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 -
Where is the shame, Americans? Where is the shame?
Background: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/20/ice-secretly-deported-grandfather (all bolding mine)
My first reaction after seeing this was a singular and complete WTF???. I do not see how it is possible to read this and go anything other than "Shame on you" at the American government, ICE in particular and also the American populace for acquiescing to this.
Note that this is not some drug dealer or gang lynchpin, this is 82 year old gramps, who is a retired leatherworker granted asylum fully under the rules who has been working in the USA for the last 40+ years and has raised a family in the country. Instead after losing his Green Card he gets summarily disappeared and put on a flight to Guatemala, a country to which he has no connection...
This is not the behaviour I would expect of a mature world power like the USA, this is more like what one would expect of Saudi Arabia, or actually no, at least the Saudis would at least have more respect for their elders. Instead what we see here is what happens when a modern secular polity jettisons the moral framework it took up as replacement for the laws of God and the ancient idea of noblesse oblige: we are left with a hollow shell; a massive cavity, ringing under the total emptiness of its own fundamental depravity.
The US supreme court has its own share of blame and shame to take here. Judicial Review is a fundamental check on the balance of power of any modern western government, as Americans with their whole "we have checks and balances" schick are wont to tell us. Instead some power tripping ICE worker two grades above the rank of janitor decided to act as judge, jury and executioner and sent a vulnerable 82 year old man off to a country with which he has no links whatsoever.
And what did the Supreme Court do? It approved this sort of behaviour from servants of the government just a few months earlier. Either this is direct malice from the court or the learned justices, sitting in that august hall (august by American standards, by our standards there is terraced housing within 5 minutes walk of me that is older), failed to consider the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions. Now I know what they say about Hanlon's Razor but even I will admit the people elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States aren't going to be incompetent...
In a civilized country like the UK, firstly something like this would never have happened as the man would have a right to argue against his deportation in front of a judge, so none of this "ambush deportation" would ever be possible. Furthermore, even if the deportation for some inexplicable reason happened without following any process the family of this old man would be able to bring a massive suit against the government which they would easily win if the government was foolish enough to not settle.
On top of this, in the UK they have a special class of damages called "Exemplary Damages" which are designed to punish the perpetrator instead of compensating the victim. Exemplary damages are very very rarely available under UK law, but one of the very few exceptions is "arbitrary and oppressive conduct by a servant of the government". In a mature democracy like the UK the government recognizes that it has more power, and therefore more responsibility, than a private entity in the same situation, and so opens itself to an additional type of liability when it makes a big mistake compared to a private company that does something equally as grave.
Instead in the USA we have the opposite situation where the government, with the tacit support of the judiciary, has cloaked itself with additional protections under the guise of "Sovereign Immunity" that mean it can behave in a malicious way and not leave itself liable to damages. The US talks the talk on how it has punitive damages which keeps big bad actors in line so they don't mistreat the little man but then you can take one look at its convoluted and extremely adversarial judicial system and realize instantly just how difficult it is for ordinary people to not get worn down in a war of attrition long before any final hearing.
The UK handles things so so much better here. The judge in the UK isn't a neutral umpire but they have their own duty to the court to ensure that cases are handled fairly and efficiently, the more inquisitorial nature of our legal system means that playing procedural games is frowned upon and both parties are incentivised to stay honest lest they piss off the judge, who has a certain amount of leeway available to them to help out the little man if necessary.
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. And no, I'm not basing my conclusion here solely on modern jurisprudence, but also looking at old Supreme Court cases like Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co. where the court, in its infinite wisdom, decided 8-1 that refusing a job offer for a non-security sensitive role to a Mexican national who was a US green card holder with full working rights in the US just because they are technically not a citizen does not count as discrimination based on national origin...
And what may be the worst part of this sordid affair may not even be the ambush deportation, but the utter and total lack of class displayed in falsely telling the family that that their patriarch had died... I mean have some basic respect... The chain of failures and completely absolute misjudgment by multiple different individuals without somebody interjecting somewhere that what they are doing isn't right which must have happened for such a call to ever be made in the first place speaks volumes about the American psyche...
In a way this really goes to show us that the US, for all its wealth, is still a young country: it is still new money, in the worst possible sense of the word. I think the great LKY put it far far better than I ever could talking about the true character of Americans (n.b. I'd say that if you watch just one video today, this should be near the top of your list, it's only 3 minutes long and well worth the time as it shows one of the great men of the 20th century diagnosing the American malaise with effortless precision).
