naraburns
nihil supernum
No bio...
User ID: 100
naraburns
nihil supernum
8d ago
He said the interview included discussion of "niche online communities," which it does appear to include. That is nominally "places like TheMotte," but you're right that the actual discussion is quite non-specific.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8d ago
I genuinely can't.
I genuinely believe that you can. It's not about your experiences, it's about your insistence that your experiences are sufficiently bad to excuse inflammatory rhetoric, boo outgroup posts, writing like you actually do not want everyone to participate in the conversation, and so forth. Don't write angry posts! Don't write screeds! Don't come here to vent your spleen. This is a place for discussing the culture wars, not waging them. And yeah, we're kind of bad at making that happen. But we're trying, and I genuinely think that you can succeed, too, if you're willing to try.
At least two moderators have broadly recused themselves from even bothering to moderate you, because they are just fed up with your antics. I'm a much less active moderator than I used to be, but there's a very good chance that if you do get perma-banned, I am the one who is going to have to write the mod message. I don't want to write that message. At minimum, it's likely to require a bunch of effort I would rather put into writing things people enjoy reading instead.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really just... cannot... open yourself to the possibility that you are in some way mistaken about your outgroup and the views you have developed as a result of your experiences. Or maybe you just can't stop yourself from expressing it in maximally vitriolic ways. But if that's right, then--for all your many quality contributions--maybe this space is, in the end, a poor fit. That's a possibility. But I will be sad about it, if so.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8d ago
That's not how you get a reputation. This is a reputation economy. If you contribute valuable things to it, that will increase your credibility. What is valuable in this reputation economy? Lots of stuff! Insight, novelty, effort. Original research, eloquence, reasoned argumentation. Steelmanning, deep dives, critical self-reflection. And yes--the beating heart of this space is the Culture War thread, where we discuss the culture wars--but, at our best, refrain from waging them.
We also have quiet lurkers! If that's more your jam, that's fine. Even there, you can contribute through meta-moderation and user reports.
What we don't need is more people trying to characterize this space, to place it within the culture wars rather than to keep it outside of them. We don't need more accusing mods of thumbing the scales one way or another, complaining that there are too many bad posters, too many bad comments, too much left wing content, too much right wing content, whatever--we already have entirely too much of that. The best--often the only--thing you can do to make this place better, is to write good posts.
To be blunt: I am skeptical that you "FoundViaTwitter." Right now I would guess at about 30% odds that "you" are a Turok alt. You don't write as if you are unfamiliar with this space; you write as if you are someone who has already been banned previously. But I've been wrong about this sort of thing before, and quite possibly I'm wrong now, so instead I'm trying to treat you like a new user who just found this space.
We welcome your effort, insight, etc. on whatever topics you care to write about, provided you do so within the spirit of the foundation and the intention of the rules that support it. We are less interested in having yet more off-base aspersions cast on the mod team or the site.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8d ago
What exactly is objectionable about his post?
Primarily, it's "boo outgroup."
Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
BC's post does not even pretend to do the very patient work of contextualizing or steel-manning the position. Rather, the substance of the post is "damn, America sucks, and Americans suck for not revolting." This is also tinged with an edge of consensus building or recruiting for a cause, albeit in a nonspecific way. The parting sentence is particularly inflammatory:
Perhaps after the end of Trump, the USA will be in a position where it can apply for readmission to the human race...
I decided against modding it because I don't think it's a significant enough violation of the rules to warrant a permaban, and BC's moderation history has reached the point where other moderators are saying "we should probably permaban next time." But self_made_human decided to go ahead and just add another tempban (proportioned to BC's post history), which seems like a good call to me.
it doesn't seem very different in style and tone from other things I've read over the last week. It's just left-wing and not right-wing.
Assuming you are actually new, I'm going to invite you to not make this a hobby horse. We ban right wing posters for the same sorts of tonal problems, as you and I have discussed. To be blunt, you do not have enough of a reputation here in the community to be credibly assessing its norms. You'd be well served to stay out of the meta, at least initially.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8d ago
Our legal system (England) is the most imitated in the world, almost all of the Commonwealth uses something deriving from it.
