mozz Admin

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I came here to argue against this increasingly-transparent "please don't vote" propaganda being posted here coincidentally in this leftist community, and here's this unanimous comment section already on the case 😃

mozz Admin , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Nothing will fundamentally change

F Biden

I could see a lot of Dem voters just staying home instead

Many Arab-Americans in Michigan (and across the country) are running an "Abandon Biden" message

Nobody is saying don't vote

(Edit: That's are all quotes of yours from the last 1 day which I would roughly summarize as "don't vote.")

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

https://kolektiva.social/@bigMouthCommie/111850942302598880

mozz Admin , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Edit: Sure. Here are the full text of some quotes from you from today, which to me effectively boil down to "don't vote":

Which Democrats are actually Leftist and not just centrist or Republican-lite? Bernie? AOC? We tried and the Dem party/oligarchy shut that down real quick.

Trump and the GOP is the enemy. Biden and the Democrats, to me, are also the enemy to the people because they want the status quo to continue. “Nothing will fundamentally change.” I feel we’re going to get fascism either way. One is accelerated and the other is a slow death march.

F Trump and F Biden. Both don’t care about the people.

I don’t think many will go from voting Dem to Trump but I could see a lot of Dem voters just staying home instead.

Many Arab-Americans in Michigan (and across the country) are running an “Abandon Biden” message over Biden’s handling of the Gaza genocide.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Working to oust the establishment Democrats and push the remainder to the left sounds great. Increasing fairness in the voting system sounds great. Protest outside the voting system sounds great. Lots of things aside from just pulling the lever for the least-bad guy are actually extremely impactful.

None of that changes the fact that voting for a third party in this election is functionally equivalent to sitting at home waiting for it all to get better on its own which is functionally equivalent to handing Trump the keys to the FBI and the nuclear codes and hoping it all goes okay. For that reason I feel just as comfortable criticizing a vote for a third party (in the general election) as I do a non-vote, both in terms of whether it's a good idea to spread propaganda about it online, and whether it's a good idea to do it when the time comes.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

But... I didn't get the result I wanted last time. It kind of seems like the whole system is made of corporate crooks. If I threaten to not vote at all until they stop being crooked, surely they'll be impacted by that, and all of a sudden there'll be candidates worth voting for. By magic.

Just you wait. You'll see. Any day now.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

the pro-voting folks

I beg of you to go live in a society which doesn't have voting in its government. Just for like a short time. It's incredibly instructive, and will give a reality-check to this idea that you seem to have that things are so bad right now that there's not even any point in choosing a better future or a worse one. Things may or may not be better with Biden, but they will absolutely be much, much worse with Trump.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I know multiple people the entire arc of whose lives were changed by the Obama-era immigration policies. Want me to ask them to tell you how wrong you are?

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

There are also "reputation management" services that offer to manipulate your Google listings, so that bad things about your company will get pushed down and the things you want people to see will get pushed up. They're not cheap. Whether or not they work, I don't know, but I would assume that some of them are capable of doing what they say.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I'm gonna turn into some kind of Jordan Peterson guy, just for the duration of this article.

Mounting evidence from exercise science indicates that women are physiologically better suited than men to endurance efforts such as running marathons.

What are you talking about

It assumes that males are physically superior to females and that pregnancy and child-rearing reduce or eliminate a female's ability to hunt.

I wouldn't say "superior" like a value judgement that muscle strength is the most important thing in terms of physical ability, but I don't think that it's controversial that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman, or that being pregnant interferes with your ability at physical tasks. This article keeps going on about how it's clear that there's not any physical difference when it is blatantly clear from sporting events that (in the average, accounting for individual variation) there is.

But Man the Hunter's contributors often ignored evidence, sometimes in their own data, that countered their suppositions. For example, Hitoshi Watanabe focused on ethnographic data about the Ainu, an Indigenous population in northern Japan and its surrounding areas. Although Watanabe documented Ainu women hunting, often with the aid of dogs, he dismissed this finding in his interpretations and placed the focus squarely on men as the primary meat winners. He was superimposing the idea of male superiority through hunting onto the Ainu and into the past.

