This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Maybe. Maybe not. You either wage information war to humiliate, alienate and discredit your political opponents, or you don't. TracingWoodgrains may be of a different quantity than David Gerard, but he's proven he isn't of a different type.
This viewpoint is basically your version of the social-justice activist's "police is racist for arresting a Black shoplifter", is it not? It doesn't matter that the arrested person was a shoplifter and police's core function includes arresting shoplifters, but only that they were black; it doesn't matter that the hoaxed person was a purveyor of bad epistemics and a rationalist blogger's core function includes obstructing purveyors of bad epistemics, but only that she was conservative.
There is a view that it is proper to enact violence upon and confine criminals and doing so doesn't make you qualitatively the same as those who would do so against any political opponent. It's not too much of a stretch to draw the same distinction regarding sneer celebrities and similar antisocial elements of the epistemic domain, and say that they ought to be humiliated, alienated and discredited regardless of political colour.
No, and I don't understand how you can make that comparison.
It's: arresting shoplifters does not justify an elaborate sting operation, and an arrest made by a SWAT team. By the way, the sting operation involved a "free samples" sign left next to the shoplifted items, which may or may not have been obviously fake enough for a normal person to tell apart from a legitimate one.
Feel free to use the "well, technically they did shoplift" defense just don't whine about the townsfolk suddenly becoming rather uncooperative with officer Leroy Jenkins, who led the operation.
I can't find a good way to respond to your objection because it is not clear to me what part of the comparison you think fails. Just to be clear, you do understand that I think that LoTT's normal conduct of nutpicking the outgroup is the bad thing, rather than just the circumstance that LoTT reposted a hoax, right? I doubt any of our right-wing members think that the left-wing version of that behaviour (which is basically sneerclub and rationalwiki) is good; to assert that it's good when your tribe does it is just the same sort of trite who/whom that otherwise takes the form of "black people shoplifting is just".
It's the part where you're implying people agree with you on the nature and the level of badness of the transgression, and only object to the reaction for tribal affiliation reasons, rather than because they think the reaction is completely disproportionate to the alleged crime.
The problem here is that the very structure of hoax, and all the commentary around it, did not attack that part of LoTT's conduct. The hoax could only criticize her lack of vetting of her source material.
They all have a function in a balanced ecosystem, and are all completely fine, as long as they aren't taken to excess.
Check your premises before forming your conclusions, I guess.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Alright, admittedly, I'm 2 fingers of whiskey into my night, but I cannot follow you at all.
The only way I can pattern match your claim, is to involve entrapment. Because Tracing didn't merely catch LOTT spreading a hoax, he invented a hoax, and specifically messaged her evidence he fabricated. And I'd be totally against hypothetical police, I don't know, somehow entrapping Black people into shoplifting. Maybe they put up a sign saying "Free Watches" without the store managers knowledge or permission. I don't know, the whole comparison made little enough sense to me in the first place.
The shoplifting in the metaphor is not posting hoaxes, but doing what LoTT does normally - "nutpicking" and sneering at the outgroup based on the most outrageous examples of its members. This is entrapment in the sense that those porch thief bait packages people like posting about on YouTube are - the reason the porch thieves are bad is not that they took the bait, but that they took non-bait packages before. The bait package is just a tool to catch them.
If that's what the shoplifting means in the metaphor, then we could just catch the criminal shoplifting because they do it all the time, and setting up a sting operation instead of observing actual shoplifting brings no benefit at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's your takeaway from the whole saga? It's far more reasonable to conclude that LibsofTikTok is the equivalent of David Gerard. She's a culture warrior to whom truthfulness matters not one whit through and through but unlike Hanania doesn't have the intelligence and social grace to present as respectable. I support her name being dragged through the mud for the same reason I support Gerard's name being dragged through it.
Do you think Trace would have published if the attempt to scam LoTT had failed? Or perhaps chosen a progressive target if the conservative ones proved less gullible than he hoped?
If a test is only allowed one result, it's not exactly a good example of truthfulness or nonpartisanship.
In the end this is the same issue LoTT has. Nutpicking is extraordinarily powerful--anyone can find thousands of terrible examples of people in the outgroup doing despicable things. Whether you're finding these examples, or creating them yourself, if you only target one side you're going to create a slanted, biased perspective of that side for anyone who follows you.
Trace's journalism since then has been significantly better, and he's also criticized his own side somewhat. While I have serious complaints about how this was handled it was still in the end a criticism of extreme leftists, meaning that while his most dedicated attempts at criticism may still be reserved for the right, there is still at least some degree of evenhandedness, more than I have come to expect from virtually any journalist.
Taking a look at LoTT's current front page (1, 2, 3, 4) I see a lot of partisanship, but much less nutpicking--most of the things being highlighted are more "look at large ongoing events progressives explicitly say they support" than "look at random isolated events which I claim are the inevitable result of progressive policies."
As I've said before, I don't mind the LoTT takedown. But, looking at the two accounts nowadays, it's unclear which is actually the better source of truth. Trace seems to be extremely honest about the facts of the case, really digging into the details, but will spin the broader picture/takeaway to such an extent that I have a hard time believing anything he says without verifying it myself. I've seen him say things that to me are nearly "the sky is never blue" level. LoTT seems broadly more interested in partisanship and less interested in the truth, but I have never seen it tell such whoppers as "[The FAA case] is not a fundamentally partisan issue".
I follow Trace, and don't follow LoTT, but they're really not so different as you make them out to be.
Well, given that Trace has spent a ton of time documenting the FAA hiring scandal which made the progressives look terrible, I conclude that he is actually interested in the truth rather than a partisan for a side in the culture war.
I concur with you sentiment that the FAA thing is fundamentally partisan. The 'equality of outcomes' demand which set the bad incentives which resulted in officials doing what they did was very much a demand of the progressive side, not bipartisan.
Personally, I think the test cheating is a direct consequence of the law making unrealistic, contradictory demands. "You have to hire based on merit, but you also have to hire enough black people, otherwise you are a dirty racist" is not a consistent goal in a world where black people are on average less qualified for whatever reasons -- something has got to give. So yes, I fully blame the progressive 'equality of outcome' laws for that.
The left-wing media shares my sentiment, because they elected mostly not to cover that story at all for what I assume are partisan reasons.
Suppose party X got rid of all restrictions on gun ownership and all public funding for mental health. Then some psychotic person buys an auto rifle and shoots up some mall. For some weird reason, Trace is the only one to report on it. He also says something like (changed words in italic):
We should give Trace 100 truth points for covering the issue. We can debate if we should deduct a point for also calling it "not a fundamentally partisan issue" or if that was taken out of context, but either way, his credentials as someone who is willing to hurt progressive causes in the name of the truth are established.
Why not both? The way I see it, partisanship and truth-seeking are only somewhat contradictory. A pure truth-seeker is probably a mathematician or philosopher, and a pure partisan will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want, but there are infinite combinations of the two qualities between those extremes.
The average reasonable person is aware of status games and plays them to at least some extent. Being a truth-seeker will earn you status in most circles. Being left-liberal will earn you status in most circles. When choosing what to cover there are tradeoffs between the two. I see the FAA scandal as such a good scoop that it was worth being somewhat critical of far-left extremists, and losing Progressive Points, because in this case the exchange rate for Truth Points is very good. The LoTT piece was pretty much the same but in reverse, losing some Truth Points in exchange for plenty of Progressive Points.
A rational person will pursue all such opportunities and gradually gain status in their circles in both respects. A partisan will perhaps ignore Truth Points entirely. I don't think Trace is a partisan, and I think he's chosen a reasonably Truth-slanted exchange rate between the two currencies, though of course I wish he were more on my side.
I strongly disagree with this. If the motivation for the FAA's actions was solely to obey seemingly contradictory laws, it would have followed the lead of all the other departments that are not in trouble. Or just done what it has always done, which didn't get it in trouble.
You're telling me that an organization which was not breaking any laws, in a time where its actions weren't being litigated anywhere, went way out of its way to secretly adopt new questionably legal policies, out of a desire to obey the law? Do you really think, if they thought their actions were legal, they would have hid them as they did? Surely if their motivation was to obey the law better, and they thought their policies were less likely to be litigated than the previous ones, they would trumpet the policy from every rooftop in order to ensure everyone knew about the new, safer, more legal policy.
No, that's just ridiculous. Equality of outcome laws had virtually nothing to do with these policies. The leaders wanted a racial spoils system, knew it probably wouldn't be legal, and implemented it anyways, out of pure ideological fervor.
This would hit a lot harder if there were prominent Republicans directly advocating for school/mall shootings, the way there are prominent Democrats directly advocating for reparations and other similar programs.
A better example would be abortion. Let's say X gets raped and tries to get an abortion but can't, because in her state abortion is banned even in cases of rape and incest. There are (a few, I think) prominent Republicans who advocate for these sorts of laws. In this case if Trace had said
then I would say the same thing--no! Obviously not! Plenty of people do want to defend that situation, but are smart enough not to do so in public, knowing it's outside of the current Overton window. And it's extremely partisan, because the people who made those laws are still in power and haven't apologized or otherwise expressed any regret at all, nor have any of their supporters condemned them for this. It's not a policy failure, it's a policy success, and the partisans whose policies worked as intended are still writing up new similar policies. (To bring the analogy full circle, Pete Buttigieg and co. are still appointing similar people to positions of power).
As far as I'm concerned Trace is better than any other journalist that I can think of, and deserves praise for that, but it's an amazingly low bar. I often visit the Fox News website rather than CNN's, not because I like it more or because it's more honest (CNN wins on both counts for me) but because its lies are far clumsier and more transparent. Trace takes this a step further, keeping every detail honest, but skillfully crafting the narrative such that if you're not paying attention you'll be led to the exact opposite of the correct conclusion, even with all of the relevant facts in hand. In the FAA case, one might conclude that the whole mess was just a bunch of innocent nonpartisan officials struggling to fulfill the law, rather than hyperpartisan officials fighting to secretly ignore the will of the people and enact their preferred agendas instead.
I don't think this is fair to me at all. This is the final paragraph of my article.
That's not a claim of struggling to fulfill the law--it's a claim that people did terrible things, got exposed as being terrible things, and have left a black eye on institutions that people have failed to pay attention to for partisan reasons.
I said, and will continue to say, that it is not fundamentally partisan. When I speak with partisans involved in it about the specific details, including ones with ties to the institutions in question, people are outraged. People certainly respond to it in partisan ways, but inflaming it as an issue where the people whose laps it got dumped in have no way to save face, where they're either conquered or they stick to their guns and win, does not actually help the issue get solved.
I will absolutely own up to framing my articles in ways that make people more likely to listen to them, but I think it's a grave misreading to take it as me absolving anyone of responsibility or treating it anything as other than a blatantly corrupt institutional failure on all levels.
My central claim is that the lawsuit was not built on bad decisions. Every decision taken was calculated and intentional, and if they hadn't been caught it would have provided precisely the outcome they were aiming for. It's clear from the context that you meant "bad" as in "misguided but with good intentions" when the reality is the exact opposite. The proper functioning of the FAA wasn't "broken", it was purposefully subverted. Much of your language throughout the piece aims to paint the actions taken by the FAA as a series of mistakes rather than what they actually were, a series of hyperpartisan stratagems driven by extremists.
The people who did this were not making mistakes. They were rationally pursuing their goals, which I happen to vehemently disagree with. The only "mistake" they made was getting caught. They weren't pressured into it either, they actively pursued these policies, doing their best to hide them from the public eye. Keep in mind that the FAA funded the studies whose proposals it adopted.
Or, let me be more clear here. The FAA is clearly, obviously, subject to more pressure from the voters and the pilot schools than from random black pilot organizations. If they were under pressure from the NBCFAE, they must have been under at least a hundred times that much from other organizations, yet it was the former they "caved" to. Is it really so surprising to you that leftist officials, put in place by higher-up leftists, under a leftist administration, would prefer "caving" to extreme leftist policies than to what you describe as "nonpartisan" ones? No, they were obviously actively pursuing the agenda they loudly claimed to be pursuing, even if it took a bit of agency laundering to nominally place the blame on an external activist organization.
When I mentioned that, I was responding to this:
from @quiet_NaN. That said, when you describe predecessors' behavior as happening because they were "between a rock and a hard place in the impossible task of avoiding disparate impact while preserving objective standards", I think that's pretty straightforwardly a claim that they were struggling to fulfill the law, yeah.
I know plenty of partisans who would fully support the FAA's actions here. I know of partisans too--namely the ones who perpetrated the whole thing. Now that the jig is up the smart ones obviously won't defend it, but they will deny and deflect, arguing that nobody in the FAA knew it was happening, or that only a few people knew but were rogue elements, or maybe the whole FAA knew but not Pete, or maybe Pete knew too but now he has to defend his predecessors' actions or he gets, as you put it, "conquered."
You don't strike me as partisan but your framing of this situation certainly makes me doubt that judgement. If rogue elements in the FAA did this (as has been established), that's evidence that higher-ups supported it or were at least fine with it. This has been established too--the internal review decided that the "rogue elements" had done nothing wrong. If the higher-ups supported it, that's evidence that the FAA as a whole, and people such as the secretary of transportation, were also fine with this behavior and/or actively supported it. Your behavior seems to be to report the facts accurately, then fight viciously to deny any possibility that higher-ups actually knew what was going on or had any role in it. Whether they did or not, they appointed the people who did this. That alone merits an enormous reckoning, and in my opinion straight-up disqualifies such people from serving at any position in the government, let alone such a high one.
Honestly I don't even know what you mean by "fundamentally partisan." The definition of the word is "prejudiced in favor of a particular cause." Do you really think the people that did this weren't partisan? Do you think sufficiently partisan people wouldn't support this? "Nonpartisan" generally indicates something everyone can agree on, but if everyone could agree that this was bad then it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
I think this is our main disagreement. You seem to genuinely believe the higher-ups at the FAA weren't in on this. I think it's obvious they were, and this whole scheme was intentional. If the law hadn't been passed they'd still be doing it today, if they hadn't graduated to a more subtle method of accomplishing the same thing.
As I said in my original comment:
I don't think you're actively trying to mislead people, but in this case you seem to have been so charitable to the entire edifice, denying agency at every possible step, that whatever your intentions, people have been misled. You saw (I hope) the comment I was responding to chalking the whole thing up to tension between laws. If an intelligent, conservative guy walks away from your article with that takeaway, I don't understand how you can claim with a straight face that you were clearly calling it a "blatantly corrupt institutional failure."
They were pressured! Objectively, straightforwardly, unambiguously, they were pressured! It was the result of a multi-year lobbying effort from the NBCFAE, going all the way up to the Congressional Black Caucus! I spend four paragraphs detailing the contours of that pressure in excruciating detail.
You say they were under much more pressure than other directions--really? Why would you think that? Race is a uniquely hot-button issue in America, and left-leaning people in particular are very, very bad at facing down race-based pressure. That doesn't make it a willful pursuit of exactly what they want to do at every step. Massively changing a hiring process is an incredibly obnoxious thing to have to do. It's not the sort of thing that happens without pressure. Yes, they're more ideologically amenable to that pressure than you would be, but no, that doesn't make it not pressure.
The FAA is not at all clearly, not at all obviously, subject to more pressure from the voters and the pilot schools than a random black activist group. Did voters and pilot schools stage meetings with Congress? Did voters and pilot schools pursue a multi-year campaign to change things?
(The answer is: Yes, after the scandal. And they changed things! That pressure worked too!)
Look, dude, I get that you sincerely think this is a major blind spot of mine and I'm trying to obfuscate responsibility for the figures involved, but that is simply not the case. I presented the full truth in a way designed to leave not past administrators--who were already fired, demoted, and otherwise disgraced over it--but present ones, who had a mess dumped in their lap, a way to save face by acknowledging and correcting the harm.
Nothing in my presentation stopped millions of conservatives from concluding that the whole of it was a horribly corrupt mess. A great deal in my presentation convinced both people directly involved in the fight for justice in the wake of the scandal and other well-meaning liberals that I wasn't just another far-right figure with an axe to grind, and as a result the people involved were grateful and willing to go on record with further details (which I hope to get into a mainstream publication), and those liberals learned about a scandal that had previously been kicking around only places like Steve Sailer's blog.
It's fine to be irritated that I bend over to be charitable and to make people comfortable and to appeal to their better nature, but you don't have an accurate model of the people involved or of me, and it's leading you astray.
This is the crux of my argument, which I'm beginning to suspect you simply don't understand. At the limits there is no difference between an organization being "amenable to pressure" and the organization simply wanting to do something whether or not it's getting pressured into it. If it takes suspiciously little pressure to get an org to do something, you can be sure they already wanted to do it. That doesn't mean your pressure is super effective, it just means the org was already sympathetic, or perhaps even already on your side and just waiting for a catalyst.
You're basically trying to say, "Obviously they were pressured more by the NBCFAE than any other organization, because the NBCFAE is who they ended up listening to." Whereas my point is, "Obviously they were already highly sympathetic to the NBCFAE, because despite not being pressured very much by them, they made drastic changes to comply with the NBCFAE's demands."
If it were actually pressure that got the FAA to change their hiring process (the implication being, against their will) then surely more influential organizations such as the pilot schools would have been able to get it changed back internally, via pressure, rather than needing to go through Congress and written law.
This conflates the soft pressure the NBCFAE was applying with the hard pressure the court is capable of applying. There was no amount of soft pressure sufficient to make the FAA roll back their hiring changes--they literally had to be forced into it by Congress. Aside from explicit written confirmation from FAA leaders, this is the strongest possible evidence we could have that the changes were not actually made due to pressure.
Yeah, I'd believe you if you had actually blamed the past admins, rather than saying they were simply stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to fulfill an impossible mandate. I'll acknowledge you later somewhat contradicted this by highlighting how their internal investigation found no wrongdoing, but that's not in your main post.
Extending endless charity to the people who orchestrated this mess (or, like Pete, inherited it) is useful up to a point, but it misses the broader, more important picture. Whether you think the spark came from within the FAA or from an external activist organization, it's clear that leftist institutions are highly susceptible to hyperpartisan, extreme-left ideological takeovers, to the point where rank-and-file government employees are enlisted to conduct illegal activities and hide the evidence. The only two possibilities are to either say,
I think #1 is probably better for dealing with this specific situation. It's essentially begging the overlords to be merciful, and I suppose they may comply just this once. But #2 is the better conclusion, both more accurate and more forward-thinking. Do you disagree?
More options
Context Copy link
Your theatrical slamming of the door is so protracted that my ban has expired before you left. Don't let that door hit you on the way out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You really don't think anything even approaching "good faith" or truth-seeking exists online? That seems not only absurdly axiomatic, but also a miserable mental space to inhabit.
I do believe in good faith truth seeking. I just think that when an interlocutor has waged an information war in the past, that puts a permanent asterisk on their "truth seeking".
I've noticed this a lot. There is this strain of internet user that believes if you can create fake websites, fake images, fake users, etc to convince your political opponents of falsehoods to embarrass them, that's just good old fashioned internet fun. And yeah, I laughed too when local news reporters beclowned themselves reporting on Jenkem. But it takes a far darker turn when you muddy the waters of real, salient, political issues as TracingWoodgrains has done, and bragged about, here even.
But I donno. Maybe I have him wrong, and at some point he publicly apologized to LibsOfTiktok for hoaxing her, and has publicly expressed that he regrets waging an information war on her.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From the very bottom of my heart, go screw yourself.
Yes, yes, civility violations and all that. Mods, warn me as you will and ban me if you must; I believe this will mark my first violation of this sort. But I stand by it, and sometimes, things like this need to be said.
To you, to everyone like you who thinks that about me here: go screw yourself.
I have always been perfectly upfront about who I am, what I do, and why. I have aimed to remain earnest, consistent, open, and push constantly against falsehood and towards painting clear pictures of the truth, including in controversial and sensitive situations. I stake my reputation and my name on my work. The Libs of TikTok saga was poorly executed on my part but was motivated by precisely the same thing as my FAA reporting and this: a deep-running frustration at people's willingness to spread and cheer convenient falsehoods to advance their causes.
Have I made missteps? I don't know anyone in the arena who has not. But I am immensely proud of my work as a whole, and every time I return here and find miserable scolds like you grousing about bitterness you've never let go, it disgusts me.
Screw you, screw everyone like you here, and if I didn't know perfectly well that plenty of people here do not think like you, I would delete my posts here and never spend another moment on this site, because you and yours have dragged it into the gutter and I don't need to spend my time around people determined to see nothing but the worst in me. Imagine writing something like this after I spend a month exhaustively documenting the malicious history of one who has been spreading propaganda against communities like this before either you or I had anything to do with it. Imagine having nothing better to do than dig this rubbish up, than look to start a stupid fight over nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself, but of course you won't.
You can insult me when you've put your money where your mouth is a fraction of the amount I have. Until then, go screw yourself. You and Gerard deserve each other.
Woah, I was not expecting the vote result for this comment to come out this balanced. This is currently the most controversial comment on the entire site.
Huh. You're right. Just for that, I upvoted it towards 0.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, we've all thrown our hat in the ring in different ways. I chose to have children, be a father and a husband, live an honest industrious life as an example to my offspring, and attempt to preserve my way of life through them.
You contributed to a miasma of chaos around the state violating my parental rights to confiscate my children's reproductive capacity. You added one more talking point to the list I have to defeat when I'm arguing with my in-laws about the very real, documented shit our local school districts are doing that they've been MSNBC'ed about.
I wouldn't pat yourself on the back too hard. Although I suppose if you get your way, your impact on society may yet outlive mine, though I suspect my wife wouldn't survive the shock of it.
The fucking hubris to call that "Truth seeking" and play the victim.
More options
Context Copy link
To WhiningCoil, we're all in a propaganda war whose outcome is critical. To you, it's just a game of sorts. Not a life-or-death conflict whose outcome determines whether normies return to functional normality, or end up in cultural-revolution tier insanity.
I get why he's pissed at you, and I get why you as a young gay furry aren't overly concerned with the possible normalisation of cultral-revolution tier social insanity.
Like most young people, you probably believe, deep down that you're immortal and it'll all work out.
Have you yet been forced to perform a maoist style self-criticism session IRL where you admit to your sin of being white-ish and promise to do better ? I guess not.
There is precisely one place where people have tried to force me to do something like that. It’s here, by posters like Coil but unfortunately also posters who are otherwise good, and I find that sadder than anything else about this place.
Nobody here except the mods has any leverage to force you to do anything. And the mods haven't (and all they can do is threaten to ban anyway). Someone here wants you to do something, you can just... not.
Yes, that’s how every social group works, and there are consequences for every “not.”
Anyway, you’re one of the highest-volume, lowest-effort partisans here and you’ve been that way the entire time I’ve known you. If this forum hated Darwin for the reasons they said they did, you’d get at least as much criticism. I hope you enjoy the forum you’ve helped build. Take care.
