Yes that heavily downvoted post... great example! The community obviously thought it was below some standard on some level, and I would tend to agree. We will see where FC's post will stand in 24 hours.
Given how conservatives still seethe about the moral mutant post, it seems to me an obvious net negative in its impact on the discourse. In fact, I think I recall FC, or some other, citing that post as a justification for their tone. Well obviously defection begets defection. I think the ideas in that essay could have been presented another way, and should have, but the OP chose the way of brash, arrogant condescension. And we see the fallout from that.
Do you think this is just a fine example of the kind of decorum that's acceptable here? If these kinds of posts were 100x more frequent, at the same level of decorum, would that make the motte a better or worse place? Personally I think the motte would quickly become unusable.
Doubletree1
6mo ago
Yes it is all about decorum, that is in fact my point. I have seen many people criticize conservatives, but none that I have seen have done so with decorum youve shown-- the finality of the tone and extreme positions advocated for, (at least originally) without explicit argument, while at the same time telegraphing your intent to defect from your enemies...
You say this could be tolerated from the left, but I really don't believe it. I would welcome some examples from you if you think otherwise.
Doubletree1
8mo ago
I read your post. You clearly say.
but the fact remains that practicing homosexuality is a lifestyle with health consequences similar to those we associate with smoking, sedentary lifestyles, bad foods, etc. Which we typically do not ban, but do often seek to regulate, or at least socially disapprove.
Without presenting evidence that the association is any more than correlative.
Later you say
But you said you "don't see anything unhealthy about homosexuality," which statement would seem to me to require a very constrained definition of "unhealthy," much more constrained than we apply in basically any other context.
I disagree. I think way we use "unhealthy" in normal contexts is far more often causative "smoking is unhealthy" rather than correlative "driving a pickup is unhealthy".
Doubletree1
8mo ago
The Left -- that is, the mass of men and women who are in control of nearly every relevant channel of Western power and influence
To the extent that this is not just a tautological redefinition of "the left", this strikes me as factually inaccurate. The right of center has significant support among the the police, military, non traditional media, and a large minority of traditional media. Republicans routinely win ~50% of elections at all levels, a supreme court in their favor. A majority of high-wealth individuals are Republican.
The good advice in this post is for Hanania to be honest with himself and his beliefs. It is a virtue to courageously stand up and truthfully say "yes I believed this, but here is why I changed my mind" or "I used to believe this; I still do but I used to, too". It is obviously cowardly and expedient to apologize if he does actually hold those convictions.
On the other hand, large swaths of this post are deeply uncharitable and indistinguishable from a self-fulling siege-mentality worldview (which may or may not be in accordance with reality). Many leftists have an exactly symmetric but opposite narrative, just as passionately and deeply held. I suppose you can both be right, but you both can't have the moral high ground.
Doubletree1
9mo ago
Why is it that when people try to engage their local democratic system to influence the education of their children, they get branded as "hate groups" and "domestic extremists"?
Unfortunately, it is the religious conservative crowd (and their sympathizers) who were the public face of anti-lgbt for some time--and this group has zero credibility when it comes to arguments rooted in principled liberalism.
While there are many kinds of diversity that can be tolerated in a liberal environment, one that rejects the principle of liberalism itself is obviously logically incompatible with that environment. In that case, the best that can be offered is an enclave-type arrangement.
You could say that all this applies to the illiberal left as well. I agree. Without condoning it, I think the left, bring borne from the same tradition as classical liberalism, is simply better than the right in couching their position in liberal terms; they have the credibility. I try to tell any liberal who will listen that the left is not liberal but old habits and all.
Doubletree1
6mo ago
On reddit, the mantra was that the downvote was not an "I disagree" button. If that's not the case at the motte I sure would like to know that.
Now this would be a violation of this community's decorum.
How so? To seethe means to get angry or become highly agitated. It seems to me factual that many conservatives did angry over the post. And I don't blame them really. It is no less factual or inflammatory than FCs follow up claim that 70% of blue tribers hate his kind and vice versa.
I am baffled by what you consider acceptable decorum. Do you believe Ozys essay meets the decorum standards of this community? Yet my use of seethe does not.
Full disclosure, I think both the substance and the tone in Ozys essay are both quite bad. If there is any kernel or value to be had in discussing it, then the discussion should proceed in a tone that inversely proportional to how inflammatory the subject is. This is a basic principle I think that allows highly charged topics to be discussed productively. I don't think Ozys or FC's posts meet that standard.
"[A]dvances in HIV treatment have surely raised that number in the last few decades, but the fact remains that practicing homosexuality is a lifestyle with health consequences similar to those we associate with smoking, sedentary lifestyles, bad foods, etc."
