Profile overview for WatDabney.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

4 submissions to 80sMusic

2 submissions to manga

1 submissions to nonnonbiyori

1 submissions to Showerthoughts

1 submissions to TopMindsOfVoat

This user has so far shared a total of 9 links, started a total of 7 discussions and submitted a total of 551 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 258 and downvoted 4 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 335 and downvoted 7 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

Is Amalek actually a counter-intelligence operation?, submitted: 8/10/2015 12:56:54 AM, 63 points (+71|-8)

Has anyone else gained useful insights into a person from Facebook?, submitted: 9/15/2015 2:43:43 AM, 14 points (+15|-1)

What I learned from the past week of Voat, submitted: 8/17/2015 12:44:05 AM, 12 points (+12|-0)

The Smiths - How Soon Is Now?, submitted: 6/23/2015 12:38:01 AM, 8 points (+8|-0)

AskVoat is Voat's version of Iraq., submitted: 9/8/2015 4:12:21 AM, 6 points (+8|-2)

5 lowest rated submissions:

I'm beginning to think that downvoting should be eliminated entirely., submitted: 8/13/2015 7:15:56 PM, -4 points (+4|-8)

[DISC] Ashita no Kyouko-san - Ch 14, submitted: 6/18/2015 10:00:44 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)

[DISC] Wakabayashi Toshiya's 4-koma Collection - Ch 33, submitted: 6/20/2015 5:52:41 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)

Nyanpassu! - Renge vector trace, submitted: 7/11/2015 6:12:57 PM, 2 points (+2|-0)

There's one pattern of thought I count as even less rational than hysterical conspiracy theorizing, submitted: 9/2/2015 6:20:27 PM, 2 points (+3|-1)

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

Serious question, what's are Bernie Sanders' achievements? submitted by wmp to politics

WatDabney 8 points 82 points (+90|-8) ago

Actually, I'd argue that he's achieved a thing that, all by itself, makes him self-evidently the best candidate, as far as the well-being of the citizens of the US goes, that the Democrats could possibly nominate.

What is that?

He's a potentially electable Democrat who's opposed by the political establishment.

Since the interests of the political establishment are directly contrary to the interests of the citizens of the US, any electable Democrat whom they oppose is undeniably a candidate who is more in line with the interests of the citizens.

On another note - I see this same objection come up fairly regularly - it was a common criticism of Ron Paul, for instance.

And I always wonder about it. I can only conclude that those who say this - at least the ones who aren't paid shills - don't really understand how politics works in the US.

The politicians who "achieve" things don't do so because of any meritorious skill. They do so because they're the designated stewards of whatever pieces of legislation are being rammed through by whatever interest group has sufficient clout and money to pay to get it rammed through. That's not a "skill" that we the people should be rewarding.

Politicians like Sanders (and Paul) end up without notable "achievements" because they're actually, at least on a relative measure, trying to serve the interests of the citizens, which means that they spend most of their time trying, generally vainly, to stop those corrupt scumbags who "achieve" from ramming through whatever piece of overtly destructive legislation some interest group just paid them millions of dollars to ram through.

At this point in our history, measuring a politician by how many pieces of legislation he's gotten passed is like measuring an insurance adjuster by how many legitimate claims he's denied. It's a "skill" that's only really of value to a corrupt and destructive few.

I Feel Like I'm Taking Crazy Pills: Why Is Everyone So Cool With Windows 10's Security Crap? submitted by GearBrain to AskVoat

WatDabney 3 points 65 points (+68|-3) ago

Do you know how to catch wild pigs?

What you do is go find a place where the wild pigs spend time, and put some food out. And wait. Don't bother them or anything, just keep putting food and and wait until they're used to it. Then you go out one night and put up one length of fence.

That will make the pigs cautious, but that's okay. Just keep putting food out and don't do anything else. Eventually, the pigs will relax and they'll ignore that length of fence you put up. When they're fully comfortable, go out one night and put up another length of fence, so now you've got an L shape.

Again, that will make the pigs cautious, so again, just keep putting out food for them and don't do anything else, until they relax again.

Keep repeating that process - putting up lengths of fence one at a time, then doing nothing but putting out food for them until they relax again - until you have a complete, but open, enclosure. Make sure that the pigs are fully relaxed and entirely willingly go into the enclosure to eat the food. Then all you have to do is move in quickly one day while they're in there feeding and close the gate. And you've caught wild pigs.

See also: how to boil a frog.

GitHub's new far-left code of conduct explicitly says "we will not act on reverse racism' or 'reverse sexism'" submitted by verifiedbyvisa to programming

WatDabney 0 points 45 points (+45|-0) ago

This is quite literally insane.

