site banner

Quality Contributions Report for September 2025

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.


Quality Contributions to the Main Motte

@naraburns:

@Dean:

@100ProofTollBooth:

Contributions for the week of August 25, 2025

@WandererintheWilderness:

Contributions for the week of September 1, 2025

@ZanarkandAbesFan:

@Dean:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@RandomRanger:

Contributions for the week of September 8, 2025

@Corvos:

@100ProofTollBooth:

@ArjinFerman:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@Southkraut:

@CrispyFriedBarnacles:

@vorpa-glavo:

@Testing123:

@problem_redditor:

Okay, Chuck. Another Fine Mess You've Gotten Us Into.

@NullHypothesis:

@oats_son:

@CrispyFriedBarnacles:

@jake:

@Iconochasm:

@MonkeyWithAMachinegun:

Contributions for the week of September 15, 2025

@JTarrou:

@kky:

@Dean:

Contributions for the week of September 22, 2025

@FCfromSSC:

@gattsuru:

@Tractatus:

@Zephyr:

Contributions for the week of September 29, 2025

@CrispyFriedBarnacles:

@BahRamYou:

@problem_redditor:

@Iconochasm:

@WhiningCoil:

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Granted, how you're speaking here is how I speak to myself internally, and I consider that voice to be myself when I identify with the part of me responsible for rational thought (which I don't do much anymore. I should be more grounded in my body and less in my head). I might have misinterpreted you, or perhaps the brutal honesty you have with yourself comes across as holding others to brutal standards as well. I have multiple "real selves" so I can understand you more than average people can.

I no longer dislike that normies communicate not for the sake of information transfer, but for the sake of social coherence and good-will. What I dislike is the sort of evil which stems from weakness and fragile minds (being triggered, jealousy, the crabs-in-a-bucket mentality, and various other herd morality).

It appears that you can't have it both ways?

What I disliked was the dishonesty, and the... schadenfreude perhaps? which pretended to be quality. This is a flaw in people, and not in the site itself, which is why it's not solvable by the site. But I do think that taste and correctness are in conflict. Do you know this article? Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans. It's wrong. Good taste cannot co-exist with open information. You cannot be human and do science simultaneously (unless you can approach science as "serious play" like John Conway could. Probably easier with math than with politics). But "the mask" is not an issue when it exists purely for aesthetical reasons (i.e. for the sake of beauty), under such circumstances it becomes [manners] and even [art], rather than [manipulation] and [fakeness].

But while you cannot have both openness and taste, can have free, honest communication without hostility through sportsmanship. You know how boxers can be enemies doing fights, but friends outside of it? This idea allows us to "fight as friends", and it's what fragile minds lack. Negative emotions like anger do not need a target. You can simply acknowledge "That makes me incredibly angry", without making the other person responsible. You could even give in to the emotion without blaming the other person for feeling it, and without becoming malicious. A lot of things which are logically impossible happen to be psychologically possible, so you might be throwing away advantages through e.g. enforcing internal logical consistency. Grammar and logic are restrictive, they're self-imposed limitations.

Also, the old internet is different both in structure and in its inhabitants. Communities with intellectuals and freedom of speech are something like 90% male with an average age of about 35 (pure guesswork). We used to have freedom in spaces with average ages of 14 or 15. The mentality of teenagers is entirely different, which is why the modern internet is unable to replicate the atmosphere of the past. Granted, I'm speaking about 2005-2012, if you go further back, the ratio of older men goes up once again.