[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4718

File: 1563142553405.jpg (326.38 KB, 1172x900, 293:225, 214.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Most recently a person was banned 4 hours for a warning "from last night" and in the past i was given "two years of your *÷! constitutes warning".

Moons was very clear the purpose of warnings are to provide an opportunity for the offender to desist from rulebreaking behavior.

A day ago's warning does not provide such opportunity.

I request that staff either adhere to the warnings policy that has been promised repeatedly for like, a year?  Or desist from their own rulebreaking behavior of banning without providing "opportunity to desist" first.

 No.4722

>>4718
>the warnings policy that has been promised repeatedly for like, a year?
The warnings policy changed recently.  See http://ponyville.us/rules/res/91.html :
>The first rules offense a user makes will generally be considered with a warning in thread, publicly visible. The second rules offense a user makes will generally be considered a short ban. ...
>... Please note that this is a guideline, and that a moderator will have leeway to even permaban on first offense, depending on the situation, from here on out. Moderators will be much more proactive in enforcing the rules, and though we shall still err in favor of leniency, we shall be taking more firm action towards rule breaking behavior.

>A day ago's warning does not provide such opportunity.
Huh?  If someone was warned 2 minutes before making another post, I could see an argument that they didn't see the warning and thus didn't have the opportunity to react to it.  But a whole day?  Come on!

 No.4724

>>4722

Saying that a mod has discretion does not negate the stated "guideline" of warn first then ban.

There was no basis for urgency, and the staff had identified that particular ban as a mistake.  "discretion" is not a license to kill people for 4 hours.

>a whole day come on!

Its called "timeliness".  What happened yesterday has expired.  YOU come on.

 No.4725

File: 1563153732188.png (287.51 KB, 600x576, 25:24, 9767_bc49.png) ImgOps Google

And here we have perfect evidence of why this new bullshit about mods people able to ban willy nilly if they wish is fucking horrible.

It's fucking embarrassing, really.

 No.4726

>>4725
Site staff have told Manley multiple times not to bring up past drama on /pony/.  He should be glad he wasn't banned longer than 4 hours IMHO.

 No.4727

>>4726
Staff acknowledged it was a mistake.

Sounds like you might have a grudge.

 No.4729

>>4726
There's a thin line between "bringing up past drama" and acknowledging that some people on this site have done heinous things to me. Finding that line is the source of the issue here.

It's no secret that Peppermint committed terrible acts against me and my emotional well-being for no particular reason. And that her sisters were complacent in that, and in many cases actively perpetuated Peppermint's ability to continue doing so. They do not deny this. I am under no obligation to pretend like this did not happen. But I have been told that there has to be specific instances where it is relevant to bring up that past or else it will be considered "drama". I am working to find when and where those instances are.

So far I have found that calling someone out as a hypocrite for calling for "being nice to everyone" when they were complicit in very un-nice acts crosses that line. But I am working to find out how and in what ways.

 No.4733

File: 1563163518071.jpeg (37.15 KB, 480x480, 1:1, A1575078-D610-485C-ADEF-E….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4729
I want you to read what wrote to someone earlier today.

Also to answer your White Supremacist question, no. I believe in racial higherarchy, and that certain European groups (among others) are at the top of said higherarchy, but I wouldn’t define myself as a “White Supremacist.” I think that East Asians, Brahmin, Zoroastrians, and the Jews are equal to North Western European’s as well as most Mediterranean groups, excluding the Balkans. I also don’t see all European groups as being equal, and I think there are certain non-“White” groups that are actually superior to certain European groups.

I’m sceptical of the word White because it’s too vague and can be twisted to mean too many things. It doesn’t describe any particular racial or cultural group, at least not in any meaningful way. It was just thrown together by several disparate “White” people who were trying to justify away of oppressing so called non-White people. In fact if you look back far enough you’ll see that East Asians use to be considered “White,” un until the 18th century. I don’t think that word makes much sense outside of the American context.

Also if you’ve seen many of my posts you’ll know that I’m a big shill for East Asians, and I’m actually half convinced that they are racially superior to British people, and any other European people. Especially with the disgenic affects that things like Welfareism and has had on the West, not to name many others.

I’d ideally want to keep Britain as British as possible, although I wouldn’t mind up to 5% ethnic minorities in the country, regardless of wither or not they’re “White.” My problem is with mass migration fundamentally changing the nature of our country and people. I wouldn’t mind if Britain was say 1% Japanese, 0.7 German, 0.4% Chinese, 0.5 Indian, as long as I was assured that said numbers would stay below 5%.

