site banner

Israel-Gaza Megathread #1

This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.

20
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Unless they feel such unbearable mental pain from seeing other posters' contrary opinions

This is perhaps ironic on a thread where the OP is still frustrated years later by hearing a single user disagree with the dominant narrative here.

I've got a long memory on a lot of posters, and point out that he was far from the only user to have a different opinion on that topic. And, uh, the previous poster was asking about things that happened three years ago; by necessity any honest discussion will necessarily be about people saying things years ago.

My frustration with Darwin wasn't that I disagreed with him. In no small number of cases, I actually don't -- and almost all of those made it tempting to respond "stop helping me". Whether I agreed or disagreed with his object-level position, he'd argued it primarily and sometimes solely through strawmen, insults, insistence that clear facts weren't proven or unknown matters must have happened in the most convenient way, standards of behavior or evidence evolved and deployed and denied and recreated within the context of single arguments, outright falsehoods, so on and so forth. He'd call basic legal terms deceptive rhetoric, could not imagine what Jim Crow looked like, and made random claims that couldn't fit a basic timeline.

That wasn't universal, and there were rare times where he could make decent arguments and I'd point out that out well before his actual permaban. But given that one of his biggest 'contributions' ever was slamming people over not commenting on the Smollett hate crime, it's hard to comment about BLM support without mentioning him, and also not fair to the BLM supporters here to use him as the first example.

You're not the problem Gatt, you're a quality and civil contributor. But neither is this isolated - just the previous week I saw you call out someone for being the lone poster to defend Ibram Kendi's book. I genuinely don't think this kind of pubic shaming of people who dared to buck the majority even years ago is conducive to having non-echo chamber debates here.

But like I said to FC, my parent comment to yours was lighthearted, not a declaration of conflict. I don't care all that much or I would have left.

But neither is this isolated - just the previous week I saw you call out someone for being the lone poster to defend Ibram Kendi's book.

I don't think that's an accurate summary of this post, which as far as I can remember is the last time I've discussed Kendi.

((To be explicit: I don't think that gemmaem position was shameful, nor do I think she's the only one to promote Kendi before his disgrace.))

Fair, maybe I interpreted it in an overly negative way.

Reading through the thread, I have no idea which post you are attempting to reference.

The comment mine is responding to, gattsuru’s on darwin

Ah.

Unless they feel such unbearable mental pain from seeing other posters' contrary opinions

This is perhaps ironic on a thread where the OP is still frustrated years later by hearing a single user disagree with the dominant narrative here.

Darwin was quite notable both for his prodigious and sustained output and his dedication to dishonesty and bad-faith interaction at every possible opportunity. Describing him as a "single user" "disagreeing" is disingenuous in the extreme. He burned more charity alone than any ten other posters you could name.

Further, the entire point of that quote is that he wasn't the only one, which is in fact the truth. Unironic support for BLM was not rare, even when the rioting was in full swing. Even less rare was "BLM is bad, but less bad than every observed response to the rioting".

The point stands. Darwin is still free to post here, as are any of the others who think BLM is a good idea. The fact that the history of their previous positions and the observed results places them squarely in the center of a rhetorical kill-zone is their own fault.

It’s a stain on our free speech record to have banned him. Even as a skilled devil’s advocate, if we assumed he never believed anything consistently, he was valuable.

Darwin was banned on the subreddit only after a very, very long history of infractions and escalating series of warnings and bans.

As far as I know, he's never posted here, but if he wanted to, he could do so without needing an alt, since he's (obviously) not been banned since the move.

Darwin was banned on the subreddit only after a very, very long history of infractions and escalating series of warnings and bans.

yeah yeah I know how that goes :)

First they came for Darwin....

And your point is? We are very pro-free speech, but we do have rules, it's not an "anything goes" zone.

My point is, anyone can get a very, very long history of infractions and escalating series of warnings and bans if they just comment and stick around. Like yours truly. List just gets longer and longer. But whatever. I’ve made my peace with it, it’s like senescence, the inevitability of death.

Well, let's look at a concrete example. Does this sort of post seem valuable to you? Because if that's not Darwin, it's someone doing a very, very good impression of him.

Leaving aside the questions of whether that is Darwin and whether Darwin actually posted like that in the past, would you agree that someone who habitually posts in that fashion is optimizing for heat, not light? @Soriek, same question.

Given his extensive participation in our sub, why do you have to pick an unknown alt as an example of his worst behaviour?

That alt reads more like impassionata to me. But no, that’s not very valuable. Although as you know, I’m pretty free speechy, so not being as valuable as darwin, and antagonizing people, is still not enough for a ban in my book.

Imp always seemed more direct with his disdain. darwin would couch his with the sort of "Have you considered" plausible deniability wrt the rules, but transparently just calling people assholes. That or just terminating a convo with evasiveness.

I think there is some value in reflecting on "Maybe you just suck?". But I don't expect many people to do it when asked, and it was noticeable that despite being a sometimes quality poster, Darwin's effort levels would evaporate by the time he was issuing those queries.

Of no particular import - I also pegged guess as a darwin alt just because the posting style seemed so familiar. Not that I have a problem with it.

Given his extensive participation in our sub, why do you have to pick an unknown alt as an example of his worst behaviour?

I picked that one because it popped up in the feed within a post or two of your reply, and seemed a reasonable example of the fundamental problem. It was convinient, in short.

I don't have an opinion on Darwin or any other user getting banned; that's on the mods, and I decided a long time ago never to argue nor concern myself with mod decisions, other than to make a good-faith effort to abide by their rules. As far as I know, Darwin isn't currently banned, and having spent years arguing with him, I'm pretty sure the above is his alt. What I object to is the idea that he was providing a valuable service to the community by presenting alternate points of view. He did provide alternate points of view, very occasionally. What he did the rest of the time, in my experience, was degrade every conversation he participated in. As with the post I linked, he rarely provided evidence or even a coherent argument, just endless faux-polite smuggery wrapped in multiple layers of indirection designed to make engagement as infuriating and unproductive as possible while maintaining a veneer of plausible deniability.

Maybe my experience or my impressions are wrong. Maybe I'm biased. I don't think so, though; I spent literally years trying to get a productive conversation out of him, and came up empty. I have in fact managed to have productive conversations with quite a few other people, even in the face of profound and irreconcilable disagreements. I saw a lot of other people flame out and eat bans from trying to engage with him before a general understanding of his technique proliferated enough to become common knowledge. In any case, I object to the idea that he was a reasonable or even a net-positive contributor, and I strongly object to the idea that people just couldn't handle having their ideas challenged. He was a troll, and he burned every scrap of good-will that ever was extended to him.

As far as I know, Darwin isn't currently banned, and having spent years arguing with him, I'm pretty sure the above is his alt.

I did too, and playing @guesswho ? Is a waste of our time. This proxy accusation is ludicrous, if you want to criticize him, link him.

The real darwin was not charitable, but neither was he treated with appropriate charity by the sub. In the end he was confronted with every perceived wrong thing he ever said wherever he went, swarmed by a mob demanding he yield. He never gave an inch, but he was more than capable of making good arguments (although obviously he made some bad ones too) .

They were often arguments we could not make and had not seen before, at least a few notches above standard reddit dross. Sometimes he would chew up a careless right-winger who got ahead of himself, that’s why they hated him imo. Granted, he would not be particularly nice about it, like a ymeskout, SSCreader, Soriek or gdanning might be. But perhaps the greater abrasiveness was better for our epistemic hygiene. People should fear mild disembowelment for saying something stupid.

More comments

Well, let's look at a [not even slightly] concrete example.

What's the point here? Why make an argument about someone based on a completely different user you for some reason suspect of being him, instead of just looking up him?

