hbd
HereAndGone
1hr ago
At the same time, "someone on Twitter said" doesn't tell us much. What 'someone'? Right wing someone, left wing someone, progressive Marxist someone, Aryan supremacy someone? There's a lot of ground that "someone" covers and we don't know if the tweet, taken out of context, is supportive (I'm a liberal, told ya that reality has a liberal bias), is grudgingly supportive (I'm a tankie, liberals get the bullet too, but this once they were right), is supportive from the other side (I'm conservative, this is where we can agree with liberals), is condemnatory (I believe in the superiority of the white race as proven by HBD and the stupid liberals are trying to tar us as spreading misinformation, this is what we have to fight against) or what.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
20hr ago
daguerrean
21hr ago
I thought we were forced to split from SSC so Scott's name was not sullied by association with us due to our most popular topic of discussion at the time, HBD. When TheMotte was formed HBD was kind of our meat and potatoes.
aardvark2
22hr ago
You're requiring undue burden of proof. Like some creationists say "show me abiogenesis ab novo". Causal genes for IQ are not established -- currently, GWAS operates with tag SNPs which are just proxies to causal variants near them, but it different populations tag SNP might proxy different variants so there is no easy way to transfer polygenic scores to other population. Actually, Davide Piffer tried that, (and his analysis shows Africans dumber -- check his Substack) -- and got responses "never do that"
At least, not without larger effect sizes and better mathematical techniques.
So are pro-HBD folks say "we don't need larger sample sizes, we already know the truth" or are anti-HBD folks say "we don't need larger sample sizes, we already know the truth"?
Nutrition, parasite load, education infrastructure, epigenetics. Virtually nobody denies these have large effect, but... These are largely downstream of low genetic IQ itself. The other thing that could produce it is bad government. Given that there are many African countries and they were parts of different alliances, it's extremely unlikely that each has uniquely backward government like North Korea has.
Every human born in the last two hundred years lives a live completely unlike the lives we lived in the last five thousand.
I'd disagree about details, but let's assume it's true. You raise actually a valid point that some genes beneficial in ancient environment might be bad now (i.e. improved food digestion then and causing obesity now, ditto protection against infection vs allergy ). But it looks like most of in-population variation is just slightly broken gene variants of ideal brain devised by evolution for current moment.
But geniuses are still geniuses and dumbs still dumbs.
Because: we know that wolves are smarter than dogs.
think that if you were posting this from pro-HBD pespective, someone could write: A Racist Poster Compares Africans To Wolves By Implication.
This theory is unfalsifiable, of course, so I won't ask you to falsify it...
I think it's possible somehow to separate ability for sitting still the longest from intelligence. Btw, many backward cultures had weird rituals, which might have something like sitting still on anthill for certain amount of hime and our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't move for 16 hours per day.
You could devise a separate "sitting long" test which would require something less intellectual. Well... Make them sit and use drum. See, no problemo here.
if we rounded up people at random, gave them IQ tests, dropped them off somewhere remote,
It would make sense to compare teams made of people with similar IQ than than loners.
sohois
23hr ago
I wouldn't say the above argument relies on HBD; integration, decentralization, and excessive welfare would still be problems even with high quality immigrants. Observe the furore in many countries over high levels of indian immigration, despite a high average IQ.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
The ideal immigrant comes here not because his home country is a shithole, or because life here is easy and you get paid for showing up, or because his co-ethnics invited him to join their enclave, but because he wants to be German.
But of course, they all already want to be German. They obviously desire your material wealth and geopolitical power, and while they don't want to adopt your pro-social habits per se, they certainly enjoy the more immaterial fruits of your labor: your clean streets, your trusting and friendly people, your effective governance. They openly desire your women's gracile features and quietly envy your men's tall stature.
However, if HBD is to be believed, they can never be Germans, nor can their descendants be Germans; at least, not any recognizable descendants. For the foreseeable future, the only way that they may truly secure the prosperity they desire at scale is to intermarry with your people en masse and encourage their half-breed offspring to do the same. In doing this, they must internally accept the intrinsic inferiority of their type and witness the subsumption of their own clan and lineage into a wholly alien and unrecognizable gestalt.
