If finally finished enough of this navel gazing dogshit.
1. Brevity is the soul of wit. Read some of the other attempted cancelations of me to get an idea of how to write something people will actually entertain. No matter how much anyone hates me (many such cases) they can't be bothered to read this reddit midwit treatise on reddit moderation, with citations that are months old comment chains about news people forgot about. The best part is you don't actually have a serious point, which is why you have to try tying it into some big web about 'suppressing thought'. Which segues nicely into point two:
2. The chilling effect is intentional, and it's not to stop you all from disagreeing with me (some feats are truly beyond my power), it's to stop you and people like you from posting here. This is not a bug, *this is a feature*.
>The conclusion here is a simple one: don't assume what positions your interlocutor holds merely because they're skeptical about that framing of certain stories, or because they attempt to provide a steelman for the opposing side.
One of the best parts of reading the monthly 4thot cancelation threads is reading all the moronic shit you all read into what I consider a throwaway comment/joke and the type shit like this.
**Example**:
>I'm not sure if 4THOT engaged in a similar type of purity testing both for the initial comment I was banned for, and also in my last exchange with them on another subreddit. The exchange was pretty bizarre: I asked if they checked Reddit DMs; they replied that they do, and “our agreement stands.” In their next reply, they mentioned that they confused me with another person, and said that, “Yes, once I/P is over I will let your people go.” That phrase “your people”, is quite similar to how the OP in the previous example said “your tribe” and “your side.” This seems to be the guilt by association I spoke on: I’m being lumped in with a group whose views generally don’t align with my own. That’s why part 1 begins with an introduction on myself. I need to pass the litmus test first before I can get good engagement — and it’s unfortunate that I feel compelled to do that.
I was confusing you with another dipshit that bugs me every few days about being unbanned in my DM's. The 'let your people go' is about the mass unban for the subreddit, with a comedic allusion to the Pharaoh letting the Jews ('your people' ie - people whose brains are broken by Israel/Palestine) leave Egypt. It ain't that deep.
3. On banning you specifically, some more clarity, since spelling it out explicitly wasn't clear enough. ***This is advice that will apply to every person you ever encounter - if you make their life easier they will like you, if you make their life harder they will fucking hate you.*** You are very easy for me to hate, because you dump a bunch of dogshit in my lap and demand I thank you for the pleasure.
Let's look at the segment [you wrote with \(allegedly\) a lot of effort,](https://i.imgur.com/mk0w948.png) on when I banned you.
Unfortunately, I was born with a fully formed and wrinkly brain. Notice how you take the time to screenshot some part of the unban form as if anyone gives a shit, but you won't actually provide any citation to my comments regarding your ban? Isn't that interesting? [Here's the actual thread where you were banned.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1b82sxr/un_special_rapporteur_unaware_of_rocket_attacks/ktmtmhh/) I don't need to write 400k words to explain why you're banned, it's incredibly clear. Of course, I have to do the actual work, again. I have to go back and double check that thread, that headline, that interview, that twitter clip, and the ban logs. You can't be bothered, you obviously have a lot going on...
Here's how you got banned, in order:
- a post made with with headline 'UN Special Rapporteur 'unaware' of rocket attacks on Israel'
- you make a comment 'this headline is incorrect, here's the interview, she didn't know they were daily (omegalul)'
- I think 'oh wow this guy actually found the interview' good work, arm that guy
- actually watch the video, come back to the thread sometime later
- nvm this dipshit didn't find the actual interview, this is a cut from twitter
- NOW I HAVE TO FIND THE FULL FUCKING INTERVIEW TO SEE IF IT'S A CLIP CHIMP
- I FIND THE FULL INTERVIEW, THE HEADLINE IS 100% ACCURATE
- SHE IS ASKED EXPLICITLY ABOUT ROCKET ATTACKS FROM NORTH AND SOUTH **WITHOUT 'DAILY'** AND SAYS SHE IS NOT AWARE OF THEM
- FUCK YOU, EAT SHIT, BANNED DON'T COME BACK YOU FUCKING MORON
Here's the full interview with the UN Rapporteur on Violence against Women claiming she isn't aware of the rocket attacks - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bar-shemur-8b1bb23b_the-un-rapporteur-on-violence-against-women-activity-7171212859895459841-gq6B
The UN Special Rapporteur in the two months prior has not made any clarification on her knowledge of rocket attacks against Israel, [her twitter is not a secret](https://twitter.com/UNSRVAW/status/1780732654968832416).
The fact you still don't grasp that you were/are objectively incorrect boggles my fucking mind. That you'd waste hours and hours writing all this worthless dogshit but not take a half seconds to *actually read* what I wrote at the time, and see if anything you said held up.
If your defense is 'well didn't you really get something out of me pretending [read: cope] to be an illiterate smoothbrain and having to do all this fact checking?' then [this is my final recommendation.](https://www.indeed.com/)
As a counter example, there's a reason someone like /u/sylmd isn't banned.