>I have found that calling someone out as a hypocrite for calling for "being nice to everyone" when they were complicit in very un-nice acts crosses that line.

I’ve tried to explain my views on race to people countless times, but most people just go to the default of “you must just hate Black people” after I’ve talked to them. I’m genuinely nice to everyone I meet, and I know this isn’t something I should be particularly proud of, because it’s just common decency, but about a week ago I got into a small argument with a Black person because he was holding the door open for me to walk through and I insisted that he let me hold the door for him. After about 30 seconds he gave in and let me hold the door for him. Again not something amazing, but my point is that if I “hated” Black people I would have likely turn my nose up at him and scoffed before walking through the door, but I don’t, and I treated him just as I would any White British person. (This paragraph is still part of my previous post, but it fits in well here.)

I actively try to be as nice as possible to everyone, regardless of race. Hell I'm vegan and go well out of my way to make sure I don’t do any harm at all to even animals that most people don’t think twice about.

All I want is to live amongst my people. I don’t see why you’d think I hate anyone because of that fact. I mean I’d love to go to somewhere like India, Iran, or China, just to name a few, specifically to experience the people and culture. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want my people to have a home in the world.

>It's no secret that Peppermint committed terrible acts against me and my emotional well-being for no particular reason.

You have no idea how much it hurts me to hear you say that. I’ve already told you that I was just as affected by that as you were, if not more so because I have to live with the guilt. And I told you beforehand that I was probably going to hurt you because sometimes I can be too honest, and you said you were ok with that.

I want to be your friend, but you obviously don’t want that from me. But I don’t see why we can’t at least be friendly with each other, without necessarily being friends.

 No.4734

>>4729
Also, I didn’t want you to be banned. I was really upset when you were banned.

 No.4735

>>4734
And in fact, Mint, your protest of that ban is the reason when the mods lifted the ban.  (>>4714)

 No.4737

>>4733
You aren't the "Peppermint" I'm referring to here. !!Luna has several split personalities, one of which is called "Peppermint".

I'll read and respond to therest of this later.

 No.4738

File: 1563165435993.jpeg (93.38 KB, 894x894, 1:1, AAB30A6B-1409-4340-AEC6-3….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4737
Fair enough. I thought you were referring to me without doing so explicitly so no one else would know what you were talking about.

Now that I read your post again that doesn’t make much sense. It’s just coincidental that our names are so similar, ha ha.

>>4735
Thank you again.

Anyway, goodnight.

 No.4740

>>4738
Which means you really didn't read what I said. Furthermore, I really don't want to read any more of your hateful rhetoric on white nationalism. I have to tolerate you on this site, but I find the things you believe disgusting. And I find it a pity that you turned out to be such a morally repugnant person when you did not have to be.

 No.4741

File: 1563166534052.png (241.57 KB, 600x700, 6:7, 7BFE7ED7-F9EE-4A8D-9E3D-DE….png) ImgOps Google

>>4740
>Which means you really didn't read what I said.
I did, and it left me quite confused up until you told me that said post wasn’t addressed to me, ha ha.

>Furthermore, I really don't want to read any more of your hateful rhetoric on white nationalism.
At least consider this.

I’ve tried to explain my views on race to people countless times, but most people just go to the default of “you must just hate Black people” after I’ve talked to them. I’m genuinely nice to everyone I meet, and I know this isn’t something I should be particularly proud of, because it’s just common decency, but about a week ago I got into a small argument with a Black person because he was holding the door open for me to walk through and I insisted that he let me hold the door for him. After about 30 seconds he gave in and let me hold the door for him. Again not something amazing, but my point is that if I “hated” Black people I would have likely turn my nose up at him and scoffed before walking through the door, but I don’t, and I treated him just as I would any White British person.

>I have to tolerate you
>morally repugnant person
That really hurts, but I’m happy that you’re at least being honest with me. I just wish you didn’t think of me as such. I just want to know how I could change your opinion of me, but I don’t think I can.

