comment
stringlengths 1
9.49k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
We are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures.
I can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026."
] |
>
We are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be"
] |
>
credit the guy above who already explained it
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup."
] |
>
That’s just a quote from the article.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it"
] |
>
This Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article."
] |
>
wel fuuuck...
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011"
] |
>
Came here for this.
Yo soy El Niño!
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck..."
] |
>
I wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!"
] |
>
Covid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers."
] |
>
Good luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes."
] |
>
RIP middle east
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces."
] |
>
Don't forget about India.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east"
] |
>
I know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought.
That's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India."
] |
>
Isn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled."
] |
>
Not seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve."
] |
>
Is it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times."
] |
>
unprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?"
] |
>
How many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected."
] |
>
...and you may ask yourself...
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?"
] |
>
how did I get here?!
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself..."
] |
>
Who is my beautiful automobile?
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!"
] |
>
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)
The return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise "Off the chart" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.
"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.".
In December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?"
] |
>
I'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5"
] |
>
The old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised."
] |
>
Didn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves"
] |
>
Tell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭"
] |
>
They are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject"
] |
>
Honestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.
It's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick."
] |
>
It's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day."
] |
>
Also that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.
You can use "2" instead of "to" or "too" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?"
] |
>
That Niño should be grounded already.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense"
] |
>
During the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already."
] |
>
freezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live."
] |
>
He's not a kid anymore.
He's now...
"El Hombre"
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.",
">\n\nfreezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years."
] |
>
Mental gymnastics 🤸♀️
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.",
">\n\nfreezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years.",
">\n\nHe's not a kid anymore.\nHe's now...\n\"El Hombre\""
] |
>
I got this link from your link
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.",
">\n\nfreezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years.",
">\n\nHe's not a kid anymore.\nHe's now...\n\"El Hombre\"",
">\n\nMental gymnastics 🤸♀️"
] |
>
At least you can read!
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.",
">\n\nfreezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years.",
">\n\nHe's not a kid anymore.\nHe's now...\n\"El Hombre\"",
">\n\nMental gymnastics 🤸♀️",
">\n\nI got this link from your link"
] |
>
That makes one of us.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.",
">\n\nfreezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years.",
">\n\nHe's not a kid anymore.\nHe's now...\n\"El Hombre\"",
">\n\nMental gymnastics 🤸♀️",
">\n\nI got this link from your link",
">\n\nAt least you can read!"
] |
>
Another click bait that I didnt click
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.",
">\n\nfreezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years.",
">\n\nHe's not a kid anymore.\nHe's now...\n\"El Hombre\"",
">\n\nMental gymnastics 🤸♀️",
">\n\nI got this link from your link",
">\n\nAt least you can read!",
">\n\nThat makes one of us."
] |
>
In case your cortisol levels were returning to normal after covidmania.... Don't forget to panic some more about the coming climate-change-apocalypse. The end is nigh!
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.",
">\n\nfreezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years.",
">\n\nHe's not a kid anymore.\nHe's now...\n\"El Hombre\"",
">\n\nMental gymnastics 🤸♀️",
">\n\nI got this link from your link",
">\n\nAt least you can read!",
">\n\nThat makes one of us.",
">\n\nAnother click bait that I didnt click"
] |
>
Weeeee're all gonna die wooo!
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.",
">\n\nfreezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years.",
">\n\nHe's not a kid anymore.\nHe's now...\n\"El Hombre\"",
">\n\nMental gymnastics 🤸♀️",
">\n\nI got this link from your link",
">\n\nAt least you can read!",
">\n\nThat makes one of us.",
">\n\nAnother click bait that I didnt click",
">\n\nIn case your cortisol levels were returning to normal after covidmania.... Don't forget to panic some more about the coming climate-change-apocalypse. The end is nigh!"
] |
>
Can't wait for winter to be over.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.",
">\n\nfreezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years.",
">\n\nHe's not a kid anymore.\nHe's now...\n\"El Hombre\"",
">\n\nMental gymnastics 🤸♀️",
">\n\nI got this link from your link",
">\n\nAt least you can read!",
">\n\nThat makes one of us.",
">\n\nAnother click bait that I didnt click",
">\n\nIn case your cortisol levels were returning to normal after covidmania.... Don't forget to panic some more about the coming climate-change-apocalypse. The end is nigh!",
">\n\nWeeeee're all gonna die wooo!"
] |
>
unprecedented heatwaves means less reliance on gas for heating, which is a geostrategical gift.
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.",
">\n\nfreezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years.",
">\n\nHe's not a kid anymore.\nHe's now...\n\"El Hombre\"",
">\n\nMental gymnastics 🤸♀️",
">\n\nI got this link from your link",
">\n\nAt least you can read!",
">\n\nThat makes one of us.",
">\n\nAnother click bait that I didnt click",
">\n\nIn case your cortisol levels were returning to normal after covidmania.... Don't forget to panic some more about the coming climate-change-apocalypse. The end is nigh!",
">\n\nWeeeee're all gonna die wooo!",
">\n\nCan't wait for winter to be over."
] |
>
|
[
"Now would be a good time to establish the \"which rivers are going to dry up THIS year?\" betting pool.",
">\n\nThat would be the \"Dead Pool\" Pool",
">\n\nIt's been raining all January in Wisconsin. I think we are already there.",
">\n\nMichigan here...We have somehow set all sorts of records for snowfall..... and yet have no snow.......",
">\n\nSouthern Ontario checking in. We still have no snow on the ground. Rain tomorrow. It’s like full winter got cancelled in favour of a long late autumn.",
">\n\nAuckland New Zealand checking in. We've had no snow, but we've had plenty of snow",
">\n\nKuusamo Finland checking in. Slightly warmer and more snow than usual",
">\n\nI miss Chris Farley",
">\n\nThe Niño",
">\n\n\nThis year is already forecast to be hotter than 2022, which global datasets rank as the fifth or sixth hottest year on record. But El Niño occurs during the northern hemisphere winter and its heating effect takes months to be felt, meaning 2024 is much more likely to set a new global temperature record.",
">\n\nJust wait until the next year! Record-breaking unprecedentedness! Click here for how to survive a hot summer!",
">\n\nSomehow I suspect summer 2025 will be record-breaking. Shall we gamble some money on this?",
">\n\nI see your 2025 and raise you 2026.",
">\n\nWe are already experiencing it I think. Basically the entire north america and Europe are experiencing extremely mild temperatures. \nI can't imagine how hot this summer is going to be",
">\n\nWe are still well into La Nina temps and not yet trending up. No where near El Nino temps. Though we have been experiencing a jet stream that normally would be seen with a El Nino setup.",
">\n\ncredit the guy above who already explained it",
">\n\nThat’s just a quote from the article.",
">\n\nThis Jan has been so wack in Toronto. Warmest winter i have witnessed so far since 2011",
">\n\nwel fuuuck...",
">\n\nCame here for this.\nYo soy El Niño!",
">\n\nI wonder how many massive catastrophic events need to happen before politicians start considering a different roadmap and restrictions for producers and consumers.",
">\n\nCovid didn’t even unite people. I think the events of The Day After Tomorrow is what it takes.",
">\n\nGood luck Africa, we will think about you when putting more coal in the furnaces.",
">\n\nRIP middle east",
">\n\nDon't forget about India.",
">\n\nI know of some places in Australia that in my lifetime where in 10 years of drought with 1 year of good rain with another 8-10 years of drought. \nThat's not drought, that's one wetter than normal year, with rainfall that is probably either the new norm or the norm that we just got statistically lucky with wetter years for a while when we settled.",
">\n\nIsn't it just climate change slowly making everything hotter? Wind chill one year humidor the next....the language doesn't change the curve.",
">\n\nNot seasons per se, wetter times and drier times.",
">\n\nIs it just me or are the media increasingly obviously salivating at the prospect of imminent global disasters?",
">\n\nunprecedented. Once in a lifetime. Sooner than expected.",
">\n\nHow many “once in a lifetime” events do I have to endure?",
">\n\n...and you may ask yourself...",
">\n\nhow did I get here?!",
">\n\nWho is my beautiful automobile?",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe return of the El Niño climate phenomenon later this year will cause global temperatures to rise \"Off the chart\" and deliver unprecedented heatwaves, scientists have warned.\n\"You put those two things together, and we are likely to see unprecedented heatwaves during the next El Niño.\".\nIn December, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rated the odds of an El Niño forming by August-October as 66%. The scale of the likely El Niño was as yet unclear.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Niño^#1 year^#2 climate^#3 global^#4 temperature^#5",
">\n\nI'm still wearing flip flops in January, so I'm not super surprised.",
">\n\nThe old aged Republicans will be laughing and rolling in oil money all the way to their graves",
">\n\nDidn't we have unprecedented heatwave last time? Give us a break, kid 😭",
">\n\nTell me your ignorant to the subject without telling me you’re ignorant to the subject",
">\n\nThey are just telling you they're illiterate without telling you they're illiterate. Pretty neat trick.",
">\n\nHonestly I think the people who point out someone misusing your/you're, their/there/they're are more illiterate in reality. Or just bored assholes.\nIt's phonetically the same, doesn't change the sentence and typing quickly on a phone, it happens. Everyone with a bit of common sense overlooks it and carries on with there day.",
">\n\nIt's also strange to point to people making grammatical errors on a sub about world news, since not every user is a native english speaker. Doesn't it show how narrow-minded some people are?",
">\n\nAlso that. Idk, minor grammatical errors just really isn't something I can find the energy to care about, and to me it does seem kind of stupid people pointing out simple things to make themselves feel smart.\nYou can use \"2\" instead of \"to\" or \"too\" and I wouldn't care less or comment as long as the sentence still made phonetical sense",
">\n\nThat Niño should be grounded already.",
">\n\nDuring the last 5 years we had 3 drought summers where I live.",
">\n\nfreezing here in nor cal, tons of rain this year, el nino us usually wet for us. looking forward to the full lakes, havent seen one in a few years.",
">\n\nHe's not a kid anymore.\nHe's now...\n\"El Hombre\"",
">\n\nMental gymnastics 🤸♀️",
">\n\nI got this link from your link",
">\n\nAt least you can read!",
">\n\nThat makes one of us.",
">\n\nAnother click bait that I didnt click",
">\n\nIn case your cortisol levels were returning to normal after covidmania.... Don't forget to panic some more about the coming climate-change-apocalypse. The end is nigh!",
">\n\nWeeeee're all gonna die wooo!",
">\n\nCan't wait for winter to be over.",
">\n\nunprecedented heatwaves means less reliance on gas for heating, which is a geostrategical gift."
] |
Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?
|
[] |
>
Took him to the limousine still parked outside
I tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride
Couldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling
But that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?"
] |
>
Timothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies.
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing"
] |
>
Has he tried not groping people? The fact that a Republican campaign worker is saying this about another Republican makes me totally believe it.
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing",
">\n\n\nTimothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies."
] |
>
I read a quote on Reddit a while back about how the accuser didn’t initially want to come forward because he didn’t want to jeopardize his own future in the Republican Party.
If I find it I’ll edit my comment with link - or anyone else 😜
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing",
">\n\n\nTimothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies.",
">\n\nHas he tried not groping people? The fact that a Republican campaign worker is saying this about another Republican makes me totally believe it."
] |
>
Typical GQP sexual predator.
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing",
">\n\n\nTimothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies.",
">\n\nHas he tried not groping people? The fact that a Republican campaign worker is saying this about another Republican makes me totally believe it.",
">\n\nI read a quote on Reddit a while back about how the accuser didn’t initially want to come forward because he didn’t want to jeopardize his own future in the Republican Party.\nIf I find it I’ll edit my comment with link - or anyone else 😜"
] |
>
But isn’t groping a Republican Family Value?
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing",
">\n\n\nTimothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies.",
">\n\nHas he tried not groping people? The fact that a Republican campaign worker is saying this about another Republican makes me totally believe it.",
">\n\nI read a quote on Reddit a while back about how the accuser didn’t initially want to come forward because he didn’t want to jeopardize his own future in the Republican Party.\nIf I find it I’ll edit my comment with link - or anyone else 😜",
">\n\nTypical GQP sexual predator."
] |
>
“Grab em by the pussy.”
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing",
">\n\n\nTimothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies.",
">\n\nHas he tried not groping people? The fact that a Republican campaign worker is saying this about another Republican makes me totally believe it.",
">\n\nI read a quote on Reddit a while back about how the accuser didn’t initially want to come forward because he didn’t want to jeopardize his own future in the Republican Party.\nIf I find it I’ll edit my comment with link - or anyone else 😜",
">\n\nTypical GQP sexual predator.",
">\n\nBut isn’t groping a Republican Family Value?"
] |
>
This is an Anti-Schlapp lawsuit
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing",
">\n\n\nTimothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies.",
">\n\nHas he tried not groping people? The fact that a Republican campaign worker is saying this about another Republican makes me totally believe it.",
">\n\nI read a quote on Reddit a while back about how the accuser didn’t initially want to come forward because he didn’t want to jeopardize his own future in the Republican Party.\nIf I find it I’ll edit my comment with link - or anyone else 😜",
">\n\nTypical GQP sexual predator.",
">\n\nBut isn’t groping a Republican Family Value?",
">\n\n“Grab em by the pussy.”"
