mozz

Yeah. I was talking purely about what should happen.

The US's failure to move forward on supporting the ICC under Bush 2 was one among many great betrayals of justice by the US. Under Clinton it was actually moving towards happening. The absolutely phenomenal documentary Prosecuting Evil touches on it near the end, and Ferencz's work towards making it happen.

Fucking fifty years too late

75,000 people dead in a decades-long state sponsored murder, out of a population smaller than Wisconsin

Billions upon billions of dollars, weapons every year, vetoes at the UN to give Israel diplomatic cover

And it's fucking not enough for him

What he should be signaling his fury about is a US-enforced no fly zone and UN peacekeepers on the ground outnumbering the IDF, and the CIA inside Israel tracking down members of his cabinet to take them to the ICJ. He should be thanking his lucky stars that he's getting "abstain" at the UN and "only" $3 billion worth of aid, and people are still trying at this stage to provide cover for his slaughter operation for some fucking reason. But no.

So you don't take exception to any of the rest of it?

Okay, fine. Let me try again.

You can't meaningfully respond to the substance, so you're seizing on weird little trivialities -- out of this list of billion- and trillion-dollar scale good things Biden did, one and only one of them was merely a good-faith attempt to do something good, and it didn't succeed! Dude sucks.

That's a very bad argument, and I feel like I've spent entirely too much time at this point explaining why that is. Happier with that?

Okay, fine. Let me try again.

You seized on literally the only thing in my long-enough-to-be-tedious list that was an attempt instead of an outcome, and are dealing with it as if giving him credit for that attempt was the only thing I'd done, instead of one attempt listed among a big group of demonstrated successes. I'm almost impressed.

The first two items in my list represented the successful outcome of his second attempt at something, after the first attempt was blocked, but those $144 billion and 40% reduction numbers are the outcome (after the initial much bigger attempt). Then comes the attempt at marijuana legalization. Every other item is simply the outcome.

I think you should get some sort of award for how vaguely plausible you make this argument sound, given the yawning gulf between it and what I actually said, and the fact that the evidence for it not happening the way you said is literally just right up there in the comments up above (not buried away somewhere in some government document that there could be legitimate debate about how to interpret.)

Happier with that?

It's not great, but it's the only really effective model we have.

Yeah, agreed. It's a much harder problem than it seems like on the surface because it's by definition happening behind the scenes -- when everything's working, it looks like moderation is not needed.

AI just isn't there, and opens up a whole new can of worms about the programming of said AI even if it were.

Not sure this is true. I've been messing around with it seems surprisingly plausible to get it to work. Of course... how it works in practice is very very different from how it works playing around with it.

I think the issue is that the mods on .world are allowing their biases to affect their willingness to remove or ban something. There's a lot more leniency for typically far-left viewpoints.

I don't think this is true. Contrast it with lemmy.ml - the mods there are clearly just removing viewpoints they don't like. I haven't seen that on lemmy.world. You sent me examples, but as far as I can tell they are very clearly rule violations being removed, with the viewpoint of the comment not really being relevant.

Like I've been talking about "yay Biden" for weeks now, and not a word about removing anything until I started copy-pasting stuff.

Edit: Another example... just out of curiosity I just ran your user through my little moderation-tester, and my instant reaction looking at the first thing that came out was "man... I don't want to submit that to OpenAI; I'm gonna get in trouble with the content filter."

This is actually the first time it's been removed -- for some reason a bunch of copies of it going back a few days all got nuked at once this morning.

I actually don't really hard-disagree with removing it. To me it's extremely productive to the conversation and I didn't see the point in having to retype all that stuff out for every thread where the exact same arguments come out, but it is also clearly a repost; maybe it's better for the mods to just evenly apply all the rules to all the comments instead of trying to play the game of "well I feel this particular way about this particular comment so it can stay / so it has to go."

To me, I'm fine just rephrasing if it comes up in the future or linking to it or something. I don't get the feeling that mods are deliberately removing it specifically because of the viewpoint of it.

Pretty much every one except X/Twitter. If you don't make some effort in that direction then your platform quickly becomes an absolute cesspool (see Twitter).

I don't actually think so. I mean, I don't agree with removing it as in my view it contributes positively to the discussion, but it's definitely a repost. Removing it doesn't seem obviously malicious to me.

Personally my feeling is that it's probably just because of mods having to deal with a tidal wave of malicious crap on any given day and so developing a short fuse for anything that looks bad-adjacent. To me, the underlying issue is that you have to have mods in this sort of underappreciated volunteer / unelected dictator role, where those two roles don't synergize well with each other, and neither one is really a balanced way of hitting the mark of what's needed.

But it is technically true that my stuff was just a copypasta becoming a low-effort fixture on several posts, and I do think your posts getting personally insulting and specifically accusing some of the probably-shills of being Russian assets when you don't really know, were a little out of line. IDK. Mostly I just think the whole model of "we have to have a person in the background deciding what statements are reasonable to be allowed and not" isn't the right way to go about it.

What the heck man

Why they removin my copypasta

Do you have an example or two? I know the lemmy.ml mods are shit, that is not news to me, but I haven't seen this happen on lemmy.world that I can remember.

Do you have a source for this? Reddit's mods on big or politically-or-commercially-relevant subs were very clearly compromised, but I hadn't seen any indication of that on lemmy.world and I was kind of hoping that it would be a lot more resistant.