Last month, I made my view clear in several markets that it is not acceptable discourse for people to call each other "trolls" on forums. When I asked, users stated that the word "troll" means that I am not telling the truth and that I won't actually do what I'm saying.
Assuming bad faith makes it impossible to hold a reasonable discussion on Manifold. I said that I would from that point forward block from viewing my markets any user who made a non-joking insult calling me a "troll." Over the past two months, I have made two such blocks. Will I need to make three more?
Most of these mentions accusing me of "trolling" occur from people who appear to disagree with how I've come around to supporting Trump in the election, as Manifold seems to be dominated by Democrats. Ultimately, my view can be summarized as follows: the United States Code is too complex, there are too many taxes, the military is too large, and what programs are necessary discriminate against the young. The government takes 53.65% of my money and I gain maybe 5% in value, so we should favor disfunction and divided branches to stop growth of government.
This market will resolve to YES if I need to block three or more additional users for calling me a "troll" before December 31, 2024. If someone only says the word "troll" once, I probably won't block that person; the person has to be serious and do so in a very insulting manner. I intend to continue commenting on political markets during that time; however, the insult can be made in any context, not just political discussion. If a block is made for some other reason, it doesn't count.
Otherwise, the market will resolve to NO.
I hope that, regardless of the outcome of this market, some attention is drawn to how the word "troll" is being used more frequently on Manifold, and I hope that Manifold's administrators will make posts claiming users are such eligible for removal.
1,000
3.00In light of Trump's election, I have decided to stop all criticism of him online.
This comment should not be taken to mean that I oppose Trump or his policies. However, it does mean that it's unlikely now that the total of banned users will exceed three, as they all were in the context of political discussions.
I blocked @becauseyoudo because he used the word troll in an especially shameful comment. The total stands at three.
I honestly don't know how these people can look at themselves in the mirror with the way they treat others.
You are the troll for making this question. (I'll take my block now)
> the person has to be serious and do so in a very insulting manner
your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries
I don't have much mana to bet here, but this almost surely resolves YES. Large YES holders can easily sway this market by calling @SteveSokolowski a troll (and 5 isn't that big of a target), whereas NO holders have no respite.
@StarkLN This isn't true, because if someone really wanted to go to those lengths, they would not be able to view this market after being hateful enough to be blocked, and therefore wouldn't be able to make any money on it. The "block" feature blocks markets too.
Besides, the sorts of things these people are saying are way out of the line of the sort of discourse that normal humans have. They are clearly not serious about earning mana, as they aren't going to last long without being banned for derailing discussions like they are. You can take a look at some of the political markets to see posts where they have five false claims and five insults in the same paragraph.
@MaxterData have you looked at Harris v Trump's economic plans? I think Harris has been talking about not raising taxes on incomes less than $400,000.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4884136-kamala-harris-tax-policy/amp/
@MaxterData I don't want this to turn into a political discussion because I've found that a lot of people seem to be unable to understand the other side. But since you asked and seem like you're actually interested, here are three of the reasons why I oppose tax increases, even for those "making" more.
Many people who "earn" more than $400,000 own businesses which have inconsistent income, like those that perform well in recessions. They get charged the highest tax rate even if their average yearly income is $80,000.
People who dutifully save for their whole lives and then sell a house end up being charged the highest tax rate - again, even though their average incomes often place them in the middle class or lower.
People who actually do regularly earn more than $400,000 are the people who society has decided provide the most valuable services to them. The tax code is already progressive enough; we don't need it to be more progressive. $400,000 is too low to be taking total tax rates of 65-70%, which is what some Democrats are proposing; I stated elsewhere I won't work at that tax rate. Rates already range from 53.5% in Pennsylvania to 65% in California. We should be encouraging people who provide the most valuable services to provide more of them.
The best way to improve people's lives right now is to get to superintelligence as quickly as possible. Nothing else the government can do compares to that. The best way to do that is to motivate the best people to work as much as possible.
