I'm getting real tired of these sick fucks.
Also, check the thread I just posted; Paul Singer, one of Trump's major megadonors, just snagged up a bunch of Venezuelan oil infrastructure for pennies on the dollar, and is going to make insane profits.
So, is the only difference now that Israel gets a cut of the deal?!
At first I was going to disagree with this part, and just assumed corporate greed but, just like with Larry Ellison, who is the largest individual donor to the IDF (through various companies and methods), Paul Singer puts his money where his mouth is, and is involved with the IDF and Unit 8200 through his organization Start-Up Nation Central (SUNC).
So, yes, due to how Singer uses his wealth, Israel will be directly benefiting from what the US did in Venezuela.
The whole thing is just insanely corrupt. Singer bought the company - a Venezuelan subsidiary - for much, much less than it was worth...because the US had sanctioned them so they couldn't profit, blockaded their country...and then forced the sale because Venezuela couldn't pay their creditors.
Singer was essentially handed a Venezuelan company by the US courts. Ironically, it's almost exactly like what Maduro did to US oil companies, that pissed of the US interests so much.
I was thinking it would be funny - but I plan to take things more serious, so as not to be disrespectful - to make a stickied post about how much I love Israel, now that I'm a mod. Would be funny, though!
Rule 17: Do not disrespect Israel.
No matter how anyone feels about ze Jews, I hope we can all come together to agree that Mark Levin is a disgusting piece of crap that totally deserves getting memed on. I hope it makes him even more furious than he usually is.
xcancel is not an archive service, just an alternate way of viewing Twitter.
Ghostarchive is best for Twitter, generally. I'm archive now, and will edit if it works.
EDIT: That's weird, it does seem to be accessing a page that sometimes doesn't otherwise exist, and ghostarchive isn't grabbing.
A big issue is interpretation. The first rule on your list is fine if it's being applied in good faith.
Sadly, that will always be the case, though. But, yeah, as little room for bad interpretations as possible is a good goal.
Where is the line drawn though? Can we make fun of retards whose ideology got them killed for example?
Similar to now, we can have shortform and longform versions of the rules. I think "don't advocate violence" is a fine shortform rule, and then we can spell it out further in the full rules.
Personally, I view advocating as direct calls to harm others, but not gravedancing. I find the latter very distasteful, personally, but don't view it as violative of any rules.
I don't view "retard fucked around and found out" or something to that effect, as breaking any rules. While something like "do this to all retards" would be a call to violence.
Same with the second rule on your list. I think it's fine for egregious cases but the culture here generally allows people to be assholes to each other since we lose less from that than we would from making it into a hug box.
True. It's complicated, but the very fact we've had these rules and they haven't been enforced regularly is a good sign. We can definitely keep iterating though, but I think something like it should be there. Like you said, for the especially egregious cases.
The only thing I'd add is finding a way to make it easier to get rid of bad faith posters. Think Bluestorm or a version of Imp that bothers to rules lawyer. There's no reason to put up with that shit for months on end.
Any suggestions?
I don't think we've had an issue with him in ages.
Interestingly...he fucked off right after community filters were implemented, despite not getting caught in them. At least that's my interpretation.
But, yeah, we can adjust as needed. Nice thing about having active mods. If it becomes a problem, we can always add terms as needed.
Such a rule opens up discussion to devolve into just bleating "source?"
Except that's never been an issue, in all these years. Which could go either way, since the rule was also rarely violated. But I don't think its existence is a huge issue...probably one way or the other.
Yup, as well as tagging of criminal manifestos.
It's not like they come up that often and, when they do, everyone wants to post them. Requiring a tiny bit more effort, while protecting some users, but still letting everyone else see them, seems like a good compromise.
Imp did, which was one of the offenses I dinged him on.
And we have one or two users here who would absolutely post more low-effort threads daily if it was allowed. The rule should stay, in my opinion. Cuts down on a lot of nonsense, actually.
I don't see why we shouldn't be able to post criminal manifestos, unless that's referring only to publishing self-written manifestos.
I asked this to, and the answer was it could be illegal in some countries. So it's - potentially - more to protect some users from inadvertently committing a crime, than to penalize people from posting.
It could still potentially be done away with though, or could just require marking.
I do find it sad and ironic that Biden was called antisemitic and anti-Israel while he was first or second most pro-Israel, when you actually look at policy. Now, to be fair, some of that was reaction to October 7th; it wasn't a normal time for Israel, so of course my government would give their government a bunch more of our money!
Point is, though, Biden gave Israel more than anyone had in decades, I think, while he got smeared by all the Zionists and leftists. Makes me almost feel bad for the dude.
Anything but complete and utter Israel bootlicking, both in policy and speech, is declared genocidal antisemitism.