This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as '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.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Ordinarily I'd just report you for being a low-effort/single-issue troll * and move on but seeing as I don't expect the mods to actually do about this I'm going to go against my own advice and feed the troll, because like @FCfromSSC I find that preferable to ceding this space to the enemy with out a fight.
So, to answer your question, two things spring immediately to mind.
First is the issue @Evinceo raises, if things like intelligence and personal discipline are primarily genetic why are the children of our elites so consistently idiots and drug addicts. This isn't a recent development either Strong man builds a grand empire, or sucessful empire only for his kids to piss it all away has been recurring theme throughout human history.
Second, the axis would have won WWII. The Japanese and German militaries both entered the war with a substantial advantage in technology and training over their opponents. If the HBD-Tards' and Woke-Cels' theories about race were accurate, this ought to have translated into quick and easy victory. Instead the racially diverse, hopelessly disorganized (IE decentralized), and utterly lacking in warrior spirit/tradition armies of the Aglosphere proved far more capable of cooperation, innovation, and stacking enemy dead like corde-wood than their ostensibly superior and racially homogenous opponents. As much as Weebs fetishize the IJNS Yamato but the historical truth is that the one time she actually fought enemy surface ships for real, she and her accompanying task force got thrashed by a by a squadron of 4 escort ships that collectively weighed less than Yamato's main armament. That sort of thing doesn't happen in a sane world run by math and autistic notions of genetic destiny.
* 2/3rds of BorfRebus' total posts have been abpout race/hbd
Would you please articulate exactly what set of rules we should adopt such that we'd ban someone for being a likely witch with an agenda? Do you want us to outright ban HBD posters? Holocaust deniers? Accelerationists? Anyone who shows wokeness? And if the answer to that is no, then please stop griping about how we don't ban everyone you'd ban because you'd arbitrarily ban anyone who rubs you the wrong way.
Yes, we see the people showing up to test the waters and see if they can turn this place into Stormfront. Unless you are advocating for a blanket content-based ban, we will continue to do what we're doing and enforce the tone rules stringently and allow people to trot out their witchiest hot takes if they can express them in a compliant manner.
We've been over this before, heck Zorba and I argued back and forth about it pretty much from TheMotte's founding the moment I stepped down.
Zorba, Cheeze, Et AL say "you can't just ban someone for consistently bringing the conversation down" and I reply that "consistently bringing the conversation down is pretty much the only valid reason to ban someone". Letter of the law vs the spirit and all that. This is further compounded by the fact that the values of accountability and due process are fundamentally incompatible with the desire for anonymity. You shouldn't be thinking of internet accounts as people. You should be looking at them as disposable personas.
This doesn't actually answer the question. We do ban people for "consistently bringing the conversation down," but to reach that level, they have to be "consistently" doing it, not just posting one or two bad posts. But you want us to pull the trigger as soon as we see one of those bad posts.
You are, in fact, arguing for a content-based ban. If someone trots out HBD theory, we should ban them. If someone starts posting about Da Joos, we should ban them. If someone questions age of consent laws, we should ban them. Whether you admit it or not, you're basically arguing that we should place certain topics off-limits.
On a purely practical level, have you considered that all this does is multiply our work because half our time will be spent whacking ItsDaJoosPoster#173?
And speaking for myself, no, I actually think the "disposable personas" attitude is toxic. Obviously many identities here are just disposable personas, but much of the reason Internet discourse tends to be low value is because of attitudes like that, that you aren't actually arguing with a person, you're arguing with a "disposable persona," and therefore Internet arguments are not interactions with other people, but essentially you firing off pixelated missiles at a row of Space Invaders. I am aware many people see it that way, but when I know I'm dealing with someone who treats discussions like that, I consider it little different than arguing with a sociopath; there's really no point.
I've answerd the question as best I can. And no I'm not arguing for a content-based ban. What I'm arguing for is consideration of an account's history in the decision, and that contrary to rationalist norms where in assumptions of trust and good faith are the default, a lack of history should instead be interpreted as evidence of bad faith. Especially when that new account displays prior knowledge. As I have tried to explain to you before; theMotte is a fringe offshoot of a fringe offshoot, it's pretty damn rare that someone just wanders in here off the street. I'm saying that theMotte has enemies, that we've had users flat out admit that they were here to radicalize people, to farm lolcows for /r/drama, and to get us driven off reddit. and that it is foolish to forget/ignore this.
When a new user with no prior established history starts pressing the sort of buttons that draw outside scrutiny, your first thought should be that "this guy is up to something". To the degree that an internet persona has value at all it is in it's established history. A persona without an established history has no value and can be disposed of without thought. This dehumanization is price one pays for anonymity, because humanity and anonymity are mutually exclusive.
Remember that as a moderator your job is not that of a cop or a lawyer, you are not here to enforce rules. You are a janitor, you are a shit filter, you are here to clean up messes.
With that in mind, remember I have been in your shoes. When you complain about half your time spending half your time slapping down throwaway accounts and my reply is "half? try closer to 2/3rds. what exactly did you think I was doing during my tenure?"
Well, see, I don't actually consider myself a rationalist, and I don't assume trust and good faith from new posters.
And as I have told you before, we know this. Like JC man, I know you think we're quokkas but I wish you wouldn't keep assuming we're stupid.
Okay, and being off reddit, a major part of that concern is now obviated. I am not sure how much we should actually care about being being "farmed for drama" anymore, and as for the agenda posters, yes, they're here.
If we're being honest, given my druthers I probably would shoot from the hip more often (though not as often as you). You are right that the latest iteration of "Hello fellow kids what do you think of HBD, pretty spicy stuff huh? Also, what about those Jews?" could probably be summarily banned with nothing of value lost. I think the place where I agree more with Zorba and less with you is that as a community, the norms established by moderation are important, and being seen as impartial and giving everyone enough rope to hang themselves is more valuable than being perceived as capricious and banhappy where any mod can just ban anyone who raises our hackles.
Then you're in the minority and are truly my spiritual successor. ;-)
I'm not assuming that anyone is stupid, i am remembering old arguments and projecting the results forward. Arguments that I will concede that I lost, but I still don't think I was necessarily wrong. Shoot from the hip and let the cards fall where they may. The worst that can happen is not bad at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Doing this while also maintaining a stance against ban evasion just provides perverse incentives. The decent person who gets banned because they got hotheaded once too often is gone forever at the drop of a hat; the asshole coming in to disrupt just spins up a new account.
On the contrary the assholes, will spin new accounts regardless and that's exactly why I believe Zorba's policy of giving every new account "the benefit of the doubt" and "time to acclimitze to our norms" even when they had usernames like "rape_all_n1gg3rs, "throwaway[numberstring]", and "youburdensomecunt" was so misguided. We lost a number of valued posters over the years (Yodacrist, McJunker, Iprayiam, to name a few) to the 1st Geek Social Fallacy. Namely the unwillingness ostracize the bad actor and instead attempt to moderate other users' reactions to them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link