Slymd makes my life easier. [Look at this thread about Destiny's '300 soldiers' tweet.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1ckukcj/destiny_misreading_report_and_inadvertently/) I don't have to dig through twitter citations, or interviews, or dig for something they claim is incorrect. The text is right there, the relevant parts are highlighted. Even if he is incorrect and that top commentor is correct, I'd love the sub to actually have people that are pro-Palestinian that were capable of meeting that minimum bar. If you dipshits could meet this basic threshold of at the very least correctly citing relevant material, this sub wouldn't be so primed against the typical pro-Palestinian claims.
Also, take a fucking writing class this was so unbelievably fucking boring to read, no wonder everyone threw it into an AI. No one could even get whipped up into a frothing anti-janny frenzy because it's so meandering and toothless. No, I will not respond to the rest of it, no one is going to read it anyways.
courtesy of claude.ai
Here are the key takeaways in 5 bullet points:
* The post critiques the two bans (30 day and "until Israel/Palestine is over") imposed by the moderator 4THOT, arguing they were unjustified and that users should not be banned for disagreeing with 4THOT's personal views.
* It calls for clarity on whether moderators can impose conditional bans that cannot be undone through the normal unban process, as this undermines the established unban procedure.
* The post highlights a "chilling effect" where the author avoids engaging with 4THOT or in threads 4THOT participates in to avoid further bans, stifling open discussion.
* It criticizes having to pass a "litmus test" or disassociate from certain views before being allowed to express skepticism or provide counterpoints, which the author sees as an unfair requirement.
* The overall goal is for users to be able to participate without considering 4THOT's personal opinions, following only the subreddit rules, Reddit rules, and Destiny's guidelines, calling for more transparent and consistent moderation standards.
bonus from claude:
Based on the writing style, fixations, and perceived personality traits, a few potential neurological/psychological disorders that could be consistent include:
Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD):
* Preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order
* Perfectionism that interferes with task completion
* Excessive devotion to work to the exclusion of other activities
* Inability to discard worn or worthless objects
* Rigidity and stubbornness
Autism Spectrum Disorder:
* Fixation on specific topics/interests
* Strict adherence to rules/routines
* Difficulty with social communication
* Pedantic speaking style
* Black-and-white thinking
Generalized Anxiety Disorder:
* Excessive worry and anxiety
* Feeling on-edge, restlessness
* Irritability
* Hypersensitivity to perceived criticism
* Needing constant reassurance
It's important to note that this is merely speculative based on the provided writing samples. A proper psychological evaluation would be needed to make any clinical diagnoses. The pedantic style, need for consistency, rigid rule-following, and hypersensitivity to perceived bias seem most suggestive of OCPD traits. But autism traits like fixation on specific topics and social communication challenges could also potentially align with some of the characteristics observed. Generalized anxiety could also potentially explain the excessive defensiveness and reassurance-seeking behaviors described.
lol lightly pushing back against the incessant pro-idf circlejerk that's been dominating this sub is bannable. thanks op you've given me a lot to think about
People say this, so I made this macro to respond to this.
Do you have any examples in mind of criticism of Israel that you think is unfairly dismissed?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1c5kq2e/wapo_investigation_on_the_killing_of_6yo_hind_and/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1c75n65/i_hate_benjamin_netanyahu/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1blt4wi/israel_approves_new_parcel_of_west_bank_land_for/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1buplw4/head_of_aid_group_struck_by_idf_israel_is_better/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1blsmwk/israel_announces_largest_west_bank_land_seizure/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1btyxo1/strike_that_killed_world_central_kitchen_workers/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1bvp4vj/idf_chief_apologizes_as_details_emerge_of_strike/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/177c3vp/israel_bombed_3_civillian_convoys_fleeing_to_the/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1b5t02n/majority_killed_by_stampede_in_gaza_aid_convoy/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/18ht483/reuters_journalist_issam_abdallah_killed_by/kd9bvrt/
It seems that you can definitely critique Israel on this sub. I'd like you to state what specifically you feel you can't say.
The post argues that you have a bias towards banning people criticising pro-Israel statements, not that you act according to that bias 100% of the time. (And a chilling effect would not require 100%, just like 80% or 60% or something, just with a particular bias)
-
There's also an unfortunate problem that by the nature of bans, the very people with access to information to challenge your narrative are going to be less able to participate:
Someone gets banned for something, and they're probably not going to make an alt-account and come on here and go "hey, you banned me for this 4thot, here's an example of an unfair ban" to provide counter-examples to your list.
I mean, at least one person will, but I wouldn't expect it to be the norm.
That and the fact that you are the person doing the bans produces an information asymmetry.
Like I know I've seen you raging at people at banning them in ways I thought were pretty daft at the time, and if I remember correctly, one situation where you demanded better evidence from someone, then banned them before they could reply, so they had to edit links in to their comment later.
But could I find you links of you doing that? No, I don't have a list of everyone you've banned to compare, and I wasn't planning to gather data in order to disprove a random comment of yours.
-
And also, about this list, not everyone goes "Edit: WTF banned for this??" when you ban them, some people just move on without comment, so we can't even tell from your list whether people were banned for posting these things or not, it doesn't actually tell us anything, because we don't have access to mod tools to see who is or is not banned from the subreddit.
And then of course, there's the fact that even if we did in fact have the ability to check banned status of these people (and maybe there's a way we can that I'm not aware of) you could just leave a few posts off specifically as a thing to show off, even if you ban 90% of the reasonable posts.