This, I can easily believe. Male scientists past and present can be misogynistic and blatantly ignore data that contradicts the way they like to see the world. On the other hand, you literally did the exact same thing with time-to-run-marathons up above. I think balance and reality is the goal, including pointing out sexist errors when they're there, but not "feminism at all costs."

Hunting doesn't always mean wrestling a bear to the ground with your upper body strength; I am sure that women took part in hunting and that this was and is sometime blatantly ignored by (often male) scientists.

Today these biased assumptions persist in both the scientific literature and the public consciousness. Granted, women have recently been shown hunting in movies such as Prey, the most recent installment of the popular Predator franchise, and on cable programs such as Naked and Afraid and Women Who Hunt.

Why is this in your science article

The terms “female” and “male” are often used in relation to biological sex. “Gender” refers to how an individual identifies—woman, man, nonbinary, and so forth. Much of the scientific literature confuses and conflates female/male and woman/man terminology without providing definitions to clarify what it is referring to and why those terms were chosen.

Why is this in your science article

You can talk about the biology and anthropology of XX chromosome people and XY chromosome people without getting into this

research into exercise physiology, paleoanthropology, archaeology and ethnography has historically been conducted by men and focused on males ... we still know very little about female athletic performance, training and nutrition, leaving athletic trainers and coaches to mostly treat females as small males.

What the fuck is this I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

Females are more regularly dominating ultraendurance events such as the more than 260-mile Montane Spine foot race through England and Scotland, the 21-mile swim across the English Channel and the 4,300-mile Trans Am cycling race across the U.S.

This was the first part that made me think, oh shit, maybe I am the wrong one, all this stuff has been valid and I've just been being Joe Rogan and poo pooing it all. Nope, it's just more made up stuff. If Hitoshi Watanabe is sexist (which apparently he is), then this is off the fuckin charts.

I don't get why it's a bad thing when male scientists bring their biases into their papers to the point of ignoring that data and just inventing their own imagined world to fit how they like to see it (which, it is, of course, a very bad thing), but all of a sudden if a feminist does it, it turns into a good thing.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Thank you; I appreciate it. I'm obviously joking about that, sort of; I did feel nervous about it because this is like the second or third feminist-view science article that I've replied to with this sort of thing. It made me worried that this is gonna become my shtick and I'll have to start a Youtube channel which is sponsored by a concealed carry membership organization or some sort of nutritional supplements.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

What questions was I asking, and where are they answered? The things where I said "What is this doing in your science article"?

My chief complaint is that they're representing it as demonstrated that women are superior to men in endurance events, and citing specific endurance events where the data show the exact opposite. That's not really a question.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

That is 100% true. Medical science treats the male body as "normal" and does most studies on males, and women as the outlier and if the male-designed treatment doesn't work the same way on women then it's the woman's problem. It's a real fucked up situation and it's still going on.

I just don't think it's the same for athletics. I've done athletics and worked with athletic people of both genders, and it's absolutely not true that women athletes are just treated as small males. I mean, if that were true and significant, all it would take is one coach who trained women properly and female athletes under their supervision would have a huge advantage over all the other improperly-trained female athletes.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Where was that main concern, about the data showing the exact opposite of the claims they were making, answered in the article?

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I am glad to hear it. Yeah for however it may have sounded, I was making a sincere effort to engage with the topic. Trying to at least.

But this preprint (!) from 2023 suggests that, even with equal participation numbers, men still outperform woman.

Well, slightly. Not by much. I looked over the study and it seems like it would definitely imply that above 50 miles, when you correct for the number of participants, it's pretty similar. I can buy that. So yeah maybe I was wrong to poo poo the ultramarathon thing (or at least potentially wrong).

While there are real, uncontroversial mean biological differences between females and males, the differences that give females an advantage are not only regularly ignored but also understudied. Because of this, science poorly understands female athletic capabilities in terms of strength, endurance, and fatigue. Until this uneven understanding is rectified, our reconstructions of past sexual divisions of labour will be biased and limit the likely broad repertoire of activities females participated in during our evolutionary past.

All this, I agree with. Actually I would amend "understudied" to "deliberately downplayed." But yes I think this all is 100% accurate.

In regards to your question why movies and gender roles are part of the article, i would like to ask why this seems to be problematic for you?

Think about if one of those earlier male-sexist studies about man as hunters and women as gatherers, that the article is critiquing, started talking about movies about male-dominated hunting and referencing the portrayals in the movies and how good it is that the movies are getting it right. See how weird that sounds? To me that would sound out of place and irrelevant and sort of indicate an agenda on the part of the writer.

Also, to me you want to get the basic facts of, what is the biology and the anthropological history in a factual sense, and then build on it into this kind of wider critique and cite examples from all different fields and how they tie together. But to me, they haven't proven the central fundamental points, and so trying to skip past them and start on analysis and implications and contrast with some other related issues from other fields offends me a certain amount, since I disagree with their underlying factual claims.

What the fuck is this I feel like I’m taking crazy pills

Why? What is the crazy part to you? Do you disagree with the statement that science has been extreme male focused? As far as i can tell it indeed has been and still is. What’s crazy in pointing that out? Or do you disagree?

I was talking specifically about the idea that nutrition and athletic training and performance has been unstudied in females. "Science" as a whole, is extremely male focused yes (I talked in some other comment about the really horrifying way this sexism impacts medical studies, where they do do exactly this).

But we have female Olympic athletes, female professional sports players, people who don't have the luxury of just bobbling along with whatever theory they happen to feel like espousing. If I can be a little blunt, I think sexism in academia has a something of a safe haven to fester just because of the nature of academia, where a lot of times you can say theories and become well respected only because people are convinced by your theory.

The people who make their livelihood at sports can't just rely on other people agreeing with them though. To me it's nuts to say that a women's pro sports team, or the trainer for a female Olympic athlete, just wouldn't have it occur to them to treat the females on the team, who need to perform physically, any differently or try to figure out accurate nutrition. Like I said, all it would take would be one coach who knew what they were doing and their female athletes would start dominating anything they took part in because their training was better.

Yes! I absolutely agree. None of their three chosen examples showes any female dominating in any category, neither once or "regularly". It is bad practice to make such a claim. I wouldn’t label it as sexist. It's just really bad science. And it invalidates a lot of the very sensible and very much proven point the authors make. And I agree with you: It is not a good thing when anybody does this, regardless of agenda.

Yeah. They took a pretty compelling case and a valid insightful point and then ran way too far with it and included a bunch of specific claims that seem to me to be totally nuts. Which is fine if they had backed them up factually and made a solid case, but to me a lot of the time they're just throwing stuff out there.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

"Hunter." The play area is a big part of the neighborhood. The details were a little variable depending on different experiments or how many people were playing, but one canonical version is three hunters with walkie-talkies, trying to find two people without walkie-talkies, with a time limit. No other rules aside from don't piss off any neighbor inside their house overly badly.

A good solo game for long car trips was looking out the window riding an imaginary motorcycle. You can go up on power lines if there's a slanted wire you could ride up, you can move left or right, but if you box yourself into a place where you'll hit a vertical wall no matter what you do, you crash.

Various hallucinogenic DND-but-not-really variants played with no sourcebooks, and a piece of paper with a grid with numbers that you flick your pencil eraser at with your eyes closed to "roll dice."

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Y'all are gonna be real unhappy with how things work out for the anarchists if Trump wins. Obama was a conservative Democrat and McCain was a center-right Republican; there was a ton of overlap. Between Biden and Trump there is a yawning chasm.

I agree with the protest, struggle and sabotage. Bringing not voting into the equation in this particular election is like refusing to put out your house on fire, because one of the firefighters voted for Ronald Reagan.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I did read your comment. You said "voting is seen as a way to bring about change when in reality it's anything but." In this particular election in this particular year, that's very obviously not true, and seems like a particular and pernicious message. In my opinion.

If you'd been commenting under a pro-activism-outside-voting post, we'd be having a whole different conversation, because there is a lot of your comment that I agree with. You're commenting under an anti-voting post though, and there are definitely parts of this post and your comment that I disagree with.

I've been noticing a lot of recycled memes, this one over ten years old, targeted at leftist communities, with a general subtle message of "don't vote." You can explain it for outsiders as much as you like; if you think that's a good thing or not worthy of comment, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Edit: I calmed down my language a little

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Or just wander into it and highlight some weird messaging so that others can read the highlighting, since it definitely seems relevant.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I'm sure a bunch of little Honduran kids who still may never see their real families again are super sympathetic to your "both sides." Trump doesn't fuck things up only for Americans; he has the capacity to hurt a huge number of people pretty much everywhere in the world.

Also, if you didn't want feedback on your opinions as they pertain to the US election, why'd you post a meme with an opinion about the US election?

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Biden stopped family separations, tried to reunite the kids with their parents wherever it's even still possible, and he's currently in a fight with the government of Texas because Texas wants to keep their deadly cruelty to helpless migrants alive, and accelerate it, and he's trying to stop them. Trump wants to do mass deportations "on day 1."

But please, keep going with your fascism-apologist rhetoric while pretending that it's somehow anti-Imperialist. I know multiple people the arc of whose lives is radically different because of Obama-era immigration reform, so you're going to have a real hard time convincing me that these things don't matter.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

So you just gonna keep posting "why everyone hates Joe Biden" stories, huh

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Voters, huh? Can't wait to hear what they have to say. Let me guess, Joe Biden tried to murder American democracy, and might do it again, and they're real unhappy about it.

Oh wait

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I did not. I did read a few of the articles you posted some time ago carrying some kind of negative-to-Biden message. At this point it feels like the repetition of one single, easy-to-remember message is an attempt to manipulate your audience, for whatever reason, and not an honest attempt to communicate the truth about what's going on in the world. That more than anything is why I didn't read it. I did read a few of the first "Biden is in trouble because X voters aren't planning to vote for him" stories much like this one that you posted.

I just looked over the first page of your profile, and 36% of the stories you posted are explicitly negative about Democrats in some way. There's one with Nancy Pelosi kneeling in traditional African dress, which was an absolutely heinous thing for her to do I agree, but it was also like 5 years ago. There's a meme about the Democrats bombing the shit out of the middle east, also from at least 4-5 years ago. There's a pretty constant stream of "this is why Biden is in trouble" stories. I feel like it's a notable enough pattern to comment on it. Is that alright with you?

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

You are, as well, free to post whatever you like.

I don't feel that the lemmy.world hivemind is overly enthusiastic about establishment Democrats. Like I said, my own negative reaction comes a lot more from the perception that it's some kind of deliberately slanted attempt at influence, with a third of your feed being anti-Democrat in some way and digging up memes from years ago to help make the point. Has nothing to do with me not liking your viewpoint or saying you can't post something against Biden. But there's a big difference between posting "Yo I think Biden like every other US president is a war criminal enabler," versus posting 2-3 stories a day about how he's behind among Latinos in Nevada, or remember when Nancy Pelosi did a stupid thing.

Let me ask this, what's your preferred outcome in the presidential election this year?

mozz Admin , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

My views are actually Left (not what they consider Democrats to be) to Far Left. I hate our two-party system and having to always vote for the lesser of two evils. My preferred outcome, honestly, would be for Biden to be replaced by a real progressive but that won't happen.

This, I all 1,000% agree with, and I think I'm pretty much on the same page as you. I'm just having trouble seeing how posting memes about "Democrats bad" and a constant stream of Biden vs. Trump stories ties in with that. If you were talking up more lefty Democrats or posting news about specific critiques of Biden that would be fine.

Think of it like if there was an actually-leftist candidate in the race, and you were looking at someone who posted several times a day about how he was polling behind Biden and critiques of stuff he did from 5 years ago. But then they said, oh yeah I'm a leftist, I'm just posting news dude, I just think he's not looking good. That'd be irritating. Right?

Running on "but Trump" worked in 2020 but I don't think it's going to work as well as it did for 2024.