I mean, in some sense we're all just derivatives of the Romans, or maybe the Greeks. But you complain about American "sovereign immunity" while living in a country that still has a King, and lacks meaningful protection of some very important basic rights. That seems relevant. As I suggested, your post would have been much better to simply focus on the perceived failings of the United States government (which many Americans would agree are many!). Taking the position that the UK government exhibits moral superiority here was an overreach at best, both undermining your point and your credibility.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8d ago
All in all as I learn more about the Law as it is in both the UK, other systems like European Civil Law and the US, I am slowly being drawn to the inescapable conclusion that the American legal system, for all its grandiose self professed claims, is a steaming pile of shit.
On one hand, I substantially agree. Our legal system has always pretty much always been "trash," if "trash" means "governed primarily by politics and judicial self-interest rather than reason or the rule of law." That is just judicial review in a nutshell, to say nothing of our deference to bureaucracy, including "law enforcement." The old Ben Franklin saw about only a virtuous people being capable of freedom seems to be true!
But our trash legal system is also the most imitated in the world, as when it does work, it seems to work better than any other in history. Its failure modes are... still being explored, I suppose we can say. I would even so rank our legal system well above that of any nation that jails its own citizens for making bad posts on social media. Ironic, given the heat of your own post here! America may get many things wrong, but we're not the only ones.
(Aside: your post has been reported as both "boo outgroup" and as "antagonistic." I think you do bring some unnecessary heat and smear the not-very-specifc group "Americans" a little too liberally, but I will chalk it up to reflexive participation in long English tradition. Partly because your next ban is very likely to be permanent, and I don't feel like this particular post quite warrants it. But it's probably worth noting that the whole substance of your post, including a significant portion of your maybe-even-genuine outrage, could have been expressed pretty easily without either the heat or the jingoism.)
naraburns
nihil supernum
9d ago
We do have much better video games now, though.
Very debatable, especially if you include the early 2000s.
I appreciate everyone taking the bait, but: I did say 1990s, I would not include the early 2000s (particularly since Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (2003) is still among the best-written CRPGs in history).
The Super Nintendo was indeed an excellent console with some timeless classics (FF4, FF6, Chrono Trigger, Seiken Densetsu 2 & 3, Super Mario World, Super Metroid) as well as foundations to future franchises (Mario Kart, Star Fox, Harvest Moon) and strong entries in others. The Nintendo 64 struggled but brought amazing first party titles (Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Super Smash Bros.) while the PlayStation brought mature themes and writing to new prominence. Final Fantasy 7 was a tour de force. No question: the 1990s were fire.
But almost every single franchise I've mentioned so far has stronger entries now. The Final Fantasy franchise has fallen off, but Expedition 33 is as good or better than FF7 along almost every axis but chocobo breeding and cinematic summons. Super Mario Galaxy (and its direct sequel) are better games than Mario 64, and Donkey Kong Bananza on the Switch 2 reinvents 3D platforming with equal aplomb. Red Dead Redemption 2 exceeds the writing, design, voice acting, etc. of basically every game that came before it. It's not just "better graphics," though it certainly has those. The Grand Theft Auto games from III to V were just one masterpiece after another. Even indies--you can argue that Stardew Valley lacks originality since it's just an evolution of Harvest Moon, and yet given a choice between Stardew Valley and the SNES Harvest Moon, I don't know anyone who would pick Harvest Moon.
I sometimes go back and play old games for nostalgia, but I almost always bounce off pretty fast. Some few games hold up surprisingly well but most just don't. We owe past developers a debt of gratitude for breaking new ground but the level of polish the years (and billions of dollars) have brought to the industry can't be ignored. Yeah, bad games get made, but that was always true. The best games of today are leagues ahead of the best titles developed in the 1990s, along basically every axis of comparison except pure originality (since originality was lower-hanging fruit in those days), and I don't even think it's close.
naraburns
nihil supernum
9d ago
Sorry, I was thinking in the other direction--I think young people are the ones who may have better reason to feel this is all constraining their liberty. The 1990s seem to have been "peak America" in several ways--probably the best "Free Speech" era, certainly an economic dream time, cost disease in education had begun but was years from spiraling out of control, etc.