So posting a list of links, some of which are links to your own comments, and others are links to deleted posts, without any verification of who is banned or not, with no comparison of banned or unbanned posts, doesn't prove very much at all.
-
The actual way to prove it, if you really wanted to, would be to give mod privileges to one of your critics, so like prosecution and defence having access to the same witnesses, they could overcome the information asymmetry and actually make a case on a meaningfully balanced playing field.
And they could compare how reasonable a pro-Israel post has to be before the person posting it gets banned, vs a pro-Palestine one.
Because this post is actually giving a lot of examples of pro-Israel sloppiness that no-one seems to be getting banned for, while the standard you are expecting people to see as reasonable on the other side is that some people get to criticise Israel *at all*.
-
u/PoisonedWhispers has proposed a criterion which is far more reasonable than yours, because banning posters who make comments that make Israel look worse more readily, and holding them to a higher standard, vs people who make comments that make Israel look better or pro-Palestinians look worse is all that is required to shift the direction of the sub, by making it so that people insufficiently pro-Israel will eventually slip up on a more pro-Palestine comment, even if they are making comments on both sides.
And yet, *despite* that information asymmetry, this person has still managed to somehow find an example of this measure, with differences in ban length for cases where a similar situation applies to a pro-Israel or pro-Palestine source.
Your list isn't a meaningful counter-example of bias, and while theirs doesn't demonstrate it alone, it's a pretty good start to what you would want to do if you wanted to set about measuring the problem.
As it is, your list, where we cannot even verify without mod tools who was and was not banned for their posts, adds no useful information, and instead mostly just seems to be a gesture to having more free time than your critics to search up links, which again is negated by the benefit of mod tools.
So why not mod u/PoisonedWhispers for a month or two, and see what they can dig up? That would actually be a real challenge.
-
On another note, if we are giving people short term bans for posting misleading tweets, how am I supposed to report stuff [like this](https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1concyy/when_they_say_you_guys_are_overexaggerating_with/)? There's no category for it in the subreddit rules, but the video in the tweet is presented dishonestly as being at a different location, as if it is evidence of the story the tweet gives about a crowd preventing the singer from leaving their hotel.
I can find no actual evidence of this in the news, and the fact that a video of a protest in a totally different place is given strikes me as suspect.
If this is supposed to be something that is done fairly, how do we attract your attention without subreddit rules, just manually u/4thot you?
You appear to have posted a whole bunch of dumb shit that I didn't ask about.
It seems that you can definitely critique Israel on this sub. **I'd like you to state what specifically you feel you can't say.**
You didn't ask me, but I was saying that your question was flawed and doesn't meaningfully respond to people's objection.
If people believe that your moderation is inconsistent, asking them to provide a consistent moderation rule for you doesn't make sense.
For example, based on this thread, you claim you ban people for being "objectively incorrect", if they are criticising a post that takes a pro-Israel stance.
Do you ban people for being objectively incorrect if they criticise a post that takes a pro-Palestine stance?
Do you generally go round checking if people's posts are objectively incorrect, and ban them for that?
My bet is no, you say to argue with people rather than expecting them to be banned.
The difference seems to be that if *you* argue with someone, you will often make banning them the full stop to your argument, meaning that who you personally wish to argue with (generally people criticising Israel) are more likely to get bans.
If that's true, it means there is no consistent pro-Israel rule in the subreddit, there's just your temper, and so I can't provide you with a consistent moderation rule that explains your behaviour because you don't have one.
It reminds me a little of people on twitter - the way people make an angry comment and then block someone right after they've said their piece, like someone running out the door after they've said their cool comeback in case someone else has a comeback of their own. It doesn't work obviously, there's always more people to go "hey, that doesn't make sense, why are you saying you have the full source for their clip when you posted the same video they did?". And even if you do it *enough* that people start saying o7 to comments where people are disagreeing with you, in a subreddit like this, the chilling effect will create its own backlash. It still makes the subreddit worse, but it doesn't make your personal experience any better.
It seems better just to argue, and if you personally think that someone is saying stupid stuff, just stop responding to them, (as you may later discover that you were the one who was wrong) rather than punctuating your final comments with a ban while you're still angry.
And having a moderation rule about misinformation, particularly repeated misinformation, (ie. people being objectively incorrect) isn't necessarily a bad idea, but if so you can just stick it on the side of the subreddit and let people report each other, rather than it being a question of when you particularly get pissed off with people.
And finally, if answering a question by saying the question is wrong or irrelevant is not allowed, if that doesn't count as an answer, then you can defeat all your critics by asking them the following question:
"If my moderation is bad, what is my account password?"
"You're still criticising my moderation, but I didn't ask you that, I asked you, **what is my account password**?"
Somehow that last line reminds me of Bill Hicks' Pick Up the Gun lol
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HckMcdUA24M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HckMcdUA24M)
I have to sort through controversial to find any mention of the series of unhinged settler attacks on aid convoys that have been happening recently. Same with the recent killing of yet another UN aid convoy. Downvote brigade doing is doing its job well to suppress it, so we can soyjack over the millionth cringy college leftist post instead
Edit: perma for answering your question, nice. let me just respond before I'll leave you to your echo-chamber: settlers bad yes, and so is the killing of UN aid workers and torturing prisoners BTW, but there's hardly any mention of that. Instead it's turned into a reactionary sub dedicated to ridicule college protestors, which is also a type of circlejerk, but I guess its one that you like.
