banned
Corvos
18hr ago
modern-day Scotland's murder rate is comparable to that of Massachusetts
Are guns banned in Massachusetts?
I don't get your point about "the establishment" in this particular context. Why does it matter if they have power (real or perceived) in regards to whether it's a specific or general group.
It doesn't, I was just saying what a defining characteristic of a group called "the establishment" is. Who identifies as, and who doesn't, who exactly that group includes, etc., doesn't really matter, the point is that anti-establishmentarians don't get to come here, pick the most ridiculous thing said or done by the powers that be, and demand that posters roughly identifying as centrists or "anti populists" defend it as though they have a personal stake in it.
And I'm not defending his post wholesale -- I agree the last bit is presumptuous
I also have some reservations with how it seems like a final warning from stuff like his previous post which didn't deserve a mod action at all.
If you think that's the main problem with that specific post is presumptuousness, or if you think the final warning is result of his previous post only, you're not approaching this in an objective manner. The issue is his constant antagonism.
Under the other post you claim you don't want moderation to aggregate transgressions by ideology, and adjust for that, but rather that you want the same enforcement no matter who the transgression is coming from. I believe this is mostly (adjusted for the mods being only human) what you're getting. You're not going to find another poster exhibiting the same pattern of constant antagonism, which I think you were aware of when you pushed back against my request for examples.
Also, if you think Turok is no worse than the average posters here, and is only getting modded because of rightwing bias, why do you think he got banned from ACX and DSL?
I think personal attacks are far worse for productive conversations, which happen regularly and don't get punished (or even become AAQCs!)
Specifically, which AAQC had a personal attack? Gattsuru's? Can you quote the part that contains the personal attack?
shoeonfoot
2d ago
I'm also currently banned from both places.
With respect, this means you should understand why you're being modded in this place. I want to, gently, repeat my request that you drop the sardonicism, snark, and drive-by insults because I think this place would be worse off without someone like you. Also, I am much closer to your side than the other side, so I'd hate you see you banned.
Don't get too caught up on coffee_enjoyer; he's a unique breed. He's like a BAPist – prone to philosophical musings – but with a relatively benign dose of anti-Semitism thrown in.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
2d ago
Turok makes the mistake of then coming to this forum of actual thoughtful people and assuming the conservatives here need to answer for the worst Trumpists the engineers of X can serve. The conservatives here don't recognize themselves in the criticisms he levels at them and drama ensues.
I am not a newcomer to the SSC sphere, I've been posting on ACX and DSL for years, and I've won DSL's Diadochus award for my posts twice. (I'm also currently banned from both places.) I'm not attributing the stupidity of Twitter to this place, I'm just reading what people here write, like coffee_enjoyer:
Sewing bras is more conducive to wellbeing than stacking them on a shelf. Picking fruit is so Edenic that it’s the first recorded activity of humanity. In what world would “picking fruit” be pathetic? I think you are having trouble dissociating the image you have of these things now, with what they would look like if employers didn’t have a semi-slave class. There’s a farm near me where people — college-educated, white, smart — sign up to plant and reap for free. Because in return they get free room and board, and most importantly a social environment filled with other young white people. They work quite hard, then they drink in the evenings and dance and fuck and make music and so on. This is exactly what agricultural work was for nearly all of history. Not for the slaves, of course, but for the non-enslaved.
This, by the way, is what I mean by "poverty fetishism" and "third worldism."
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
Or saying he got an axe and chopped a tree apart in lieu of his interlocutor's carcass. I actually did that once (and yes, I mean both the chopping and the telling him); I think the only reason I didn't get banned was that the troll who provoked the response was the forum owner and wanted to troll me more in the future.
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
3d ago
Thank you, for articulating what I was thinking, but likely would have gotten banned for saying because i would've been a lot less articulate or polite in doing so.
rokmonster
Lives under a rok.
4d ago
I'm confused as to what your claim was. I found a banned comment of yours stating that
The new narrative on the Online Right is that there's a huge mass of white men without jobs who have no choice but to inject fentanyl because of "the border" and free trade sending the factories to China.
It seems like @RandomRanger quoted it accurately enough, but source quote you provide in this comment is only very weak Bayesian evidence for this claim.