... to be clear, I derive no pleasure from these words; I am one of the aforementioned half-breeds myself. I've been wanting to do a big top-level post detailing my outlook on these matters for a while, and writing this comment has given me the drive to actually write out the whole thing, so be on the lookout for that, i guess.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
To do so is a blatantly dehumanising use of language that I believe could easily prime those who engage in it to see such a group as less than human, and therefore to be dealt with in the manner you would deal with non-human pests.
You might have had a point sometime before the year 2010. But since that time we've seen this principal stretched to the point of excluding all views outside the progressive standard, and not only that, typically applied selectively. It's a slippery slope with no Schelling Fence, as the rationalists put it. So the entire principle must be discarded. Hitler wasn't the first to compare various people to non-human animals in a derogatory way, he won't be the last, and that wasn't the main problem with him. Sure, if someone's out there saying "black people are vermin", I can reasonably conclude they're scumbags, but trying to suppress that is not a good idea. And if I start building fences around that such that anything even close is also verboten, I'm likely just trying to create ideological uniformity.
To be clear, I'm not accusing him of personally wanting to genocide or start a race war against blacks or anything, nor is this about being squeamish and finding the language offensive. But I think when you normalise referring to groups in such blatantly dehumanising and contemptuous terms, there is a clear risk of it contributing to a culture that views violence against them as legitimate.
This principle, on the other hand, was never any good, and is even more obviously applied selectively. This is just "don't express your bad ideas because you might convince other people of them".
There is nothing about acknowledging HBD or even arguing for explicitly racist policy that requires you to engage in this sort of thing, and the only thing it accomplishes is to potentially egg on the next mass shooter
This principle ("stochastic terrorism") was not only not any good, it was always in bad faith (suppression of bad ideas is such an old idea I don't know about that one). Note that some Trumpists have picked it up (sometimes ironically, probably sometimes seriously) to blame the assassination attempts on Trump on their opponent's rhetoric. It's less a slippery slope than a vertical drop.
Spez1alEd
1d ago
It seems obvious to me that even assuming WhiningCoil's claim is "true," in the sense that young black men commit more crime, and this is inherent to their biology, and we have countless studies to prove it, it is still perfectly valid to strongly object to describing them as an invasive species. To do so is a blatantly dehumanising use of language that I believe could easily prime those who engage in it to see such a group as less than human, and therefore to be dealt with in the manner you would deal with non-human pests. This isn't complicated, it would be clear to everyone if he were describing Jews in a manner that compared them to vermin. So it is with blacks or any other ethnic group.
To be clear, I'm not accusing him of personally wanting to genocide or start a race war against blacks or anything, nor is this about being squeamish and finding the language offensive. But I think when you normalise referring to groups in such blatantly dehumanising and contemptuous terms, there is a clear risk of it contributing to a culture that views violence against them as legitimate.
There is nothing about acknowledging HBD or even arguing for explicitly racist policy that requires you to engage in this sort of thing, and the only thing it accomplishes is to potentially egg on the next mass shooter and to turn the public against you because whatever points you may or may not have, they can clearly see that your position is rooted in seething hatred and malice.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1d ago
That's sort of exactly my criticism of race and racism, it just doesn't serve the purpose. We should either talk about discrimination on the individual level, or talk about stereotypes on the group level (and not limit it to poor pattern-matching, open it up to more than just genetic ancestry - let's talk culture and more, directly). Racism is a bad word because it can be applied to either case! Race by itself means genetic ancestry, and quite obviously genetic ancestry is not the biggest thing that matters when talking group-wide trends, fair or unfair alike (plus as I pointed out the ancestry gets fuzzy edges way too easily in modern life, especially melting pot countries like the US). I'm not even trying to start a HBD debate or anything. I agree on the trivially true bit and maybe even a bit more FWIW. But if you think pre-industrial humans believed in HBD or something like it, you'd be wrong on at least two levels.
clo
1d ago
Not again, let's not have the HBD discussion for the billionth time again, here's the cliffs notes:
HBD is trivially true, what decisions, policies, actions are taken as a result of that are up to you, but you need to be aware that they exist because sooner or later you will run into physical reality. You can continue to run from it, you can plan around it, you can even make giant state sponsored psyops to make sure that the hoi polloi don't notice and to prevent them from slaughtering each other. Value judgements about what heritable traits are preferable are again, up to you. Maybe evolution will decide intelligence is the Great Filter and the morons will inherit the earth, what the fuck ever.