 No.4742

>>4741
Holding doors and not being a dick doesn't excuse believing that entire groups of people are "inferior" to you genetically, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary by "getting stubborn" as you do. You block out anything that doesn't agree with what you already think, and you try to justify it by saying you don't "hate all black people". All racists have exceptions. It's part of the racist mindset. People who disprove their racism become examples of "One of the good ones" in their mind, because they are unwilling to let go of their beliefs. That's part of why I stopped talking to you in private. Because I knew that would happen the moment you refused to listen to any counter arguments to your ideas and I didn't want to be justification for your bigotry.

I've told you how you can change my opinion of you. By letting go of your misconceptions about IQ and race and listening when people tell you you are wrong. By getting out of the mindset you have about certain people being inferior because of their racial background. To stop believing that racial segregation is a necessary or good thing. Those things stop you from being a good person, no matter how many doors you hold. Just because you treat most black people the way you're supposed to treat all people doesn't excuse the things you believe being wrong, ugly and harmful.

You aren't willing to do that, and that's why I see you as morally repugnant. Not just because of what you believe, but because of you insistence on holding on to it, even in the face of counter evidence. I meant what I said, if you were willing to stop being a racist, I would be willing to change my opinion of you. I believe that people can change. That a villain can become a hero. But you aren't willing to do that.

 No.4743

File: 1563167291818.png (292.95 KB, 680x647, 680:647, wooloo-62b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4738
Goodnight, Mint!

>>4740
>your hateful rhetoric
Nothing of what Mint wrote in that post was hateful in the slightest.  If anyone is being hateful here, it is you.  

>>4740
>really don't want to read any more of your ... white nationalism
Well if you did read it, you'd know that it's NOT really white nationalism.  Mint want (ethnic British)-nationalism for his homeland.  He wants a vast majority of his homeland to be ethnic British.  This excludes ethnic French, ethnic Russians, ethnic Polish, etc., just as much as it excludes blacks.  He'd exclude me for being non-British just as much as he'd exclude you for being non-British.  Do you get it?  It's not white-vs-black.  It's British vs non-British.

 No.4744

>>4743
But he doesn't ALSO say that French and Russian people are inferior because of I.Q. scores. What he says doesn't exist in a vacuum. He is still advocating segregation, even IF it would also also include some people traditionally considered "white".

 No.4745

>>4742
>doesn't excuse believing that entire groups of people are "inferior" to you genetically,
If by "groups of people" you mean "ethnicities" or "races", then he doesn't believe that.  He was talking about averages.  I'm sure that Mint knows that some very gifted blacks are superior to him (by whatever metric he is using for superiority).

>>4742
> you have about certain people being inferior because of their racial background.
He doesn't believe that people are inferior BECAUSE OF their racial background.  Homo sapiens are like other animals.  If an advanced alien species wanted to abduct us and selectively breed blacks to have higher IQ than whites, they could probably do that in N generations for some small-integer N.

 No.4750

>>4745
So you really find nothing wrong with saying that blacks as a whole are genetically less intelligent than whites based on I.Q. scores?

 No.4751

>>4750
No, I do find something wrong, namely confounding variables.  The nocebo effect is definitely real and probably negatively affects black IQ scores.  Doing a double-blind experiment is basically impossible, especially given modern ethical constraints on human-subject experiments.  At the present time, I don't think we can confidently say how much of the intelligence gap is explained by genetics and how much is explained by environmental factors.

 No.4752

>>4751
Well, I mostly agree. Except I feel that there is enough evidence to definitively say that ones race has little to no bearing on their intelligence. That the disparity in I.Q. scores, while possibly genetic on some level, cannot reliably be linked to one's racial or ethnic background while being completely sure it is only caused by that and not other outside factors. Furthermore, I believe that what we think of as "race" is a poor indicator of one's genetic makeup, because some of the most genetically disparate people in the world would be classified as "black" by our generally accepted racial categorizations. Meaning two "black" people can be more genetically dissimilar to each other than a "white" and a "black" person could be.

But Minthorse believes that there is an implicit link between I.Q. and race. He even went so far as to tell me he things black people, as a group, are "inferior" to whites as a group because of it. He used those words. "Inferior".  Furthermore, he believes other factors besides intellegence are influence by race. He told me that "wealthy blacks commit more crimes than wealthy whites" when I presented him with evidence that I.Q. scores can be influenced by poverty. He believes that black people, as a group, are genetically more prone to crime and being less intelligent than whites as a group. This is known by most as "being a fucking racist."

