Yes
CraigOhMyEggo
joined 1 year ago
Wait, it does? I was always taught it had the fertility of a three thousand kilometer savannah.
If what I say correctly abides by the rules of language, then the only issues with what I write would thus be technical.
I'm going to pull a quote out of [email protected]'s playbook and say if you insist standards for how people present themselves should be so high, a community of people exchanging questions and answers, especially ones with high concentrations of socialists, isn't for you.
Why is everyone complaining these days that they had to run something by ChatGPT for clarification as if the very fact ChatGPT understands a question doesn't itself imply there's nothing linguistically wrong with how it was asked?
Was going to answer this earlier but I thought maybe someone else might before I did.
Yes, you're on the right track, give or take a little nuance. On Reddit, this would get someone banned in a heartbeat, which is arguably not entirely out of left field.
To explain it in summarized terms, basically there's an admin of the ML instance and a community mod (the mod is from the community [email protected]).
The mod and the admin happened to meet up on a post about LGBTQ+ rights, the mod herself being on the asexual spectrum. The mod brought up (because she thought it was relevant, as a third party member I guess) that the American Democrat Party often appeals to groups (such as Islam, even not minding their extreme side) who have a history of not seeing eye to eye with the LGBTQ+.
The admin, who is known for being very articulate but reached a new low I've ever seen with this incident, tried getting his opinion in to no avail before removing half of her (the mod's) replies there, banning her from a bunch of random communities to get a point across, effectively made her leave the instance, exposed private information of hers out of spite if that wasn't enough, and then backlashed on Reddit when someone called him out on it.
Reading between the lines makes me think of the encounters I've had with Islamic extremists.
Was going to answer this earlier but I thought maybe someone else might before I did.
To explain it in summarized terms, basically there's an admin (of the instance I'm in) and a community mod (the mod is from the community [email protected]).
The mod and the admin happened to meet up on a post about LGBT rights. The mod brought up (because she thought it was relevant) that the American Democrat Party often appeals to entities (such as Islam) who have a history of not seeing eye to eye with the LGBT.
The admin, who is known for being fiery but met an all-time low with this incident, tried getting his two cents in, to no avail, before removing half of her (the mod's) replies there, banning her from a bunch of random communities to get a point across, scared her out of the instance, exposed private information of hers out of spite, and then backlashed on Reddit when someone called him out on it.
The response of mine above includes my suggestion that not doing anything might as well amount to other instances being victim to manipulation.
Considering the presidential debate just happened in the US, it brings to mind election extremism as a means of propaganda.
Cool-headed? What was going on I wonder with the modlogs inferring he spammed the ban hammer against her in four different communities (three would be unrelated) before the initiation of official instance action (all with the default reason cited, like he wanted to drive the statement of a grudge home)? The only thing she was elaborating on was how counter-intuitive it is American Democrats split their sympathies between the LGBT and the complete creed of Islam (hence the part in the OP about the LGBT, of note is the fact her asexuality is alluded to in conversation almost each time corresponding to something like this happening). Honestly sounds like a particularly agenda-based sentiment.
Many weren't public until he said anything and are connected to other personal info.
You prove my point. There's a difference between ways of communicating that go against the rules of language and ways of communicating that simply, to some people, seem to overuse it. My original message had no typos.
There's nothing stopping a sound mind that wants to understand it from understanding it. Or this sound mind could also, in theory, ask for a paraphrasing, and maybe the asker would have the courtesy to elaborate in some way.
Treating someone as having committed an offense worse than using slurs, just due to the way they explained something in the style of normal speech and language rules, is at least two levels of escalation above that and unprovoked.