Racism depends on how you define it, I don't like Swedish food and I dislike the French but I'd struggle with anyone calling it racism, especially since the definition of what racism is has expanded vastly over the last decade to include the default state of literally every Southeast Asian who has to live around other ethnicities
I was consistently skeptical that China can win this on HBD merits alone, after all the US also has plenty of talented people (very many of them Chinese, but also diverse global and domestic talent), in Nvidia and elsewhere, plus it has a giant and growing edge in compute.
Fair enough, I agree on that. I didn't think you were saying that talent conquers all in this but one can kind of see it reading between the lines. How else could they achieve this result if their talent wasn't superior? Or if not talent, then the juice in an organization that allows good results at speed.
And it seems like export controls are diminishing, per latest news on H20s. But maybe Trump will do another backflip, who can say.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3d ago
But Grok 4 just crushes with sheer size I think.
The fact that Grok is at all comparable (or indeed inferior) to Kimi on any metric, even the most obscure one, speaks to the deep cultural advantage of Moonshot. Grok 4's training compute is estimated to be 6.4e26 FLOPs; Kimi, like R1, is likely ≈4.0e24, fully 100 times less. They probably spent on scaling experiments for Grok 3/4 more than Moonshot has spent over their lifetime on everything. It's not really a fair competition, I admit Grok is a stronger model.
It was designed for Musk's vision of AI modelling and understanding the physical universe, that's what it's for and it does excellently there.
I think it wasn't designed with any specific focus in mind, it's an all around next-generation base+RL model.
I think the arc of history still bends towards Nvidia, the biggest company in the world and by some distance. I think like you I was leaning more towards the 'talent conquers all' ethos
You distort my argument. I was consistently skeptical that China can win this on HBD merits alone, after all the US also has plenty of talented people (very many of them Chinese, but also diverse global and domestic talent), in Nvidia and elsewhere, plus it has a giant and growing edge in compute. My thesis is that the gap in applied AI possibly won't be so profound as to allow some Pivotal Action To Secure Durable Strategic Advantage, that the hawks in DC and Dario Amodei fantasize about as they rail for more export controls. Nvidia will remain dominant, so will Western AI labs.
But so far China is doing better than I anticipated, both technically and ethically.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
6d ago
He's the kind of guy who spent his life regurgitating official stats without a hint of critical thinking, because that's what a good student / smart person does, right? But when he gets pushed back, he shows the black heart of a concentration camp guard, just, you know, impotent and sad.
Like a year and a half ago, he got into it with Steve Sailer on HBD. Sailer was polite, but the pile-ons were like watching a herd of lions toy with a sickly gazelle. And Will just did not seem to have the slightest idea how to actually mount an argument when he had to think for himself instead of just repeating the NYT or government stats and he quickly devolved into Downfall, Hitler-In-The-Bunker tier scitzo-ranting about how everyone who disagreed with him were "vermin" who needed to be "expunged", mixed with plaintive cries begging to know why no one else in his tribe was helping him. Why did he argue against the hordes of darkness alone?
And the hordes just spammed him with lines like "Because they know how this ends" and "NO ONE IS COMING TO SAVE YOU, WILL".
He's just kind of the biggest, most easily riled dork on the internet, and he can't help himself but enagage every time.
quiet_NaN
6d ago
The primary dividing line between members of this group is the degree to which Jews should be blamed for societies various ills.
Sounds unpleasant. Personally, I came to believe that some HBD claims are true by reading Scott Alexander on the Ashkenazi intelligence hypothesis. "HBD explains why there are many Jewish Nobel laureates without having to resort to conspiracies" is actually a major selling point for me. (Of course, I would also prefer if the left would give up to insist that any inequality of outcome was due to unfairness and in return people would shut up about HBD until we can CRISPR everyone.)
quiet_NaN
6d ago
Relevant mod comment. If you want to say "these are the views of the Trump administration", then say "these are the views of the Trump administration".
Also, what do you mean by the adjective "racialist"? WN defines it as:
A believer or advocate of racialism, the ideology of racial nationalism.
(UK, dated) A racist.
Is "online racialist Right" an endonym? Who are these people? Do they want a white ethnostate in the US? Are they HBD-believers who want to restrict immigration based on what they see as genetic group differences? Did you just want to call them straightforward racist, but knew that this would generate a backslash, so you picked a rare word which strongly implies racism without saying the r-word outright?
On the object level, I think I share most of your opinions about Trump's immigration policy, which I detest. But I do not think you are doing a good job of accurately representing the beliefs of the Right, which is a prerequisite to honestly criticizing them.