The consequences for not engaging in a "maoist style self-criticism session" here are certainly less bad than the consequences of engaging in one, and that's likely true in any situation where there aren't real-world consequences for refusal. You're getting needled by people you don't respect anyway, but no self-criticism session would solve that.
As for me being some sort of mirror-image Darwin, no. There's obviously some similarity in style; we're both short-form posters. But it ends there. Since I think Darwin's currently not here to defend himself (and his main account is banned, I think), I won't go further.
More options
Context Copy link
No, it is not how every social group works. And you know this because your hoax involved fake school teachings, and school is a kind of social group where the teachers do, in fact, have leverage beyond just getting mad at their charges.
More options
Context Copy link
Is it Festivus already? When do we get to the feats of strength?
Feats of strength are over here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
TW knows about the propaganda war, but has very different objectives to you. Much harder to balance ones too: he needs enough Progress for surrogate gaybies, but not too much that white gay guys can't get the good lawyer jobs.
That's why his targets range from LoTT to FAA-DEI. He can be useful to you guys, at least at the moment while your enemies threaten him more than you do.
Long term, of course, his brand of manipulation isn't compatible with your goals. But you don't need to be mean publicly, even if you know he'd eventually do an expose to get you fired (or you'd put him on the last train to Journawitz, depending on the breaks)
I think it is uncharitable to assume that Trace picks his stories to support some weird niche centrist agenda.
But even if his selection of stories was totally partisan, this would mostly be a problem if he was the only news source on the market. Last time I checked, he is not.
If there was a news story about how one in three gay men will eat babies which he would not cover because it does not fit the narrative he wants to push, I am sure that some investigative journalist somewhere could also pick it up.
From what I have seen, Trace provides truthful, relevant information. Such a thing is net good.
Perhaps not what SteveKirk was saying, but it seems plain to me that Trace promotes a centrist agenda?
That is, he often writes about things that he sees as problems, on whichever side they may be found (centrist agenda), and has something of a vision of the unusual things that he values (weird niche)?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, I'm not a bioconservative or anything, to me if we avoid a dead-end or insane planetary monoculture it's all ok. Even if we end up with some people engineering actual furries out there, whatever.
Sure it's weird but I'm all for more human speciation. If we've got aquatic humans comfortable with not breathing for four hours making a living tending sea industry and gigabrained autistic scientist castes, then admitting that blacks aren't that smart and maybe we could breed them to be smarter as to not be too embarrassed by them isn't going to be a big deal. It's our biology, and treating a product of evolution as sacred is just too weird to me.
As far as I can tell mostly accidentally trolling LOTT is small potatoes and as far as culture-war commentators are concerned, Trace is a very good one.
Not that I'd trust him with my real name, phone number, address etc., but then I'm notably paranoid.
It's the difference between a woman wearing dresses as clothes and a crossdresser wearing dresses because he gets sexually excited at it. Furries aren't a type of transhumanists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The goals don't help, but it's the "brand of manipulation" that's off-putting. Walt Bismarck is probably an even better example of it, because even though his goals are superficially more compatible, all my instincts tell me to stay the hell away from that guy.
I agree people should calm the hell down, and I disagree he'd go after anyone's job. That said, "not being mean" is not enough for him. He himself said the kind of Highlander's Holy Ground you hint at is unacceptable to him, and he wouldn't hang out here, even if that's what we became.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Been said but for being from the old internet you should have thicker skin. You'd probably shrug off being called a fagot but this sends you over the edge? I'm guessing it's the insecurity knowing that you kind of fucked up and it's going to follow you forever. The left has big fancy institutions to gaslight us. They gaslight us on [A-Z+-]+, CRT, Biden's mental facilities and many other things. You pulled one over on a mid-whit, but how correct is libs of tiktok? Less then 50% or is it much much more?
It's more personal here, because this place used to mean a lot to me and it's tough to come to terms with it now being the only place on the internet I interact regularly with people who hold long-standing, deep grudges against me and want me to remember that every time I post. I'm not interested in shaking it off or in displaying a thick skin here. Anyone who nods along with their behavior here is not someone I want to share a community with, and I am more interested in loudly signalling that than in presenting in a stoic way.
As far as insecurity and things following me—look, I participate in a lot of online communities, and only one has a large sub-population of bitter grudge-holders who want to drag their conflicts with me into every interaction. Yes, that group has successfully ruined my perception of this community, but that has happened while I've been in the most successful part of my online career by far. You're not seeing insecurity here, you're seeing frustration at what's become of a place I once loved.
From behind a screen, I have plenty of time to consider my words and my self-presentation. When I want to be calm, I am, and my online history backs that up. What I wanted there was, for once in my time on the Motte, to tell the people who have delighted in making it a petty, vindictive space that clings to grudges to go screw themselves for contributing to the destruction of something beautiful.
The Motte that I loved is dead, and although good people still continue to interact atop its corpse, I would like those good people to know in no uncertain terms that the people who killed that Motte remain, while the posters they loved have mostly moved on to greener pastures. I've been returning here to maintain a point of contact with those who have not yet joined the motte diaspora, but now I want those people to understand that as far as I'm concerned, this community is no longer worth coming to and they should work alongside me to build elsewhere.
You should start your own subreddit. With how much everyone deeply cares about your opinion, I bet it would be a huge hit and not at all a stillborn laughingstock monument to your own unwarranted sense of importance.
We've been pretty lenient with people who want to pile on Trace - he kind of invited it with his own evident willingness to wade in for one last hurrah.
However, this is over the line, just pure sneering with no point to it other than that. And given your record of making it clear you are just here to sneer, you can go away for four days.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As a pretty much uninvolved person (I appreciated your reporting on the FAA hiring scandal and recognize you semi-vaguely as a notable figure around here, am aware of David Gerard as a leading anti-crypto crank being a heavy Bitcoin investor myself, and check Libs of TikTok occasionally a couple of times a year when I remember it exists, think "I should check this more often because I love seeing left-wingers looking dumb.", and then forget to.):
If David Gerard has spread falsehoods, that's bad.
If Libs of TikTok has spread falsehoods, that's bad.
If you've corrected falsehoods, that's good.
...
And if you've spread falsehoods, that's also still bad.
Where in the rules of honest conduct does it say that even 10,000 truths elucidated gives you an excuse for a single lie? If you intentionally attract autists obsessed with truth-seeking to your online presence by writing thousands of words screeds about exposing the truth of various matters, of course they are naturally going to do the same to you as what you do to others like Gerard: nitpick your record of honesty.
Losing your shit like this doesn't make you seem righteous; it just makes you seem mad that the same eye of scrutiny you cast upon others applies to you too. (Incidentally this is the same thing that happened to Scott vis-a-vis Alexandros Marinos. If even he can get got, so can you. You've got to learn to handle it better than by just trying to play the victim.)
Some of the most obnoxious moments here are when someone dredges up a historical feud and the peanut gallery thinks it’s productive to opine at length on the object level of that feud.
The people still beating this drum hated me before that moment and see it as simply the most convenient attack vector. You’re welcome to play along, but I’m not going to validate it. Enjoy your site.
Okay, conceive of everyone as part of the "conspiracy" (as useful idiots or not) and run away to carve out your own little slice of besieged territory online where presumably it's only a matter of time before any dissent is ruthlessly purged. You think that's intellectually productive?
Do tell, does this prohibition on not litigating the object level ("at length" apparently in four sentences) of various potential offenses because of alleged persecution against the offender only apply to you, or do you extend it to others too? Do you avoid opining on what, say, for example Donald Trump may or may not have done lately because there are obviously so many people who are just out to get him anyway, who have always already hated him before whatever his most recent offense was, and who obviously only care about "the most convenient attack vector" to take him down? Do you chastise your left-wing fellows for "play[ing] along" with this?