I don't like trawling through people's personal profiles but if you really want I guess I can look him up and find arguments I thought were interesting.

What's the point here?

I linked to an example of a particular sort of behavior that I find highly objectionable. My argument is that Darwin engaged in that specific sort of behavior on a regular basis. I'm not trying to get you to agree that this is actually true, and I'm not looking to start a trawl through old posts. I'm trying to communicate why I disagree that Darwin was a valuable contributor: because I remember him posting in that specific style over and over and over again, needling people with passive-aggressive bullshit and then invariably ghosting whenever someone actually engaged with effort and good faith.

I could be wrong, and maybe that's not him. I could be wrong, and Darwin's posts weren't actually like that back in the day. I could be wrong, and maybe that post I linked is actually totally reasonable. You and FD9000 are arguing that he was a valuable contributor; I'm disagreeing, and trying to explain succinctly why.

If I'm not wrong, and that post I linked is bad, and Darwin really did make a habit of posting like that throughout his tenure, I hope you can agree that it's reasonable to object to such behavior.

then invariably ghosting whenever someone actually engaged with effort and good faith.

This isn't a thing. He would have to 'ghost' most people because each of his comments had like 6 replies. 10 comments deep, he would need ((6^10 )/24)/ 365 = 7000 years to respond to all.

because I remember him posting in that specific style over and over and over again

Sure, I remember it differently - same place we were in at the start of this conversation. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree, but you're not going to convince to me by linking to some random comment from somebody else. I don't think that comment is good. There are lots of comments I see here regularly that I don't think are good, or in good faith, but I don't publicly call users out or complain about them the way I see people do for him.

More comments

Darwin was quite notable both for his prodigious and sustained output and his dedication to dishonesty and bad-faith interaction at every possible opportunity.

I disagree. He often made quality arguments and was willing to buck the status quo here from an underrepresented angle, something we should want more. He was no more inflammatory or bad faith than plenty of others here, but people reacted absolutely viscerally against him at a level disproportionate to his behavior.

The point stands. Darwin is still free to post here, as are any of the others who think BLM is a good idea. The fact that the history of their previous positions and the observed results places them squarely in the center of a rhetorical kill-zone is their own fault.

Imo that too easily absolves us as a community for failing to create the kind of debate space we set out to build. People get bitter and hostile in response to users who have actually tried to buck majority opinion here. I experienced this kind of thing enough from the times I tried to engage in actual culture war issues that I'm pretty unwilling to do it anymore, and I'm a very long time contributor.

Either way it doesn't matter much anymore, we are what we are here and my reply to gatt was meant to be light hearted, not a declaration of conflict or something.

Imo that too easily absolves us as a community for failing to create the kind of debate space we set out to build.

Whenever someone tries to make that argument, I always have the same question: can you name a community that does more than us in this regard. Particularly, do you know a progressive community that is as open to conservative opinions that is at least as open as we are to progressive ones?

I always have the same question: can you name a community that does more than us in this regard.

No, for our faults we're probably still the best forum you're gonna get on the internet. That may say more about the rest of the internet than us, but we still deserve a little credit.

Wait, are you talking about this guy? https://old.reddit.com/user/darwin2500/

Isn't he obviously just an obnoxious troll who posts in whatever community he can get a rise out of? If he came here and posted like that he'd be banned right away for good reason.

I'm not gonna look through his reddit profile cause I've always found that thing kinda weird, but pretty much everyone here assuredly (hopefully) sounds different on the non-motte subs they visit. While he was here he was a long-time familiar face on the quality contributions page.

I looked through the first page of Darwin's reddit profile and it is fine. Not clearly a troll.

But I do recall them being one of the more dramatic contrarian-against-the-local-contrarians on the old subreddits.

A true Mottezan at heart! He was definitely pretty contrarian and ruffled folks regularly, but also made the rare articulate defense of positions we don't see too often here, which I thought made for some interesting discourse.