In fact, the quote you provide is much more consistent with the claim that "Republicans see class instead of race, and migrants fleeing opens up jobs traditionally taken by lower/working class citizens." No need for extra drug epicycles at all.
I may add here that the above classic Republican claim is consistent with where migrants work, but unemployment in those sectors is going up faster than elsewhere, so clearly the story is more complex.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
4d ago
Recently @RandomRanger accused me of strawmanning the Right:
Turok was being banned for being overtly aggressive and obnoxiously creating imaginary narratives like "The "Woke Rightist" looks at his race, sees a mostly imaginary mass of helpless unemployed drug addicts and demands tariffs so that they can rise to the lofty heights of sewing bras, picking fruit, hauling equipment, and digging ditches in the rain."
That's not what the 'woke right' thinks and he surely knows it. He need only check the MAGA rhetoric from Trump about good factory jobs, or the rhetoric from the right about the need to mechanize dull fruitpicking jobs and raise productivity. Why, they say, should millions of people be brought into the country if AI is going to destroy everyone's jobs? Or the need to have American wealth kept in America rather than sent off in remittances. Or them hating H1Bs as cost-cutting that interferes with developing talent. Or them not seeing the country as purely an economic zone but having responsibility to native citizens. It's an insanely uncharitable and aggressive butchering of other people's ideology.
Did I strawman the Right? Let's ask Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the United States secretary of labor:
FOX: I think American citizens are willing to do the jobs that illegal immigrants are willing to do.
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER: Americans are willing to do the job. What we have to give them is the opportunity to have those jobs.
DeRemer refers to "Americans," the online racialist Right is talks about whites, but in both cases the vision is the same, uplifting the ingroup means getting them the opportunity to do the jobs currently done by the guy standing in the Home Depot parking lot. Is there any wonder high-income whites are moving away from the Republican Party? Working-class whites, too, don't want their sons working casual labor, which is why in the video DeRemer goes on to talk about how Americans will be given opportunity through being "skilled, upskilled, re-skilled" and how the Trump administration is increasing apprenticeships. Of course, few illegals do those high-skilled jobs, so upskilling Americans won't replace many illegals, but it's not like the Fox News host is going to point out the apparent contradiction.
Given that I've given an example from a cabinet-level Trump administration official, (not "nutpicked" from some rando on Twitter) I expect that @RandomRanger will withdraw his claim that I "obnoxiously created imaginary narratives" in the interests of truth and courtesy.
aqouta
5d ago
Right, I assumed it was the resent Turok ban that set this off, but it just also isn't the case that rightoid posting like Alex did wouldn't cop a ban. Like we see this from both directions, go to a place where a right winger is banned and you see basically symmetrical complains. There's this soccer dynamic where no matter the cause people from the offending team rush in to argue with the ref while the rest of the field ignores the interaction and every fan goes home assuming the refs were against them. Like are they seriously of the opinion that right wingers don't cop bans on this site?
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5d ago
It's taken me a few reads (and realizing that AlexanderTurok posted below) to figure out what's being said here, I think.
I think what he's saying is kind of another spin on "you moderate the libs who annoy you for fairly inconsequential things, but not the rightoids who annoy me for the same"
I don't think he's that mad about jew-posting (I've personally never seen it, but I skip all the conversations I find boring, which is a lot of them), more so that if he has to deal with Jew-posting, which makes him unhappy, he'd like to also enjoy posting that makes others unhappy too. But if they're getting banned for being annoying what is the point.
Tree
5d ago
Let me make myself perfectly clear: I am not trolling. I genuinely think darwin should not have been banned, and that there’s a good chance goodguy was not darwin. You insisting on this being "trolling" is a failure to model the mind of others. Maybe you always end up changing your opinion when multiple people downvote you and tell you you’re wrong, but I don’t. I usually just hold onto my opinion, argue it, clarify/repeat it.
I’ve left enough comments. If I am a troll, why are my "trolling positions", seemingly “to get a reaction”, always pro-free speech, classical liberal ones?
charlesf
5d ago
Instead that particular problem returns on schedule, almost but not quite clockwork, to make an outrageous post and get banned again.