Perhaps after the end of Trump, the USA will be in a position where it can apply for readmission to the human race...
I miss the old BC,
straight from Canary Wharf BC,
the Alawite rule BC
I hate the new BC,
This shtick got old BC,
Breaks all the rules BC,
thinks the mods are fools BC,
Ahem. Count, the mods are not retarded. I might often be quite entertained by your shenanigans, but they're better reserved for /r/drama, and being occasionally amusing isn't sufficient to let you off.
Hell, I was going to let you off, but then I remembered I have to actually set an example every once in a while, and I took a look at your moderation log. You have that one AAQC to your credit, and a laundry list of warnings, temp bans, and even a perma ban that was cut down because someone spoke up for you.
The second-last entry is "More baiting. Really should permaban him next time."
I really dislike permabanning people. Hate to do it, I'm a bleeding heart that way. I will find a middle ground and say you can sit in the corner for another 60 days, and consider that lenient. In the meantime, you can consider opening a bait-and-tackle store or drying your copious tears with stacks of money, or whatever it is finance people do. Consider this provisional, if the other mods want to extend it, or make it permanent, I'm not going to say a word.
I don't disagree as such, and sure, BC has always seemed more than a little interested in baiting, but can you pinpoint what exactly about this post qualifies?
I think this his is straightforward a "can you believe the bad thing $outgroup has done?!!!11" comment, e.g. waging the culture war. The reporting quoted is certainly partisan. There is a slim chance that the other side had a point for this deportation beyond "we have a quota to meet and non-Americans do not really have rights here", not that I will cut them much slack here, because the part where they could sell their arguments for deportation would be a court hearing, which they decided is too much of a hassle.
Still, this is the kind of story which smells like it could end up being fabricated or misreported (say my subjective p(substantially correct)=0.7). If BC had made more of an effort to aggregate similar stories to make the -- imho highly plausible -- point that ICE is just deporting anyone they can get their hands on, I think this post would be ok.
Still, I think that with no prior record BC would have gotten a warning for that post, but one straw has to be the one which eventually breaks the camel's back.
More options
Context Copy link
Fair question. The line between a passionate, strongly-worded argument and trolling can be blurry, and if this post existed in a vacuum, without any knowledge of Count's antics, it would have been unobjectionable. But it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The problem isn't the topic: it is the user, the pattern, and the presentation.
To put it plainly, trolling isn't just about what you say, but why and how you say it. The goal of this forum is to "optimize for light over heat." Trolling optimizes for heat, exclusively. Count does occasionally provide light too, but in the same manner that lighting your house on fire helps find the keys during a blackout.
Breaking down this specific post:
Performative, Over-the-Top Language: The post isn't structured for discussion. It's a screed. Phrases like "total emptiness of its own fundamental depravity," "steaming pile of shit," and "apply for readmission to the human race" are pure flamebait. They're designed to provoke outrage, not invite reasoned disagreement.
Deliberate, Gratuitous Antagonism: The constant, almost comically exaggerated praise for the UK system versus the condemnation of the US isn't a good-faith comparison. It's tribal button-pushing. "august by American standards, by our standards there is terraced housing within 5 minutes walk of me that is older" is a perfect example. It adds zero substance and exists only to be condescending and get a rise out of American readers. It's a classic "Boo outgroup!" move.
Now, the crucial part: context.
BurdensomeCount has a long, long history of this exact behavior, for which he has been repeatedly warned and banned. His schtick is to take a kernel of a real argument and wrap it in layers of aristocratic, elitist, and often racialist provocation. You can see it all over his comment history (make sure to sort by negative votes):
He isn't arguing to understand; he's arguing to provoke, to feel superior, and to watch the fireworks. He knows exactly which buttons to press. This latest post is just his standard formula applied to a new news story: find a legitimate grievance, crank the rhetoric to 11, lard it with condescending UK-vs-US bait, and serve it up to see who bites. And people will bite, they will get mad, while Count laughs away or engages in performative denialism.
In short, he's not engaging with the culture war; he's waging it, which is explicitly against the rules of the thread. He's a "masterful" troll in that he's very good at it, but that doesn't earn him an indefinite pass.
I like Count. He amuses me, like a monkey that is very good at flinging shit. He also annoys me and tars other migrants by association, coming off as immensely entitled, ungrateful, and willing to bite the hand that feeds. But that is a personal stance, and not what he's being modded for.
His mistake is to assume that the Motte runs like an actual court of law. While this particular comment wouldn't sway a judge, Lady Justice might be blind but I'm not. We know Count.