The argument is basically centered the definition of unhealthy. It is not precise to label actions that are merely correlative with worse outcomes as "unhealthy" per se. Driving a pickup truck vs a Prius is likely correlated with worse life expectency (i.e., being a male living in a rural area). But it would be absurd to say "driving a pickup truck is more unhealthy than driving a Prius (for the driver)" without extra caveats.
Furthermore the original use of "unhealthy " in the thread in cake's post used a different definition altogether (likely ideologically based) -- making naraburns' reply somewhat of a non sequitur.
Make it make sense, please
It's quite clear, I don't know what it is youre not understanding. I'm not attacking average conservatives, they can believe what they want, as long as they're not trying to force their way of life on me. I'm pointing out the that it is illogical to appeal to liberal sensibilities of inclusion to paint liberals as the bad people for rejecting the illiberal tendencies of conservatives.
As I said, I think there are many things about the conservative viewpoint that can coexist with object-level liberals in a liberal meta-system. Of course if conservatives reject liberalism itself, that can't be tolerated for game theoretical reasons.
In that case the best that can be offered is an enclave -- which is far more tolerant and accomodating and than conservatives would be, if the shoe were on the other foot.
Doubletree1
1yr ago
like a massive inexplicable gravitational anomaly sitting there..
Only if you believe that aliens are incapable of shielding the gravitational signature of a massive object. And you do believe that they can violate the equivalence principal. Why one and not the other?
Doubletree1
6mo ago
I don't understand this objection. Are you a textual literalist? Or even just for the new testament? Do you think all Catholics should be literalists about the new testament?
It's not incoherent. Amish etc seem content to form their enclaves and practice their values as they see fit without forcing it on others. "Mainstream" social conservatives are not like this and do actively try to pass illiberal policies that would apply to everyone. Even as the Amish are more conservative on the objective level they are more consistent with the liberal meta system.
Do you think liberals who are in favor of age of consent laws are rejecting liberalism itself? Or are liberals who are in favor of state-recognized marriage being exclusively monogamous rejecting liberalism itself?
Depends on how they go about it I think. There are both ethical and secular arguments that can be made for or against both of these. Liberal principles dictate that we should bias ourselves towards a solution that maximizes both personal liberty and liberty of prospective subgroups without causing other on others to be harmed. In practice, if two groups disagree on policy, the more permissive policy has an advantage in that it allows the permissive party and the restrictive party to both coexist (in that the restrictive party and self-apply the more restrictive policy). That's not to say that the more permissive policy is always the right one. In the case of (lowering) the age of consent then the very obvious counter-argument is that children would be harmed by sexual predators.
My original point was that mainstream social conservatives couched their arguments against gay marriage in specifically religious terms which is definitely illiberal: not everyone follows their (interpretation of a specific) religion, so it is illiberal to impose that policy on non-believers on that basis. And so lost the credibility (with mainstream liberals) when they made similar arguments about trans people.
If you want to have an object level discussion about age of consent, or polyamory then state your case.
Doubletree1
6mo ago
You're the second person who has had to reach back literal years to find a relevant example from the left. Without access to those posts I cant evaluate whether they are a valid counterexample. Suffice to say im unconvinced by your assurances but I think we'll have to set that aside.
Presumably the rules by which you moderate are designed produce some outcomes and accomplish specific aims in the tenor and culture of this forum. Probably these are things like, ensure the average comment quality remains high, keep inflammatory and emotionally triggering posts to a minimum, encourage thoughtful and respectful engagement, etc.
One of the aims which I thought the rules were designed to achieve was establishing some cultural norms that encourage the consideration of cross-axis views in a charitable and good faith way. Correct me if I'm wrong.
FC's post contributes to the erosion this norm. By publicly advocating for the wholesale and categorical defection against liberal institutions, he is sending a signal that he believes cooperation with blue tribe is pointless. Therefore, why should I engage with him, a public defector? I simply won't. It would be irrational of me to do so. That is a potential cross axis engagement point that has been eliminated. And the more similar attitudes I see, the less likely I am to engage overall. And I think many people would respond the same way.
I think this forum highly benefits from this norm of cross-axis charity (luckily most have internalized it I believe). The alternative is an echo chamber, or one filled with ideologues. Even with a veneer of politeness, there is no value, for me at least, in a place like that.
Doubletree1
5mo ago
Your argument is just status quo bias. "auto licensing should be treated as a given because -> our infrastructure is designed around autos because -> we've always treated auto licensing as a given". If auto licensing were not treated as given, then we would be incentivized to adapt our infrastructure appropriately.
Doubletree1
8mo ago
There are others in this thread who are claiming that negative outcomes in children of single parents are primarily due to genetics.
In other words, genetics can tell you to leave your partner but not how much to eat.