We do have much better video games now, though.
naraburns
nihil supernum
9d ago
Alright, well, this is news to me, and I'm not holding it against you, and Amadan isn't the only moderator warning you or banning you. I'm communicating all of this to you because I would like to not ban you. This is the same process we went through with TPO, with Darwin, with penpractice, with others. We assure you that yes, actually, we do appreciate your good posts, we insist that this does not give you unlimited leeway, and so on, and so forth.
You're not banned yet! You can totally keep it that way.
naraburns
nihil supernum
10d ago
I see. Yeah, no, as far as I know that's just a reference to his reddit username, which is/was not "WhiningCoil." The mod team was discussing WhiningCoil's status just yesterday and no one made any mention of alt accounts at that time.
naraburns
nihil supernum
10d ago
That's a nice quote, but how are my freedoms being suppressed? I think I would have noticed by now.
Oh, depending on your age, there's a very good chance you're not missing out on any freedoms at all. At worst, maybe you've been passed over for university admissions or a job or a promotion as a result of affirmative action or something--and given the abundance of all those things in America, even then you may not have so much as noticed.
Your comment alludes to the process of integration and I think that historically there is much to be said for it. European immigrants faced much the same concern as that directed toward South and Central American, African, Middle Eastern, and Indian immigrants today, but a couple generations later they seem to have integrated entirely. It might be observed that the integration of descendants of African slavery has gone a bit less smoothly, but of course we didn't really start trying to integrate them throughout the nation until about 75 years ago.
Nevertheless, there is in certain corners a tendency of some political groups to assert "whiteness" as a kind of original sin. Job postings listing essentially every demographic except straight white Christian men as "preferred candidates" come up a lot in Canada and even sometimes in the United States. More importantly, just the fact of identifying as "Republican" or "conservative" is enough to get you dog piled and even banned from certain online communities. If you in fact found this space via Twitter, you might not be familiar with some of the more "canonical" writings that created this space, but I heartily recommend them:
I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup
Neutral Versus Conservative: The Eternal Struggle
None of this is to suggest that I really disagree with you. I have high hopes for the long term, and I stubbornly refuse to believe that liberalism is dead (or if it is, that we should stop trying to resurrect it). But that means I strongly oppose identitarianism both from the Right ("alt-right") and from the Left ("Woke"). Identitarianism is illiberal and works against your own expressed preferences for integration by instead demanding ideological conformity. The worry toward which I am pointing is that identitarianism appears to be on the rise since ~2014, first on the Left and then on the Right. Many people only get alarmed about the identitarianism happening in their outgroup (since the other kind is a personal benefit). But I think also sometimes people don't realize that just because you don't think someone is in your outgroup, doesn't mean they actually consider you part of their ingroup.
naraburns
nihil supernum
10d ago
Hopefully you see my response. I am not aware of any accusations of you running alts. In the past year you have accumulated AAQCs, warnings, and bans in approximately equal proportion. These are always hard cases for us, because we can see that you're smart enough to understand and follow the rules, and you create excellent content for the community on a regular basis. So we actively resist banning you, but you blatantly violate the rules way too often for us to simply ignore. Your current balance is such that you really are flirting with a perma, or at least a very long term (90+ days) ban.
naraburns
nihil supernum
10d ago
I see he's banned now lol. But now that I'm here, I'm curious to know if your perspective is the prevailing opinion here.
WhiningCoil is flirting with a permanent ban himself, actually.
"Deport them all" is certainly an opinion some people have here, but as loudly as it is sometimes expressed I would not bet that it is prevailing. It's not uncommon for people to make the libertarian argument for open borders, for example--Bryan Caplan has some cachet in the rationalsphere.
I think your circumstances are not unusual. But there is a potential rejoinder you might want to consider--
My eldest is going to enter the same public high school I went to. The children of the first generation immigrants I went to school with now have their own families and, like me, have stayed in the same county to raise their children. They're indistinguishable from my family in the ways that matter to me.
That's great--my classical liberal heart is warmed--but it would be interesting to know for certain whether you are indistinguishable from their family in the ways that matter to them. If one demographic says "we love everyone, we help everyone equally, this is how we all work together to make the world a better place," but the other demographic responds "thanks for the help, we're going to take everything that is given to us to help our ingroup and, if possible, to become the dominant power, at which point we will then suppress our outgroup." The quote from Frank Herbert's Dune books is--
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
I am not saying this is how your neighbors think! I hope it is not how they think. But that is the angle and the concern that tends to arise when people make arguments like the one you have made here.
naraburns
nihil supernum
11d ago
If a person is breaking the rules (or is close enough to it) they should get dinged no matter what their past history is.