Things like this will always remind me of the Something Awful poster who was banned for posting solicitations for one of his personal businesses in a subforum where that isn't allowed for 11 years. Then, 11 years to the day he broke the exact same rule in the exact same subforum. He caught another 11 year vacation and everyone fully expects to see him in 2035 when this one expires, assuming the forum still exists.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
Making careful arguments in favor of controversial things in the vein of child rape and cannibalism got a person banned in the past for being too annoying. Though that was back on reddit. Not sure to what extent the 'Eye Of Sauron' was used as an excuse or not. But I remember Zorba specifically saying that a good portion of the decision to ban came down to personal annoyance. Which might have been the posters intent, but it was a ban none the less.
To that extent I think the moderation is functionally against people with sincerely held beliefs. Earnestly defending something you care about will make you emotional to an extent. You will take the discussion seriously and personally, push against what you think is untrue and become more 'annoying' than if you just didn't care that much.
Contrast that with the tone of the unbannable motte poster who is a sort of disembodied birds eye view commentary generator.
I personally like the former more than the latter. So it's sad to see many 'true believers' marginalized by mods and overzealous 'reporters' who seemingly want this forum to be their personally politically comforting morning newspaper, rather than a diverse debate sphere where a wide range of people who actually believe things talk about what they care for.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
5d ago
They're basically all normal guys, plus rapey Kenneth and edgy Doug.
I have the strange sense that Doug is the rapey name and Kenneth would be edgy, and I have no clue why it would be that way. I've never known a Doug or a Kenneth! Anyways-
Anyway, if for whatever reason that locker room decided it wanted to actually be a co-ed discussion space instead, it would have a little problem, which is that any individual woman walking in would get the vibe — they're the barely tolerated outsider — and then leave unless they're like extra autistic/socially challenged.
Males in even slightly feminist spaces get the same feeling. Since The Motte moved off reddit I've spent more time at /r/blockedandreported than here, and while it's not "explicitly" feminist per se- one quickly finds oneself on the backfoot when certain issues or writers come up; say anything with disparate impact on men, or Julie Bindel. It has its fair share of type-B trolls, as well. And yet! There is some value to it. So I stay.
That said, there is still a line. Maybe Julie Bindel isn't quite equivalent to one of the JQ types that haunt The Motte. If Noel Ignatiev, Donald Moss, or even Tema Okun showed up, would I find it tolerable to stick around? Could I roll my eyes, downvote, and move on like with the JQ types? Maybe. But for how long? If they keep toeing the line, getting banned but coming back? Probably not.
A mod in a different forum once said that she didn't do a permanent ban "to not create a certain kind of martyr." Instead that particular problem returns on schedule, almost but not quite clockwork, to make an outrageous post and get banned again. That forum is small enough it doesn't matter. Maybe if it was only one, who showed up annually for a day or two, it wouldn't matter here, either. Alas.
I don't know where I'm going with this, so I'll end it here. If you go, I'll miss your comments, though I completely understand why you'd find this place uncomfortable to stay. I do hope you'll be better than I would, in the alternative situation, and find it in you to stay.
but if the forum can tolerate holocaust denial I think it can also stretch itself to tolerate libtards.
That is one of the unfortunate side effects of moderation based largely, though not entirely, on tone. B&R shares that issue. The calm denier gets a pass, the gasket-blowing lib does not. They get a pass for calling Appalachians retards (it's not a direct insult of another comment, you see); I get a suspension for calling them a bigot. So it goes.
HereAndGone
5d ago
Nah, Darwin drove me nuts because he explicitly stated that sometimes he just posted something that he didn't believe simply in order to start a row (and as Amadan pointed out, that often got people banned for responding). How do you have any kind of productive discussion if the other party is "ha ha, you honestly thought I was serious about that? man, what a maroon!"