] |
>
Schlapping balls…
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing",
">\n\n\nTimothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies.",
">\n\nHas he tried not groping people? The fact that a Republican campaign worker is saying this about another Republican makes me totally believe it.",
">\n\nI read a quote on Reddit a while back about how the accuser didn’t initially want to come forward because he didn’t want to jeopardize his own future in the Republican Party.\nIf I find it I’ll edit my comment with link - or anyone else 😜",
">\n\nTypical GQP sexual predator.",
">\n\nBut isn’t groping a Republican Family Value?",
">\n\n“Grab em by the pussy.”",
">\n\nThis is an Anti-Schlapp lawsuit"
] |
>
Can we just tech consent already?
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing",
">\n\n\nTimothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies.",
">\n\nHas he tried not groping people? The fact that a Republican campaign worker is saying this about another Republican makes me totally believe it.",
">\n\nI read a quote on Reddit a while back about how the accuser didn’t initially want to come forward because he didn’t want to jeopardize his own future in the Republican Party.\nIf I find it I’ll edit my comment with link - or anyone else 😜",
">\n\nTypical GQP sexual predator.",
">\n\nBut isn’t groping a Republican Family Value?",
">\n\n“Grab em by the pussy.”",
">\n\nThis is an Anti-Schlapp lawsuit",
">\n\nSchlapping balls…"
] |
>
Sch-lappin’ da bass, monnnn!
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing",
">\n\n\nTimothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies.",
">\n\nHas he tried not groping people? The fact that a Republican campaign worker is saying this about another Republican makes me totally believe it.",
">\n\nI read a quote on Reddit a while back about how the accuser didn’t initially want to come forward because he didn’t want to jeopardize his own future in the Republican Party.\nIf I find it I’ll edit my comment with link - or anyone else 😜",
">\n\nTypical GQP sexual predator.",
">\n\nBut isn’t groping a Republican Family Value?",
">\n\n“Grab em by the pussy.”",
">\n\nThis is an Anti-Schlapp lawsuit",
">\n\nSchlapping balls…",
">\n\nCan we just tech consent already?"
] |
>
Wouldn't be surprised if this goes away w a settlement and nda.
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing",
">\n\n\nTimothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies.",
">\n\nHas he tried not groping people? The fact that a Republican campaign worker is saying this about another Republican makes me totally believe it.",
">\n\nI read a quote on Reddit a while back about how the accuser didn’t initially want to come forward because he didn’t want to jeopardize his own future in the Republican Party.\nIf I find it I’ll edit my comment with link - or anyone else 😜",
">\n\nTypical GQP sexual predator.",
">\n\nBut isn’t groping a Republican Family Value?",
">\n\n“Grab em by the pussy.”",
">\n\nThis is an Anti-Schlapp lawsuit",
">\n\nSchlapping balls…",
">\n\nCan we just tech consent already?",
">\n\nSch-lappin’ da bass, monnnn!"
] |
>
|
[
"Schlapped him with a lawsuit, huh?",
">\n\n\nTook him to the limousine still parked outside\nI tipped the chauffeur when it was over and I gave him my own ride\nCouldn't get him off my junk he was like static cling\nBut that's what happens when body start Schlappin' from doin' the wild thing",
">\n\n\nTimothy Hyland, a lawyer for the accuser, told the New York Times that they would be seeking at least $9.4 million in damages. Reached for comment, Schlapp’s attorney Charlie Spies called the complaint “false,” and said the “Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress” as a result. Schlapp also tweeted the statement from Spies.",
">\n\nHas he tried not groping people? The fact that a Republican campaign worker is saying this about another Republican makes me totally believe it.",
">\n\nI read a quote on Reddit a while back about how the accuser didn’t initially want to come forward because he didn’t want to jeopardize his own future in the Republican Party.\nIf I find it I’ll edit my comment with link - or anyone else 😜",
">\n\nTypical GQP sexual predator.",
">\n\nBut isn’t groping a Republican Family Value?",
">\n\n“Grab em by the pussy.”",
">\n\nThis is an Anti-Schlapp lawsuit",
">\n\nSchlapping balls…",
">\n\nCan we just tech consent already?",
">\n\nSch-lappin’ da bass, monnnn!",
">\n\nWouldn't be surprised if this goes away w a settlement and nda."
] |
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.
|
[] |
>
My cousin literally swallows them whole from the jar as like a party trick lol
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans."
] |
>
The jar? Where do you live where hotdogs come in jars.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nMy cousin literally swallows them whole from the jar as like a party trick lol"
] |
>
Ikr, damn Brit’s (jk). Just when you start to wonder why Americans had to revolt and then things like this come up and it’s like oh right; simple matter of sanity. (Jk, love our slightly off to us like we are slightly off to them neighbors).
For anyone struggling hot dogs come in jars in jolly ole England, apparently.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nMy cousin literally swallows them whole from the jar as like a party trick lol",
">\n\nThe jar? Where do you live where hotdogs come in jars."
] |
>
To be honest coming in jars makes more sense given that in the air they turn disgusting and many hot dog packs are not even resealable.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nMy cousin literally swallows them whole from the jar as like a party trick lol",
">\n\nThe jar? Where do you live where hotdogs come in jars.",
">\n\nIkr, damn Brit’s (jk). Just when you start to wonder why Americans had to revolt and then things like this come up and it’s like oh right; simple matter of sanity. (Jk, love our slightly off to us like we are slightly off to them neighbors).\nFor anyone struggling hot dogs come in jars in jolly ole England, apparently."
] |
>
There is so much salt and other preservatives in there, sometimes I buy the mini ones and eat them cold with sauce or dip as a snack. I only heat hot dogs if I want melty cheese on a hot dog.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nMy cousin literally swallows them whole from the jar as like a party trick lol",
">\n\nThe jar? Where do you live where hotdogs come in jars.",
">\n\nIkr, damn Brit’s (jk). Just when you start to wonder why Americans had to revolt and then things like this come up and it’s like oh right; simple matter of sanity. (Jk, love our slightly off to us like we are slightly off to them neighbors).\nFor anyone struggling hot dogs come in jars in jolly ole England, apparently.",
">\n\nTo be honest coming in jars makes more sense given that in the air they turn disgusting and many hot dog packs are not even resealable."
] |
>
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nMy cousin literally swallows them whole from the jar as like a party trick lol",
">\n\nThe jar? Where do you live where hotdogs come in jars.",
">\n\nIkr, damn Brit’s (jk). Just when you start to wonder why Americans had to revolt and then things like this come up and it’s like oh right; simple matter of sanity. (Jk, love our slightly off to us like we are slightly off to them neighbors).\nFor anyone struggling hot dogs come in jars in jolly ole England, apparently.",
">\n\nTo be honest coming in jars makes more sense given that in the air they turn disgusting and many hot dog packs are not even resealable.",
">\n\nThere is so much salt and other preservatives in there, sometimes I buy the mini ones and eat them cold with sauce or dip as a snack. I only heat hot dogs if I want melty cheese on a hot dog."