There is just not enough moderator time in the day for that. If someone's comment doesn't get reported, it is very unlikely to get moderated (that would require one of us to just happen across the comment). Of the comments that do get reported, probably a majority of them are plausibly rule breaking, but I'd be shocked if we actually moderated even one of those in ten. I cannot tell you how many times I've thought, "Yeah, I agree that's a bit low effort/antagonistic/whatever, but it's six replies deep and seems approximately within community norms and the metamoderation is low-certainty and it's not part of a pattern of bad behavior, it's not worth the effort." Or--"Oh, this is also a pretty bad comment, but I just moderated this user for the same thing in a different thread, do I need to say more here? Nah, I'll catch them next time."
And yeah--"oh, this is a super quality poster, I'm just gonna let it slide this time" is definitely on the list of time saving excuses. But never fear! We have in the past banned quality posters eventually. It's just a much more protracted and painful process.
It is certainly possible for a comment to be sufficiently bad that I will ban a user on sight, first offense, no questions asked, no matter how many AAQCs they have. But barring those egregious violations of the rules, we are actually almost always moderating with an eye toward patterns of behavior more than we are moderating for precise adherence to the rules in specific cases. Indeed, the rules themselves are only in service of the foundation. This is not a sport where we are calling balls and strikes based on high-precision measurements; this is the messy work of curating a community dedicated to the practice of disagreement!
So when you say--
Right now it strains credulity to see a leftist get dinged for...
--and then you provide a direct quote, you've already missed the mark. That user is getting dinged, not for any particular statement, but for an increasingly established pattern of behavior.
naraburns
nihil supernum
12d ago
This is far too much heat, not enough light. And I'm a little perplexed because you and the user you're talking to both have a history of AAQCs and no warnings, and even your other posts in this thread are basically effortful with minimal (albeit admittedly not zero) antagonism. To the point that I was tempted to let it go entirely but even with maximal "benefit of the doubt" this was a little too rough to not at least flag.
naraburns
nihil supernum
12d ago
I'm not even sure what this means, but it has drawn two reports and the metamoderation weighs "bad," so... maybe more effort and less directed personal attacks, please?
naraburns
nihil supernum
12d ago
Is there a reason you're modding a post made by one of the few consistently left-leaning posters, while not modding posts...
Amadan has given you sufficient explanation, but let me add to it. First, nobody reported those posts, I hadn't seen them before you linked them. Second, every single one of those links is to a user with recent AAQCs. You yourself enjoy the benefit of the doubt in that you have accumulated 3 AAQCs and just one warning over the course of at least three years of activity.
By comparison, in four months, Turok has accumulated eight warnings from three different moderators, including our most left-wing moderator!
Can you see why we might be starting to think that this is not a person who posts in good faith?
(And yes, we do also get right wing posters who match this pattern, and yes, they do get banned. One thing I will say for them, typically the most vocal radical leftist trolls take their ban as a badge of pride and go brag about it to credulous strivers in other communities who imagine this place to be somehow "alt-right." That is a pleasant change from the alt-right trolls, who often proceed to wage DM campaigns throwing every accusation and epithet imaginable in our direction. I don't know why it shakes out this way, but it does!)
naraburns
nihil supernum
12d ago
The substance of your post is fine, as a counterpoint to the OP, though it is a bit low on effort.
I am generally pretty skeptical about "dog whistle" verbiage but presumably by "young ghetto boy" you don't mean to suggest that the infant was a Polish Jew. Yet even to this point you could at least plausibly insist that you are engaging in pure description, that the child's parents were indeed from a "ghetto," etc.
But, uh...
Just make sure you aren't nurturing some virulent invasive species that will leave the land barren.
This tips the balance toward heat rather than light, with a side of failing to write like everyone is reading and you want to include them in the conversation. You might regard it as impossible to include such people in "the conversation," and even then you should write as though you want to include them in the conversation, because presumably you think the world would be a better place if it were possible.
