Okay.

I think I’ve already answered that in the previous comment. I’m not really interested in debating broader topics in the middle of a discussion about a case of specific, contextual behavior.

Sure but that’s not what’s happening. The criticism isn’t for banning sock puppets or banning accounts for brigading, it’s for banning accounts that downvote “on-topic posts”, evidently even a single time. What you’re describing and what the mod in question is doing are distinct behaviors, as is what you’re describing and the concepts laid down in Jet’s “guidelines”.

That is some total whackjob reasoning.

A community means EXCLUDING people who don’t share a interest.

The actual fuck? This is the dumbest take I’ve seen in a while (yeah, including all the commentary around the Charlie Kirk shooting), and they try to justify it as being a rephrasing of “A community is for people who share an interest”?

This is just an unhinged way of justifying isolationism and silencing critics. It reads like it was written by the mods of r/conservative. Go touch some fuckin’ grass, dude.

He was going for "look at how this incredibly complex textured surface looks like it’s just an outline now isn’t it wild???" but failed to realize that a big pile of bullshit painted black just looks like… a big pile of bullshit painted black. It’s almost impressive how boring his ideas were. “Look the corner is triangular wooOOoooOOOooo”. He didn’t even go with something meta, like a scale model of his super reflective Bean sculpture coated in the stuff.

Just such a fuckin’ waste that vapid asshole was the artist that got to play with the stuff.

I award you the official title of “More Creative Than Kapoor”! It’s not a unique title, but it’s still one to bear with pride.

“That sounds like actual investment into the art. Howabout instead I vantablack a heap in the middle of a room, leave it uncovered an let people walk around it? Same effect but soooo much less work for me, Anish Kapoor’s straw-filled bodydouble”

Edit: My charming partner has pointed out that literally everyone that hears about Vantablack comes up with more interesting applications than this shit.

examples:

• Playing around with the ambient reflected light to create images on the otherwise textureless black background
• Do a darkroom, have people walk through it on a plexiglass sheet suspended above the void
• Get statues of people performing elaborate sex acts on eachother. Paint them black. Put them against a black background. Call it “censorship” or something.

Bam. 30 seconds of brainstorming. And those are ignoring all the cool ideas about playing around with emissive light effects in a room with no reflections.

This is drama from a decade ago so don’t take it as gospel: Iirc, the contract Kapoor signed with Surrey gave him the right to enforce the patent when used in art or aesthetic design applications. I can’t remember if he sues as an involved party on behalf of Surrey or if he somehow has the right to sue directly, but the effect is the same. Basically Surrey didn’t want to deal with enforicng it, and signed over that as part of the exclusivity deal.

The effect is also completely ruined if you handle it, and the broken off nanotubes from handling it are a serious health hazard. It’s expensive, dangerous, extremely fragile and almost impossible to clean.

But like mostly, having seen “Anish Kapoor” (which is the real name of the installation where that dickhead debuted his vantablack art), it… sucks. It’s impressive in photographs, incredibly lame in person. And, it can’t be cleaned without ruining the coating! so the dust from all those people builds up and just ew. You can see overlapping outlines, in some cases you could pretty clearly see the shadows from the contours of the coated object because of all the accumulated dust.

(also, and just on a personal note, he took nine years and did absolutely nothing conceptually interesting with it. Seriously it was the early-2000s 3D movie of art. Just one gimmick, repeated over and over with no change to the formula. “Look, it’s black”. It felt more like an ad for the lab that developed the coating than an art exhibition). It would have been cool if he’d developed the process, but we all know he didn’t, so it just fell so comically flat.)

Nobody retracted the casing story. That appears to have been true. They just didn’t have “trans ideology” engraved on them (which, what would that even mean), but instead meme phrases that included a common furry line.

(If we’re being real, conflating “notices bulgie OWO” with the trans community isn’t entirely unbelievable if you’re unfamiliar with it - it’s an incredibly common meme in the queer furry community and that has a massive overlap with trans folks. I know at least one trans person that has it as a tattoo, and several that just have “OwO” or “>:3” tats. My father, a queer rights activist for the past 50 years, thought it was a trans-rights slogan when he first read the reporting on this. Mistaking the manufacturer’s stamp “trns” for being pro-trans messaging though… that one is dumb)

The joke is that OP is trying to discourage other people from reporting the shooter by implying that any promised financial reward is simply a ruse.

… Honestly it’s a noble enough goal, I don’t see much need to debunk it.

I think it’s just regular old photoshop.

Oh god, I can’t wait to see this reposted as actual evidence by that one uncle ffs…

According to the WSJ there was just one spent round still chambered and three more in the magazine. So, still really stupid sounding as a theory but it’s at least internally consistent.

Usually you see it for toolchests and generators, but it’s not uncommon to see things like portapottys hoisted up to prevent people tampering with them while nobody is at the site (also keeps a load on the sheave, which I was told is important if a wind starts up or similar). You don’t want someone coming in and dumping whatever old garbage in there, like for example Charlie Kirk’s exsanguinated corpse.

One of their pieces of evidence is literally just “Ukraine posted a video with visible landmarks” and I think they just forgot to write the second paragraph where it explains how that’s proof it’s fake. What a bizarre article.

Well that’s… needlessly hostile?

Vegans are aware of the damage the supply chain does, hence “buy local” being such a common phrase and the push to support small local farms. I’m not sure what you’re accomplishing besides hilighting that capitalism is an awful economic structure that incentivises profit over environment, which sure good message, but most people choosing to adopt such a culturally despised practice are going to be aware of the externalities already.

If your local distilleries were anything like mine, the sanitizer they produced was denatured, even the most absurdly orthodox would have had shaky grounds to complain (naturally done too, they just didn’t separate the methanol when distilling). So no worries there!

Star Trek

Yes, it’s just consumption of alcoholic foodstuffs that’s proscribed. It might get murky if you’re dealing with some really regressive people and you’re also sanitizing with burbon, but otherwise it’s a pretty settled topic.