] |
to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.
To change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why?
This is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying "censorship bad" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children.
However, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that "censorship bad" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim "censorship not bad" one must "combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use" (the motte).
One thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.
|
[] |
>
"censorship bad" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.
i'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool.
what nuance am i missing?
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this."
] |
>
The nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.
On internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.
Imagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?"
] |
>
ok, fine.
the owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.
you have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it."
] |
>
there is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term
Let's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning."
] |
>
OP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?"
] |
>
That's all these kind of posts ever are
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word..."
] |
>
[✓] Jordan Peterson
[✓] Panicked about trans stuff
[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes
So basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are"
] |
>
If you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.
It's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word.
I'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a "what works in reality" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B."
] |
>
oh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.
and you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is."
] |
>
Posts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit."
] |
>
it would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.
i dont see anything here to respond to.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers."
] |
>
Why would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy.
We get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to."
] |
>
why assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.
wow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes…."
] |
>
Because several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith."
] |
>
literally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.
this post isn't about the n word.
really, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true."
] |
>
People go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words.
It doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation
Imagine if someone stood up in church and yelled "HOLY FUCK!". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?"
] |
>
in my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.
"very easy"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church"
] |
>
If a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?
Reddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more."
] |
>
As other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.
How do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?"
] |
>
first of all, banning the word calorie for "mental health reasons" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.
if a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group."
] |
>
1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like "rice" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word.
2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article.
3) You say, quote "they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say." But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to "censor" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about."
] |
>
This is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.
The 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.
At what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.
So, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line?
And we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.
So, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice."
] |
>
im not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary "solution" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet."
] |
>
but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary "solution" of banning words is *bad censorship*
This is a question of labor.
There are hundreds of thousands of posts daily on Reddit, with tens of thousands of comments that follow.
There isn't a practical method of staying ahead of the troll curve - other than automating part of it. Otherwise, the troll takeover doesn't happen overnight, it just takes a few days.
it's a perpetual arms race
Everything is. Why would this be different? It's a digital platform. It's caught between the reality of faithful and unfaithful users. Use a baseball game as an example. 30,000 people show up to watch... and maybe... 15 of them get so drunk and belligerent that they end up in stadium jail to cool down. 15/30,000 is pretty easy to maintain.
But now look at Reddit. You didn't pay to get in, so the userbase isn't made up of almost entirely faithful users. You got to choose your own seat - so the platform has no control (like a stadium does) to put you where it is most appropriate. Etc., etc. It's all the real-world problems that exist online that have to be dealt with - and the platform is handcuffed by being digital.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.",
">\n\nim not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion."
] |
>
is banning a word effective against trolls?
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.",
">\n\nim not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*\n\nThis is a question of labor. \nThere are hundreds of thousands of posts daily on Reddit, with tens of thousands of comments that follow.\nThere isn't a practical method of staying ahead of the troll curve - other than automating part of it. Otherwise, the troll takeover doesn't happen overnight, it just takes a few days.\n\nit's a perpetual arms race\n\nEverything is. Why would this be different? It's a digital platform. It's caught between the reality of faithful and unfaithful users. Use a baseball game as an example. 30,000 people show up to watch... and maybe... 15 of them get so drunk and belligerent that they end up in stadium jail to cool down. 15/30,000 is pretty easy to maintain.\nBut now look at Reddit. You didn't pay to get in, so the userbase isn't made up of almost entirely faithful users. You got to choose your own seat - so the platform has no control (like a stadium does) to put you where it is most appropriate. Etc., etc. It's all the real-world problems that exist online that have to be dealt with - and the platform is handcuffed by being digital."
] |
>
Some words are derived in violent hate. Mental health and verbal abuse are real things. Words of hate are violent and offensive.
Standard fuck shit cunt are not that bad, but when someone says “you’re a piece of shit” I think censorship for children’s shows makes a lot of sense similar to not allowing murder to be shown to general audiences without warning.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.",
">\n\nim not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*\n\nThis is a question of labor. \nThere are hundreds of thousands of posts daily on Reddit, with tens of thousands of comments that follow.\nThere isn't a practical method of staying ahead of the troll curve - other than automating part of it. Otherwise, the troll takeover doesn't happen overnight, it just takes a few days.\n\nit's a perpetual arms race\n\nEverything is. Why would this be different? It's a digital platform. It's caught between the reality of faithful and unfaithful users. Use a baseball game as an example. 30,000 people show up to watch... and maybe... 15 of them get so drunk and belligerent that they end up in stadium jail to cool down. 15/30,000 is pretty easy to maintain.\nBut now look at Reddit. You didn't pay to get in, so the userbase isn't made up of almost entirely faithful users. You got to choose your own seat - so the platform has no control (like a stadium does) to put you where it is most appropriate. Etc., etc. It's all the real-world problems that exist online that have to be dealt with - and the platform is handcuffed by being digital.",
">\n\nis banning a word effective against trolls?"
] |
>
i acknowledge verbal abuse, but that is in the context, as your example shows.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.",
">\n\nim not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*\n\nThis is a question of labor. \nThere are hundreds of thousands of posts daily on Reddit, with tens of thousands of comments that follow.\nThere isn't a practical method of staying ahead of the troll curve - other than automating part of it. Otherwise, the troll takeover doesn't happen overnight, it just takes a few days.\n\nit's a perpetual arms race\n\nEverything is. Why would this be different? It's a digital platform. It's caught between the reality of faithful and unfaithful users. Use a baseball game as an example. 30,000 people show up to watch... and maybe... 15 of them get so drunk and belligerent that they end up in stadium jail to cool down. 15/30,000 is pretty easy to maintain.\nBut now look at Reddit. You didn't pay to get in, so the userbase isn't made up of almost entirely faithful users. You got to choose your own seat - so the platform has no control (like a stadium does) to put you where it is most appropriate. Etc., etc. It's all the real-world problems that exist online that have to be dealt with - and the platform is handcuffed by being digital.",
">\n\nis banning a word effective against trolls?",
">\n\nSome words are derived in violent hate. Mental health and verbal abuse are real things. Words of hate are violent and offensive. \nStandard fuck shit cunt are not that bad, but when someone says “you’re a piece of shit” I think censorship for children’s shows makes a lot of sense similar to not allowing murder to be shown to general audiences without warning."
] |
>
Okay then true if “bad words” are simply part of someone else’s vernacular for whatever reason then no they should not be censored.