This is a fuckin' bonkers thing to say. There's a for-real fascist in the race with a for-real chance of winning. The house is on fire. And you're running around saying how one of the firefighters is problematic. Okay, yeah, maybe. We still need to put out the fire.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I feel we're going to get fascism either way.

Therrre it is

You only think that because you haven't actually lived under fascism.

"Nothing will fundamentally change."

I hope like hell Trump doesn't win, and have a chance to prove to you how absolutely utterly mistaken you are in this.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

What Biden has done

Trump... do I even need to list it out? And, he has a comprehensive plan for how to dismantle the federal government as independent from him, if he gets a second term, and turn the full power of federal law enforcement purely against his enemies. Basically it is the end of democracy in America.

Whether Biden "cares," I don't know. I just know what his actions are, and I know making any slight equivalency between what the two of them will do with four more years of power is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Needs more blaming the West

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

No one that I know of from the West has tried for compromise in Palestine since the 1990s. The sign should say "We stand with Israel! Here's some weapons." Biden putting sanctions on like 4 people somehow counts as this revolutionary sign of progress, and they're still in the middle of blowing up the last of the medical facilities.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

I've asked this a few different times, and if you're willing to answer, you'd be the first. How many people died to these death squads, in what year(s)?

I suspect a particular reason for the unwillingness to give a precise answer, but let's see what you say.

Edit: No answer. I am not surprised.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I'm having trouble understanding the question.

while true; do update-header-bar-or-whatever; sleep 5; done &
oogabooga

... will run the header update every 5 seconds, while oogabooga is running. Is that what you want?

mozz Admin , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

$ while true; do echo Hello, I updated the header; sleep 5; done &
[1] 1631507
$ Hello, I updated the header
sleep 30; echo Sleep is done.
Hello, I updated the header
Hello, I updated the header
Hello, I updated the header
Hello, I updated the header
Hello, I updated the header
Hello, I updated the header
Hello, I updated the header
Sleep is done.
Hello, I updated the header
$ kill %1
[1]+  Terminated              while true; do
    echo Hello, I updated the header; sleep 5;
done
$

Edit: I'm fairly confident now that you're just thinking the loop will stop when you run oogabooga, but that's not how it works. That up above is how it works; the loop keeps going during the sleep with them both going on the same terminal, then after the sleep process terminates, I kill the loop, but for the whole 30 seconds previous, they were both going. It'll be the same with oogabooga. This the situation you're asking about, yes?

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I think we can safely say that "web page don't go down anymore" is not the real reason. Two possibilities I see for the real reason:

• They don't feel it's necessary anymore to cache the actual pages. It's not productive to have them to track and analyze SEO abuse, or even just to tune their algorithm by rescanning things if someone notices there's a problem, even given that it costs them a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the income they make from search, and it makes life easier for anyone who's working on it.
• They used to make it available just because it was a neat thing to be able to offer and there was no reason not to, since they were caching the pages anyway. But, the current Google management has wandered so far afield of the original mindset that made them successful in the first place that that means nothing to them, more like a bizarre confusion of concepts than any kind of statement that makes coherent sense. So fuck the users. Yes we're still caching them, because the search engine needs them. No you can't have them for free, you fucking hippie. Now get out.

I know which explanation I favor.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Almost as if their job is to get clicks, not to find out the truth and inform

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

While on the one hand, that's true and has always been true for journalism

Not to the extent it is today

if you'd read the articles you'd realize that the content of them does contain truth and informs.

I hit the 5,000-character cap more than once yesterday making a detailed response to the article with quotations. Where is this coming from, this idea that I don't read the articles?

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

For as long as this article is, it is remarkably free of journalism. It is basically a press release from Meta saying that they're planning to implement Threads in a few months, and don't feel like saying more about it than that.

“Do we adapt the protocol to be able to support this?” Lambert asks. “Or do we try to do some kind of interesting, unique implementation?”

This is a fascinating question, both in its lack of an answer, and in the inherent framing of the question that of course they're going to introduce incompatibilities, and the discussion is simply about how to do it.

Mastodon allows some artistic nudity

...