I don't think that the Right has a great answer to what will happen to the fruit prices once the migrants who are willing to pick them in shitty conditions for low wages because they can feed their family in their country of origin with these wages are all deported. I think that a significant fraction of the MAGA base imagine that Trump, being a stable genius deal-maker, will simply pull the US into a golden age of prosperity and nobody will worry about fruit prices. The more realistic Trump voters might concede that prices of fruits might skyrocket if the pickers are US citizens earning a competitive wage, but simply see this as a price worth paying to kick the illegal immigrants out. Your framing which includes White druggies kicking their habit getting of their asses and start to pick fruits seems to me to be a minority viewpoint on the Right, to put it charitably.
The second is the question of where did their ideas of purity come from. Was it objective, rational, independent inquiry, or was it just a different strain of meme?
This is where you get to postmodernism — the view that there is no objectivity, it's just warring memes and primate social games all the way down (the wordcel version of "there is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it"), you fight for your tribe and its memes because it's your tribe. For many people, they do not have "principles" or even beliefs, they have a side. (Wasn't that the whole "arguments as soldiers" thing?)
So why such a lack of confidence? Because of the repressed awareness that their own beliefs are merely memetic infections, aka psychological projection.
I'd push back a little here, thinking about both the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and modern online debates, about the memetic competitiveness of ideas on equal versus unequal knowledge bases — a priest is equipped to defeat the "viral memes" of a heretic in the way the lay person is not. Because a "heretic" often knows more about the field of their heresy than the average lay person. To consider items from this forum, the average HBD proponent probably knows a lot more about human genetics than your average "blank slate normie." Or, to go to the "Nazis at a table" analogy, our own resident Holocaust revisionists know a lot more details about the history of the camps than someone who's maybe just watched Schindler's List once.
In fact, I see people on the left make this argument; that between equally well-educated academic experts in a field, the left-wing ideas inevitably win the debate against their rivals — hence the left's near-total dominance of academia — but the ignorant lay people, not so well-armed, end up being led astray down the "far-right radicalization pipeline" by smart-but-evil figures like Jordan Peterson.
By this logic they should be inviting Nazis to their table to convert them away from Nazi-ness.
Except that they do sometimes try to "convert them away from Nazi-ness"… in the matter of an inquisitor (or a fire-and-brimstone Puritan preacher): "Repent your heresy, or suffer the consequences!" And for Puritans in particular, expulsion from the community, shunning from "polite society" is a major part of "consequences." Remember, excommunication is "a medicinal penalty of the Church," intended to bring the offender to reform their behavior, repent, and return to full communion.
(And maybe add in a bit of the disgust/contamination mechanisms behind the concept of "untouchability" that appears in so many cultures — that some people are just so indelibly tainted that anything and anyone they contact will be irreversibly polluted by it, as to why certain people must never be associated with, and anyone who has so associated must be treated as one of them as well. EDIT: see also @Southkraut's comment here.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d ago
I've been inactive for a hot minute, but the last time I was involved in a big HBD hullabaloo the most common position (hard to tell if it was actually a majority) was something like: "HBD is real and the societal solution to that is something like Classical Liberal Individualism."
Still pretty common.
Obviously, with all due respect, fuck socialism tho.
Just so we're clear, when I say I'm a socialist I'm saying I support at least a large degree of command economy. I'm not saying I want a totalitarian one-party state.
If you're still saying "fuck that", okay, fine. I just want to be sure we're communicating effectively.
FtSoA
8d ago
I've been inactive for a hot minute, but the last time I was involved in a big HBD hullabaloo the most common position (hard to tell if it was actually a majority) was something like: "HBD is real and the societal solution to that is something like Classical Liberal Individualism." So nicely enough if you're already of a Classical Liberal bent then it's a solved problem either way.
(Obviously, with all due respect, fuck socialism tho. Historically, it's Western Socialists being out of step to think socialism and racism are somehow at odds. The Russians and the Chinese were/are far from race egalitarians.)
Obviously the ethnostate types don't need HBD to be real to justify their preferences. Real race scientists know how to distinguish the "good" whites from the "less good" ones, anyway. And, at a minimum, East Asians and Jews (boo hiss) are pretty swell by any objective measure of HBD I'm aware of.
Being an SJer and open-minded enough for debating core tenets is a rare combo.