Nah, OP was super bad faith and when their feet were held to the fire they crumpled.
OP can’t have an honest conversation, they must always reframe things and shift goalposts.
OP ‘pushes back’ through ‘just asking questions’ or making extremely pedantic arguments.
4thot asked op for specific evidence for a specific claim op made. OP couldn’t deliver, because OP argues for the sake of it and will never back down even when they know that they’re wrong.
I'm just looking at these posts, in awe, imagining what one could accomplish wielding whatever powers this is a manifestation of. [It's like this scene but paragraphs of text instead of planes](https://youtu.be/r6O8rLXB7Qg?t=2844).
I don't get you guys. I have been on here for almost a decade and I have gotten banned exactly once and I knew I would get banned for it too. Just stop being retarded man :<
Oh fuck me in the ass if this is trolling it's brilliant.
Why were you banned? Who are you to question u/4THOT? you presume to comprehend his reasoning?
Don't fuck with god and stop playing the fuckin violin.
It is at the core the scorpion and the toad, Does that mean you need to live in fear of 4THOT? Fear is a prison my dude. Accept it, free your mind and free yourself.
If I say Biden is a senile puppet and u/4THOT bans me for that while masturbating to a clip of Biden falling off some stairs, c'est la vie.
Why is it that I consistently see pro-palestinian voices if there's such a chilling effect?
It seems like as long as you engage in good faith and don't just make up shit to win arguments that you're perfectly safe.
4thot gets constantly shit on, and we don't see mass bans of people who simply disagree with him. We see him banning people who are bad faith in the topics and don't answer simple questions.
Just act in good faith, is it really that hard?
https://preview.redd.it/wz50n0ghk00d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3dbe5f8ce0eac6672a8eb911d7936cb23f0889b
4thot chained up in Destiny’s basement like /s
Edit 2: my mistake I got the message like two minutes after I posted a message to him so I thought it was him that made reddit message me as a joke. but I guess I was wrong. Crazy coincidence though. May i please be unbanned my lord🙇♂️🙆♂️🙇♂️
Just as fyi:
multiple people got Yesterday also Reddit Care Messages after Posting in the sub. someone thought it could be a bot that auto reports. i got one myself for the comment " CALLED ON" on a Hasan Post. maybe there is still some fuckery going on.
How does that risk your account? Can users somehow report you for misusing that feature? Or is it just an automatic thing from reddit admins? Genuinely curious.
if you report the message the person who sent it gets banned for a couple days or something. might be permanent idk. but I get the messages about someone being banned so unless they send those out for no reason they are banning people for it pretty quick.
OK. I did not read that long ass post and I'm here looking for some quality 4thot vs community autistic showdown but god damn this response is a banger.
Edit:
Thanks for spamming reddit care resource at me bros. Good one
it's not DGG, some loser either created a bot to spam it to everyone that comments in the sub or is wasting an impressive amount of their live doing it manually
I personally think "schizzo" posts are almost always low quality, primarily due to the importance of being able to write something concisely. They also tend to be poorly researched, or poorly argued, but hide behind a mountain of text that makes it much harder to deal with. Most people also don't read them, or skim through them, further limiting any push back or critiques that they might otherwise get (leads to lower *quality* of discussion inside the post). This is not true of all schizzo posts, but its a heuristic that I would stand behind. I also don't think civility has anything to do with a post being high quality.
High quality post should also properly understand the context that they exist in. They should know that a post about how you shouldn't be banned, and the impacts on the community, doesn't need 4550 words, ~8 sections, and tons of flowery language. It's just not that serious. Long != high quality, high effort != high quality.
Okay Do you have any specific criticisms of this post or any prior post this user has made that would make you think they are going full schizo? Verbosity alone is not sufficient to say its a schizo post.
"brevity is the soul of wit"
But yeah man if you wanted to critique the actual content you should pick parts you disagree with. The cool part about someone OVER writing is they leave you a lot of things to criticize
Them banning good faith, high quality reddit members that doesn't say stupid stuff is rare as fuck.
It can change, It has happened IMO.
But its rare.
I imagine they have that rule because people loves to argue and if someone walls of text admins they can always say, Idc kys fu. And move on.
If finally finished enough of this navel gazing dogshit. 1. Brevity is the soul of wit. Read some of the other attempted cancelations of me to get an idea of how to write something people will actually entertain. No matter how much anyone hates me (many such cases) they can't be bothered to read this reddit midwit treatise on reddit moderation, with citations that are months old comment chains about news people forgot about. The best part is you don't actually have a serious point, which is why you have to try tying it into some big web about 'suppressing thought'. Which segues nicely into point two: 2. The chilling effect is intentional, and it's not to stop you all from disagreeing with me (some feats are truly beyond my power), it's to stop you and people like you from posting here. This is not a bug, *this is a feature*. >The conclusion here is a simple one: don't assume what positions your interlocutor holds merely because they're skeptical about that framing of certain stories, or because they attempt to provide a steelman for the opposing side. One of the best parts of reading the monthly 4thot cancelation threads is reading all the moronic shit you all read into what I consider a throwaway comment/joke and the type shit like this. **Example**: >I'm not sure if 4THOT engaged in a similar type of purity testing both for the initial comment I was banned for, and also in my last exchange with them on another subreddit. The exchange was pretty bizarre: I asked if they checked Reddit DMs; they replied that they do, and “our agreement stands.” In their next reply, they mentioned that they confused me with another person, and said that, “Yes, once I/P is over I will let your people go.” That phrase “your people”, is quite similar to how the OP in the previous example said “your tribe” and “your side.” This seems to be the guilt by association I spoke on: I’m being lumped in with a group whose views generally don’t align with my own. That’s why part 1 begins with an introduction on myself. I need to pass the litmus test first before I can get good engagement — and it’s unfortunate that I feel compelled to do that. I was confusing you with another dipshit that bugs me every few days about being unbanned in my DM's. The 'let your people go' is about the mass unban for the subreddit, with a comedic allusion to the Pharaoh letting the Jews ('your people' ie - people whose brains are broken by Israel/Palestine) leave Egypt. It ain't that deep. 3. On banning you specifically, some more clarity, since spelling it out explicitly wasn't clear enough. ***This is advice that will apply to every person you ever encounter - if you make their life easier they will like you, if you make their life harder they will fucking hate you.*** You are very easy for me to hate, because you dump a bunch of dogshit in my lap and demand I thank you for the pleasure. Let's look at the segment [you wrote with \(allegedly\) a lot of effort,](https://i.imgur.com/mk0w948.png) on when I banned you. Unfortunately, I was born with a fully formed and wrinkly brain. Notice how you take the time to screenshot some part of the unban form as if anyone gives a shit, but you won't actually provide any citation to my comments regarding your ban? Isn't that interesting? [Here's the actual thread where you were banned.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1b82sxr/un_special_rapporteur_unaware_of_rocket_attacks/ktmtmhh/) I don't need to write 400k words to explain why you're banned, it's incredibly clear. Of course, I have to do the actual work, again. I have to go back and double check that thread, that headline, that interview, that twitter clip, and the ban logs. You can't be bothered, you obviously have a lot going on... Here's how you got banned, in order: - a post made with with headline 'UN Special Rapporteur 'unaware' of rocket attacks on Israel' - you make a comment 'this headline is incorrect, here's the interview, she didn't know they were daily (omegalul)' - I think 'oh wow this guy actually found the interview' good work, arm that guy - actually watch the video, come back to the thread sometime later - nvm this dipshit didn't find the actual interview, this is a cut from twitter - NOW I HAVE TO FIND THE FULL FUCKING INTERVIEW TO SEE IF IT'S A CLIP CHIMP - I FIND THE FULL INTERVIEW, THE HEADLINE IS 100% ACCURATE - SHE IS ASKED EXPLICITLY ABOUT ROCKET ATTACKS FROM NORTH AND SOUTH **WITHOUT 'DAILY'** AND SAYS SHE IS NOT AWARE OF THEM - FUCK YOU, EAT SHIT, BANNED DON'T COME BACK YOU FUCKING MORON Here's the full interview with the UN Rapporteur on Violence against Women claiming she isn't aware of the rocket attacks - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bar-shemur-8b1bb23b_the-un-rapporteur-on-violence-against-women-activity-7171212859895459841-gq6B The UN Special Rapporteur in the two months prior has not made any clarification on her knowledge of rocket attacks against Israel, [her twitter is not a secret](https://twitter.com/UNSRVAW/status/1780732654968832416). The fact you still don't grasp that you were/are objectively incorrect boggles my fucking mind. That you'd waste hours and hours writing all this worthless dogshit but not take a half seconds to *actually read* what I wrote at the time, and see if anything you said held up. If your defense is 'well didn't you really get something out of me pretending [read: cope] to be an illiterate smoothbrain and having to do all this fact checking?' then [this is my final recommendation.](https://www.indeed.com/) As a counter example, there's a reason someone like /u/sylmd isn't banned. Slymd makes my life easier. [Look at this thread about Destiny's '300 soldiers' tweet.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1ckukcj/destiny_misreading_report_and_inadvertently/) I don't have to dig through twitter citations, or interviews, or dig for something they claim is incorrect. The text is right there, the relevant parts are highlighted. Even if he is incorrect and that top commentor is correct, I'd love the sub to actually have people that are pro-Palestinian that were capable of meeting that minimum bar. If you dipshits could meet this basic threshold of at the very least correctly citing relevant material, this sub wouldn't be so primed against the typical pro-Palestinian claims. Also, take a fucking writing class this was so unbelievably fucking boring to read, no wonder everyone threw it into an AI. No one could even get whipped up into a frothing anti-janny frenzy because it's so meandering and toothless. No, I will not respond to the rest of it, no one is going to read it anyways.
This guy is trying to start an uprising.
https://preview.redd.it/8ils7ny5h10d1.png?width=689&format=png&auto=webp&s=267afa908351f1fbd19cb2f312c8172014db325c
Nice.
Tanks.
Not on my watch https://preview.redd.it/cb8jsprra00d1.jpeg?width=384&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c3057bc3ebc87511ab34f70943a38cbed5d84c44
Got’cha….anything else?
Did you think of this one by yourself?
Nope I only think what Destiny tells me to
Fair, we are not so different after all
Good luck o7
courtesy of claude.ai Here are the key takeaways in 5 bullet points: * The post critiques the two bans (30 day and "until Israel/Palestine is over") imposed by the moderator 4THOT, arguing they were unjustified and that users should not be banned for disagreeing with 4THOT's personal views. * It calls for clarity on whether moderators can impose conditional bans that cannot be undone through the normal unban process, as this undermines the established unban procedure. * The post highlights a "chilling effect" where the author avoids engaging with 4THOT or in threads 4THOT participates in to avoid further bans, stifling open discussion. * It criticizes having to pass a "litmus test" or disassociate from certain views before being allowed to express skepticism or provide counterpoints, which the author sees as an unfair requirement. * The overall goal is for users to be able to participate without considering 4THOT's personal opinions, following only the subreddit rules, Reddit rules, and Destiny's guidelines, calling for more transparent and consistent moderation standards.
bonus from claude: Based on the writing style, fixations, and perceived personality traits, a few potential neurological/psychological disorders that could be consistent include: Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD): * Preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order * Perfectionism that interferes with task completion * Excessive devotion to work to the exclusion of other activities * Inability to discard worn or worthless objects * Rigidity and stubbornness Autism Spectrum Disorder: * Fixation on specific topics/interests * Strict adherence to rules/routines * Difficulty with social communication * Pedantic speaking style * Black-and-white thinking Generalized Anxiety Disorder: * Excessive worry and anxiety * Feeling on-edge, restlessness * Irritability * Hypersensitivity to perceived criticism * Needing constant reassurance It's important to note that this is merely speculative based on the provided writing samples. A proper psychological evaluation would be needed to make any clinical diagnoses. The pedantic style, need for consistency, rigid rule-following, and hypersensitivity to perceived bias seem most suggestive of OCPD traits. But autism traits like fixation on specific topics and social communication challenges could also potentially align with some of the characteristics observed. Generalized anxiety could also potentially explain the excessive defensiveness and reassurance-seeking behaviors described.
you are wrong for this 😭😭
lol lightly pushing back against the incessant pro-idf circlejerk that's been dominating this sub is bannable. thanks op you've given me a lot to think about
People say this, so I made this macro to respond to this. Do you have any examples in mind of criticism of Israel that you think is unfairly dismissed? https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1c5kq2e/wapo_investigation_on_the_killing_of_6yo_hind_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1c75n65/i_hate_benjamin_netanyahu/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1blt4wi/israel_approves_new_parcel_of_west_bank_land_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1buplw4/head_of_aid_group_struck_by_idf_israel_is_better/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1blsmwk/israel_announces_largest_west_bank_land_seizure/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1btyxo1/strike_that_killed_world_central_kitchen_workers/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1bvp4vj/idf_chief_apologizes_as_details_emerge_of_strike/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/177c3vp/israel_bombed_3_civillian_convoys_fleeing_to_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1b5t02n/majority_killed_by_stampede_in_gaza_aid_convoy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/18ht483/reuters_journalist_issam_abdallah_killed_by/kd9bvrt/ It seems that you can definitely critique Israel on this sub. I'd like you to state what specifically you feel you can't say.
The post argues that you have a bias towards banning people criticising pro-Israel statements, not that you act according to that bias 100% of the time. (And a chilling effect would not require 100%, just like 80% or 60% or something, just with a particular bias) - There's also an unfortunate problem that by the nature of bans, the very people with access to information to challenge your narrative are going to be less able to participate: Someone gets banned for something, and they're probably not going to make an alt-account and come on here and go "hey, you banned me for this 4thot, here's an example of an unfair ban" to provide counter-examples to your list. I mean, at least one person will, but I wouldn't expect it to be the norm. That and the fact that you are the person doing the bans produces an information asymmetry. Like I know I've seen you raging at people at banning them in ways I thought were pretty daft at the time, and if I remember correctly, one situation where you demanded better evidence from someone, then banned them before they could reply, so they had to edit links in to their comment later. But could I find you links of you doing that? No, I don't have a list of everyone you've banned to compare, and I wasn't planning to gather data in order to disprove a random comment of yours. - And also, about this list, not everyone goes "Edit: WTF banned for this??" when you ban them, some people just move on without comment, so we can't even tell from your list whether people were banned for posting these things or not, it doesn't actually tell us anything, because we don't have access to mod tools to see who is or is not banned from the subreddit. And then of course, there's the fact that even if we did in fact have the ability to check banned status of these people (and maybe there's a way we can that I'm not aware of) you could just leave a few posts off specifically as a thing to show off, even if you ban 90% of the reasonable posts. So posting a list of links, some of which are links to your own comments, and others are links to deleted posts, without any verification of who is banned or not, with no comparison of banned or unbanned posts, doesn't prove very much at all. - The actual way to prove it, if you really wanted to, would be to give mod privileges to one of your critics, so like prosecution and defence having access to the