Some whole threads are "temporarily" closed for at least "X" days due to a "large" number of snowflake flaggings

Site Feedback
#18

Alright, dont know the history, but two of the two topics I am interested in at the moment are locked:
https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/standby-battery-high-drain-on-xperia-10-iii/
https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/a-flag-storm-hits-the-harbour/

It is not meant to help, I am not here to help.

The system is a piece of shit as it is at the moment and spending your free time for a shitty result does not earn you respect. Spending time does never earn respect, maybe if you spend time in ice cold water, okay, but most of the times its the result that counts. The result is garbage.

I am a polite person, I usually never make use of ad hominem and try to be as correct and precise as possible.

They can, yes. But if there are mods there is no need of such an oppression system.

Evil. They designed a communication platform with the thought of shaping every discussion to be as mainstream as possible, that is quite evil in my opinion. They missed the post counters though, they usually are very important for a call to authority in a forum.

Good boy. You know Pawlow?

1 Like
#19

The closest thing I know is: Pavlova (dessert) - Wikipedia

1 Like
#20

The concept for which Pavlov is famous is the “conditioned reflex” (or in his own words the conditional reflex ), which he developed jointly with his assistant Ivan Tolochinov in 1901 (although Edwin B. Twitmyer, at the University of Pennsylvania, published similar research in 1902, a year before Pavlov published his). The concept was developed after observing the rates of salivation in dogs. Pavlov noticed that his dogs began to salivate in the presence of the technician who normally fed them, rather than simply salivating in the presence of the food. If a buzzer or metronome was sounded before the food was given, the dog would later come to associate the sound with the presentation of the food and salivate upon the presentation of the sound stimulus alone.

The dogs want the food. You want the heart. You will manipulate yourself in order to get more hearts, your posts therefore will reflect that. You have been manipulated into self silencing.

#21

OMG, look at him.

Someone else writing what I was always thinking…

Another one, I am not alone in the Universe! :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

1 Like
#22

Please flag this post.

1 Like
#23

This is a matter of perspective. While I tend to agree, because this results in non-mainstream-opinions to be censored easily, the company Discourse advertises this as the major feature of their forum software; they call it “We’re civilized.”, “Discourse is the place to build civilized communities” and “Civilized Discussion”, see, e.g., What is Discourse? | Discourse - Civilized Discussion and for the consequences Forum censorship - The Issue (the original message) and Forum censorship - The Issue - #52 by olf (in the same thread).
These settings can be configured, but as Jolla just rents this Discourse instance as SaaS by Discourse Inc., the original default settings are and stay all applied. It is supposed to create a virtual environment, in which everybody is (forced to be) happy and kind to each other, or leaves; IMO the aspect “forced” rather creates hell on earth, socially. Furthermore Discourse promises that the users moderate themselves by the mechanisms employed (hence in combination with SaaS is advertised as causing zero admin effort), which understandably is an appealing prospect to a small, understaffed company.

#24

There are (or were) a couple of people around (including me), who fully agree with this observation.

They missed the post counters though, they usually are very important for a call to authority in a forum.

No, I do not believe they “missed” that, because “calls to authority” are explicitly not wanted: They would create moderation work by admins.

IMO demanding this shall be ignored (by admins, users, just everybody), and I believe you tend to agree after thinking about it.

Flagging is DIY; you can perform it as soon you have “earned” the ability to. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like
#25

You just completely destroyed the good impression you gave me with your first post, Captain Obvious.

#26

Of course, one can get upset about censorship, which supposedly favors the mainstream and suppresses dissenting opinions. But the whole thread and your collected elaborations up to here are online and visible and commentable, although you obviously claim to be almost death-defyingly off the mainstream. Apparently the system is not as strict as you claim.

This is of course a difficult contradiction to bear.

1 Like
#27

Obviously? Please elaborate, I only described what is being strongly favored by the system.

#28

While no one ever wonders that relying on such documents that have been written in a very convincing manner is nothing else but conforming to the mainstream, ignoring the crystal clear fact that there are out there a lot of people paid to write what some governative agencies would like us to accept as the norm.

If you wonder if I did something like that: yes, I did it a few times, not for money but for sake of the truth, and it was disruptive every time because it brought people to think in a critical manner and not blindly follow the manual (yesterday, the holy book, whatever it was).

#29

I think s/he was sarcastic in asking to flag that post… I suppose… :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

#30

D-did you really assume my possible genders?

#31

With “call to authority” I meant the “argument from authority”:

The users with the highest post counts therefore are the “wisest”, and, systematically, the most mainstream people one can imagine, as an evil person you want them to be the authorities that lead the pack. Reading the old thread now, thanks for the headsup.

#32

In reality, considering the social dynamics involved, we - as craft-makers of the collective mind - reach the conclusion that physically burning a person is less effective and less efficient than blaming them as “bad person” whatever that means. It works smoothly by leveraging social norms - which have been manipulated in advance - and the chain of trust.

For example, a government agency decides - rightly or wrongly - that an individual is a danger to the nation (or whatever), and then a corrupted person with a uniform starts to contact the friends and family of that person, revealing that in fact s/he is a very dangerous criminal even if it is a total lie.

Moreover, usually corruption is not even necessary but simply creating the circumstances because the agent really thinks that it is a good way to act or a good way to have a promotion. On the other side, the same individual, once s/he discovered the trick, could convince the whole department that raiding the criminals and stealing their money is the best way to stop them and prevent that the judge will be corrupted in such a way that justice will triumph.

As you can imagine, there is a ferocious weakness in this way of doing things: without a fair public trial, anyone can be considered a criminal from whom to steal. In fact, it is the best way to corrupt an entire department or an entire nation in the long run. Therefore, create a jungle where the stronger always win.

If you think that this is not possible, you might think twice. The lack of critical thinking among people is a low-cost and abundant commodity, and like every low-cost and abundant commodity, it is ignored but is in fact a HUGE vulnerability. Technically speaking, it is not even a vulnerability, it is a kind of weapons by itself.

Follow me to learn how to defeat a nation by its own rules… :innocent:

#33

You might be interested in Sir John Glubb and his tremendous piece “The fate of empires and search for survival”:
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

1 Like
#34

No, you are crystal clear a d*ck… no doubts about that. Sleep fine.

For @all, inserting in a group an element that produces nothing but sustains the same basic idea of the one - that can be considered initially, an antagonist of the group but on the long term have the potential to become their leader - it is a well-known tactic of deception, which in popular terms is known as “d*cks always came in a couple” and leverages the psychological effect named shadowing the flame.

A flame has no shadow, and vice versa; if it has no shadow, then it is a flame. Under this principle, adding a d*ck that mimics the same ideas but produces nothing that shadows the flame, the flame has a shadow, therefore it is not a real flame. More or less, it is this way.

Follow me to learn many more tactics of deception your enemies before meeting them into a open battlefield… :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

#35

So spending time for humanitarian aid wont earn some respect? Developing a software for freedom and free speech wont ear some respect?
My point is - this community forum is a lot about very engaged people doing crazy efforts. And I want to kindly ask you again for some more respect to this people.

1 Like
#37

Depends on how you define “humanitarian aid”.

We are talking about free speech right now, aren’t we?

Good point.

This implies I have been unrespectful, please show me where this has been the case. It clearly has to be the case if you have to ask a second time.

1 Like
#38

For sure, this depends. I think, discussing what kind of “aid” would be good or not is not the point. There is some good aid, some evil aid and a lot between with cons and pros. But I think, that should be the topic of some other forum.

maybe I’m a little thin skinned but for me the following quote is not polite: