site banner

Random Musings on the State of TheMotte

As far as I know, it's been a while since our last meta thread, so let's have a space for the administration of praise and the airing of grievances. Hopefully we can keep the conversation distant enough from first order culture war issues to justify this being a separate thread from the main CW thread.

I've been here on and off over the years since about 2016. To my mind, the two most exciting times to be a part of this community were the period around the first Trump election, and then again in 2022 around the time of the site migration. I don't think it's a coincidence that these time periods coincided with major new social and political issues entering the public consciousness (or at least, entering the consciousness of this community): in 2016, the culture war as we know it was still very fresh and nascent, with battle lines still being drawn and positions still being clarified, and in 2022, DALL-E and ChatGPT introduced machine learning to those of us who had not been feverishly following the LessWrong comments section since the 00s.

Unsurprisingly, discussion is good when there's something new and shiny to discuss. But eventually, you start to run out of things to talk about. People have been complaining about this problem with regards to the "classic" culture war issues for at least a good 3 or 4 years now. In the time period from 2014-2018, there was still a sense that it was all brand new: people were being forced to think about questions and perspectives that they had never thought about before, they were still figuring out how to make sense of their own positions and the positions of others. But now it's all well-trodden ground. You can only rehash the same foundational questions about race and free speech so many times before people on both sides start to think "yes, I've seen it all before, I know how this ends".

Even with AI, despite it still being a very rapidly evolving field, I've been feeling less motivated to participate in AI discussions lately, largely because it feels like such a straightforwardly empirical question. The classic culture war questions are the sorts of evergreen philosophical questions that you could, in principle, go back and forth on endlessly. You can walk away and come back in 10 years and the same questions will still be sitting there. But with AI, it ultimately all boils down to "well we'll just have to wait and see" in the end. Either there will be a singularity and/or the extinction of humanity, or there will not be. Sitting here and talking about it won't change much. We kinda just have to wait to see what happens.

Perhaps these forces have played a role in causing the forum to become less theoretical and abstract over time, leading to the rise of what I like to call "nuts and bolts" type posts: local politics at the city/state level, the minutiae of urban and suburban life, court cases and legal briefings. I don't remember these types of posts being so common in the early years of the forum (probably because, again, the culture war was brand new and people wanted to discuss the hottest culture war questions). I'm glad that at least some people are invested in doing the actual necessary work that makes the world function. But these types of posts generally bore me to tears, so I skip over them. I'm sure many people skip over the dumb shit I like to post about too, so, I understand that it goes both ways and there are no hard feelings. At least I'm still trying to be the change I want to see and I try to balance out the discussion with more philosophical posts.

Something I do lament is the evaporative cooling of interesting characters over time, not only due to bans but also due to natural attrition. At this point in the community's lifespan, it's unlikely that we're going to get another Hlynka, or another TracingWoodgrains. One starts to get the impression that the window for new foundational community narratives has passed.

All complaining aside, I still derive an incredible amount of value from this forum, as evidenced by my return to daily participation, and I would hate to ever see it go. It doesn't remind me of the Old Internet, but it does remind me of the Middle Internet: that time period from roughly 2012-2018 when there was a flourishing of strange ideas and it genuinely seemed like many bold new things were possible. (Maybe it reminds some other people of Usenet, I don't know; that was before my time.) I sincerely hope that this forum can remain roughly stable in its current state for as long as possible.

Anyway, what do you think? What do you think about how TheMotte has evolved over the years, what do you like about it now, what do you want to see changed, etc.

19
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think the site is doing OK. From one perspective staying above 1000 comments per week several years after exile is very impressive given how almost every other site on the modern internet has been swallowed up by platforms.

The loss of a few commenters worries me though.

The first is Zorba, the creator of the site, who barely participates at all any more. He's still very active back on Reddit, so it's not like he's taking time off or anything, he just got bored with the site.

The second is Darwin (I think he went by guesswho on this site). Again, he's still very active back on Reddit but was effectively chased out of the site. He was easily the best contrarian to this site's conservative bent, as he was basically pro-woke, or could at least enunciate pro-woke positions. He basically always did so respectfully even while coming under a hail of personal insults.

