Oct 202010
 

Until recently, I’ve taken a pretty much hands-off approach to commenters (apart from responding, of course). But in the last few days, three have been banned… two for issuing death threats or advocating genocide; one for being a general troll. I suppose I might as well lay down some groundrules:

1) No threatening each other, or issuing death threats or advocating violence or any such crap. Not only is it pathetic and annoying, it might also be legally actionable, and I just don’t need the headache. However, there are clear exceptions for the likes of war strategy, home/self defense tactics, etc.

1A) Advocacy of “stealth death threats.” In other words, advocating for concepts or actions that lead inevitably to genocide and the like. Arguing in favor of Sharia, Dominionism, Nazism, Communism, most forms of totalitarianism/authoritarianism, socialism and collectivism, that sort of thing, will get you on my bad side in a heartbeat.

2) No trolling. Posting rubbish (insults, arguing just to argue, etc.) will annoy me in a hurry.

3) Profanity: I loves me some profanity. It spices up the language and does a far better job of getting across emotions than non-profane language. Sadly, some people get all snippy about such things, so try to keep a lid on it.

4) No racism. Racism is stupid. What is also stupid: declaring every damned thing to be racism. Religion ain’t race. Political ideology ain’t race. And national origin *largely* ain’t race. Saying “Religion X is stupid,” or “people of Religion X are stupid” ain’t racism. Saying “people of ethnicity X are stupid,” or using racial epithets in some manner other than humorously (PC is for suckers), is stupid, and gets you on the fast track to banning.

5) Sexism. See: racism.

6) Act the jackass then dare me to ban you. Challenge accepted.

7) Lie about me to me. “You believe/support such-and-such” had better be an accurate statement.

What won’t get you banned: being a smartass (or Pat would have long since been silenced), or disagreeing with me or others. However, if you post nothing but disagreement, and lots of it, that will get you labeled as a troll. It’s entirely reasonable to disagree with me on a great many topics, but if you disagree with the whole purpose of the blog, then this ain’t the place for you. This blog is highly defocussed, but can probably be boiled down to:

1) Aerospace, history and future development: I’m fer it. Aircraft, spacecraft, the human conquest of the universe just as fast as possible.

2) Politics: I’m a small-“l” libertarian pro-Constitutional American. In other words: the smallest practical government that fulfills the roles proscribed for it in the Constitution… and no further. And I want the US to conquer the Universe. Our allies can tag along. I don’t want the enemies of the US to conquer the Universe in our stead. Plus: firearms are awesome, and every non-crazy adult should be versed in their proper use.

3) Cats: cats are awesome.

4) Photography: I like to do it and have some small talent, but make no claim to being particularly good.

5) Humor: I have an active sense of humor. It may not be yours (in fact, it probably won’t be), but it will be on display.

You don’t need to share all of these. But if you share *none* of them… why are you here? You’ll be happier elsewhere. G’way.

Now, keep in mind, the Unwanted Blog is not a democracy. It’s not a representative republic. It’s not even a cheerocracy. It is instead an Adminocracy. This means that I reserve the right to boot someone who I feel has violated the banworthy rules. If it happens, you could perhaps argue your case, but whining that I’m stifling your opinion/free speech/whatever will only make me laugh at you.

I’m in favor of as much debate as possible. Just keep in mind that this is my place, and I’m kind of an asshole.

 Posted by at 8:57 pm

  16 Responses to “How To Get Banned”

  1. Boy, I can take a wild guess who one of the people who got banned was, too. 😀
    Anyway, interesting news on the helicopter front – Sikorsky is going to build two prototypes of their X-2 high speed copter in a armed scout configuration as a replacement for the OH-58D Kiowa as the S-97 “Raider”:
    http://tinyurl.com/22pvawj
    Really sharp looking design with great crew visibility, and if you’ve ever talked to a Kiowa crew, they would not mind getting a replacement for it at all…as it’s long in the tooth and pretty mediocre in the horsepower department.
    The new design looks like it’s made out of composites, and might well be shaped for reduced radar signature. If they can whip up something like a more affordable and faster version of the Comanche, more power to them.

  2. Umm… Space travel is unfortunately not proscribe in the constitution… So, we are not getting rid of NASA, are we?

    Actually, Having worked for one, I don’t think that’s half a bad idea.

    • > we are not getting rid of NASA, are we?

      1) The NACA was clearly developed to aid in national defence, one of the few real Constitutional functions of the FedGuv. NASA follows in its shoes.
      2) Still, I would gladly push the button that would set off the demolition charges on the VAB itself if at the same moment that NASA was shut down, the Social Security Administration was relegated to the scrapheap of history.