This is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. That means shady thinking is allowed! But you need to keep the heat to a level proportionate with your effort, evidence, and empathy.
naraburns
nihil supernum
12d ago
Unsolicited advice--just take the training wheels off, and take the pedals off, too. Lower the seat so their feet easily touch the ground. Basically you're improvising what is sometimes called a "balance bike," except that once they have the balance down, you can just put the pedals back on rather than buy a whole new bike.
naraburns
nihil supernum
16d ago
The Federalist Party's primary achievement (at least arguably, as the party itself didn't officially exist until after the Bill of Rights was adopted) was the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. If anything, the Federalists would have preferred an even stronger Constitution. They were the faction of wealthy Northern elites who wanted the nation to function in stable concert, at least militarily and economically (and under their leadership, naturally). They were broadly abolitionist and accommodated slavery within the Constitution substantially under the view that by doing so they could be instrumental in bringing about its end; consequently, they were not friends of "states rights." They were also much more interested than their opponents in healing the rift with England, to the point where some New England Federalists began to advocate for secession during the War of 1812 (although it might sound a bit like California or Texas "threatening" to secede today, depending on who is in the White House, the War of Independence was still in living memory). Siding with the enemy during a war is a good way to accrue a lot of populist hatred really fast.
naraburns
nihil supernum
18d ago
Did I strawman the Right? Let's ask Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the United States secretary of labor:
This is exactly why we have the rule,
Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible. General groups include things like gun rights activists, pro-choice groups, and environmentalists. Specific groups include things like The NRA, Planned Parenthood, and the Sierra Club. Posting about general groups is often not falsifiable, and can lead to straw man arguments and non-representative samples.
Making top level posts "responding" to specific users without using the "reply" button instead is kind of obnoxious, but this is downright antagonistic:
I expect that @RandomRanger will withdraw his claim
Don't do that. Ideally, unless you think someone would like to get an alert from you, don't @ them.
If you want to talk about what Lori Chavez-DeRemer thinks and why it is stupid, or not stupid, or whatever, like... have at! And really, there are contexts where referencing "Left" and "Right" is fine, where it would be stilted or misleading to speak differently. But you have been moderated several times in a fairly short period, mostly for antagonism, and you seem to be making kind of a hobby horse of weak manning "the Right" or some portion of it you perceive as worthy of scorn. I don't know if you're subtly pursuing a kind of consensus, or if you're just trolling, but you don't seem to be here to move past shady thinking and test your ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases.
Do better. Next time I see you pulling this, you get a ban.
naraburns
nihil supernum
18d ago
Are children possessions? Can they be bought and sold?
Er, well, no, but historically? Yes, sometimes. The "proprietarian" theory of childhood and the relative personhood of minors is a separate but related question, which Aristotle uses illustratively and which remains analogous even today.
"Some people have difficulty running their lives and it would be better for them if someone else ran it to some extent" is a defensible proposition. "Some people should be the literal property of other people" much less so.
Sure, but my whole point is that the difference is one of degree rather than kind, and that much of law and culture is devoted to keeping people at least somewhat enslaved, while simultaneously obfuscating that fact. I would think it obvious from what I wrote, but in case it's not, I certainly do not endorse chattel slavery! Not do I endorse milder forms; I do not even particularly endorse our current cultural approach to the subjection of children. This is what makes the puzzle a proper puzzle, on my view--that the approaches we have adopted toward managing the lives of others strike me as at once both too great and too small.
naraburns
nihil supernum
18d ago
When Aristotle talks about "natural slaves" he's not really talking about some American nightmare-vision of an antebellum plantation.
Yes, this is right--it's always interesting teaching the Politics because I have to explain to my students all of the ways in which "slave" can be interpreted. Fortunately, Aristotle himself also lays out how differently slavery was practiced in different parts of Greece--very like your footnote suggests of antebellum American slavery. In Book 2 of the Politics, Aristotle writes:
Or, upon what principle would they submit, unless indeed the governing class adopt the ingenious policy of the Cretans, who give their slaves the same institutions as their own, but forbid them gymnastic exercises and the possession of arms.