These kinds of claims require evidence.
Doubletree1
8mo ago
So? The police in smaller municipalities aren't.
The military is controlled by the commander in chief, the sec-def and the combatant commanders which are political appointees.
Doubletree1
8mo ago
No. The left could be filled with 100% terrorists. That doesn't affect whether extreme HBD policies are or are not popular on the center right.
Bari Weiss is running a university to attract customers. those customers may include the center right, woke-skeptic, and also find extreme HBD policies distasteful.
Doubletree1
9mo ago
I deny it.
Doubletree1
10mo ago
Dealing with your life being ruined because of an indistinct rule created by a bureaucrat you've never met and will never meet is much more emotionally difficult than having your life ruined by Steve down the street.
I disagree, or at least I would warn against generalizing on this point
Doubletree1
8mo ago
Where do I find the volunteer link from the main page? The previous posts says to "click the banner" but the only banner I see is an image of some spiky objects. Clicking it brings me to the main page.
I'm on a mobile browser if that makes a difference.
Doubletree1
8mo ago
It will help on the margins, which is all that I person hope for these days. But, does your municipality enforce parking minimums and what are they? An frequent new urbanist complaint is that in many places parking mimums regs are significantly higher than they need to be.
Doubletree1
11mo ago
Neat ideas. Your first post is complementary to one I have been kicking around on the consolidation cycle. Most of us have lived to see the consolidation of social media/internet forums and all the CW- topics that spawns but the general process happens in many areas (manufacturing, farming, urbanization, etc. )
the post would be examine how technology changes the dynamics of the consolidation cycle. The idea is that the distribution of entities (as a function of size) generally follows a power law and that when a technology comes around that reduces transaction costs between entities two things happen. First, the time it takes to reach the "consolidated" part of the cycle goes down and second the exponent on the power law gets more negative i.e. in the consolidated state the first x% of the domain is controlled by a smaller number of larger entities.
One result of this is the impact on "matching" processes like trying to find a contractor, or Google searching anything. Paradoxically, having a greater "reach" on your search (enabled by lower search costs like internet search engines) at first increases your options, but ultimately reduces your options due to the market response/consolidation dynamics.
I think this dynamic underlies a lot of a host of cathedral vs bazaar type CW adjacent topics-- social media landscape, regulatory capture, dating, urbanization, globalization, the "bowling alone" phenomenon, and others
Doubletree1
6mo ago
it's just to host discussion and arguing of ideas.
Any joe can host a discussion website. Hosting a site where /good/, /quality/ discussion occurs is much harder, and that I think is the aim, is it not? And that absolutely does require some level of cooperation between participants engaged in that discussion.
I think the problem is not that "righties say unacceptable things" but "lefties cannot tolerate hearing things they don't like." That's certainly not a problem this forum can solve, but if as a left-leaning person you're going to insist that you won't participate if right-wingers get to say right-wing things... well, case in point.
Is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha? So lame. Anyway. Perhaps I did not articulate my point well enough, as it does not concern "things I don't like". I read a hundred things I don't like every time I sign on to this site, yet I singled out FC's post in particular. My point concerns behavior that erodes the norms that enable quality discussion.
But if we took up your suggestion, we'd just be creating a different kind of echo chamber, where anyone whose views put off too many people gets silenced
I don't see how. I am not advocating for modding conservative viewpoints in particular. You already taboo a good number of posting styles /and/ content in order to keep the quality of discussion high. You don't allow trolls, intentional sophistry, or, I believe, outright Holocaust denial. You of course don't allow name calling. For the sake of the argument, why not? Who are you to say that someone shouldn't be able to express their sincere and honest belief that person X has literal shit for brains? And if anyone gets offended by that, well, we can't silence that person just because he puts people off; the problem is people cannot tolerate hearing things they don't like, etc. There are of course real forums where this kind of free speech absolutism is a deeply held principle, but they are almost universally terrible, for obvious reasons.
You get to call the shots at the end of the day. I've said my case about as clearly as I can, so I'll leave it here. Thank you for at least considering what I have to say here.
Doubletree1
10mo ago
Nothing worse than what gets posted on the regular here. Except it might be targeted toward the right vs left
Ive seen several of these types of posts from you but this time I feel compelled to say something. The motte seems to be one very rare place where people on the left and right can engage in intellectual cooperation with some semblance of a shared set of principles. These polemics against perceived enemies on the left, in a tone so radical and final, is just shitting on the public good here. Given what you've written here it's obviously pointless for anyone who might disagree to engage with you.
I cannot fathom why the community tolerates this kind of thing; certainly it would never tolerate any naked calls for the explicit demolition of conservative power structures from anyone left of center.
More options
Context Copy link