I swear as normal in a restaurant around kids, the way I see it: they know the words already and know if/how they’re allowed to use them, or they don’t know the words so who fuckin cares
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.",
">\n\nim not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*\n\nThis is a question of labor. \nThere are hundreds of thousands of posts daily on Reddit, with tens of thousands of comments that follow.\nThere isn't a practical method of staying ahead of the troll curve - other than automating part of it. Otherwise, the troll takeover doesn't happen overnight, it just takes a few days.\n\nit's a perpetual arms race\n\nEverything is. Why would this be different? It's a digital platform. It's caught between the reality of faithful and unfaithful users. Use a baseball game as an example. 30,000 people show up to watch... and maybe... 15 of them get so drunk and belligerent that they end up in stadium jail to cool down. 15/30,000 is pretty easy to maintain.\nBut now look at Reddit. You didn't pay to get in, so the userbase isn't made up of almost entirely faithful users. You got to choose your own seat - so the platform has no control (like a stadium does) to put you where it is most appropriate. Etc., etc. It's all the real-world problems that exist online that have to be dealt with - and the platform is handcuffed by being digital.",
">\n\nis banning a word effective against trolls?",
">\n\nSome words are derived in violent hate. Mental health and verbal abuse are real things. Words of hate are violent and offensive. \nStandard fuck shit cunt are not that bad, but when someone says “you’re a piece of shit” I think censorship for children’s shows makes a lot of sense similar to not allowing murder to be shown to general audiences without warning.",
">\n\ni acknowledge verbal abuse, but that is in the context, as your example shows."
] |
>
are you being ironic?
the presence of kids is a part of context. and you don't have to refrain entirely in order to not be heard by some kids in a restaurant.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.",
">\n\nim not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*\n\nThis is a question of labor. \nThere are hundreds of thousands of posts daily on Reddit, with tens of thousands of comments that follow.\nThere isn't a practical method of staying ahead of the troll curve - other than automating part of it. Otherwise, the troll takeover doesn't happen overnight, it just takes a few days.\n\nit's a perpetual arms race\n\nEverything is. Why would this be different? It's a digital platform. It's caught between the reality of faithful and unfaithful users. Use a baseball game as an example. 30,000 people show up to watch... and maybe... 15 of them get so drunk and belligerent that they end up in stadium jail to cool down. 15/30,000 is pretty easy to maintain.\nBut now look at Reddit. You didn't pay to get in, so the userbase isn't made up of almost entirely faithful users. You got to choose your own seat - so the platform has no control (like a stadium does) to put you where it is most appropriate. Etc., etc. It's all the real-world problems that exist online that have to be dealt with - and the platform is handcuffed by being digital.",
">\n\nis banning a word effective against trolls?",
">\n\nSome words are derived in violent hate. Mental health and verbal abuse are real things. Words of hate are violent and offensive. \nStandard fuck shit cunt are not that bad, but when someone says “you’re a piece of shit” I think censorship for children’s shows makes a lot of sense similar to not allowing murder to be shown to general audiences without warning.",
">\n\ni acknowledge verbal abuse, but that is in the context, as your example shows.",
">\n\nOkay then true if “bad words” are simply part of someone else’s vernacular for whatever reason then no they should not be censored. \nI swear as normal in a restaurant around kids, the way I see it: they know the words already and know if/how they’re allowed to use them, or they don’t know the words so who fuckin cares"
] |
>
No I am not being ironic. The N word is in songs and you shouldn’t have to censor yourself if the word of hate is used as art or in a quote or something. And you don’t need to censor things just because they’re swear words.
But when said words are used as verbal assault I do think censorship is warranted, but you pointed out that’s contextual…so maybe I’m not getting your prompt and should just remove myself haha
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.",
">\n\nim not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*\n\nThis is a question of labor. \nThere are hundreds of thousands of posts daily on Reddit, with tens of thousands of comments that follow.\nThere isn't a practical method of staying ahead of the troll curve - other than automating part of it. Otherwise, the troll takeover doesn't happen overnight, it just takes a few days.\n\nit's a perpetual arms race\n\nEverything is. Why would this be different? It's a digital platform. It's caught between the reality of faithful and unfaithful users. Use a baseball game as an example. 30,000 people show up to watch... and maybe... 15 of them get so drunk and belligerent that they end up in stadium jail to cool down. 15/30,000 is pretty easy to maintain.\nBut now look at Reddit. You didn't pay to get in, so the userbase isn't made up of almost entirely faithful users. You got to choose your own seat - so the platform has no control (like a stadium does) to put you where it is most appropriate. Etc., etc. It's all the real-world problems that exist online that have to be dealt with - and the platform is handcuffed by being digital.",
">\n\nis banning a word effective against trolls?",
">\n\nSome words are derived in violent hate. Mental health and verbal abuse are real things. Words of hate are violent and offensive. \nStandard fuck shit cunt are not that bad, but when someone says “you’re a piece of shit” I think censorship for children’s shows makes a lot of sense similar to not allowing murder to be shown to general audiences without warning.",
">\n\ni acknowledge verbal abuse, but that is in the context, as your example shows.",
">\n\nOkay then true if “bad words” are simply part of someone else’s vernacular for whatever reason then no they should not be censored. \nI swear as normal in a restaurant around kids, the way I see it: they know the words already and know if/how they’re allowed to use them, or they don’t know the words so who fuckin cares",
">\n\nare you being ironic?\nthe presence of kids is a part of context. and you don't have to refrain entirely in order to not be heard by some kids in a restaurant."
] |
>
when (reddit for instance) censors in this fashion, they divest thenselves of the responsibilty to actually think, and they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say. for myself, that is one responsibility that i don't want taken away.
Reddit has chosen to remove specific words from their platform as it's unprofitable. What is the automated way to provide the nuance that you require?
Or are you stating that your right to say specific words on there platform is greater than their right to seek profits?
I'm trying to figure out where your free speech ends and where Reddit's begins?
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.",
">\n\nim not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*\n\nThis is a question of labor. \nThere are hundreds of thousands of posts daily on Reddit, with tens of thousands of comments that follow.\nThere isn't a practical method of staying ahead of the troll curve - other than automating part of it. Otherwise, the troll takeover doesn't happen overnight, it just takes a few days.\n\nit's a perpetual arms race\n\nEverything is. Why would this be different? It's a digital platform. It's caught between the reality of faithful and unfaithful users. Use a baseball game as an example. 30,000 people show up to watch... and maybe... 15 of them get so drunk and belligerent that they end up in stadium jail to cool down. 15/30,000 is pretty easy to maintain.\nBut now look at Reddit. You didn't pay to get in, so the userbase isn't made up of almost entirely faithful users. You got to choose your own seat - so the platform has no control (like a stadium does) to put you where it is most appropriate. Etc., etc. It's all the real-world problems that exist online that have to be dealt with - and the platform is handcuffed by being digital.",
">\n\nis banning a word effective against trolls?",
">\n\nSome words are derived in violent hate. Mental health and verbal abuse are real things. Words of hate are violent and offensive. \nStandard fuck shit cunt are not that bad, but when someone says “you’re a piece of shit” I think censorship for children’s shows makes a lot of sense similar to not allowing murder to be shown to general audiences without warning.",
">\n\ni acknowledge verbal abuse, but that is in the context, as your example shows.",
">\n\nOkay then true if “bad words” are simply part of someone else’s vernacular for whatever reason then no they should not be censored. \nI swear as normal in a restaurant around kids, the way I see it: they know the words already and know if/how they’re allowed to use them, or they don’t know the words so who fuckin cares",
">\n\nare you being ironic?\nthe presence of kids is a part of context. and you don't have to refrain entirely in order to not be heard by some kids in a restaurant.",
">\n\nNo I am not being ironic. The N word is in songs and you shouldn’t have to censor yourself if the word of hate is used as art or in a quote or something. And you don’t need to censor things just because they’re swear words. \nBut when said words are used as verbal assault I do think censorship is warranted, but you pointed out that’s contextual…so maybe I’m not getting your prompt and should just remove myself haha"
] |
>
i see your point. but i think this is sort of beyond the bounds of this discussion. i think reddit cannot be simply thought of as an expression of the company. despite technical designations, it is effectively a public forum. but i am not really well enough educated or prepared to make the relevant case, or the cmv would have been about that.
but for the sake of this discussion, i subordinate the moderation decisions to the principle of free discussion on various topics which is reddit's advertised function.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.",
">\n\nim not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*\n\nThis is a question of labor. \nThere are hundreds of thousands of posts daily on Reddit, with tens of thousands of comments that follow.\nThere isn't a practical method of staying ahead of the troll curve - other than automating part of it. Otherwise, the troll takeover doesn't happen overnight, it just takes a few days.\n\nit's a perpetual arms race\n\nEverything is. Why would this be different? It's a digital platform. It's caught between the reality of faithful and unfaithful users. Use a baseball game as an example. 30,000 people show up to watch... and maybe... 15 of them get so drunk and belligerent that they end up in stadium jail to cool down. 15/30,000 is pretty easy to maintain.\nBut now look at Reddit. You didn't pay to get in, so the userbase isn't made up of almost entirely faithful users. You got to choose your own seat - so the platform has no control (like a stadium does) to put you where it is most appropriate. Etc., etc. It's all the real-world problems that exist online that have to be dealt with - and the platform is handcuffed by being digital.",
">\n\nis banning a word effective against trolls?",
">\n\nSome words are derived in violent hate. Mental health and verbal abuse are real things. Words of hate are violent and offensive. \nStandard fuck shit cunt are not that bad, but when someone says “you’re a piece of shit” I think censorship for children’s shows makes a lot of sense similar to not allowing murder to be shown to general audiences without warning.",
">\n\ni acknowledge verbal abuse, but that is in the context, as your example shows.",
">\n\nOkay then true if “bad words” are simply part of someone else’s vernacular for whatever reason then no they should not be censored. \nI swear as normal in a restaurant around kids, the way I see it: they know the words already and know if/how they’re allowed to use them, or they don’t know the words so who fuckin cares",
">\n\nare you being ironic?\nthe presence of kids is a part of context. and you don't have to refrain entirely in order to not be heard by some kids in a restaurant.",
">\n\nNo I am not being ironic. The N word is in songs and you shouldn’t have to censor yourself if the word of hate is used as art or in a quote or something. And you don’t need to censor things just because they’re swear words. \nBut when said words are used as verbal assault I do think censorship is warranted, but you pointed out that’s contextual…so maybe I’m not getting your prompt and should just remove myself haha",
">\n\n\nwhen (reddit for instance) censors in this fashion, they divest thenselves of the responsibilty to actually think, and they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say. for myself, that is one responsibility that i don't want taken away.\n\nReddit has chosen to remove specific words from their platform as it's unprofitable. What is the automated way to provide the nuance that you require? \nOr are you stating that your right to say specific words on there platform is greater than their right to seek profits?\nI'm trying to figure out where your free speech ends and where Reddit's begins?"
] |
>
How often in the course of an online multi-player game or a forum for crocheting or a book club is someone going to make a reference to a racial slur? If we did not moderate/ban/censor racial slurs in those forums, or even if we only allowed people to make technical reference to them, how often would that just result in a distraction from the topic and purpose of those forums?
I know that a lot of rules and moderation are cast as being for the sake of sensitivity but as often as not it's to keep things on topic and to avoid banal and tedious bullshittery. If you have a deep, deep need to make technical references to language the others would rather not hear there are plenty of places you can do that.
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.",
">\n\nim not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*\n\nThis is a question of labor. \nThere are hundreds of thousands of posts daily on Reddit, with tens of thousands of comments that follow.\nThere isn't a practical method of staying ahead of the troll curve - other than automating part of it. Otherwise, the troll takeover doesn't happen overnight, it just takes a few days.\n\nit's a perpetual arms race\n\nEverything is. Why would this be different? It's a digital platform. It's caught between the reality of faithful and unfaithful users. Use a baseball game as an example. 30,000 people show up to watch... and maybe... 15 of them get so drunk and belligerent that they end up in stadium jail to cool down. 15/30,000 is pretty easy to maintain.\nBut now look at Reddit. You didn't pay to get in, so the userbase isn't made up of almost entirely faithful users. You got to choose your own seat - so the platform has no control (like a stadium does) to put you where it is most appropriate. Etc., etc. It's all the real-world problems that exist online that have to be dealt with - and the platform is handcuffed by being digital.",
">\n\nis banning a word effective against trolls?",
">\n\nSome words are derived in violent hate. Mental health and verbal abuse are real things. Words of hate are violent and offensive. \nStandard fuck shit cunt are not that bad, but when someone says “you’re a piece of shit” I think censorship for children’s shows makes a lot of sense similar to not allowing murder to be shown to general audiences without warning.",
">\n\ni acknowledge verbal abuse, but that is in the context, as your example shows.",
">\n\nOkay then true if “bad words” are simply part of someone else’s vernacular for whatever reason then no they should not be censored. \nI swear as normal in a restaurant around kids, the way I see it: they know the words already and know if/how they’re allowed to use them, or they don’t know the words so who fuckin cares",
">\n\nare you being ironic?\nthe presence of kids is a part of context. and you don't have to refrain entirely in order to not be heard by some kids in a restaurant.",
">\n\nNo I am not being ironic. The N word is in songs and you shouldn’t have to censor yourself if the word of hate is used as art or in a quote or something. And you don’t need to censor things just because they’re swear words. \nBut when said words are used as verbal assault I do think censorship is warranted, but you pointed out that’s contextual…so maybe I’m not getting your prompt and should just remove myself haha",
">\n\n\nwhen (reddit for instance) censors in this fashion, they divest thenselves of the responsibilty to actually think, and they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say. for myself, that is one responsibility that i don't want taken away.\n\nReddit has chosen to remove specific words from their platform as it's unprofitable. What is the automated way to provide the nuance that you require? \nOr are you stating that your right to say specific words on there platform is greater than their right to seek profits?\nI'm trying to figure out where your free speech ends and where Reddit's begins?",
">\n\ni see your point. but i think this is sort of beyond the bounds of this discussion. i think reddit cannot be simply thought of as an expression of the company. despite technical designations, it is effectively a public forum. but i am not really well enough educated or prepared to make the relevant case, or the cmv would have been about that.\nbut for the sake of this discussion, i subordinate the moderation decisions to the principle of free discussion on various topics which is reddit's advertised function."