  3. Why ban people simply because you disagree with them?

  4. Lemme try for sexism. The generality of women are not as tall as the generality of men. The general run of women do not think like the general run of men.

    Ok, now racism: Your average Ashkenazic Jew has an IQ about one standard deviation higher than your average white Northern European, whose IQ is about one standard deviation higher than that of your average Sub-Saharan African.

    How did I do?

    P.s. As a Christian, I am required not to let these things bother me.

    • No, those don’t count. Noting factual differences, even controversial or arguable differences, is a different thing from making broad “judgement generalities.” “Wimmins gots more boobies than men” is not the same thing as “wimmins gots more boobies than men, and are thus lesser beings.” Just as “ethnicity X tends to score 1% lower on IQ tests than ethnicity Y” is not the same as “ethnicity X is thus subhuman and should be exterminated.” And, for the record, just as “people who work smarter and harder than those who are lazy and tend to make more money” is a different thing than “and thus those who make more money should be taxed at a higher rate to pay for the stupid and lazy.”

  5. Yeah, but a lot of people would call those statements racist and sexist. You do remember how Larry Summers got fired, do you not?

  6. What “a lot of people” would consider this or that does not interest me. “What I consider” this or that *does* interest me. As before, this ain’t a democracy.

    Statements of fact, even unpleasant ones, should be protected speech at all times. Of course, this being a private-property blog, the rules are different. But still, “ethnicity X are all a bunch of scumbags” is arguable whether or not it’s a statement of fact… but “I believe ethnicity X are all a bunch of scumbags” is not arguable. Such a statement very likely is wholly factual. It may well be a dumbass belief to hold, but it’s not factually inaccurate to relate what beliefs one holds.

  7. There you go again, gettin’ all rational and stuff. A lot of people don’t like that.

  8. > Why ban people simply because you disagree with them?

    I don’t. I ban people who advocate illegality, and people who come here and act like jackasses. If, for example, you feel the need to threaten or insult *me* I feel no need to let you hang around. Pretty simple, I’d think.

    Disagree all you like, just don’t be a dick about it.

  9. “In other words, advocating for concepts or actions that lead inevitably
    to genocide and the like. Arguing in favor of Sharia, Dominionism,
    Nazism, Communism, most forms of totalitarianism/authoritarianism,
    socialism and collectivism, that sort of thing, will get you on my bad
    side in a heartbeat.”

    I understand the Sharia, the Dominionism and the Nazism… But Communism/Socialism/Collectivism? Seriously, where do these three things lead to Genocide and/or mass death/ deaths of people.

    • > Communism/Socialism/Collectivism? Seriously, where do these three things lead to Genocide and/or mass death/ deaths of people.

      What, you want the list? Here’s a start (and *only* a start… wherever commies set up shop, people die in large numbers):

      Taiping Rebellion, 1853: 20-30 million
      Extermination of the kulaks, 1930: As low as 700,000, as high as 60 million. Probably in the single-digit millions.
      Holodomor: 1932-33, 6-7 million
      Great Purge, 1936-39: 724,000
      Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries, 1948: 1 million + (Mao wanted 50M, but apparently couldn’t get there)
      Great Leap Forward, 1959: 45+million
      Cultural Revolution, 1966: 1 million +
      Cambodia, 1974-79: 1.4 to 2.2 million

  10. You are wrong about everything and you are a ere. Nazi’s are the best ever , and Communism rules and Sharia law should be implemented and I am not a troll and and and I will kill every person on the planet by dropping .02 ounce balls of aero gel on their heads until they succumb. And photography sucks, and cats suck and Libertarians with their stupid logic suck, and all hail evil dude from somewhere evil and you all will respect my authoritah!…ere I mean if I had any authoritah, but since I don’t well just damn you all. I advocate the genocide and extermination of all mosquitoes so there!

    Man getting banned is kind of tough. I don’t mean any of this (except for mosquito genecide, I hate those things) and cats are actually kind of cool. They react to us like we should react to our government, cautious disdain and mistrust (at least initially). The only good thing the Nazi’s did was teach society a hard lesson about governments with too much power, and Libertarians do have really irritating logic that is nay impossible to argue with.

  11. >I just don’t see how
    we’re going to get past the concept of “excess population.”

    1A)Advocacy of “stealth death threats.” In other words, advocating for concepts or
    actions that lead inevitably to genocide and the like.

    Uh…

  12. Found your wind tunnel images, and they help. Stumbled on this page because the title was interesting. Go get-em! Love your style.

  13. I wonder if this counts! yoloswag420memeblaze xx_GeneralMcQuickSc0P3z_xx HOW DO I MATH 420 yolo swag LOL #omg

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.