@SteveSokolowski this will be my last response- I would reccomend talking to a tax accountant.
Your tax rate depends on your yearly income.
Your tax rate depends on your yearly income.
Are these facts or opinions?
Cheers.
@SteveSokolowski You are truly an artist.
Edit: since he blocked me, allow me to be explicit so this counts for the tally - Steve is a very entertaining troll who may or may not believe what he says but certainly tries to find ways to stir up controversy and be as inflammatory as possible when saying it. His main technique is to make claims that are just a little silly or over the top and get things just a little bit obviously wrong so people rush in to correct him or disagree and he can string them along, dropping more inflammatory statements or very silly claims along the way. Once someone is wise to that, it undercuts his approach and risks an overall decline in engagement if more people call out the pattern.
Not counting this block despite me making it unambiguous with the image is a good example of how he does this. It’s obvious I was calling him a troll (albeit with some affection) but he has just enough wiggle room to generate disagreement and engagement if I don’t write out “troll” despite using an image to refer to his actions as “trolling.” If he wasn’t trolling, his tally would be accurate and higher than 2.
@SteveSokolowski You forgot (4), the poor innocent "investors" in crypto currency who have been swindled by digital wallet inspectors!
@AlexGraettinger It's pretty amazing how you have so much criticism for the victims of the FTX scam, and yet you have not once mentioned SBF, Ellison, Prince, Silbert, Mashinsky, or any of the criminals. Most reasonable people would at least criticize the scammers at the same time.
That says a lot about you.
@SteveSokolowski Most reasonable people understand that basically everyone in the world already dislikes scammers. Criticizing them is just stating the obvious, and redundant. It's also irrelevant to this conversation. Why should people have to performatively discuss their hatred for scammers before criticizing crypto investors?
I would not criticize the victims of any scam in any way, whatsoever, as the victims are never at fault. This is exactly the same as criticizing rape victims for getting drunk - and yes, you can quote me on that because I stand by that statement. A person I know was just shot yesterday after someone tried to steal her car, her husband pointed a gun in the air, and the robber pulled out his own weapon and nearly killed her. That wasn't the husband's fault either. I don't care about a person's race, religion, drug addictions, medical status, wealth, or age. Except in the instance where someone is committing a crime themselves, the victim is never at fault.
So yes, I do believe that someone who blames victims is both the type of person I don't want to associate with and also someone who lacks common decency and compassion. @AlexGraettinger shows even less compassion by not even saving a word for the six people currently doing time.
Some (not you) of the users who populate this forum are despicable excuses for human beings. They spew out their hatred as if the 19 people whose money I was dealing with didn't lose two kids' future college education, five of them weren't fired when their paychecks ran out, one of them didn't have a kid with autism now being supported as a single parent with $400/wk unemployment and no health insurance, and another didn't have to go back to work for 15 more years. They don't even bother to get the facts straight; making false claims like that no research was performed into the companies or that all the money stolen was denominated in cryptocurrencies - but that's what happens when you don't try to understand things.
You see what people really are like when they are able to hide behind anonymous accounts on Manifold. What I found is that a very high percentage of them are absolute trash who I hope to never meet.
@SteveSokolowski normally I would be upset at all the notifications I'm getting but this is fantastic.
@SteveSokolowski lol you claim I love scammers and fraudsters, but aren't you the one declaring your loyalty for Donald fucking Trump?
@SteveSokolowski Actually I do believe that bitcoin people are wasting a shitload of electricity and I have no sympathy if you get scammed out of your virtual eMoney or whatever lmao. That doesn't mean I support the scammers.
@AlexGraettinger I never stated you love scammers or fraudsters. I also clearly stated my hatred for Trump, but my like for his policies.
Be careful. There are two false statements. You said that right now, not me.
@mattyb I won't block people to intentionally insult me for this market. That would be pretty obvious, I would think.