] |
>
i dont doubt that that is their intention, but i have no reason to believe it is even effective. how often? i dont know, do you?
|
[
"to change my view, you must combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use.\n\nTo change your view we must meet an impossibly high bar? Why? \nThis is a motte and bailey argument. You're saying \"censorship bad\" (the bailey) and then give your reasoning. I could engage with your bailey by saying that it makes sense in many contexts to censor specific words known to be offensive to people in said groups e.g. swear words or slurs in the presence of small children. \nHowever, within your argument you've actually revealed your true stance, not just that \"censorship bad\" but instead you've retreated to the position that in order to claim \"censorship not bad\" one must \"combine me of an example of a word that is never acceptable to use, and ought to be censored completely and with no examination of the context of it's use\" (the motte).\nOne thing that motte and bailey arguments ignore, much like a strawman in reverse, is nuance. The view presented here is in dire need of this.",
">\n\n\"censorship bad\" is not my bailey. my position is precisely that this very specific tool of banning particular words is bad. at no point did i retreat.\ni'm only asking for *one* word that you can convince me warrants the use of this tool. \nwhat nuance am i missing?",
">\n\nThe nuance is needed for your impossibly high bar. There is no equivalent of an unforgivable curse in real life and setting such a bar doesn't actually accomplish what you set out to do.\nOn internet platforms like Reddit any word can be banned for any reason. It's private property. It's warranted when the owners say it is. And they do.\nImagine a sub where every week the 5 most commonly used words were banned for eternity. Eventually we would run out of words. That is clearly a trivial usage of a banned word bot and it would be impossible to execute the purpose of that hypothetical sub without it.",
">\n\nok, fine.\nthe owner saying it's warranted does not actually make it warranted.\nyou have basically just said it is impossible to justify the use of word-banning.",
">\n\n\nthere is a legitimate technical use, at the very least in simple reference to a term\n\nLet's say I am talking about the show Stephen Universe, a kid's cartoon. Why is technical discussions on the N-word valid there?",
">\n\nOP sure does want a pass on saying the N word...",
">\n\nThat's all these kind of posts ever are",
">\n\n[✓] Jordan Peterson\n[✓] Panicked about trans stuff\n[✓] Actually The N Word Can Be Good Sometimes\nSo basically it's 80% of the posts on this sub, which get promptly zapped for Rule B.",
">\n\nIf you don't remove all instances of the word, then you need to pay a human being to review all uses of the word and make a subjective decision whether each use okay or not. You'll probably need to pay another human to review the subjective decisions of the other humans too.\nIt's more cost efficient and balanced to just remove all uses of the word. \nI'm not saying I entirely disagree with your point, but from a \"what works in reality\" viewpoint, it's just the way it is.",
">\n\noh, it's definitely more efficient, that doesnt make it good.\n\nand you could also not. you could just let humans have conversations as they see fit.",
">\n\nPosts like this are so disingenuous. We all get it, you want to say the N-word on Reddit without getting kicked off the platform. I prefer an automatic containment of purely racist and harassing language like this because racists will always lie about the context and use nonsense arguments to justify themselves and insulate themselves from being blocked/banned. All that arguing is time-consuming and pointless. Eats up a lot of man hours to argue with Stormfront users trying to wax poetic on why their racists posts and comments are actually something else (don't believe your lying eyes). No one has time for that. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It makes other users uncomfortable and can radicalize young people that don't know better. There's lots of other unpopular social media sites where you can do this like Parler, Truth Social and whatever else exists where you can scream racist shit all day long into the echo chamber of other losers.",
">\n\nit would be more constructive if you assume i am arguing in good faith, and dont speculate as to my motives.\ni dont see anything here to respond to.",
">\n\nWhy would anyone assume you are arguing in good faith. We see through it. Do you actually hold this view? If so then there isn’t much anyone here can do for you. These posts just scream that you have little to no knowledge of history, no understanding of nuance or society, and lack the ability to feel empathy. \nWe get it. You want a pass to say the n-word. Fucking yikes….",
">\n\nwhy assume i am arguing in good faith? because that is how the subreddit works. that is the basic element that allows conversation at all.\nwow, i lack the ability to feel empathy? you are really reaching. why did you comment at all, if you only wanted to dismiss everything on the basis of motives you made up? i am not the one here in bad faith.",
">\n\nBecause several times a day there is a post about how you shouldn’t censor the n-word. Literally every day. Most of those get removed for being in bad faith and obviously racists rhetoric so you can hardly blame me for recognizing the signs. You are telling me that you are the one and only post on this topic in good faith? History has shown me that won’t be true.",
">\n\nliterally, all anyone can think of is the n word? there are more words, you know.\nthis post isn't about the n word.\nreally, you think every single one is on bad faith? why are you here?",
">\n\nPeople go to subs that are specific to their interests. It is very easy to keep trolls off your subs by banning certain words. \nIt doesn't matter if a word is acceptable to use or not, it is not about proving some point about the words... banning some words just make subs run smoother with less moderation\nImagine if someone stood up in church and yelled \"HOLY FUCK!\". It is not inherently wrong to say that, it is just inappropriate... so you shouldn't say tht in church",
">\n\nin my experience, trolls get on just fine with a variety of words. i really dont think it can work for that.\n\"very easy\"? if you personally have experience as an admin or mod, please tell me more.",
">\n\nIf a sub is against racists, I believe they should prohibit the use of words that are only used by racists. Do you agree with it?\nReddit also has a large number of underage users. Do you believe that not censoring these words would help to normalize them? Do you see any issues with that?",
">\n\nAs other commenters have pointed out, I do disagree with your final claim that there is only one way to change your mind.\nHow do you feel about small individual communities coming together to ban a particular word within that group? For example, a group of people with eating disorders might choose to ban the word calorie, to protect their mental health, and then create a bot to discourage people trolling their forum. I think that example is an entirely reasonable and justified choice to blacklist a word, and I think the example can be extrapolated to a number of other instances in which a free, independent group would decide to keep a particular word out of their community. Your choice, then, is not to participate in that group.",
">\n\nfirst of all, banning the word calorie for \"mental health reasons\" is kind of a ridiulous idea. avoiding hearing a certain word will only make people with such issues *more* sensitive, exacerbating they problem. but that is beside the point.\nif a *group* really has decided such a thing, then i dont so much have a problem with it. but subs are not really groups, they are fora. their membership is completely fluid, and the body of people have no say in the rules that govern them. moderation decisions like employing bots are made by oligarchical fiat. therefore, what you describe is not the situation i am talking about.",
