commenters with the big shoe of tough love. Hypocrisy, thy name is blogdom.

    There were these wonderful, fascinating flame wars that would go on for page after page after page. It was a joy. Then the sissies got hold of the new tech and pretty soon you couldn’t say “boo.”

    Proof that even a blind (censored) will eventually find a (censored).

    Back in the day, before most of you (censored)‘s were born, in the mythical world of the early 1990’s, when dinosaurs roamed the land with Adam & Steve, epic flame wars brilliantly lit the cyberscape of interweb bulletin boards alongside pirated copies of 5-1/4” floppy disks of software. There was no (censored) censorship whatsoever and it was glorious. Users would gird their (censored)‘s for battle, dial up their 1200baud modems, bravely redial after hours of busy signals, then join the fray.

    It occurs to me now, in my (censored) old age, that kids today are all of a type. Snowflakes, or as I call them (censored), whether SJWs or just garden variety (censored), have the sensibilities of Puritans. Bad words you see actually cause them pain. I attribute this to our newfangled modern education system where mommies and surrogates like “teachers” immediately pounce upon any child who might utter the wrong sequence of sounds. Why I still recall, back in those dark mysts of ancient history some call the 1970’s, a time when mommies and surrogates would hear such horrible noises emanating from children, shrug their shoulders, pop another Valium, and mutter “boys will be boys” before turning up the volume on General Hospital to drown out the sounds of the fists striking (censored) skulls and wailing of (censored) mouths that frequently ensued. Today, this is called “child abuse” and the ultimate result is we must have mommies and nannies supervising every noise we make or key we stroke (is that word allowed?). Testosterone (how about that one?) must be eradicated in all its manifestations and permutations you see.

    Perhaps the greatest and yet probably unintended consequences of this strange new world is that it virtually guarantees no real rebellion can ever occur. If the little (censored) can’t even utter a certain sequence of sounds or type proscribed characters on a screen, how could the (censored) possibly conceive ideas or actions that might upset mommy or nanny? I’d like to insert a video clip of thoughtcriminal George Carlin but his (censored) is all censored in this Age of Enlightenment. Soon, very soon I’m certain, even his name – (censored) – will be censored and memory-(censored).

    Just remember children, one must never ever call, type, or even think that a (censored) is a (censored). Such behavior is not appropriate and does not add value! Mommy will take away your participation trophy if she so much as suspects you of smirking, let alone eye rolling (or for you (censored), teeth sucking). Yikes! Jiminy Cricket, did the s-word just escape my keyboard and leave opprobrious filth on your screen? Forgive an old (censored) please, I beg your forgiveness. I’m only trying to add value here despite my special challenges in cognition. I promise I will be a good (censored) from now on..

  46. @Anatoly Karlin
    Out of curiosity, are archaisms that have come into disrepute (at least in English) such as "Negro" and "Mohammedan" ok?

    Sure. Oriental is, too. Same with Anglo, etc.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS