a_blanqui_slate
1w ago
•
100%
Chapotraphouse3 is actually the local sub for not posting with a vibrant community of nonposters. Just recently Barack Obama didn't post an AMA on there.
a_blanqui_slate
1w ago
•
100%
No posting please
a_blanqui_slate
1w ago
•
100%
Well, it had been long enough.
a_blanqui_slate
2w ago
•
100%
That's fair.
a_blanqui_slate
2w ago
•
100%
Oh you absolutely can, you just shouldn't.
a_blanqui_slate
2w ago
•
100%
I'm not saying it should be serious, in fact I'm saying it should be treated with levity, because it can't be serious. The linked OP takes it too seriously, which is funny.
a_blanqui_slate
2w ago
•
100%
Participation in an online community is fundamentally less serious than an actual community, for one the stakes, in terms of community membership and exclusion and identify are much weaker.
When this website started there were efforts to try to take it seriously in multiple ways. Things like admin accountability and due process for bans and all of that stuff were discussed to boredom (think user union). But all of that language and even that com have been discarded because none of that make sense to talk about for an online space that is at a fundamental level, privately owned by some person/people, and where the strongest sanction (banning) is so easily circumvented.
a_blanqui_slate
2w ago
•
100%
The real trick is to not take any online community top seriously, whether you like it or hate it.
Failing that, don't post.
a_blanqui_slate
3mo ago
•
94%
then a day later the first post made
This made a lot of people very angry and has largely been regarded as a 'bad move'.
a_blanqui_slate
4mo ago
•
100%
No posts please thank you.
a_blanqui_slate
9mo ago
•
100%
No worries, that whole thing was a mess.
Cheers!
a_blanqui_slate
9mo ago
•
100%
You were deliberately undermining evidence-based precautionary advice regarding vaccines and masking
Yes, as evidenced by the fact that I stated I masked everyday in a KN95, spray ELAH in my nostrils twice daily, and have every vaccine I am eligible for.
Look you don't get to pretend everyone who has a different take on the morality of individual covid precautions is undermining the science of individual covid precautions. I was arguing with a colleague in March 2020 about the efficacy of the N95 I was wearing to the store because "CDC said there's no evidence those help", I'm not about to take accusations of mask efficacy minimization from you seriously.
*[Ding]* *You are now free to post on the comm*.
This is the typical throwaway line used by liberals when it's pointed out that Israel should stop doing war crimes, but I'm not sure what it's trying to convey. *Rights* are always a tricky abstraction, doubly so at the international level, so I'm not sure what asserting the existence of some *right* is supposed to do. Israel obviously has the capability to defend itself^1^, so what good is asserting some intangible right to do so? Are they actually saying "We should not stop Israel from doing what it wants to defend itself"? I imagine even they would object to Israel use of sarin or nuclear weapons, so I don't think that's what they mean. Is it "Israel should be given wide but not unlimited latitude by the US to respond as it sees fit"? Cause if that's what they mean, the easy answer is "not with our tax dollars". Anyway this just seems like one of those empty pat expressions used during arguments I hate. --- 1. When they aren't busy doing racialist dismissiveness of Palestinian military capability.
Protocols of the a Learned Elders of Cottagecore.
Hi there, I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble, but I've blocked users who I've found annoying (and who find me annoying) and they are still somehow able to see and reply to my comments/posts, which to my understanding should not even be possible. I don't imagine they know they're doing anything wrong by doing that (because they don't know they're blocked) but this definitely seems like a bug.
Apologies for posting. --- I should say by way of introductory remarks, that while this is an effort post, it is an effort post on a shitposting website, and thus *ab initio* a shitpost and therefore be taken in the correct spirit of levity in which it is intended. Don't get my thread locked. --- Recent discussion on here has touched on the moral status of the execution of the Romanov family by Bolsheviks ahead of the advancing White Army^1^. While not exactly of practical significance given how few of us have Royal Families locked up in our basement, it did reveal several significant, (sometimes severe) differences in the philosophical underpinnings of the posters on this website. ### A Moral Communism *Moral status* as such actually has very little to deal with communism/leftist (in the Marxian vein) in terms of it's internal mechanism. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the rest of that intellectual lineage^2.^ famously thought very little of moral philosophy. A communist is thus entirely at liberty to dismiss this entire discussion as idealism, and observe that within a Marxist framework, there are no 'good' and 'bad', merely a historically deterministic sequence of class antagonisms that will eventually resolve in favor of the proletariat and thus choosing to be a communist is merely choosing to throw one's hat in with the predetermined victors. This strand of amoral communism thus is not terribly interested in this discussion, and anyone here that adheres to that framework is excused from the discussion as having won the argument. Given the rest of us do have moral considerations that prefigure our political beliefs, it's necessary for us to sketch out at least a scaffolding for what moral commonalities leftists share before going further, lest we fall into a morass of fundamentally incompatible frameworks stemming from different axiomatic premises. Speaking from my own personal position, I ascribe to leftist political positions as they offer me the greatest promise of granting a comfortable and dignified existence to the largest number of people possible. That in of itself does not make a moral axiom though, as achieving a large amount of something is valueless if the individual components don't themselves have value, and therefore, and a fundamental value informing my politics is the axiomatic value/sanctity of human life. So I am taking on as an assumption that generally speaking, want everyone to have dignified and comfortable lives^3.^ If that position doesn't more or less describe you, you are also excused as having won the argument. ### Justifying Shooting a Tsesarevich in my Pajamas Which brings us to the Romanovs. In keeping with ^3.^ above, and considering the minor children of royals not culpable for the systematic injustices perpetrated under the dictatorship of their parents, we'll limit our discussion here to the minors (Anastasia, and especially Alexei), though I think the general outline of the argument can be applied to pretty much all of the Tsar's issue. The entirety of the family, along with their retinue, were bulleted and bayoneted in Yekaterinburg about 10 days before white occupied the city. In attempting to defend the legacy of one of the most politically successful socialist projects in history^4.^, this action has largely been justified on the left. Examining the commonly proposed justifications in light of our moral principles finds them universally lacking. 1. **It was *necessary* in order to safeguard the immediate success of the revolution against an individual with claim to the throne**. This argument goes that while we do value human life and dignity, our efforts to maximize these will sometimes require that certain human lives be forfeit, essentially turning this into a trolley problem^5.^. This argument differs in an important aspect from the trolley problem in that the trolley problem consists of single moment in time with clearly articulable and certain outcomes given at the outset. Leaving Alexei alive was in no way certain to doom the revolution to failure of significant struggle, as he could have been maintained in custody, and ascribing such outsized influence on the course of political affairs to the life of a sickly 13 year old is a profoundly anti-materialist approach to history. History is replete with challenges to establish socialist authority^6.^, none of which stemmed from claimants to the Imperial thrown. Further, liquidating the Tsar, his children, and his brother did not exhaust the Romanov line, his cousin could and did proclaim himself Emperor-in-exile, and despite being old enough to actually head a restorationist intervention, none materialized. So the notion that killing Alexei was necessary fails to stand up to scrutiny ^7.^. It is also worth noting as an aside that the Romanovs were deeply unpopular, and to wit, were not the government the Bolshevik revolution occurred under, and supporters of the provisional government (domestic and international alike) formed the overwhelming contingent of the White forces, and the notion that a 14 year old tsarist claimant to the thrown would have had a meaningful impact on that colossal clusterfuck strains credulity. 2. **It prevented a longterm challenge to Boshevik control in a manner similar to Jacobite uprisings or the Bourbon Restoration.** Taking a more longterm view of the problem, it might be acknowledged that the Alexei presented no immediate threat justifying his liquidation, but, drawing from the history of pre-CIA regime changes, he presented a longterm likely/probable/plausible/possible threat in the form of an eventual challenge, and that acting in light of that possibility was justified if not strictly necessary. If we wish to examine this in light of our moral principles, we need to develop some notion of probability calculus; at what point is taking in innocent life now justified in order to avoid certain possible harms that have a certain probability of occurring. You can formalize this to ridiculous extents^8.^, or you can take the legal systems more qualitative approach, of establish some standard of proof (you are, after all, justifying killing someone), where the execution is deemed justified if seems more likely than not/clearly and convincingly/beyond a reasonable doubt that it will prevent further, greater harm in the future. This lets you weaken the requirement that it is *necessary* to kill him to merely it is *prudent* to kill him. What is lacking though is any evidence that anyone has meaningfully carried out this process for any standard beyond plausible. The greatest extent to which this is established is that historically, there have been several restorationist insurrections, but no systematized historical study has been undertaken to quantify the risk of insurrection/coup in the presence or absence of an legitimate claimant.^9^. Well perhaps we leave it there; a *plausible* narrative that places Alexei as the cause of some harm is sufficient in our eyes to justify his liquidation. The problem with this is that it is such a liberal standard that it can be applied to nearly everyone. There are scores of documented peasant rebellions throughout history, so by the same standard it is plausible that any given peasant may be at risk for launching a peasant rebellion down the line and thus, by that same standard, we are justified in liquidating them. Universalizing from this generic peasant^.10. to all peasants. And thus our system named aimed an providing dignity and comfort is able to justify pretty much any atrocity. 3. **The moral culpability of for the executions lies at the feet of the Tsar who created the system and not the executioners themselves.** This argument goes that it was actually the Tsar that placed him in position to be killed by standing at the top of a monarchical system that has ruined and ended untold numbers of lives. Had the Tsar dismantled that system before it came to blows, Alexei would have lived a happily inbred life as a continental European curiosity. This argument plays fast an lose with the notion of *fault* to an extent that borders on the absurd. Within getting into the morass that encompasses the legal notion of *fault*, I'll observe that the executioners where in total control of the situation, given the Romanovs were in the zone of immediate material influence, while the Bolshevik leaderships were at a more distant proximity, and Tsar Nicholas II at the head of the Imperial State was a fleeting memory, having greatly influenced the events that now overtook them, but having no control over them. The Bolshevik's in Ipatiev House or those in leadership in Moscow alone decided who in that house lived and died, they knew that, and they exercised that choice. 4. **Unpleasant things happen during a revolution and we accept that as soon as they begin.** This is true, but once again, it comes down to the notions of control and proximity. As a leftist, I acknowledge that the struggle for political power may involve the world becoming a worse place (as judged according to my moral principles outline above) due to my actions to make it a better one. This is an abstract acknowledgement. It may also result in me taking actions that I find unpleasant or repugnant^11^. If it is the moral principles that describe motivate my political struggle though, it is fundamentally self-defeating to exercise my control over my immediate surroundings to knowingly act in a manner that results in an immediate degradation of the world around me (once again, as judged by my moral standards). My actions in the here and now, must be justified according to my principles in the here and now and my actions in the here and now. If 10 minutes ago I was standing in Yekaterinburg and the Whites are closing in, and now I'm still standing in Yekaterinburg and the Whites are still closing in, but now there is a brand new pile of child corpses of my making, then I have made the world a worse place. --- ### No tears for dead peasants It is reasonable to ask why go to such great lengths to challenge the justifications for the murder of Alexei (which is so emotionally remote to me as to essentially be fictitious). To which I offer the following justifications. 1. It's ridiculous and therefore funny. 2. Because eventually some of us may be in positions to make decisions that make the world a substantially better or worse place for others, and I want it be very clear what stands before us when making those decisions. No, none of us are going to decide whether or not an heir lives or dies, but we are going to decide how to treat with those around us, and want everyone to pause before they exercise what little control they have in the world around them before making it a worse place, justifying it with a glib aphorism or some half-baked argument. --- ^1.^ The fitness for humor here is not considered, as something can be both morally bad and the legitimate target of well-done comedy. Like 9/11. ^2.^ I was promised ice cream if I didn't say 'ilk' here. ^3.^ To wit, one of the main justifications for political violence on the left is that it is directed at those preventing others from enjoying dignity, comfort, or well, life. ^4.^ Such as it is. ^5.^ which we may dub the Yekaterinburg Streetcar Defense ^6.^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rebellions_in_the_Soviet_Union ^7.^ One could alternatively take the logical form of necessity as a conditional, ~P -> ~Q with P being "the legitimate claimant to the imperial thrown is killed" and "Q" being "the revolution is successful". Given the contra-factual nature of ~P, the truth value of this statement can't be evaluated directly, but given the analogous situation in China with PuYi, we can strongly infer that this conditional is in fact false and thus logical necessity is not present. ^8.^ define x~i~ to be each enumerated possible future in space X, p(x~i~) to be the probability of that future occurring, and h(x~i~) to be the number of lives ruined by Alexei in that future x~i~. Shoot kid if  ^9.^ To reach a preponderance of evidence standard you would need to establish P(Insurrection|Legitimate Claimant) > P(Insurrection), which the strictly materialist interpretation would hold P(Insurrection|Legitimate Claimant) = P(Insurrection). ^10^ Regular viewers will recognize this as universal generalization. ^11^ Orwell's description of the conditions of fighting in the Spanish civil war come to mind.
Know how I earn a livin'. I'll fix this site for you, but it ain't gonna be easy. Bad site. Not like going down to stormfront and fixing /r/politics and /r/worldnews. This site, swallow you whole. Little postin', little commentin', an' down you go. And we gotta do it quick, that'll bring back your liberals, put all your takes on a payin' basis. But it's not gonna be pleasant. I value my neck a lot more than three thousand upvotes, chief. I'll find the problem for three, but I'll stop it, and fix it, for ten. But you've gotta make up your minds. If you want to stay alive, then ante up. If you want to play it cheap, be on the_dunk_tank the whole winter. I don't want no volunteers, I don't want no mates, there's just too many posters on this hellsite. 10,000 upvotes for me by myself. For that you get the 'no posting', the 'no commenting', the whole damn thing.
If we can keep it from getting to 12 posts I'll consider temporarily relaxing the posting moratorium as an incentive for good behavior. Please be mindful of you fellow non-posters and try to obey the current rules against posting.
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/251 > With the deletion of the subreddits, /r/Chapotraphouse3, a community dedicated to not posting, was deleted. Could we get a community here to not post in?
As humorous as it is to run an internet community on a Common Law style system, is there a chance that the link that points to the Code of Conduct that all posts/comments are subject to could get updated? Apologies for posting.