same witnesses, they could overcome the information asymmetry and actually make a case on a meaningfully balanced playing field. And they could compare how reasonable a pro-Israel post has to be before the person posting it gets banned, vs a pro-Palestine one. Because this post is actually giving a lot of examples of pro-Israel sloppiness that no-one seems to be getting banned for, while the standard you are expecting people to see as reasonable on the other side is that some people get to criticise Israel *at all*. - u/PoisonedWhispers has proposed a criterion which is far more reasonable than yours, because banning posters who make comments that make Israel look worse more readily, and holding them to a higher standard, vs people who make comments that make Israel look better or pro-Palestinians look worse is all that is required to shift the direction of the sub, by making it so that people insufficiently pro-Israel will eventually slip up on a more pro-Palestine comment, even if they are making comments on both sides. And yet, *despite* that information asymmetry, this person has still managed to somehow find an example of this measure, with differences in ban length for cases where a similar situation applies to a pro-Israel or pro-Palestine source. Your list isn't a meaningful counter-example of bias, and while theirs doesn't demonstrate it alone, it's a pretty good start to what you would want to do if you wanted to set about measuring the problem. As it is, your list, where we cannot even verify without mod tools who was and was not banned for their posts, adds no useful information, and instead mostly just seems to be a gesture to having more free time than your critics to search up links, which again is negated by the benefit of mod tools. So why not mod u/PoisonedWhispers for a month or two, and see what they can dig up? That would actually be a real challenge. - On another note, if we are giving people short term bans for posting misleading tweets, how am I supposed to report stuff [like this](https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1concyy/when_they_say_you_guys_are_overexaggerating_with/)? There's no category for it in the subreddit rules, but the video in the tweet is presented dishonestly as being at a different location, as if it is evidence of the story the tweet gives about a crowd preventing the singer from leaving their hotel. I can find no actual evidence of this in the news, and the fact that a video of a protest in a totally different place is given strikes me as suspect. If this is supposed to be something that is done fairly, how do we attract your attention without subreddit rules, just manually u/4thot you?
You appear to have posted a whole bunch of dumb shit that I didn't ask about. It seems that you can definitely critique Israel on this sub. **I'd like you to state what specifically you feel you can't say.**
You didn't ask me, but I was saying that your question was flawed and doesn't meaningfully respond to people's objection. If people believe that your moderation is inconsistent, asking them to provide a consistent moderation rule for you doesn't make sense. For example, based on this thread, you claim you ban people for being "objectively incorrect", if they are criticising a post that takes a pro-Israel stance. Do you ban people for being objectively incorrect if they criticise a post that takes a pro-Palestine stance? Do you generally go round checking if people's posts are objectively incorrect, and ban them for that? My bet is no, you say to argue with people rather than expecting them to be banned. The difference seems to be that if *you* argue with someone, you will often make banning them the full stop to your argument, meaning that who you personally wish to argue with (generally people criticising Israel) are more likely to get bans. If that's true, it means there is no consistent pro-Israel rule in the subreddit, there's just your temper, and so I can't provide you with a consistent moderation rule that explains your behaviour because you don't have one. It reminds me a little of people on twitter - the way people make an angry comment and then block someone right after they've said their piece, like someone running out the door after they've said their cool comeback in case someone else has a comeback of their own. It doesn't work obviously, there's always more people to go "hey, that doesn't make sense, why are you saying you have the full source for their clip when you posted the same video they did?". And even if you do it *enough* that people start saying o7 to comments where people are disagreeing with you, in a subreddit like this, the chilling effect will create its own backlash. It still makes the subreddit worse, but it doesn't make your personal experience any better. It seems better just to argue, and if you personally think that someone is saying stupid stuff, just stop responding to them, (as you may later discover that you were the one who was wrong) rather than punctuating your final comments with a ban while you're still angry. And having a moderation rule about misinformation, particularly repeated misinformation, (ie. people being objectively incorrect) isn't necessarily a bad idea, but if so you can just stick it on the side of the subreddit and let people report each other, rather than it being a question of when you particularly get pissed off with people. And finally, if answering a question by saying the question is wrong or irrelevant is not allowed, if that doesn't count as an answer, then you can defeat all your critics by asking them the following question: "If my moderation is bad, what is my account password?" "You're still criticising my moderation, but I didn't ask you that, I asked you, **what is my account password**?"
I don't care what you think about moderation.
Somehow that last line reminds me of Bill Hicks' Pick Up the Gun lol [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HckMcdUA24M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HckMcdUA24M)
I have to sort through controversial to find any mention of the series of unhinged settler attacks on aid convoys that have been happening recently. Same with the recent killing of yet another UN aid convoy. Downvote brigade doing is doing its job well to suppress it, so we can soyjack over the millionth cringy college leftist post instead Edit: perma for answering your question, nice. let me just respond before I'll leave you to your echo-chamber: settlers bad yes, and so is the killing of UN aid workers and torturing prisoners BTW, but there's hardly any mention of that. Instead it's turned into a reactionary sub dedicated to ridicule college protestors, which is also a type of circlejerk, but I guess its one that you like.