 No.4757

File: 1563184278759.gif (248.37 KB, 232x250, 116:125, 414BE102-D400-464D-891B-C3….gif) ImgOps Google

>>4752
>I feel that there is enough evidence to definitively say that ones race has little to no bearing on their intelligence.
Can anyone explain to me why East Asians have bigger brains than White people? Is it a “cultural” factor?

>The world’s largest survey of brain sizes, conducted by American scientists three decades ago using more than 20,000 modern human skulls from around the globe, found that the average cranial volume among East Asians was 1,415 cubic centimetres, compared with 1,362 for Europeans

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/news/china/article/2054126/why-do-asians-have-bigger-brains-europeans-or-africans

I suppose the shape of ones skull or the size of their brain have absolutely no correlation with intelligence or personality?

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/forensic-facial-reconstruction/0/steps/25658

 No.4763

>>4757

If we know that smaller microprocessors are better and faster than big ones, why would anyone have low enough IQ to assume bigger brains are better than smaller ones?

Conclusion:  its all psuedoscience, Minty.  Its obviously lies.  How is it superior to believe lies just because they conveniently make you "superior" to another by birth?

 No.4764

>>4743
Rhetoric like this post is inherently hateful, Chain.  You of all people can see how there can be no glossing over the implications of the whole "superiority" thing.

>british v non-british not black vs white
That's just spin.  He's talking about white and nonwhite people.  

Pretending that its OK to take such a position just because he's polite about it fixes it just like if the guards loading the cattle cars had been cordial to their cargo fixes what they are doing.

It's hateful, anti-nonwhite rhetoric and it inherently calls for violence in its core implications.  I don't suppose Mint has gone on about forced castration etc on this site but allowing him to think it's not purely hateful rhetoric he's spouting is a personal disservice to him.

 No.4765

File: 1563196484385.png (491.43 KB, 805x1024, 805:1024, 41A38297-B1E3-4CD9-9C85-EB….png) ImgOps Google

>>4763
>smaller microprocessors are better and faster than big ones
No they’re not. The only reason that processes have became smaller is because people need to fit them into smaller devices. If you actually look at some of the processors at apple you’ll see that they take up entire rooms, while iPhone processors are tiny because they need to be cheap and fit into a small device. Microprocessors have became more efficient, but so has literally every other size of processor, proportionate to its size.

>How is it superior to believe lies just because they conveniently make you "superior" to another by birth?
I don’t know, maybe my small deformed White brain is just too easily tricked into propaganda. Maybe if I had an East Asian brain I wouldn’t be as gullible.

 No.4766

>>4763
>>4764
>>4765
Guys, let's take the discussion of racial issues to /townhall/ like !!Zecora said in >>4760; /canterlot/ isn't really the place for this.

>>4765
>The only reason that processes have became smaller is because people need to fit them into smaller devices.
c / (2 Ghz) = 15 cm, and information propagates at a fraction of the speed of light.  And there's more to it, about propagation delays for logic gates, etc.

 No.4767

>>4766
>information propagates at a fraction of the speed of light
Um, on wires, that is.  Wirelessly of course it propagates at c.

 No.4768

File: 1563219243434.png (964.39 KB, 967x891, 967:891, silly7glasses.png) ImgOps Google

>>4767
Clearly processing travels along die pathways or in our case, axons between brain cells.

Therefore,
>>4765
the size of a processor is not merely for power consumption or fitting into spaces but directly determines potential processing power.

(Edit:  just read up old Intel white papers particularly regarding size choices for dies and the discussion specifically states how increasing integration allows faster speeds by shortening distances between gates etc)

You have reversed cause and effect on the most simplest of examples yet you think you have sufficient skepticism to interpret baseless eugenics conclusions.

>>4766
The issue here remains:  whether something merits a ban cannot be fairly determined without the notice by warning promised by the rules.

 No.4769

>>4724
>What happened yesterday has expired.
I don't think it works like that.  If you get warned one day, you're supposed to remember it the next day.

 No.4770

File: 1563227742303.jpg (173.56 KB, 1600x1260, 80:63, galapoint1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4769

Ah so if i ask you to pipe down, then what i mean is to pipe down every day, forever, based on just one time i mentioned you were too loud.  Its up to you to know that you are too loud every day thereafter because i told you once in the past.

Its good i have you around to clear these things up for me.  I'm slow.

(Edit:
>>4771
Touche! and well played.)

 No.4771

>>4770

Okay, well I'm glad it's been cleared up, then.  I'm gonna lock this thread, too, the issue seems solved.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]