If he expressed his Great Replacement desires in more formal language, perhaps referring to genetic groups instead of "mayos", would his posts be under less scrutiny?
I'm not a Burdensome Count sympathizer, but I am under the impression that this forum is one where you can express any idea, as long as it's done civilly. The civility requirements do seem to be more stringent on the left than the right, probably because when someone insults the Left there's not a lot of push back.
Yes. 100%. It would be quite trivial to rephrase everything he has to say in a manner that is minimally inflammatory. Some opinions will inherently piss people off, no matter how politely stated. We account for this, and let them stand.
I'm going to sacrifice even more of my lunch-break, and take on the burden of providing an example of how Count could have made the same point without breaking the rules:
The second version makes the exact same three points:
The difference is that the rewrite focuses on systems, policies, and ideas. It critiques without insulting. It frames the point about national character as an analytical observation from a historical figure, not a childish insult. It invites a counter-argument ("Actually, sovereign immunity is vital because...") rather than a flame war ("How dare you call us a steaming pile of shit!").
That is the standard. It's not about what you say, but about making a good-faith effort to say it in a way that contributes to a discussion. Count consistently and deliberately chooses not to.
We can't please everyone, but even the perception of such bias is concerning. Take it from me, that we take this concern seriously, and have been debating it internally. I'm not going to name names, but a certain someone, who is a right-wing darling, will not enjoy it if we decide that we need to make an example.
Of course, that's an extreme outcome, and we generally try not to make examples for the sake of it. Many lengthy explanations have been written about why the perception of anti-leftist bias might exist here, including even in its absence. I can't rule out that it isn't, in fact, absent, but take my word for it that we care about fairness as well as the appearance of fairness.
Thank you for responding!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I thought trolling was definitionally disingenuous? As in, he's saying all that shit to fuck with us, but didn't actually believe any of it. Probably isn't even who he says he is? That's what makes trolls so odious, there is no there there. They don't actually believe anything. Mere stubbornness to concede a point does not qualify one as a troll. A person can have odious but sincerely held beliefs, but that doesn't make them a troll.
It is very kind of you to believe that Count isn't being disingenuous. Donning saintly levels of forbearance and patience:
We're less concerned with what's in a user's heart of hearts and more with the mess they make on the floor. The relevant question for us isn't "Does he believe it?" but "Is he posting in order to start a fire?" This is where you get the "sincere troll." This is the user who may genuinely hold an opinion, but chooses to express it in the most inflammatory, condescending, and insulting way possible, because the hostile reaction is a core part of what they want. The outrage is the point, not a byproduct.
Let's grant that Count sincerely believes the UK's legal system is superior. The sincerity of that belief doesn't make phrases like "steaming pile of shit" or telling an entire country to "apply for readmission to the human race" anything other than deliberate, high-octane provocation. He knows it's inflammatory. He chooses those words precisely because they're inflammatory. That's baiting. You can already see the fish biting in this thread.
Sincerity isn't a defense for deliberately "waging the culture war," which is explicitly against the rules. He's not just expressing an odious opinion; he's lobbing a grenade wrapped in an opinion, and he does it over and over again. Whether he's a nihilist who believes nothing or a zealot who believes everything, the result for the thread is the same: heat, not light.
We don't moderate beliefs (or at least we try not to), we moderate behavior. And his behavior is consistently that of someone trying to start a fight, and then scream about police brutality.
Since I have your attention, I must remind you that you're on thin ice yourself. Your posts are popular, you've got AAQCs, but you're flying too close to the sun. Do yourself a favor, and take extra care to couch your language in a manner that minimizes opportunities for it to be misunderstood. This is for our sake too, I do not look forward to the shitstorm in the comments that will ensue if we have to bite the bullet. Don't make us, please.
I don't care about the ban, I'm just saying, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
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
What exactly is objectionable about his post? Personally, I think it's too emotionally charged and credulously accepting of the news story, but 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.
Granted, I'm not familiar with BurdensomeCount's other posts.
The immediate admission that you don't know BC's posting history, demonstrates that you're offbase with that categorization.
BC, and Alexander Turok, have both in recent days been defended against bans as 'left wing' being punished. But neither is remotely a leftwing poster.
I'm getting a "you barged into our secret club" kind of vibe. That's fair! I didn't mean to disturb whatever exactly this place is.
I'll go back to my internet space. I'm nobody, so this feels a bit silly, but this will be my final comment. Apologies for the intrusion.