You're arguing against a strawman. I agree that blank slatism is false. But the specific conclusions drawn by HBD about racial intelligence have dramatically insufficient evidence. You've flipped a coin three times, seen HHH, and assumed the coin is biased toward heads. Sure, that's technically more accurate than the people claiming the coin is exactly, perfectly balanced, but not more accurate than the viewpoint that we have insufficient coin-flipping data to figure out its true bias.
aardvark2
8d ago
And the correlation between genetics and IQ has?
IQ obviously doesn't cause genetics, genetics causes IQ. Proven.
Nobody's running randomized control trails with polygenically screened embryos.
So what? Nobody running randomized trials with putting adopted children in lower SES and high SES.
It was already established before The Bell Curve that as given SES, high IQ predicts upwards mobility. Come on, in a society that at least partly meritocratic, it is expected that high-IQ genotypes more common at high SES. (You can hypothetize that high SES is also correlated with greedy or anti-social genotypes but that would be beyond the point).
Sure, SES effects genetics too, but it's not like causality is required to be unidirectional.
in prior post, you just started with unfounded assumption that SES->IQ is unidirectional.
Faster maturation seems like it would select for greater learning speed
that's ludicrous. Evolution didn't find a way for us to be as smart as we are now and mature faster than chimps. We mature a lot slower than chimps, who are already much slower than expected for mammal of its size.
color vision for visual pattern analysis; faster running for spatial intelligence.
You can find a lot of animals better than humans at all three (e.g. ostrich) but while being dumb AF.
At this point I simply can't reject the null hypothesis and accept that the HBD racial intelligence rankings accurately reflect reality.
There is no reason for blank slatism to be "null hypothesis". We have null hypotheses where we already have prior experience (i.e. tried multiple medicines, out of which most do not work), in this area we do not have. Also, the point is not that HBD accurately reflects reality, the point is that it's more accurate than blank slatism.
Yeah when I wrote my original post it occurred to me that I was going to have to repeat myself ad infinitum about this, but, I'm not disputing that the holocaust happened or that millions died.
I just think it was likely mostly much more, uh, organic, if you will, than is typically portrayed, and that the numbers given have every hallmark of being substantially inflated. I'm also calling attention to what I see as the fact that all pertinent institutions involved were, at the time, and are still now, under immense pressure to spin things in only one direction, including the nazis. During the war so as to please their superiors; after the war so as to please their captors.
Maybe you're an HBD-denier but if not you must surely see how possible it is for such a 'vast conspiracy' to be not just possible but successful -- outside of extremely niche uncontrolled spaces like this one.
Death camps may be a waste of resources, but so is invading Russia.
People like to sneer about this but I don't think so. It was Stalin's plan to let the capitalist powers fight it out and then jump on the losing side. Hitler attacked because the USSR was only going to get stronger and was never going to stop being a threat, while if he won he would have the resources to hold off the US. It was a fatal gamble but arguably a necessary one.
There are many, many, many instances of Hitler making terrible strategic decisions; I don't think this is one of them.
you must have noticed how strong the overlap between people who hate Jews and people who deny the Holocaust is
Sure; I also notice that it's immaterial to the question, and easy to explain. C.f. HBD-denial again and the overlaps we see there. Actually I'd question your motivation in trying to make the point in the first place; it looks to me like dirty rhetoric.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
9d ago
I'm not anti-HBD. I'm anti third-worldism.
quiet_NaN
9d ago
While I think a 1 week ban might be a bit excessive for that post alone, I can not say that this was a high quality post.
Your whole first meandering paragraph reads like a strawman to me. If you really described "new narrative on the Online Right", you could have linked and quoted them directly. Then I would know that I am looking at a weakman instead of a strawman at least.
Then you treat HBD (including scare quotes) as a synonym for white supremacy. Guatemalans are ethnically a mixture of Hispanic and Mayan ancestry. I do not know a lot about Latin America, but I think the Mayans had one of the well known pre-European empires, and probably had less of a link between violence and reproductive success than the Aztec. At least provide a link to some self-professed HBD proponent claiming that Guatemala is a ""third-world s***hole"" due to their genetic makeup.
Your post was bad for reasons which are totally orthogonal to you being anti-HBD. If you had started
Anyone remember that whole "Trump's tariffs will destroy the economy" thing?
and then proceeded to present a strawman of free trade proponents, that would likely have netted you less downvotes, but it would have been just as bad.