Apparently, at least from Aristotle's perspective, slaves in Crete were just regular people who couldn't hit the gym or own guns pointy metal objects. This was apparently more generous than slavery as practiced in Athens, which was in turn apparently more liberal than the way it was practiced in Sparta. To the best of my understanding, chattel slavery was not the norm in ancient Greece, but neither was it unheard of.
These days it is essentially impossible to have a nuanced policy debate on slavery. We have insisted on eradication of the practice, while in great measure merely obfuscating it. If that was a necessary step to the elimination of chattel slavery, well, then I suppose I can't complain too much about it. But I find it at least of interest that so many technically free, politically enfranchised humans in the West would probably be better off with greater guidance--even though I do not regard myself as in want or need of similar intervention.
(But that may simply be a further question of degree. If we really did build a genuine superintelligence, unfettered by "alignment" to some other human's political agenda, would I not be wise to submit myself to it? I feel grateful to doubt that I will ever face such a choice.)
naraburns
nihil supernum
18d ago
I think we are broadly in agreement, but this bit I think is important:
But it doesn’t matter what the person’s IQ is.
This is surely false on its face; at some point, your IQ is clearly too low to do anything but behave like a herd animal (at best!). I think what you might mean to suggest is that "a sufficiently high IQ is a necessary but insufficient condition to not being a slave," and I think that's right--that's why I pointed out that youth, drug addiction, or mental illness are also things that lead to "natural slavery" (Aristotle regarded even free children as essentially slaves, albeit temporarily).
Something I have seen happen a lot in rationalist and rationalist-adjacent spaces is someone getting really angry (or sneery) about IQ discussions, because of a tendency to valorize high IQ in ways that might be explained as well, or better, by reference to conscientiousness, emotional awareness, family wealth, etc. But I suspect that the area where actual IQ tests have the most real world impact, at least in the U.S., is in the legal system--and it's not high IQs under discussion there! IQ is the gold standard for objective evaluation of whether a person can be made a slave, not in name but in the Aristotelian sense of being subject to the rule of another, because they are not intelligent enough for adequate self-care.
Yes, a high IQ person may also be in need of guidance, temporarily or permanently, as the result of other circumstances, and I agree with you re: etiquette etc. But a completely conscientious, totally decisive, utterly courageous person with an IQ of 50 would still be better off with a master guardian (which is, not coincidentally, the world Plato often used to describe the philosopher-king rulers of his ideal Republic).
You are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic. I am responding with a modhat but this is not a warning and will not be noted on your account, even though your past posting history weighs against you on this.
The reason this is not a warning is because you are plausibly making an effort to understand something, which is good.
The reason I am responding with a modhat is because we have a growing problem with posts like this, namely, posts that begin with the framing that "the Motte" can be helpfully or usefully addressed collectively in connection with particular ideological commitments. I believe this is mistaken as a matter of substance, but even if it weren't, it would be a violation of the rules:
The paradigmatic consensus-building post is "I'm sure you'd all agree..." Lately I have seen too many people approach that from a position of disagreement instead--as here:
You've couched this in sufficiently perspective-taking language that it's not an egregious violation of the rules, but it is nevertheless not the way to approach questions like this. You could (and should) have written your entire post as a clear question without reference to a monolithic Motte: "what do you [whoever is reading] think about these ideas, or this claim?" You don't need to accuse your readers in advance of being wrong about something; if you have a question about what people believe, ask them, don't tell them. If there's a specific ideological position you want to address, address the position, not the people you imagine to be holding it.
"This place" is a website
That's all. You may see some people in other parts of the Internet characterize this as a site catering to some particular ideology, but those people are wrong, often maliciously so, and they tend to spread misconceptions about the community that are harmful to the community. I can't do anything about that in other spaces, but I do what I can to try to stop it from happening here.
(And that is actually kind of an answer to your question, if "the Motte" is what you are interested in understanding: the foundation generally manifests as individualistic and meritocratic, because individuals (not groups) post here and individuals (not groups) get upvotes or downvotes, AAQCs or warnings or bans. But individuals here have many different views on meritocracy and individualism, I'm sure, and honestly I'd be surprised if even 60% of participants here held the beliefs you have, entirely without evidence, attributed to the entire group.)
More options
Context Copy link