For a political discussion website, this place is very lenient when it comes to personal insults, accusations of bad faith, ad hominems, etc. Even the moderators join in on it! (One in particular is very bad about it). The mods will generally step in and put an end to things if people start swearing at each other but as long as it doesn't become extreme then it's usually fair game.

There's also an issue with dogpiling as some have mentioned. At first I didn't really get what the big deal was about since I thought implicitly that nobody would think they were ever entitled to a reply, so they could just reply to a couple and then move on when they got tired and it would be fine. But I've since had a few experiences firsthand where not replying to some had them accuse me of bad-faith for ignoring them the last time when the topic came up.

Then there's the issue of leftists getting much more mod scrutiny for a variety of reasons.

With the personal insults and the dogpilling and the disproportionate mod attention, any attempts to recruit opposing viewpoints are going to be futile. In fact the Motte used to have those people, it just chased them away! Without changing many of the things that chased them away in the first place I don't know why anyone would expect anything to change.

The Motte is now mostly just a humdrum conservative forum with an abnormal rate of high quality posters due to its SSC lineage. Occasional debates happen mostly from inter-conservative disagreements or from the centrists having the occasional left-leaning opinion. That status quo is fine for some people including myself, although it's a significant step down from what the community was before.

As the "bad mod" (yawn) who "chased Darwin away," let me point out that no one is keeping him away. And I personally have committed to not trying to rub my last post that apparently shamed him into silence in his face if he ever returns, even though I absolutely do not respect how he tucked tail and ghosted when finally pressed on some bullshit he'd been saying for a long time. But I cannot promise others will not.

About liberals: you are right and you are wrong. Leftists do not get extra mod scrutiny. Jesus, how many times do we have to go over this? Once again, in the same thread we're being accused of being extra-strict with leftists and also of giving them too much leeway because we don't want to drive them off. Look, it's a known problem. The site has converged mostly to the right, and leftists get reported more, and the mods are very aware that a leftist is going to show up in the mod queue more often and thus we cannot help but be hyper aware of leftists who are annoying people. And we have to balance "Is this person really out of bounds?" with "Are we just seeing this person more because everyone reports him?" It's... the Darwin problem, basically.

We still have some liberals here (raises hand) and even a few leftists. Yes, I get that it's hard to be a leftist here. I sympathize, but also I don't. This, also, is old ground I'm repeating for the umpteenth time, but the convergence here is not because we drove away all the leftists. It's because leftists drove everyone else off every other site, and we still see the pattern here where sometimes a leftist will show up and participate for a while, and then leave in a huff when they realize they're not allowed to just call people Nazis and that we don't ban leftist-feeling-hurting viewpoints.

That was a ramble, but I feel like a lot of you are just rehashing things we already know. So, like, what are your concrete proposals?

FWIW I'm not accusing you of being the mod who chased darwin away since, yes, he isn't banned. I'm saying the accepted behaviors of the site in general did that. Although yes, you are the user I was talking about when I claimed that some mods like to engage in general hostility towards other users. My brightline is for direct attacks like name calling, insults, etc. which you've never crossed when you've discussed things with me, but your responses are still dripping with contempt with the "(yawn)" and the "Jesus". I have a feeling that if darwin did that to other users then he absolutely would have been told to knock it off by the mods.

We have leftists getting banned for stuff like this. When pressed on what was actually bad about the post, the mod gave an unconvincing answer about misuse of quotation marks. In comparison we have rightists posting stuff like this or this or this and getting a free pass. If anything it's more than a free pass because one of those examples was an AAQC and another was from a moderator (acting as a normal user, but should still be held to a somewhat higher standard).

I sorta buy the argument that leftists generally don't want to debate things with those they perceive as enemies, but darwin and a few others were an obvious exception to that.

If I were to propose changes they would be

  1. Hire a genuine leftist or two into the mod team and then consult them when issues arose in regards to modding leftists.
  2. Have stricter rules regarding tone when it comes to users interacting with other users. Something like NeutralPolitics's rule 1 would be a good place to start. My vibes are that something like this was more enforced with the CW thread/motte was younger and back on Reddit, but that it gradually slipped. Here's the rule they have:
  1. Be courteous. Demeaning language, rudeness or hostility towards another user will get your comment removed. Repeated violations may result in a ban.