Please, stick around. Every forum needs new blood.
If you're interested, the origins of the forum are that there is a blogger called Scott Alexander. His subreddit had a politics discussion thread. This thread moved to its own subreddit (r/themotte) and later to this site.
The aspiration is for civil, charitable political discussion and a place where tone is moderated rather than content.
Meh. If someone's so thin-skinned that their response to "you don't know the context" is a passive aggressive "sorry to disturb you I'm leaving and never coming back" instead of lurking more and/or digging through to find context, or at bare minimum shrugging off the critique and ignoring it, then they're probably not a good fit anyway.
I don't think threats to leave, from new people, or old people, or in real life, should be met with begging "no please stay." That sets a bad precedent. As a matter of principle I think you call the bluff and either they stay or they leave and it's a win-win either way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, you stumbled into a weird little internet site that cleaves more closely with old-style forums, with old-style rules that aren't explicitly defined, and the expectation that you at least lurk quietly to adapt to the overall local culture before making yourself known.
If you've been exposed to nothing but reddit and/or twitter for most of your online life, of course this place is going to look weird. You came in expecting an industrial rave and instead got an English Gentlemen's Club.
Stay around a bit. You'll be fine.
More options
Context Copy link
This was an unusually drama heavy week. I’m going to encourage you to stick around to read the first quality contributions report after your arrival and see what we’re aiming for here.
More options
Context Copy link
That's not what I meant, Im not even that frequent a commenter here these days.
Just defending that the moderation policy isn't really along a left/right divide.
I'd say rather, it's biased against arguments that amount to 'You are moral monster and cannot be tolerated'. This was, at least online, pretty strongly associated with the progressive advance over the last decade, so I thikn reaction against this gets pattern matched to reaction against leftism.
But 3 recent moderation debates have been around:
Alexader Turok: sneering contempt for populist conservatives, from a viewpoint within the general 'right', but a libertarian/EHC perspective.
Burdensome Count: moral outrage against American nationalism from a globalist, EHC perspective, though socially somewhat conservative
Contra Whinning Coil: somebody flaming out because Whinning Coil was allowed to express racist views.
The third was kind of liberal adjacent? But more like centrist disgust at racialist remarks. All three kerfuffles though, were not about left/right, but about reacting to an argument that amounts to 'how dare they!'
To be super clear, I also flamed out of here several years ago, because I too hold some how dare they views. I don't agree with the general philosophical aims of theMotte, and think it is founded in self-destructive tolerance-maxxing. I do not agree with the axiomatic viewpoints that found the philosophy of the motte and it;s moderation.
But I simply defend that it's not left-vs-right.
On this, it's not always just the racism element, more that what the mods appear to be selecting for is having a line of how much contempt you are allowed to give off when expressing a view. This seems mostly with the goal of preventing the forum from becoming trading insults back and forth.
Some positions inherently come with animus. There's a reason I scroll past the HBD discussions. But there are times I feel that users get away with a little more spice against groups that aren't typically here than if those groups were here, such as when feminism comes up.
This is a good point and, I think, a big reason why the mods are now levying permanent ban warnings against WhiningCoil. Every time he goes as far as he did last time, he causes a wave of discontent and many people have a hard time reacting to him civilly. The more inflammatory he gets, the more it's unreasonable to turn a blind eye to him but not to the people responding to him. I do not envy the moderators on decisions like this, because he's posted many a good post.
More options
Context Copy link
this is all fair, I think. But it's aside my point that BC and AT weren't banned for leftism. They both come from a particular EHC right pov.
I agree that BC and AT weren't banned for leftism.
I was more saying that the forum can be perceived as a "right wing secret club" because, for example, a feminist might consider some of the writings about feminism to be boo outgroup, only there are no feminists here. Whereas a comment that is around the line of boo outgroup towards the right will be read by many people who are right leaning, so there are many more chances for an individual reading it to decide that it is over the line and create a hostile discussion.
This isn't necessarily an insult against the mods, because it is admittedly hard to decide when things are right on the line.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, come now. I could just as easily frame it as Turok and Count were banned because someone was allowed to criticize MAGAs and their feelings were getting hurt. Or are you going to argue that Whiningcoil (and many others!) is habitually more charitable and 'arguing to understand, rather than wage the culture war' than either of those two? I can provide receipts if you like but I assume we can both find better things to do with our time.