Additionally, specifics are still murky regarding exactly how user data will be handled after the connections between networks are established. For example, if you federate a post from Threads and decide to delete it afterwards, what happens to the cached post on the servers of the other networks?

That... is not the central question that's on people minds about how user data will be handled. Presumably you were in a position to ask Rachel Lambert, the product manager at Meta who started the company's journey towards interoperability, a more obvious and salient question, and include in your article her response.

Meta is treading carefully, doing a phased implementation while continuing conversations with Fediverse leaders.

Who are these leaders and what are they saying about this? This, also, seems like it would have been pertinent information to include. If Meta's answer was "You're not allowed to know that at present," then including that response seems like it would have made the article quite a bit more informative than simply pretending it didn't occur to you to ask for any details about this.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Yeah, the whole article is like that. Not only is the writer apparently clueless enough to get basic facts about Mastodon wrong, but each one is wrong with a flavor of a Facebook-favoring way (like implying in several different subtle ways that Mastodon includes some sort of harmful behavior or some limitation, and we need to carefully monitor to make sure it doesn't negatively impact any Facebook users, and that's the issue). And, there's absolutely no curiosity or follow-up question even after statements that are clearly inviting them.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I think it's doubtful that they actually are. If they were actually reaching out to any Mastodon "leaders," I think the leaders would be saying something about it and posting the communications.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Who is fearful? I glanced over this thread and I didn't see a lot of fear; it's mostly just people observing the dishonesty.

Maybe there is or isn't a reason to worry about Facebook coming into the community, but discussing it (at least as I've seen in this thread) doesn't mean either anger or fear. It's just discussing. It's a good thing to do.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

it seemed to him like little more than political theater.

“The truth was I thought it would never come to be,” he says.

Imagine saying this in some other job. "I pushed the controls downward but I was just trying to make a point; I wasn't trying to crash the plane. I didn't think it'd really have an impact."

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Just like in a video game: When you keep meeting increasingly stronger enemies, it means you're going the right direction.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Fani Willis found some great ways to bring that up the last time they tried to threaten her. She found ways to meander her way over to casually mentioning "long-neglected sexual assault kits" and "deciding to allow serial rapists to go unprosecuted" in the course of a purely factual defense of what she'd been doing as pertains to the Trump prosecution.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Yeah. If we could do it, someone could run the numbers and find out that it's about ten to a hundred times cheaper to just build a bunch of non-coal power plants, or find and eliminate methane sources, or, hell, I don't know. I'm not an expert. But I definitely know that they're not talking about this because it's the easiest way.

mozz OP Admin , 3 months ago

Yeah I love this stuff. IDK what all the kids are doing with all their faked-up pop music.

And this version of Shady Grove is absolute gold. I want to hang out with these people just chilling half-naked with their laptop work and playing killer music with their tiny dog sitting between them.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Missing the final panel where he's counting his money from investing in the private prison

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

Well.. that's why I used the smartest bears analogy. I've noticed the mods are usually pretty on top of removing content that's genuinely personally insulting or racist or what have you. But there's a wide, wide grey area of someone whose post is discussing "the issue" in a technical sense, but just comes at it from a perspective of "here's why I am right and you are wrong and not only that you're clearly not smart enough to see my side and I can't believe I need to explain it to someone again" with 0 interest in learning anything on their side. IDK if it's reasonable to try to remove comments or ban people for that behavior, but it definitely doesn't lend itself to a good discussion, and it's common (probably majority) particularly on lemmy.world and lemmy.ml.

mozz Admin , 3 months ago

I have a dream of creating a community where people can argue about factual questions and give citations, with an AI moderator that will award points for things that are demonstrated based on solidly factual citations and no points for things that are someone yelling with increasing firm confidence that their opinion is the right one. My dream is (a) the AI moderator could be made to work and (b) it would cause people to lose the "me and my agreeing-people are right about everything by definition" mentality that's pretty easy to develop in a forum where you can literally say anything at all without getting any feedback aside from other people telling you they agree or disagree.

Probably my dream on counts (a) and (b) both is incorrect, but it is my dream. In my dream it works.