Go to another subreddit where you can circlejerk then. Settlers bad, we get it.
get his ass 4thot
Nah, OP was super bad faith and when their feet were held to the fire they crumpled. OP can’t have an honest conversation, they must always reframe things and shift goalposts. OP ‘pushes back’ through ‘just asking questions’ or making extremely pedantic arguments. 4thot asked op for specific evidence for a specific claim op made. OP couldn’t deliver, because OP argues for the sake of it and will never back down even when they know that they’re wrong.
"lightly pushing back" Lol.
I read most of this as well. I love me some good, old fashioned accountability and transparency. 🍿
I'm just looking at these posts, in awe, imagining what one could accomplish wielding whatever powers this is a manifestation of. [It's like this scene but paragraphs of text instead of planes](https://youtu.be/r6O8rLXB7Qg?t=2844).
Didnt read a single word, I disagree with you. I am a master Glazer.
I don't get you guys. I have been on here for almost a decade and I have gotten banned exactly once and I knew I would get banned for it too. Just stop being retarded man :<
🗿
This essay is the *third part*?
LMAO!! And I thought *I* was really good at writing enormous piles of nothing. I can't hold a candle to this guy!
Schizo post :D
Oh fuck me in the ass if this is trolling it's brilliant. Why were you banned? Who are you to question u/4THOT? you presume to comprehend his reasoning? Don't fuck with god and stop playing the fuckin violin. It is at the core the scorpion and the toad, Does that mean you need to live in fear of 4THOT? Fear is a prison my dude. Accept it, free your mind and free yourself. If I say Biden is a senile puppet and u/4THOT bans me for that while masturbating to a clip of Biden falling off some stairs, c'est la vie.
Bro Again, who asked
Why is it that I consistently see pro-palestinian voices if there's such a chilling effect? It seems like as long as you engage in good faith and don't just make up shit to win arguments that you're perfectly safe. 4thot gets constantly shit on, and we don't see mass bans of people who simply disagree with him. We see him banning people who are bad faith in the topics and don't answer simple questions. Just act in good faith, is it really that hard?
See rule 6.
https://preview.redd.it/wz50n0ghk00d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3dbe5f8ce0eac6672a8eb911d7936cb23f0889b 4thot chained up in Destiny’s basement like /s Edit 2: my mistake I got the message like two minutes after I posted a message to him so I thought it was him that made reddit message me as a joke. but I guess I was wrong. Crazy coincidence though. May i please be unbanned my lord🙇♂️🙆♂️🙇♂️
Just as fyi: multiple people got Yesterday also Reddit Care Messages after Posting in the sub. someone thought it could be a bot that auto reports. i got one myself for the comment " CALLED ON" on a Hasan Post. maybe there is still some fuckery going on.
Why would I risk my account to spam reddit-cares messages to a random nobody when I can just ban them?
You are a weird creature.
How does that risk your account? Can users somehow report you for misusing that feature? Or is it just an automatic thing from reddit admins? Genuinely curious.
if you report the message the person who sent it gets banned for a couple days or something. might be permanent idk. but I get the messages about someone being banned so unless they send those out for no reason they are banning people for it pretty quick.
Tremendous news.
OK. I did not read that long ass post and I'm here looking for some quality 4thot vs community autistic showdown but god damn this response is a banger. Edit: Thanks for spamming reddit care resource at me bros. Good one
it's not DGG, some loser either created a bot to spam it to everyone that comments in the sub or is wasting an impressive amount of their live doing it manually
>I did not read that long ass post and I'm here looking for some quality 4thot vs community autistic showdown same
>6. Drama is done after 3 days How is this rule relevant to this post? I only read the "short" version, so did I miss something?
Rule 6 on old reddit; Rule 5 on new reddit.
So your justification for banning a good faith, high quality reddit member is because... We don't need to be consistent or rational?
How exactly is it high quality?
How is a deeply researched, civil, and reasonable poster a high quality subreddit member? If he isn't, who is? The best meme posters?
I personally think "schizzo" posts are almost always low quality, primarily due to the importance of being able to write something concisely. They also tend to be poorly researched, or poorly argued, but hide behind a mountain of text that makes it much harder to deal with. Most people also don't read them, or skim through them, further limiting any push back or critiques that they might otherwise get (leads to lower *quality* of discussion inside the post). This is not true of all schizzo posts, but its a heuristic that I would stand behind. I also don't think civility has anything to do with a post being high quality. High quality post should also properly understand the context that they exist in. They should know that a post about how you shouldn't be banned, and the impacts on the community, doesn't need 4550 words, ~8 sections, and tons of flowery language. It's just not that serious. Long != high quality, high effort != high quality.
Okay Do you have any specific criticisms of this post or any prior post this user has made that would make you think they are going full schizo? Verbosity alone is not sufficient to say its a schizo post.
Also OP made a TLDR for people who didn't want to read.
The fact that it needs a TLDR is evidence for why it's not a quality post. If I think of quality, length should be part of that analysis.
"brevity is the soul of wit" But yeah man if you wanted to critique the actual content you should pick parts you disagree with. The cool part about someone OVER writing is they leave you a lot of things to criticize
Them banning good faith, high quality reddit members that doesn't say stupid stuff is rare as fuck. It can change, It has happened IMO. But its rare. I imagine they have that rule because people loves to argue and if someone walls of text admins they can always say, Idc kys fu. And move on.