It's stunning really that human reason has degraded to the point that supposedly rational people proudly engage in explicit and deliberate racism and sexism in nominal pursuit of the elimination of racism and sexism.

3 lowest rated comments:

Concerning SheGate and AskVoat submitted by PuttItOut to subverserequest

WatDabney 11 points -8 points (+3|-11) ago

Group is false.

Like "cabal?"

And even if I were to presume this true, what does that have to do with PuttItOut's original statement, your response OR my response to that?

The link at the end was a single days actions during the initial protest.

So?

What it was was you explicitly doing exactly what you're here pretending didn't happen. That's the intent of your selective links. You're trying to create the impression that you didn't attempt to divide the site, when the reality is that you not only did so, but did so very deliberately.

I was back only 2 or so days after deleting my last account in anger over mod abuses that I tried to speak up about and was silenced for. I lost my shit in blood rage and used every trick in the book to make enough noise that it couldn't be silenced.

I'm not sure how you think any of your emotional turmoil is of note.

I spoke publicly about it for accountability.

So your "accountablility" is limited only to that thread? When on another thread - this one for instance - you suddenly stop being "accountable" for trying "to cause a polarized debate" (which is to say, to "divide") and instead are somehow so pure and faultless that you not only didn't attempt to "divide" but can't even understand why PuttItOut would bring the subject up?

I have not continued the behavior.

I see nothing in this thread about the behavior being continued. I see PuttItOut referring to the fact that the behavior occurred and you pretending that you didn't have any part in it.

Concerning SheGate and AskVoat submitted by PuttItOut to subverserequest

WatDabney 11 points -4 points (+7|-11) ago

I find this to be a very balanced and well thought out post. I have no idea how this decision is going to play out, but neither does anyone else. It's sufficient, as you note, that it's the decision that should've been made, based explicitly on the rules that exist. Whatever comes in its wake is whatever comes in its wake, and should be, can be, and presumably will be dealt with as warranted when warranted.

SheGate proved that this community is just as vicious, just as judgmental, and just as intolerant as those we seek asylum from. Our duty is to not be a mirror image of that which we hate, but to be better.

This is exactly the realization that this whole thing has led me to. In the end, after all the emotional dust settled, that was what I was left with - I had just witnessed a group of posters targeting and attempting to drive away another group of posters.

It doesn't matter in the least who was doing what why - who held which views or who promoted which ideas or who said that they only had the good of the community in mind - it was just one group of posters targeting another group of posters, and that - not the ideas or the identities - was and is the problem.

As for v/AskVoat: We are transferring it to @she for one simple reason: The transfer request is valid. It’s not our job to determine intent, it’s our job to determine validity based on rules.

I think this is clearly the right decision.

The concern is that this person, if given this opportunity, will abuse it. However, it should be clear to any thinking being that that's a thing that can really only be firmly established by taking the chance. If the person does abuse the opportunity, then there should be mechanisms in place to deal with that. If the person does not abuse the opportunity, then there's no reason for any concern in the first place. To attempt to determine in advance, and particularly to attempt to do so based solely on one's assessment of the person's opinions, is foolish at best, and likely to be terribly destructive.

And amusingly enough, this was a position that the people fighting against She argued quite passionately for when they were proactively banned from SeriousDiscussion. And at that point, the mod there recognized that it was valid and publicly relented, admitted to being wrong and apologized. Because he recognized, as they accurately argued, that people should not be treated according to what they might do, but according to what they actually DO.

The Mods Strike Back submitted by kevdude to ProtectVoat

WatDabney 5 points -4 points (+1|-5) ago

PV has a libertarian view

Horse shit.

PV's about as "libertarian" as the Bolshevik Party. That's exactly the problem.

The libertarian position is a free market. I outlined exactly that position as it pertains to forums and subforums and mods on kevdude's thread yesterday, and all it got was nattering argument from him and predictable downvoats from the mob.

In libertarianism, any individual is free to offer any product at any terms and with any stipulations he might desire, and any potential customer is then free to accept or reject that offer.

In forum terms, that would translate to: any mod is free to offer any forum with any ruleset and any requirements he might desire, and any potential poster is then free to use or not use that forum.

THAT would be libertarianism, and it's notable that that's exactly what PV in general and kevdude in particular are against. They and he don't want mods to be free to offer any product they want at any terms they want and with any stipulations they want and leave the users free to choose whether to accept or reject the offer. PV and kevdude want to step in to the middle of that transaction and declare what sort of offers are and are not acceptable - to determine what the mods should or should not be allowed to offer and to then punish those who attempt to do anything other than whatever PV and kevdude have decreed to be acceptable.

That's not libertarianism. That's just plain old ordinary reactionary authoritarianism, and that's EXACTLY why I criticize it, and him.