HereAndGone
5d ago
That we practice "leftist affirmative action" and the Darwins and the AlexanderTuroks (whether or not he claims/admits to being on the left) go way too long without being banned
To be fair, I don't think Alexander is particularly left or right (I think he's probably somewhere in the spectrum of liberal to centre-right). What he is, is extremely hung up on class and status. He's obsessed with what he deems to be low-class/underclass behaviour (especially around women's sexuality as baby mamas) and hence why he always brings it back to abortion as the social climbing panacea (keep the underclass from breeding more underclass, keep aspirant working class to lower middle class types from falling back down the ladder by not letting them become single teen moms). He wants marriage and family and the rest of it, but on the proper timeline of "get educated, get a job, get married and have the appropriate number of kids, avoid sleeping around as a teen, avoid sleeping around like a ho in general, and if you do get pregnant without planning it, get an abortion so you don't ruin your life and more importantly your social status as nascent middle class". Thus his grudge with the pro-life right, because we want the sluts to keep their bastards who will then leech off the state for life (putting words into his mouth there, but that's the impression I strongly get of how he feels about it). If we were truly responsible right-wingers holding conservative values, we'd be all for discreet abortion to maintain decorum and enforce social conformity around correct behaviour.
quiet_NaN
5d ago
Polite respectful mutual dialogue.
But only for some opinions, because others are an "immense pain in the ass".
Can you link to a few examples to people getting banned for "libtard" opinions?
In my experience, most mod action is over tone, not opinions. I think posters could get away with calls for child rape and cannibalism if they carefully explained their reasoning. On the other hand, a one-line reply expressing a mainstream opinion in a snarky way, e.g. calling Biden a senile fool or Trump an egomaniac moron will likely draw the ire of the mods.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
5d ago
I'm not sure how feasible that would be. We don't have many mods, and activity varies widely depending on availability.
I can, however, tell you that we do our best to voluntarily recuse ourselves from moderation decisions where we have a conflict of interest. Usually because someone had exhausted our patience.
Case in point, when Hlynka flamed out, I chose to refrain from actively encouraging his ban. Never liked the guy, didn't see what others saw in him. He got banned by his fellow moderators (as an ex-mod himself), which I can't complain about. I know the others have similar stories.
At the end of the day, mods have a great deal of autonomy, should they choose to exercise it. Controversial decisions are hashed out behind closed doors.
From ordinary user perspective there seems to always be one or two mods who are way too trigger happy in non-obvious janitorial duties.
It's those "one or two mods" who actively hold down the fort. For example, I go long periods between officially donning the mod hat, even if I'm quietly doing spring cleaning and admin work in the background. We really don't have manpower to spare, and before you ask, during the last round of recruitment, we had lots of other candidates who turned down the offer because they simply didn't want to take on the burden. Jannies do this for free! That's a miracle! Give us money!
aldomilyar
5d ago
As a non-libtard who occupies a vague place somewhere in the reactionary spectrum, the main problem is that most liberals come in with the assumption that anyone who isn't a liberal is obviously some sort of underground cave creature who dropped out of primary school.
And from being on the Motte for years it feels like Liberal incursions inevitably struggle with a sort of 'In my ordinary place of conversation everybody agrees with 90% of what I'm saying automatically, and questioning anything beyond 80% of the platform is literally banned. I am thus wildly uncomfortable with being in a spot with the no no words being allowed'
MathWizard
Good things are good
6d ago
I have literally never seen a classical Neo Nazi on here calling for the death of Jews. It's against the rules and they would be banned immediately.
I don't know exactly what you've seen, but my guess is you've seen some of the more nuanced moderate Nazi-like posters who dislike Jews and/or Jewish Supremecists but don't call for their death. And are strawmanning/patern-matching them to the more classical Nazis. I think there's a really important distinction, because first and foremost, the rational Nazi does not want you to die. They might dislike, want you to have less power and influence, might want you to leave, but they don't want you to die and if they saw you on the street they would not attack you. Second, the rational Nazi does not necessarily hate you, personally, if you are not yourself a supremecist. They might not even be a bigot at all, in the same way that an anti-woke person is not necessarily a racist.
Let me explain. Even though "Jew" is not technically a race, for most purposes we can consider it to be in the same general category and treat it the same way. This means that it should not be treated any differently from other races in terms of rights, restrictions, terms of discourse, etc. This means that Jewish Supremacists exist, are bad because they are bigots, and some but not all Jews are Supremacists, in the same way that Black Supremacists and White Supremacists exist, are bad because they are bigots, and are some but not all of their race. There is a huge difference between criticizing white/black/Jewish people universally (which makes you a bigot), and criticizing white/black/Jewish Supremacists (who are bigots worthy of being criticized). People tend to be okay at drawing this distinction for actual races, but when it comes to Jews the nuance vanishes, and any criticism of Jewishness in any form indicates Nazis.