It is well known that this is a forum where the majority of people are witches, which means that they get away with being snarky sometimes when they really should not. Sure, being extra-snarky, getting -39 downvotes (but also 12 upvotes) and a ban is very theatrical, but not constructive. Instead, I would prefer if you reported comments stating pro-witch opinions which were inflammatory and poorly sourced.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9d ago
Be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary for your argument.
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.
This isn't what the 'woke right' thinks. Firstly the people who believe in HBD or racialism are in a different group to the generic MAGA or tariff enthusiasts. Secondly, they don't want more of their people digging ditches. Maybe they want their enemies digging ditches once their overpaid email jobs get vaporized. Maybe they want mechanized fruitpickers. Maybe they want higher wages for locals to do those jobs as redistribution from rich to poor.
You can say 'tarifffs done in this way are retarded and a bad way to achieve these goals' and nobody will ban you. You can say 'HBD is overrated compared to historical/economic practices in determining the fate of nations' and nobody will ban you though some will argue with you. You can't make up some strawman of what other people believe, provide no evidence that they think this and then sneer at them.
The mods were enormously generous letting you back onto this forum after such intense and vehement mischaracterization.
Regarding @WhiningCoil and why I didn't mod him: first, sometimes a mod doesn't want to mod a particular comment for any number of reasons. It might be because they have a history with that user and are afraid they might be too biased. It might be because they are uncertain how "bad" it is and whether it merits modding (and honestly, they want some other mod to make the call). It might be because it's ambiguous enough we actually need to have a discussion in the mod channel about it. It might be because they just don't feel like taking the effort to write a justification statement for the banning, which especially in borderline cases, where the user is popular, and/or when we expect pushback, needs to be written with some effort to explain our reasoning, rather than just "Bad post, 3-day ban." Regardless of the actual length of the mod message, they do require more effort and thought than a regular post, because I assure you, we all take the responsibility seriously, we don't just react on impulse and ban people when they sufficiently annoy us.
In this case it was a little of all of those. I thought @WhiningCoil's comment was bad, but... eh, assuming you take his story at face value (which generally one should not, you might have noticed how very, very "on the nose" most of his stories are, with anecdotes stocked with horrible NPC caricatures from Central Casting), yes, he was very clearly making an intentional, racialized comment, but he was also (allegedly) describing a real situation. I expected a modding would result in people complaining that we're trying to forbid Noticing (tm). I didn't want to make the call because I am well aware of his animosity and I felt like a mod warning would be better from someone else he can't scream is persecuting him (and whose mod message he would actually read). I knew modding him would require me writing a detailed response justifying it (the sort that @naraburns is much better at), for the benefit of other posters, if not WC. And also, ironically, I like WC (as a poster, though not so much as a person) and he writes quite a few AAQCs. I would prefer he just tone it down rather than getting banned or rage-quitting, but unfortunately his cumulative record is bad enough that he's getting close to a permaban, and I just didn't want to add another stone to that pile, even if he deserves it.
As for the stated principles of the Motte: those are principals. They are aspirational. Do we always achieve those lofty goals? I am certainly not going to say every thread here is high quality discussion full of smart people saying intelligent things. We definitely do not see everyone acting with "charity and kindness." Still, I do think this place is not quite like anywhere else. There are reddit communities that are still good (for some value of "good") but only if the discussion stays away from certain topics. There are places where people can talk about "forbidden" topics (HBD, Holocaust denial, trans-critical views, etc.) but those places are full of people who outright hate the people they are talking about, and no matter how lofty and intellectual they try to be, the seething hate is always evident (and they are not much better than reddit about dealing with contrary opinions).
So is the Motte "converging" on an accepted range of opinions? Maybe, kind of, but we still have some leftists here, there is anything but a unanimous consensus on HBD and trans people and Jews, and the current events topics, the AI topics, the history topics, do often have genuinely high quality and interesting discussions from knowledgeable people with very different perspectives. We get accused of various things from being a "right-wing" site to being a den of seven zillion witches, but I think our principles are still intact if imperfectly enforced. I see the Motte kind of like America: it's never really lived up to its ideals nor fulfilled its promises, the "community" and sense of shared goals is often a polite fiction, and we flounder and sometimes fail, but damned if it doesn't still beat the alternatives.
More options
Context Copy link