Our commitment to civil discourse is one of the core principles of NeutralPolitics, and we do not make any exceptions from this rule.

Any language which a reasonable observer would conclude disparages another user in any way is considered a violation of this rule. Even if you did not intend that.

Users are expected to assume good faith on the part of others.

"But it was true" is not a defense. Accusing another user of something is prohibited, even if you believe that accusation to be true.

"They started it" is not a defense. If another user breaks the rules, please report the comment. Replying with a rule violating comment of your own will just get both of them removed and makes that much more work for the mod team.

+1 for moderating more on tone again. I'm genuinely struggling to understand why the mods have abandoned that idea so completely, unless it is either inability to shoot their own tribal soldiers in the back, or unwillingness to stand up to a community majority that gets pissy when you do so with theirs. I guess maybe the seeds of this were there since the beginning, considering how the staff had to be dragged kicking and screaming into banning one TrannyPornO (who some, unbelievably, still reminisce about wistfully) even though any forum that wants to be welcoming to leftists should obviously have shown him the door based on his username alone before he made a single post.

(I guess the proposition is complicated to implement also because you see the detrimental effects of popular posters getting punished immediately, while the positive effects of better tone take a long time to manifest as new people trickle in.)

considering how the staff had to be dragged kicking and screaming into banning one TrannyPornO (who some, unbelievably, still reminisce about wistfully) even though any forum that wants to be welcoming to leftists should obviously have shown him the door

Huh? It's been a while, but I don't remember him misbehaving...

based on his username alone before he made a single post.

Oh... This is ridiculous man. If a hair trigger of this sensitivity was applied to left wingers, they'd be banned on sight.

If a hair trigger of this sensitivity was applied to left wingers, they'd be banned on sight.

What's a concrete example of that? I at least certainly can't think of any symmetrical slights (if I had to come up with a way, I'd suggest making your username "FetusSlushie" or "WhiteTears" or something).

I don't remember instances of leftists flinging childish slurs at the holy cows of rightists here at all; and if they did, I would likewise be in favour of the banhammer. What do you think tone policing is about? Why is it so hard for right-wingers to restrain themselves and not use slurs?

What's a concrete example of that? I at least certainly can't think of any symmetrical slights (if I had to come up with a way, I'd suggest making your username "FetusSlushie" or "WhiteTears" or something).

Anyone using the word "chud", references to "sky daddy", or Darwin using "blood libel" on anyone being trans-skeptical.

I don't remember instances of leftists flinging childish slurs at the holy cows of rightists here at all

"Tranny" is not a slur. I'm all for civility, but you'll never satisfy people who keep inventing things to be offended at.

I think banning "sky daddy" is fair, but I looked at the search results and I can see only one instance that is on the use side of the use-mention distinction (magicalkittycat from 5 months ago). The others - it seems like 75% of uses of "chud" at this point are by self-identified chuds (like the Asmongold fandom) though personally I would have also liked to see that one buried, and "blood libel" is in a different class as it evokes disagreement with its substance rather than its style. (Contrast "sky daddy": Christians would not disagree that God is a father figure, nor that He is at least metaphorically situated in the sky. The offense is caused by the baby talk formulation, implying that believers are stupid and emotionally immature)

"Tranny" is not a slur. I'm all for civility, but you'll never satisfy people who keep inventing things to be offended at.

Who is "inventing things to be offended at"? The term obviously was invented by people who are against "trannies" with the intent to offend, and to pretend otherwise is a level of gaslighting that would get you an A+ on your * Studies course paper if you deployed it for the other team.

and I can see only one instance that is on the use side

Well, you're not looking hard enough- I did it too, I just used the plural so it won't show up in a simple search. As a bonus, it was a reply to a meta thread.

I used it, I meant it specifically in the offensive way, and it was absolutely necessary for it to be in the offensive mode to do that to make the point. (There are a few expressions like this, actually.)

Also, my username is offensive in a religious sense, and is intended to be.

Same thing with "gay" and "trans" for that matter- if I can't say that, or call something that, then I lose the ability to explain certain things about sex/uality. I believe there's a reasonable chance I'm going to need to do that with "trannies" specifically because the fact it's offensive, and the fact it means what it means, is required.