It should hopefully be rather uncontroversial to state the following claims are true:
-Jews are disproportionately likely to be wealthy and/or in positions of power relative to their frequency in the general population.
-Jewish Supremacists exist in nonzero numbers who want to discriminate in favor of their own kind (just like all Supremacists do)
-Jewish Supremacists are less likely to be criticized or called out by polite society (the media, educated people, politicians) compared to other Supremacists, and get more defense when they are criticized (by accusing their critics of being Nazis)
Someone who takes these observations and extrapolates it too far might then conclude that Jewish Supremacists are more numerous and more influential than they actually are: collectively and conspiratorially controlling all of the media and institutions in order to ruin our society. While I don't think this is the world we live in, it is a coherent world state one could live in and would be bad. A century ago we DID live in a version of this world with White Supremacists pulling the strings to privilege white people, and that was bad, so it doesn't require a moral monster to conclude that a Jewish Supremacist world would also be bad for the exact same reasons. This does not require hating Jews, or you, or your family, in the same way that hating White Supremacist world does not require you hating me or my family. It only requires a somewhat distorted view of society, which rational debate and discussion should be able to solve.
Unless you yourself are a Supremacist, then criticisms of Jewish Supremacists are not actually criticisms of you. Unless you are a political or military leader of Israel, then criticisms of Israel's actions in war are not criticisms of you. Unless the critics are actually collectivizing to criticize all Jews, in which case you should counter them (or just sit back and watch the entirety of the motte come down on them for being stupid bigots). But if someone is being polite and precise but criticizing someone who happens to be Jewish, don't mistakenly collectivize for them and assume they hate you if that's not what they said.
Those people are welcome here. And you are also welcome here. Your own identity is not particularly relevant on the scales, just your arguments. You can unapologetically be who you are and admit to being Jewish, but unless that identity is somehow adding to the discussion via you providing anecdotes or something then we don't actually care. You won't be attacked for it, but you won't be protected for it either, unless someone is actually breaking the rules and calling for violence. Just say things and let your words speak for themselves.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
6d ago
You said you think this shouldn't be allowed while other people like Turok are being banned for a different matter. You're happy with both but not just one of the two.
"Apply the same low bar consistently. Let people have an actual conversation with actual disagreement."
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
6d ago
respectful way to tiptoe around the conversation over whether Jews control the American government
You've got rather significant US leaders like Donald Trump going out and saying, publicly “The biggest change I’ve seen in Congress is Israel literally owned Congress — you understand that — 10 years ago, 15 years ago. And it was so powerful. It was so powerful. And today it’s almost the opposite,” Trump said.
“And we’re not talking about over a very long period of time, but I think you know exactly what I’m saying. They had such power, Israel had such power — and rightfully — over Congress, and now it doesn’t. It’s incredible, actually,” Trump claimed.
And what about Jewish representation in the Biden administration? Here's a handy source about it: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-in-the-biden-administration
The Secretary of State, Attorney-General, Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, SEC chairman, Secretary of Treasury, both WH chiefs of staff and much else besides, all were Jewish. The President wasn't even mentally there most of the time. I'd challenge that as a matter of fact, the US government was run by Jews during that period. Who else was controlling it if not these people?
Right now Trump is going on and on about how much he loves Netanyahu. He has many Jewish advisors and seems to think that Israel was or ought to run the US Congress, though it's always hard to understand what Trump thinks or means. Would this not have some kind of influence on his Middle East policy, where Israel is located?
But you not only don't want to talk about it but don't even want other people to talk about it?
Should we not be capable of talking about Saudi influence in America? Or Russian influence in America? Or Qatari influence? Those are worthy topics of discussion. If someone wants to make a post about it then they should go ahead. I was always really bored with all the Russia stuff, it got into an arcane lore of who made which dossier when paid for by who... But it's eminently appropriate for discussion.
Turok was being banned for being overtly aggressive and obnoxiously creating imaginary narratives like "The "Woke Rightist" looks at his race, sees a mostly imaginary mass of helpless unemployed drug addicts and demands tariffs so that they can rise to the lofty heights of sewing bras, picking fruit, hauling equipment, and digging ditches in the rain."