People got mad at WC for 1 sentence. His sin was failing to flatter our sacred sensibilities about race. That sentence was NOT saying "outsiders [to White society] are bad" it was saying "outsiders [to the family] are bad." The traditional deference to race is to triple-proofread your post to ensure it can't be misinterpreted in a bad way.
AT and (to a lesser extent) BC write paragraphs of emotion-slop that shouts the vibe on a neon sign. As far as I know, nobody is misinterpreting what they say though. Indeed, with AT and BC often time the vibe is the point.
More options
Context Copy link
I think you misunderstand me. I was somewhat flippant because I didn't follow that one super closely, and don't remember the upset user in question. My point is more generally that the Motte's moderation philosophy is against 'moral monsters, end of story' framing. this framing was associated more with the left for the past decade, thus why places like the motte exist, and don't exist on Reddit, pre-Musk twitter etc.
But when Turok and Count jumped in, they didn't do it from the left, and the pattern matching of 'the Motte bans leftists' is incorrect.
Fuck bigots, fuck white people, and fuck low human capital, all get banned for a reason other than political association.
I will concede that 'fuck HBD deniers' seems to get a special pass on this space as some kind of legacy protection
More options
Context Copy link
Charitability isn't the only thing that is being measured in any ban. I was just re-reading this post and its replies, in rehashing some old drama to satisfy myself, and there is a reply from Zorba below, to something else that I'm not sure what it was:
Rightly or wrongly, WhiningCoil has a bunch of AAQCs and is generally upvoted and considered a quality, if provocative, user. I can't really think of anyone who thinks the same of AlexanderTurok or BurdensomeCount, even on the left. Do they provide good steelmans of their own side? Seems like they don't, or you'd get more left-leaning posters defending their posts, or you'd get the more even-handed moderators giving more nuanced opinions of how they view the posts. If you've read a lot of moderator warnings, you see that they show their homework when giving any warning or ban.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Just lurk for a while, or participate without criticizing the mods imo. The context is that people bitch about the mods' decisions (whether that is to ban or not) on a weekly basis, and I'm sure they're sick of it. People have been here for nearly a decade.
There's plenty of dysfunction in the community, but it's not driven by incompetence or ideological bias on the part of the mods. Even if, I have to say, I share your frustration for the Turok ban.
More options
Context Copy link
I'd say it's more coming into a bar, and wondering why some of the regulars are discussing with the bartender whether another of the regulars (who, over the course of many nights before you got here, established a rep as a bit belligerent once they've had too many) should be cut off. Doesn’t mean it's not a drinking establishment, or that you're not welcome to belly up and order, but that there's backstory and conflict (like with any established group!) that you weren't around for. Don't let that worry you.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sad that this has been your first week here. It's not every week that two prolific posters are banned. This is actually one of the only places left on the Internet where you can say any idea, as long as it's said civilly. Unfortunately, it can be hard for some people to keep it civil, to the point where I think many posters have forgotten what civility even looks like.
I could make an effort post on why gay sex is morally terrible and it wouldn't be moderated - as long as I wrote it as if I was trying to convince a close gay friend, using the friendly language one would use with someone you will inevitably see every day. It would be downvoted terribly, because that kind of sentiment is wildly unpopular here. But it wouldn't be moderated. If I made the same post, with the same argument structure, but with some homophobic slurs added in and in the tone of a drill sergeant, it would be moderated in much the same way you see here.
More options
Context Copy link
We’d really prefer it if you didn’t leave… we need new people to prevent this place from slowly withering away.
In any smaller and more tight-knit space it takes some time to get acclimated to the local customs, but that’s just like… normal.
More options
Context Copy link
I for one do not believe you barged into our secret club.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Primarily, it's "boo outgroup."
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:
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.
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.
Ok. I won't ask any more questions or make any comments at all for some time, if that's how you feel.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
That's the opposite of what you're being asked to do. Post. Engage. Discuss. But maybe give it a few months before getting into every mod decision.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's the issue. Count has a long time history of trolling and yanking on chains, going back to the subreddit days. He's masterful at making incredibly inflammatory statements with just enough of a veneer of sincerity to pass muster. He's an ur-example of barely toeing the line.
This would serve as a great example. Look the mods, being so heartless and evil, banning a poor participant on the forum for expressing sincere concern about government outreach? It's only when you take into account everything else he's done that it falls through. I'll let someone fill in with a more exhaustive explanation since I'm at work, but in short, this ain't new.
Fair enough. Thank you.
https://www.themotte.org/post/2269/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/348537?context=8#context
I did write a longer explanation, so you don't have to just take my word for it!
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
More options
Context Copy link