atomised
2yr ago
Yeah and I think it's a shortcoming of the site. It sometimes feels like you can say anything you like so long as you avoid pithiness at all costs and use enough rationalist jargon.
atomised
2yr ago
I don't think GMO is bad, but I think there are some principled reasons to be opposed to it. You know how tomatoes are worse than they used to be because they optimised for redness? I feel like GMO makes that sort of trap easier to fall into.
atomised
2yr ago
Towns in subjected areas will purposely reduce sidewalks or veto funding for sidewalks in order to deter Hasids from moving in.
I'm not sure if I'm being thick here but what's the relationship between sidewalks and Hasidis?
atomised
2yr ago
One thing that occurs to me is anti-GMO / anti-vaccine discussion, which has historically been equally if not more left-coded than right-coded, however is extremely taboo outside of quite fringe subreddits.
The idea that it is impossible to discern the personally held feelings of posters here towards progressivism because everyone's so level-headed and decorous is frankly risible.
atomised
2yr ago
I really think that coal-mining chapter is one of the finest pieces of journalism there is. It's one of those texts I wish that everyone would read.
atomised
2yr ago
If you think the rules are about tone then you have misunderstood them. The rules have always been about sincerely assuming the best of your ideological opposites, not assuming whatever you like and then applying a varnish of decorum.
atomised
2yr ago
there's only so much we can do to foster that
I would like to see a higher standard of charitability for criticisms of progressive leftism. I would like all posts criticising progressivism to be required to start from the sincere premise that the progressive actors are acting with the earnestly held belief that they are making the world a better place, and for any subsequent argumentation that rejects this idea to be required to explicitly demonstrate it. Far too many posts here are along the lines of 'as we all know, the woke progressive left are trying to force their ideology down our throats and the throats of our children to achieve cultural hegemony, and here's the new way that they're doing it'.
I make this request in the interests of the medium-to-long-term ability of this website to live up to its stated raison d'être. I definitely don't consider myself woke, but I'm not a reactionary either, and my most common response to reading Motte threads is a vague mix of annoyance at the monotonality of the know-it-all-white-stem-guy vibe and a creeping suspicion that most of the posts I'm reading are by fascists hiding their power level. Please forgive the lack of charity in this admission: I share it only to demonstrate that if this is my response to reading these threads, as a know-it-all-white-stem-guy with the habitual chan-browser's acquired tolerance for edgy politics, I worry that most visitors here would be far more strongly repulsed.
As much as it winds me up, some of the best long-form effortposting I've ever read on the internet has been on The Motte and I would be sad to see that end. Any moderator who cares to check can see that I have made source code contributions to the site, so I hope readers of this post do not assume I don't have its best interests in mind. I would appreciate any responses from anyone else who has had a similar experience to me, or (for that matter) from anyone who feels I am misrepresenting things.
atomised
2yr ago
I didn't want to make a separate thread for this, so I'll leave it as a comment: I think we have a serious issue with diversity of opinion. This was already pretty bad on Reddit, but there seems to have been a step change for the worse in the few days this new site has been up. I'm not against people sharing reactionary or anti-woke points of view but when there's nothing to counterbalance them it feels less like a forum for debate and more like the world's highest effort Daily Mail comments section. I foresee this being an increasing issue, since now the Motte is moored in the digital equivalent of international waters, there is a far lower chance that progressive voices will chance upon the community by accident. Moreover, lack of diverse perspectives induces a harmful feedback cycle, since if someone sees at least some representation of their viewpoints they are more likely to pitch in, while if they just see a load of right-wingers competing to be the most critical of 'wokeism', in all likelihood, they will leave as quickly as they entered.
I accept that I'm not the first to raise this point (I believe this was a motivating factor for the removal of the bare-links repository) but since this isn't a problem that looks likely to solve itself I feel obliged to raise it again in the hope that we can work towards a solution.
atomised
2yr ago
A glass of water for every drink, and then a few more at the end before you go to bed. As much time as possible (ideally at least an hour) between stopping drinking and going to bed. Isotonic drink first thing when you wake up and then try and sleep off the worst of it.
atomised
2yr ago
It would have been much more prudent for him to step aside and let his more popular and less likely to die in the next 10 years son William take the throne.
The key argument in favour of monarchy remaining as part of the British constitutional architecture is that it abides by a fixed set of rules that are so old as to almost transcend human influence. Of course, this isn't actually true, but the impression that it is true needs to be safeguarded if the monarchy is to keep its credibility. Popular or unpopular, wise or foolish, bright or dull, handsome or ugly - it matters not; the King becomes the King by the ancient system of hereditary transfer upon death of the previous monarch. It's true that such things have happened before, but public support for the monarchy is no longer as unanimous as it was at the time of Edward VIII, and I doubt people would tolerate such happenings again. I can imagine many people thinking: "if they're not going to do it properly and play by the rules of monarchy, what's the point of having them at all?".
This is a fair point. Let me amend my grievance: many posts here take it as a given that progressives are intent on enforcing their worldview not on altruistic grounds of morality, but rather out of a self-serving desire to further their own prospects and those of their in-group, composited with a wanton and nihilistic urge to destroy tradition and structure.
More options
Context Copy link