Sir_Pings_a_Lot
No bio...
User ID: 2065
Sir_Pings_a_Lot
1yr ago
This makes sense to me.
I'll tell you something for nothing - going into anywhere with that attitude is only going to end up with friction and it'll all end in tears. Maybe you were right and everybody else was wrong, but were you a pain in the arse about it? Because if you steam into a debate with "I'm the only sensible person who knows the truth here and the rest of you are a bunch of sheeple", I for one will roll up my sleeves and have an argument with you even if the topic is "is grass green" and you said "yes it is".
This is what I mean when I say kindness took precedence to truth in the old sub. When it turns out over time that I was right and other people were wrong, I expect them to be humble and admit it. If their pride takes precedence over the truth, and it's more important for them to stubbornly avoid admitting that they were wrong rather than conceding error, then I'm going to hurt them really badly until their survival instinct kicks in and they learn to prioritize facts over their hurt feelings. For example, if you don't like that I said "the grass is green" because you previously said it was blue, and I rubbed it in your face later when I was proven right, so you prefer to continue arguing with me about the color of the grass even though we both know you're wrong, then my position is that you will eventually admit the grass is green when we elect somebody who starts executing people who don't believe in the color of the grass. In other words, objective truth is more important to me than either your ego or your life. I don't see any value in the continued existence of people who are unable to admit when they're wrong because their pride takes precedence over the truth.
Am I going to attack people that way here, on this specific website? No, of course not. This is just my general philosophy of life. On this specific sub, I'm here to have fun. That means I will be polite and obey all the rules, except for "be kind" which I really can't do since that's a very nebulous and poorly defined metric. (And if the mods can offer a more concrete definition of "kindness" that is not subject to their individual whims then I'm happy to comply with "Be Kind" also. For example, you calling me a "moron" seems very unkind, but I notice no mods are stepping in to punish you for that. So I would like a definition of "kindness" that is more clear and precise so that instead of having that rule be selectively weaponized against me, it will be weaponized against everybody equally.) Instead, I will attack my enemies indirectly by supporting politicians who dog-whistle for their deaths, as well as promoting ideologies offsite that are inimical to their continued existence. Like I said, I'm not here to spread propaganda, I have plenty of other places where I can do that. I'm here for fun, and hopefully to learn something. But I don't like people who can't admit that they were wrong just because they think I'm a big meanie, and those people are my enemies. Are you capable of sharing a website with somebody who is your enemy as long as they agree to be polite and play by the same rules you do? Are you capable of even sharing a world with that person? These are important questions to ask.
Now my question is, can the Motte handle this attitude, or is "kindness" (whatever the hell that means) more important than honesty and truthfulness? I would like a mod to weigh in, because I don't feel like investing my time here if I'm just going to be banned again. If the mods don't feel that I'd be a good fit, then no hard feelings - I'll spend my time elsewhere.
But don't go around claiming you're going to do it, or that you're going to win, because you're not.
I'm not going to do that, I'm going to spread infohazards to dangerous people and see what happens until I get what I want. Ideas are more powerful than individuals and I can achieve much more by working through others than I ever could on my own
Sir_Pings_a_Lot
1yr ago
Is @ZorbaTHut the moderator who would make a ruling here? If so, then yes, I would appreciate if he could weigh in.
The main issue with any argument about the perceived legitimacy of violence is that it will cause whatever site you’re on to eventually shut down.
No it won't. There's plenty of calls on right-leaning websites to do it, and nobody shuts them down. If calls to violence on the internet were such a big deal, then January 6th couldn't have happened.
In the past, when we lived in a society dominated by the Left, then calls to violence were indeed forbidden (at least, calls to violence against the Left - it was perfectly acceptable to threaten and smear the Right for some reason). But we live in a new world order where the old rules no longer apply, and the taboo against violence has eroded rapidly. My only question is whether the Motte is playing by the rules of the old paradigm, or the new paradigm? I mean obviously I don't plan to call for violence here since rationalists aren't exactly gun-toting revolutionaries (so using this place as a recruitment ground would be pointless even if I was inclined to do so), but if I feel that violence is the correct and logical solution to a societal problem then I think I should be allowed to discuss the reasons why. If the only tools and methodologies you consider "legitimate" are nonviolent ones, then you're limiting your toolbox substantially (and also being a bit hypocritical).
Sir_Pings_a_Lot
1yr ago
Since you already made a profile, what do you have to lose by just participating?
Time and effort
OK, thanks for the candid assessment. I'll go elsewhere, no hard feelings.
More options
Context Copy link