That's not what the 'woke right' thinks and he surely knows it. He need only check the MAGA rhetoric from Trump about good factory jobs, or the rhetoric from the right about the need to mechanize dull fruitpicking jobs and raise productivity. Why, they say, should millions of people be brought into the country if AI is going to destroy everyone's jobs? Or the need to have American wealth kept in America rather than sent off in remittances. Or them hating H1Bs as cost-cutting that interferes with developing talent. Or them not seeing the country as purely an economic zone but having responsibility to native citizens. It's an insanely uncharitable and aggressive butchering of other people's ideology.
There's more to 'leftism' (an incredibly broad, nebulous term) than 'uhhh i'm gay and retarded and want free stuff, now give it to me before I torch your country out of resentment for my genetic superiors - I'm still going to torch your country though no matter what you do'. Just making that argument, even in a verbose way, should be deserving of a ban. It's obviously antagonistic and obnoxious.
As a non-libtard who occupies a vague place somewhere in the reactionary spectrum, the main problem is that most liberals come in with the assumption that anyone who isn't a liberal is obviously some sort of underground cave creature who dropped out of primary school.
This is an exaggeration, of course, but not so much as to be uncharitable. I consider myself to be somewhat of a didact, albeit, not as well read as I could theoretically could be (No, I have not read most of the Greeks, or much of Continental philosophy.) But then again, most liberals don't, either. But what I do have is a high school education where I was brought up in to understand the liberal perspective. I grew up as a liberal. Indeed, for most of my life, I was the libtard.
I think I can say with some confidence that most people here are, in fact, former libtard, which is to say they are heretics to liberal orthodoxy. If we weren't, we wouldn't feel a need to be here.
It is a very predictable pattern. A libtard comes in. They snark. They snipe. They complain about downvotes. They write very big poasts on how We're All Chuds and Witches as they leave. I find it very foolish. I would not, say, go into /r/Atheism and complain that I am surrounded by godless euphorics. (I would be banned.) The atheists are armed with many rote arguments against standard Christian apologetics. Similarly, I am armed with many rote arguments against normie liberalism - as I suspect others on this forum have as well.
Getting past that is where the truly interesting conversations begin, but that requires knowledge of the rote arguments: which many drive-by liberals simply refuse to engage with.
Which is to say, if you wish to make liberal arguments, you have to work for it. You cannot rely on logos and institutional credibility alone. You must establish your ethos to your audience, demonstrate credibility, and communicate to the vibe - the pathos - of the Motte. It is a muscle that liberals are flabby and out of shape, unused for so long. It will get stronger with use. Don't despair. Liberalism's ideals is worth defending. If you don't stand up for it, who will?
But what if you don't want an aggressively anti-censorship forum that will involve a forum culture of calling everyone slurs? You want the veneer of respectability and gentility but also the ability to have an actual conversation?
Well I already listed the shitty experience I had trying to moderate such a forum, against what was not bad faith actors but just human actors acting predictably human hence this being a pattern you can see all over the place, and now I have to address the flip side of the coin.
Welcome to The Motte! We've got cookies--
Yes this is the actual reason I ended up writing this comment instead of continuing to waffle over if I should just leave.
Oh.
You seem like a nice person. You've politely framed your discomfort and concern without flaming out, which is more than can be said about some of our longtime users with plenty of AAQCs. Some of them even come back whistling away, hoping nobody remembers their peformative crash out.
I think I can speak for the other moderators when I say that we'd like to have you around. Everything that follows is an attempt at an explanation for why The Motte is the way it is:
Look, no forum is perfect. The Motte tries to find a delicate and hazy balance between freedom of expression, politeness and avoiding the FBI raiding Zorba's home.
There's no other place like it. Believe me, I've looked. You can drop the restrictions on politeness and most pretenses of moderation, and you end up with 4chan or Kiwifarms. You can tighten the screws, and end up with a nicely mowed lawn like Scott's substack comment section, but at the cost of killing a whole swathe of politically incorrect worldviews. (Though he has slightly warmed on the whole no discussion of CW thing, but you can't really run a community off substack comments, the layout sucks).