">\n\n1) Let me change examples. How about a group of veterans with PTSD avoiding words like \"rice\" if they were Japanese's prisoners of war? Like you say, the specifics are beside the point, but there are any number of examples for why a group might ban a word. \n2) Reddit seems like a fine example of this principal of self-governance to me. I don't quite understand why it matters if the members don't have say in the decision that moderators make? It's free, and moderation is volunteer. If you want to moderate a community that allows certain words, you're welcome to. If moderates want to run a forum without certain words, they're also welcome to. You make the decision to engage, or not. People have preferences. This can range from that cat subreddit mandating that all the titles start with cat (a frivolous example of censorship for the purpose of humor) or LGBT subs banning slurs (a serious example of censorship to protect people). Both instances seem totally valid to me. I, personally, don't really like the 'cat' joke, so I'm just not going to join that subreddit. I, personally, will say f-slur or n-word instead of the genuine article. \n3) You say, quote \"they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say.\" But they haven't done that. They've set a boundary for interaction, a requirement you must meet to participate in a community. This is a practice commonly done, everywhere. You must be a citizen to vote, you must be a member to vote, etc... Groups of people (and individuals too) are entirely allowed to set personal boundaries. This works on an interpersonal level, too. A friend might ask you to \"censor\" a particular word around them, such as the name of an ex-partner they don't want mentioned. They haven't taken away your agency -- they've made a request of you that you have to fulfill to continue participating. They've left you the agency to make that choice.",
">\n\nThis is about third-party platform censoring users' expression.\nThe 'good' needs to be taken in context: that the platform's sustainability is directly influenced by the content on the platform. So, with that in mind, it becomes a balancing act.\nAt what point is non-censorship hindering the future of the platform? That's the question that is being asked. It's why companies like Reddit and Twitter don't have a black and white ToC. Because they're well aware that a platform can be turned to dust overnight by trolls.\nSo, if you can admit that the platform has a responsibility to protect its own survival - you would have to admit that censorship has to play a part in that. The only question then becomes: where is the line? \nAnd we know - it moves, constantly. And that gets even more people upset - but is that conflict enough to overtake the failure of a platform altogether? It hasn't demonstrated that anywhere. Social media platforms don't fail because of censorship - quite the opposite, actually.\nSo, while I absolutely agree, censoring things is a bad idea - it's a necessary evil. Otherwise you get nothing - or everything is 4chan and the ability to find quality content becomes labor prohibitive as an entertainment outlet.",
">\n\nim not arguing against all censorship. but i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*. its just not a good job. it's a perpetual arms race, and cant ultimately be effective. and the way that it removes nuance is inimical to creating good discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut i am saying that ignoring context in favor of the (at best ) temporary \"solution\" of banning words is *bad censorship*\n\nThis is a question of labor. \nThere are hundreds of thousands of posts daily on Reddit, with tens of thousands of comments that follow.\nThere isn't a practical method of staying ahead of the troll curve - other than automating part of it. Otherwise, the troll takeover doesn't happen overnight, it just takes a few days.\n\nit's a perpetual arms race\n\nEverything is. Why would this be different? It's a digital platform. It's caught between the reality of faithful and unfaithful users. Use a baseball game as an example. 30,000 people show up to watch... and maybe... 15 of them get so drunk and belligerent that they end up in stadium jail to cool down. 15/30,000 is pretty easy to maintain.\nBut now look at Reddit. You didn't pay to get in, so the userbase isn't made up of almost entirely faithful users. You got to choose your own seat - so the platform has no control (like a stadium does) to put you where it is most appropriate. Etc., etc. It's all the real-world problems that exist online that have to be dealt with - and the platform is handcuffed by being digital.",
">\n\nis banning a word effective against trolls?",
">\n\nSome words are derived in violent hate. Mental health and verbal abuse are real things. Words of hate are violent and offensive. \nStandard fuck shit cunt are not that bad, but when someone says “you’re a piece of shit” I think censorship for children’s shows makes a lot of sense similar to not allowing murder to be shown to general audiences without warning.",
">\n\ni acknowledge verbal abuse, but that is in the context, as your example shows.",
">\n\nOkay then true if “bad words” are simply part of someone else’s vernacular for whatever reason then no they should not be censored. \nI swear as normal in a restaurant around kids, the way I see it: they know the words already and know if/how they’re allowed to use them, or they don’t know the words so who fuckin cares",
">\n\nare you being ironic?\nthe presence of kids is a part of context. and you don't have to refrain entirely in order to not be heard by some kids in a restaurant.",
">\n\nNo I am not being ironic. The N word is in songs and you shouldn’t have to censor yourself if the word of hate is used as art or in a quote or something. And you don’t need to censor things just because they’re swear words. \nBut when said words are used as verbal assault I do think censorship is warranted, but you pointed out that’s contextual…so maybe I’m not getting your prompt and should just remove myself haha",
">\n\n\nwhen (reddit for instance) censors in this fashion, they divest thenselves of the responsibilty to actually think, and they also remove your agency in determining for yourself what is wise to say. for myself, that is one responsibility that i don't want taken away.\n\nReddit has chosen to remove specific words from their platform as it's unprofitable. What is the automated way to provide the nuance that you require? \nOr are you stating that your right to say specific words on there platform is greater than their right to seek profits?\nI'm trying to figure out where your free speech ends and where Reddit's begins?",
">\n\ni see your point. but i think this is sort of beyond the bounds of this discussion. i think reddit cannot be simply thought of as an expression of the company. despite technical designations, it is effectively a public forum. but i am not really well enough educated or prepared to make the relevant case, or the cmv would have been about that.\nbut for the sake of this discussion, i subordinate the moderation decisions to the principle of free discussion on various topics which is reddit's advertised function.",
">\n\nHow often in the course of an online multi-player game or a forum for crocheting or a book club is someone going to make a reference to a racial slur? If we did not moderate/ban/censor racial slurs in those forums, or even if we only allowed people to make technical reference to them, how often would that just result in a distraction from the topic and purpose of those forums?\nI know that a lot of rules and moderation are cast as being for the sake of sensitivity but as often as not it's to keep things on topic and to avoid banal and tedious bullshittery. If you have a deep, deep need to make technical references to language the others would rather not hear there are plenty of places you can do that."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.