This is what motivates me to stay, and to take on the occasional unpleasant task of mowing the lawn myself. With a light touch; one man's weed is another man's wildflower. There's no other place like us, and what we have is worth expending the negentropy to keep going. Yes, even if it's herding cats, and often cats with rabies.
And yes I'm biased by being more inclined towards free speech over banning and thinking that it's better to have the opinions and talk it out then constantly police what people say, sure, but if the forum can tolerate holocaust denial I think it can also stretch itself to tolerate libtards.
Our forum, like any place that does more than just pay lip service to freedom of speech, has one principled libertarian and a zillion witches.
I'd call myself the principled libertarian, but I think there's a mugshot of mine next to a stall selling signed copies of the Malleus Maleficarum. Perhaps it's a rotating, honorary position.
What we succeed at, mostly, is getting the witches to temporarily LARP as "principled libertarians", sometimes with the same disgruntled attitude as a rambunctious boy forced to sit through Mass, when they'd rather be calling people slurs or setting houses on fire. If you can be polite and not break the rules, then the candy you get is access to a rather thoughtful and discerning user base willing to seriously engage with just about any topic under the sun.
(Sometimes, if they do this long enough, the mask sticks)
@SecureSignals is our resident antisemite. Yet he mostly behaves. Not always, he's been rapped on the knuckles often enough, and banned for significant amounts of time. These days, he even talks about things other than the Jews, because we were quite clear that this forum isn't his personal hobby-horse, and he needs to figure out some other way to pay rent.
That is why you see SS. What you don't see are the dozens of people who can't keep it in their pants at all, who DM insults to people like @2rafa. They get caught in the filter, and are swiftly banned.
but if the forum can tolerate holocaust denial I think it can also stretch itself to tolerate libtards.
Keep in mind the very important distinction between the moderators tolerating something, and the denizens of this forum doing so. We don't control upvotes, we can't compel people to engage with tracts they hate. We choose what gets rounded up as an AAQC, but the initial reports as such? All you guys.
Yet, more often than not, articulate and reasoned claims get their due.
I'm not interesting in doing some tit for tat thing where I'm like "well if you banned them for this, why didn't you ban that other person for that" because like I stated up front that's just the path to a death spiral where almost no one interesting sticks around. But still, come on, you didn't ban them for constantly sticking their conspiracy theories into every discussion couched as consensus building obvious fact. Apply the same low bar consistently. Let people have an actual conversation with actual disagreement.
Us mods take such claims seriously. We would appreciate examples, and if it became clear that we were egregiously biased, we would seek to correct ourselves.
We're not monolithic. There are significant differences in personal opinion, though we aim at consensus.
We are also not omniscient. If one side is consistently getting their rage-bait reported, and the other isn't, the odds of us noticing decline dramatically. There was once a point where I could claim to ready every single comment posted on this site, but alas, due to gainful employment, that's no longer feasible. The other mods probably have even less free time. We also impose significant costs on ourselves by seeking to explain ourselves in warnings and ban messages, instead of just firing them off from on-high.
That being said, there are probably hundreds or thousands of kind, well-spoken people who we would have loved to keep around, but who were scared off by the topics (and less commonly, the tone) of what's discussed here. That sucks, but to an extent, that's a price we have to pay to keep The Motte open for most, if not all. We also keep away a whole lot of witches so vile that they're not tolerated by us witch-adjacenf folk. You really can't please everyone, not even nice people with reasonable desires. But we've kept the lights on, and us mods have a vested interest in preventing this from becoming a dead and desolate place racking up unjustified AWS bills.
We would hate to see you go, and I hope you can find reason to stay.
Guns aren't banned in Scotland though either. You just need a license which is fairly easy to get for someone with a clean record. Handguns are banned though (with some exceptions). May not materially impact your point, but just clarifying as lots of people seem to think guns are banned in the UK entirely.
You could of course also look at murder rates among my Ulster-Scots brethren in Northern Ireland as handguns are legal there. Also getting hold of illegal guns is pretty easy. There are other confounding factors of course.
The old joke about Northern Ireland being the best preparation for any Brit moving to the US: guns, flags, religion and armed police on the streets.
More options
Context Copy link