Honestly, you're just coming off here like a pussy who isn't fit for public discourse despite clearly wanting to be involved with it. And the Internet smells pussy like sharks smell blood, which means that if you don't toughen up, soon whatever good you could do will just end up being buried by your own paranoia and insistence on taking a Chris-chan "fighting da dang dirty trolls" attitude towards things. That's the posture you're clearly careening towards. (Keep coming off this weak and you will eventually attract people who want to troll you not even because of any actual grudge but rather out of a sense of pure entertainment and seeing if they can elicit the next meltdown.)
You used a tactical nuke against Gerard (and it really is a good article) but then you're also still complaining about getting the occasional pistol pulled on you. Man up and get over it. You think you have it bad? Imagine being Kyle Rittenhouse who legitimately did nothing wrong (at least initially) and was only trying to help his community as a 17 year old but now has probably at least 10% of "low-information voters" thinking he is a confirmed Nazi mass shooter who killed at least 20 black people but was just let go by the fascist police with free Burger King for life after because racism. That's actual persecution, grudge-holding, being the victim of a campaign of propaganda, etc.
A few people thinking a prank you did was dishonest by comparison is small peanuts. Without a thicker skin than this, you've reached your ceiling other than in a carefully-cultivated hugbox.
Okay, I know you really want to call him a pussy, and you did your best to do that without saying "You're a pussy," but you didn't do a good enough job. This is too antagonistic and you know it.
More options
Context Copy link
People are welcome to pull pistols on me. If someone wants to write an in-depth expose on all of my online activity, be my guest. I leave it open for the world to see. I encourage it, in fact: write your hit piece on me. Write a magnum opus detailing my crimes to the world. I throw plenty of punches and am prepared to receive them in return. But dragging it into unrelated conversations, such that every conversation becomes a referendum on those topics, deserves no respect and serves to do nothing but degrade this forum as a place for conversation.
As for carving out my own little space online where dissent is purged, everyone from Steve Sailer to Zero HP Lovecraft to BAP follows me on Twitter, where I openly and emphatically argue against them. If I'm trying to dodge the online right, I'm doing a terrible job of it.
Anyway, you seem charming. I'll leave you to it.
Does Kulak? Did the two of you talk about never mentioning this place, or did you both come to the same conclusion separately?
Not everyone is trying to have an online career, like you are, and Kulak is. I suppose it's natural that the people making the best content are going to don't ways to benefit from it. Whatever this place is, it isn't a place to have a career.
I wish you success, but I'm still one of the grudge holders, and for me it was theschism that I'm holding a grudge about. I don't want to being it up every time, but that was offensive to me, and it is offensive to me to hear your complain about people killing themotte when you tried to schism it a few years ago. Leaving for Twitter is a better way, and if that scratches the itch that made you make theschism, then I only wish Elon had bought Twitter sooner.
More options
Context Copy link
Again, if you think your record of honesty (even if people may be exaggerating it in the dishonest direction) isn't relevant to your own takedown of somebody else for dishonesty, then you're just wanting a special exception from the rules you seek to enforce on others. That is what "deserves no respect and serves to do nothing but degrade this forum as a place for conversation". Sorry, but if you've really been around on the Internet this long, you should know that nobody gets a special pass. Good luck seeking otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The whole David Gerard post was about a historical feud. You did it first.
Enjoy your feud, Jiro. You, like Nybbler, have mostly damaged this website, and you remain the same as ever. Take care.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Dude, I'm glad @netstack already gave you your warning.
You're far more public than me, and you get less shit here than I do just by virtue of being a mod on the "wrong side." It genuinely concerns me that someone who's gone so public and is so clearly staking out a niche in the Culture Wars has such a thin skin. I agree with almost everything you say about your detractors, and I sympathize with your earnest attempts to be sincere and engage in good faith and be perceived as engaging in good faith, but even if you hadn't ever pranked LibsOfTikTok (which you may recall, at the time even I said had a bad look), you'd still be getting shat on for the Schism, for being so earnest, for being on the "wrong side," for a bunch of things. The miserable scolds are always going to grouse bitterly at you. For your own peace of mind and future career as a semi-public figure, get used to it and learn not to so easily be made to show that they're getting to you.
Hey, you've known me for a long time—long enough that you can know I am wholly capable of maintaining equanimity and responding with grace when I want to do so. Tonight, I did not want to do so. I wanted to react from the heart, without my usual filters, to the small group of people who have made it their mission to damage this space for years—and who have succeeded in doing so. I'm responding to everyone who made this place unappealing for CanIHaveASong, for paanther, for heterodox_jedi, for Gemma, for Yassine, for countless other posters a thousand times better than the miserable ankle-biters who drove them away in a quest for a twisted sort of purity. The miserable scolds are here, and the rules here are incapable of seeing the miserable scolds and chasing them away before they chase everyone else away, so it's time to let them have it and continue to build elsewhere.
My foot was already mostly out the door. Now it's out, and I want everyone I like here, and everyone who likes me here, to understand exactly why.
See you on the other side.
I say this with love TW, histrionic breakdowns of any sort are an invitation for the wolves to circle. They embolden your enemies, an indication that their needling is effective. I don't know if we're tugging on the same side of the rope here but there's enough in your writing that reminds me of myself and should I ever encounter a new article of yours in the wild again I will read the whole damn thing even if only to humor that connection.
I respect and appreciate that.
The reality is that their needling has been effective. Not on my life, my career, or my writing as a whole, all of which are on a trajectory I could never have imagined or hoped for. But they have caused serious long-term damage to a place I loved over many years, made things unbearable for people I respect, and made this forum increasingly one-note and lifeless. Letting them know that they get to me personally does nothing to impact any of that, it just makes this a place I no longer want to spend my time.
At the same time, having watched it for years, I did want to share my sentiments with them directly before I left. I don't know whether they're bad people in some abstract sense, but they damaged something I loved and are now jealously guarding its corpse. So be it.
It doesn't matter whether they know they got to me or not. If they want to follow me elsewhere, I don't have to dance around the way I do here, and the chorus of malcontents on Twitter is large enough that another voice or two makes little difference. One way or another, I'm leaving this site, though, and it did matter to me whether I said how I felt before then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As the joke goes, you can build the pub, you can build the pier, but ya go and fuck one goat...
Your sin was goring the wrong ox, not trolling in the first place. If you had gotten the NYT to publish a positive story about furries insisting on eating out of dog bowls in school cafeterias, the majority of these people would be singing your praises. I don't recall the Texas abortion bounty hunter trolls provoking any real outrage.
At the end of the day, no matter how much investigating reporting you do to embarrass activists on the left, you'll still be the goat fucker my friend. IMO, stop apologizing and double down.
These aren't comparable at all.
I don't think he should apologize. The stunt was fine. That said, I don't think he has apologized, either. Stating that it wasn't executed well, or that you wouldn't have done it if you had known what the reception would be, is not apologizing.
More options
Context Copy link
... I won't be so optimistic as to say no one would applaud it, but I think you're underestimating the number of people here with at least some interest in truth, especially given that there's people here already pushing back about false or misleading citations about Trace.
I'd be less disappointed given that I have (perhaps wrongly!) higher expectations from NYT than from
Crazy Internet KarenLLoT, but there's a lot of active harm in throwing out this sorta stuff.((And as professorgerm and gemma pointed out the very first time you made this comparison, Trace did not say during the Texas Bounty Hunter Thing that he was personally involved in setting up the trolling operation. I'm kinda hoping he wasn't!))
More options
Context Copy link
This ain't it at all. Hoaxing the NYT would be notable for the same reasons The Rape On Campus story out of Rolling Stone was notable. There are supposed to be fact checkers, multiple sources, teams of lawyers, etc vetting a story. There is supposed to be a rigorous institution in play here, with the pretense that it can course correct for any particular individuals biases or short comings.
Convincing a twitter anon, even a popular one, of a hoax is Kiwifarms material. It's giving your uncle a facebook chain letter. Doing it to score cheap political points is especially gross. It's like if I was engaged in a heated debate here, and to win it, I registered a new twitter account and said some bullshit, and then came back here pointing to it going "See, people on twitter are saying the bullshit I said they were saying!" And maybe some poor schmuck here believed it, and then I used that as further evidence of how gullible they are.
And this whole, "How dare you" attitude, and this pretense of "truth seeking". I mean... maybe. But like I said, it puts an asterisk. I know this is a guy who wages information war. I need to be weary of that.
Perhaps you're a man of principle, and 'thou shalt not lie on the internet to people who aren't the MSM' is the hill you're willing to die on. I laud your moral character.
I do not believe that most of the people who care enough about the culture war to know who Libs of Tiktok (regardless of their feelings about her!) is are principled observers passing judgment as opposed to partisans waging the culture war. I also maintain that Trace wouldn't have faced nearly the same level of backlash, and certainly not from the same people if he had owned some libs instead. You and Gattsuru can split hairs about whether any example I could provide is exactly comparable, but given that his complaint with the last example I gave was that Trace was not directly involved, and as far as I know Trace has only trolled one person, I've been given a bar that's literally impossible to clear.
On the contrary. You talk about the Sokal hoax elsewhere; I'm prepared to bite that bullet and say fuck those pseudoscience humanities journals that provide nothing of worth. If they can't distinguish an actual paper from technobabble, why should they exist?
Okay, let's split some hairs - scientific journal is an institution, probably has an annual budget of literally tens of thousands of dollars that it can pay ramen-eating graduate students to review papers with, whereas libsoftiktok is an influencer with 3 million subscribers (I wonder how much money she makes across substack, twitter and tiktok, but I digress). The difference is that your uncle is some innocent dude trying to (presumably) browse some memes, whereas LoTT is actively curating, creating and distributing content with a direct political goal. She's waging the culture war on a daily basis. Once you switch from consuming content to generating it, you're playing by the rules of a different game.
Before you ask whether a twitter account with 10 followers is playing by different rules, no, they aren't. And no, I don't have a line in the sand I can give you to delineate the two. But I think it's pretty clear with the audience she had that she had crossed the line.
What makes you think people aren't doing that, aside from making a believable new twitter account which takes a significant amount of effort? I assume most people here are lying some substantial amount of the time, rules against it be damned. I'm just not allowed to say so.
He should know better, not because he's wrong, but because letting the other party know that you're pissed means they win.
As for 'knowing this is a guy that wages the information war' - you should be wary of everyone on the internet, not just Trace, and in terms of trustworthiness he's probably in a pretty high percentile. Most of the people here are waging the culture war on a daily basis. Do you think people writing weekly screeds about the Jews aren't waging the information war?
I doubt we'll see eye to eye, but thank you for the reasonable and measured reply.
Dollars are sort of important things.
The joke was that LoTT could very well have more of them than ye olde gender studies journal, although I had difficulty finding either her net worth or the ballpark budget of a humanities journal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm thinking you meant "wary", but I have to admit that "weary" is somehow even more accurate.
More options
Context Copy link
And in a world where millions of people don't treat a twitter anon as a source for reinforcing/building their beliefs then that may hold some weight. But that is not this world.
Once we are at that point then any influencer is as fair game as the paper of record. They have to be. Whether it is a "fitness" guru getting exposed as using steroids or a culture warrior being exposed as only posting material which hurts their outgroup true or not.
If someone is treated seriously by people as an information source then they must be able to be exposed if their information is bad or suspect.
You're stuck in a pre-social media mindset here. The world has changed and the sources of information people take seriously has changed with it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, fair enough on that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Before anything else, I mean this gently. I do admire you; you're one of the luminaries of the whole SSC-sphere. Which is, I think, why this is important:
It was indeed a misstep - maybe a strategic mistake for your career - to be that kind of deceptive. If for no further reason than this: your final line in this article says that you're "not a Reliable Source." Of course I get it - meaning from the perspective of Wikipedia's Gerard-inculcated sclerosis, it's because you're a "nobody blogger" rather than a "legitimate media outlet." But much worse it is to be able to be accurately described as an "admitted hoaxer." Your work deserves much better than to have that card in your adversaries' hands.
Of course, there's no changing the past, so I'd say the only thing to do is Be Good going forward. You have my faith that you can and will, as with this article.
This is silliness. Maybe you'd have a point if @TracingWoodgrains used his credibility to push the story but he didn't. LOTT ate bait posted by an anonymous source with zero attempt at verification. He did not pimp out his name. There is no reason to believe anything he writes is a hoax. The only lesson one can reasonably draw from the whole thing is that you shouldn't take the word of random anonymous people or those who do.
More options
Context Copy link
Strictly speaking, there is a way to escape this trap, which is to fully admit to the past errors and stop using the tainted persona, adopt a new Internet pseudonym, and with it a new identity set unassociated with past errors. If found and pressed, (re)acknowledge the past errors, and make the point that the new persona is on the diferent path. It's hard, it doesn't assauge the worst opponents, but it is a clear and credible break with the past practices.
It also means, however, dropping the reputation of being one of the luminaries of the whole SSC-sphere, and for people who have devoted large parts of their identity and emotional sense of self into that sort of persona, that's unacceptable.
I don't think abandoning his old persona and pretending to be someone else is good advice. He will inevitably be doxxed/discovered and then it will just add another layer of accusations of bad faith and deceptiveness.
It's bad faith and deceptive if done to avoid responsibility and guilt, as opposed to a process to acknowledge and overcome. Again, culturally-resonate examples abound: faking a conversion is contemptable, conversion as a new start is respectable. Or we could raise the more progressive-secular example of transition, or the chance to reset/reframe when marrying into another family, or so on.
Separately, there is a bit of amusement given that encouraging people to abandon old personas and pretend to be someone else, but in compliance with the rules, has been a Mission Accomplished success of The Motte's modding philosophy when dealing with sockpuppets who stay more within the rules. I realize Motte modding is non-generalizable, but it is applicable as a (sub)cultural example.
People who convert generally don't pretend to be someone else and abandon their previous identity. Even if Trace apologized for pranking LoTT (which, by the way, I agree was a low point, but seriously y'all need to get over it, it's not like LoTT has ever been doing any kind of quality or good faith "journalism") and disappeared, if he reappeared as Earnest McGee, brand new social media account talking about culture war topics, and then was discovered to be TracingWoodgrains, I think you and his other detractors would be the first to gleefully drag him. You would not grant him absolution and forgiveness.
Yes they do. I will disagree with you here, particularly since I'm referring to the more variable forms of conversion and not simply religious.
People who do major lifetime conversions frequently cut ties and connections with their previous identities, including in some cases the formal identities themselves, in their efforts to distance themselves from these past personas and habbits. This can go from religious/cult conversion, gender transition, nationalization, marriage, even very banal things like going to college and dropping old nicknames to adopt new monikers. The very act of creating and internet pseudonum is an act of obscuring a previous identity, and we don't consider that a falsification, even though the research on how people's behavior and prowess over the internet change vis-a-vis in person is well established.
We could endlessly go into how in depth as to how relevant twitter-handles and Rationalist-sphere psuedonums are to these, but I suspect it would be missing the point regardless.
I am as always impressed by your long-distance over-internet mindreading powers of my views and approaches to absolution and forgiveness. I can only hope that you are as capable in person.
In return, I am reminded of the opening paragraph of the classic I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, there is also apologizing to the party you wronged and swearing you'll never do that again. But that's clearly off the table since he seems to think the problem is that his hoax wasn't received well, and maybe he could have done something on the margins to address that, but it was otherwise absolutely justified. Which is largely why I regard TracingWoodgrains and the target of this piece as not all that dissimilar in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I judged against that. That would mean covering up one lie with another, just waiting for the "Richard Hoste" trap to be sprung upon one's new "Richard Hanania" persona.
Maybe one could get away with it for long enough, but I'm looking for the high road here.
Alternatively, treat / approach it as one does someone who does a late-in-life baptism/conversion and adopts a new name. Spiritual rebirth is a common cultural context, and part of that is to do away with both the sins and the gains of the past as part of the break in identity. This isn't 'lie for the sake of a new false identity' this is 'recreate the identity,' which has common cross-cultural analogs and context for understanding if demonstrated as sincere and approached from a position of humility.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
:(
You are correct; let this be your first warning.
That's fine. Participating someplace where a significant minority of the community care about nothing but digging through old grievances every time I post gets old very, very fast, and there's not really a point to beating around the bush on that. Once, this forum meant a great deal to me, and many of the individuals on it still mean a lot to me, but the space as a whole lost the mandate of heaven long ago despite your own good work and the good work of the other mods.
In the past couple of months, I've met more than a dozen motte users I read avidly, respect, and have fond memories of in real life, at several events tied to this broader community. Almost none of them post here anymore. The Motte had a good run and contains a lot of good memories, but for all practical purposes, I think its run is over. Here’s to a glorious diaspora.
I encourage those of you who enjoy what I have to say to join me on Twitter or elsewhere. At this point, the conversations there are richer, the community there healthier, and participation there is more meaningful than it is here, and I have very little to gain from kicking around someplace where some 1/4 of the userbase want it to be crystal clear that they loathe me every time I post. There was a time this was the best discussion space online, but that time has passed and it's time for relics like me to move on.
All the best.
It’s alright Tracey we’ll always have rDrama :marseyevilgrin:
More options
Context Copy link
Where have these ex/motte posters moved to? Twitter, rdrama.net, or somewhere else?
I'm mainly just a lurker, but I've been on this site from the start; and from here, I went on to start using Data Secrets Lox, X, Rdrama.net, and especially Substack. Subjectively, outside of here I enjoy the content and discussions on Substack the most. There are a lot of Discords, but I don't really like using Discord to talk to anons very much.
The Motte and its predecessors have been my favorite parts of the Internet since I discovered SSC around 2013 or 2014. Somehow I still feel the sense of shared heritage and mindset, but I know that it's all fragmenting. I have tried to resist that happening, because I don't think I can build the same feeling of community as a Peachy Keenan fan or Yuri Bezmenov Comrade or whatever. I just came to those things too late. My next "community" will actually probably be the Old Men Eating Lunch group at my church.
More options
Context Copy link
Mostly Twitter, some into EA circles or away from online commentary and into irl stuff, some Discord, a few rdrama, some more than one of them. Twitter is the only one that fulfills a truly similar role.
Sorry for snagging on a single word like this but scenes like vaguely gestures around this one very vividly remind me how absolutely ruinous the advent of Discord has been for niche communities like this one and others I considered myself a part of. It is evaporative cooling personified (software-ified?), seamless and convenient and easier then ever before. Why put up with the constant bile from the rabble on some Mongolian basket-weaving forum when you can always take shelter in some nice Discord server with people who share your perceptions and beliefs? (I am only partly facetious, this question occurs to all of us on different times.) Surely this does not run the risk of creating ever more
hugboxesnice fenced-off areas around the wasteland that is the modern-day internet.At the risk of coming off as hostile (which believe me I am very much not, I'm just a random rube but the piece has been amazing reading and I value your contributions greatly), I'll try to gently posit that this tendency - to solve any intra-community friction that occurs by bouncing out into the wild frontiers of Xitter or into a different subcommunity - is very much part of the problem of why the Motte has quote-unquote "lost the Mandate of Heaven" nowadays [citation needed]. As the saying goes, you're not stuck in traffic. You are not merely seeing it lose the Mandate of Heaven - you and everyone who leaves for greener pastures personally rip out another little shred of it along the way, justified or not, whether you want to or not, as sad and inevitable as that sounds. Especially when you actively advocate for people to join you.
I don't advocate shooting rootless cosmopolitans or something, and sticking together through thick and thin is not always the strictly superior option (although it does historically have its perks!), especially on places that naturally foster disagreement like the Motte - the empire long united must divide, etc. - but I think this endless splintering and constant bound-less motion is incredibly destructive to communities long-term. Getting along is hard, enduring bait is unpleasant, janitor work is thankless, but without any of this a community does not survive. Silly metaphor: you do not generally solve the problem of a dirty, cluttered house by just moving out to a new one every time. (If you do, share advice on finding decent
housescommunities in thiseconomyculture.)I don't understand why various schisms of this kind are so prevalent nowadays, either. Perhaps because Discord (the archetypal example) is popular and the invite system is simple and seamless to use, removing or reducing the trivial inconveniences often associated with building new communities online. Perhaps it's because thick skin does not at all actually seem to be a requirement for the modern internet, although whether that's the cause or effect of the schismogenesis in the water supply seems unclear. Perhaps this is simply cope and even a modicum of seethe on my part. But it's such a fucking shame. We can finally have the communities we want - and the commons we deserve.
I've seen at least one forum get eaten by a Discord channel, and have suspicions it may have happened to a couple more. As someone who has a "no accounts on large platforms" rule (and would likely get banned from Discord for heresy anyway), it's really fucking annoying.
More options
Context Copy link
It's cope and seethe, but it's beautiful cope and seethe that comes from a place of love, and that's noble in its own right. Forums like this are the same as Discord servers. Ones that build healthy local cultures retain people, ones that build unhealthy local cultures slowly drive people away. So it has ever been. Hugboxes are fine and good. People should be coordinating with others who share their interests and their goals. You can build beautiful things alongside your friends, and people should. Spaces with disagreement are great, too, when they can manage it in constructive ways (rdrama, oddly enough, does a healthy job at that), but everyone should have a couple of nice fenced-off hugboxes alongside their PvP zones. I just met up with a dozen people from one of my hugboxes and spent the better part of a week hanging out with a handful of motte lads from another. That is well and good. People should pursue that sort of community.
As for bile and rabble, I spend most of my public online time these days on places famous for bile-filled rabble. I was attracted to Twitter in specific because I noticed that the rationalist-adjacent culture there is healthy. They have leftists, they have right-wing dadposters who would be at home in themotte. People interact with the slice of the community they can handle, and the whole community remains cohesive enough to have meetups and build alongside each other and do beautiful things. By posting there, I increase my incidental exposure to people who really, truly disagree with me from all angles, because each post there might break containment and reveal me to people who share none of my background and none of my ideals. Every day, I engage with more people who truly disagree with me than I ever could here, and watch some of them call me a fascist, others a degen furfag, and still others listen. All of that is well and good.
The above post is an example! I penned a harsh criticism of one of my local sphere's longest-standing malicious critics. He and his friends are discussing it and digging up dirt on me, people in my Twitter circles are discussing it, I'm bantering and bickering back-and-forth with Eliezer Yudkowsky about it. People stay in places that fulfill needs for them and leave places that don't. For people who lack a crowd who want to turn every conversation into a referendum with their past grievances that I've acquired, and who broadly align with the local ideological frame, the Motte remains a pleasant enough place, and they're welcome to keep enjoying it. But I have a whole internet to engage with people who disagree with me, and no reason to share a community with those who live for dredging up historic grievances and others who shrug and make their excuses for others who do so, when I can't give that course of action the response it deserves.
You're right, though. Leaving is part of the problem, and that's why I've clung on for years here after falling out of love with this space. But the pastures really are greener elsewhere these days, in a way they were not in the past, and parts of that "elsewhere" remain very much part of the same meta-community as this.
I've given my advice on finding decent communities in this culture. The Twitter postrat scene is a dozen times healthier than the Motte at this point, and much more rewarding for high-quality posters. Substack as well. People can and do participate both here and there. Quality rises over there, and the upside there is tremendous. It's a place where you talk to public figures and not just about them, a place where you wind up chatting with and following as many people who disagree with you as you and they can handle, a place where usually you chat peacefully with your friends and occasionally the world gazes on. It's not for everyone, but they succeeded at culture-building in a way that matters. And it's more the commons than this place! It's a commons that is actually common.
I appreciate your thoughts and your passion here, and those who don't have my idiosyncratic reasons to leave have plenty of cause to stay and try to build in this place. Your sense of duty towards community speaks well of you.
To clarify I am not unbiased here either, I've seen a certain "community" of mine become borderline unusable over a year-plus-something of incessant baitposting, social jockeying and all the other joys of anonymous imageboards. Fewer and fewer sane people remained every day, until one day I woke up and the sun rose in the east and nearly every single person worth engaging with has vacated the premises or sequestered themselves in some kind of comfy Discord, playing games and interacting
parasocially with each other while the thread became a smoking wasteland. Hell, there's even been a literal schism, splitting the subject matter to two different boards (entirely organic from what I could tell, too). Far be it from me to hold their choice against them - but that, too, is a choice they made. Hide X threads, ignore X posts, do not reply to X posters, etc. Everyone misses the old internet, but apparently no one wants to carry on its spirit.It's been some months but the main "community" does not show signs of recovery, because evaporative cooling is not your friend. Still, some people endure and attempt to interact in good faith, because the sense of community matters more to them than their individual experience. Goes without saying that it's just not the same anymore.
In other words since I may have overdone hiding my power level, I will rephrase more bluntly - you leaving is a conscious choice you make. You were not unfairly forced out by a shadowy cabal. You took the bait, and could not tear from the hook in time. It happens to the best of us, god knows I longposted at people who simply hurled one-liners back at me with glee, but saving face with the smoke of a burning bridge is not the way. Especially not while actively advertising to try and pull people along while publicly claiming to care about the community's longevity.
Furthermore, I will admit I really did expect someone that does investigative work of your caliber to have thicker skin. Blowing up like this on a 1) drive-by bait post 2) made by an obvious troll/alt 3) which got near-instantly shot down by jannies is just, I don't know... undignified, besides giving the shitpoaster exactly what they wanted. I couldn't imagine a bigger trolling W than this and I've seen quite a lot of trolling.
Also, I hope this doesn't come off as smug but the amount of goodbyes someone says while leaving is directly proportional to the likelihood of them returning in the future (my reliable source is that I made it the fuck up). This is not anything worth judgement and I personally will be glad to have you back, but you can at the very least refrain from performatively burning bridges which only ensures the green bastards get to feast immediately in the event of your return.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Man, this reminds me of a community I used to be a part of for something like 15 years, from my childhood through my early 30's. Started off as a bunch of nerdy kids who liked a thing and created their own space to talk about it. Then we grew up, and politics got more and more involved. Then it became almost entirely about arguing politics and trolling one another's trigger points. We had a benevolent autistic overlord who owned the space and maintained strict neutrality, as most of the old internet used to. Then one user launched a coup, stole the domain name, redirected it to his own servers, and banned everyone he disagreed with. Shortly after he shut the place down entirely because banning us wasn't enough, he wanted there to be no public record of him ever having associated with us what so ever, he considered us so politically untouchable.
Canadians, eh?
Eventually most of us that got banned coalesced around a private discord group one of us set up. But it's just no the same, and many of us still grieve the loss of that community.
That is the part spoken quietly, I think that Discord's simple framework and the very detailed permissions system for server channels has made naked shilling and aggressive status jockeying in this vein much easier and more viable. Especially for culture warriors and clout-chasing
highschoolerssociopaths who are good at (and enjoy) stuff like this but would normally get filtered by the technicalities of setting up their own domain. Discord groomers/kittens are memes for a reason.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, you're a gay furry ex-Mormon (which is like a triple strike against you in my book) but I still like you well enough. I think the Libs of TikTok thing could have been handled better but I don't think it was an inherently wrong thing to do.
You do you, but I think you're missing out if you leave this place behind permanently.
I've always enjoyed your company as well, but I have gotten almost nothing out of this place since it moved to the new site and my experiences elsewhere are becoming better and better. The one thing I am missing out on by leaving this place is the presence of the people I respect here who have not yet built presences elsewhere, and at this point, the only thing keeping me coming back around here has been nostalgia for what once was.
I'm a fossil around here these days. It's time to pull the plug.
See you on the other side, someday.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trace, our time posting here has hardly overlapped, but I do like what I have seen of you, and would prefer you stick around. Different perspectives can be enlightening, for one, and you generally (though not a few posts prior) seem to glow with civility.
I do think this particular piece was unusually likely to bring up the Libs of TikTok complaint—you write about someone misrepresenting things in order to hurt someone; you did the same. You are of course by no means the same as Gerard (for one, are far more open, and far more civil), and I have no reason to doubt that your motivation in doing so was earnest, but I see why people mention it. I also think that was unwise, and understand why that would make people trust you less. I mention this both to indicate that I do genuinely think that may have been a bad thing to do, not merely due to having the wrong target, but also to emphasize that I do not think that that would be the response to your every comment, and so you don't need to take this as the typical reaction.
At the very least, think carefully before doing things like that again. And consider that the reaction in this instance may have been worse than in others; I do not think that you will always be met the same way. But this was a good piece.
Anyway, I am sorry to see you go, and hope you someday return.
There are places I will litigate the events of that time. This is not one of those places, and while you seem like a good chap, I'd encourage you to think about what it's like to have people looking, with every post you make, for excuses to bring up their old grudges rather than trying to litigate and rationalize the specifics of those grudges. See you on the other side someday, perhaps.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I still think a place like this serves a very valuable purpose---if only that whenever you get too upset about some DEI overreach like the whole SF algebra saga you can find some very pointed reminders that the American right is somehow even worse on issues of meritocracy.
How is this place worse on issues of meritocracy? (If I read you rightly?)
My sense was that people here are usually fairly pro-meritocracy.
I mean, there are semi-normal calls on this website, with basically zero real pushback calling for moderate to severe limitations on the ability of 50% of the population to be equal to the other 50% of the population when it comes to educational opportunities and general place in society.
So, maybe there's a "well, IQ shows that actually, I'm OK with some African-American and Hispanic's in prominent positions if they prove themselves worthy" arguments thats pro-merit but basically making it as tough as possible for women to go to college or access birth control is cutting off half the population because they seem to want more babies.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the consensus view here is that people should be treated specially for the sole reason of being white instead of any personal qualifications. This is very anti-meritocratic. I recall though that we just had this discussion on this right? I guess your comments didn't get into this point specifically, but do you not think a moderator saying that "race-blind meritocracy" is a controversial, minority viewpoint in the Motte is sufficient evidence?
Otherwise, would you agree that the Motte's seeming consensus against even skilled immigration (well, I get dogpiled pretty hard whenever I try posting in support of it at least) is pretty anti-meritocratic? I have the impression that the median poster here would prefer their doctors, engineers, pilots, etc. to be white/have far-reaching ancestry in whatever country (depending on the exact poster) than being the most competent people that can be found.
This is just consensus building in reverse. No, these positions are not the consensus, no I'm not going to prove a negative that there is some other consensus. We don't have a consensus, we are a collection of individuals with wildly different beliefs.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure how one could conclude that there's even a seeming consensus of the sort here. Whether or not you get dogpiled over an opinion doesn't really tell us anything about consensus; merely what types of people tend to dogpile, as well as what types of posts you tend to perceive.
I'm not sure how one could come to this conclusion, as someone who spends more time on this forum than I ought to. I don't think there's anything such as a "consensus" here on this kind of stuff, but the closest thing to a consensus I could see here is the precise opposite of this, that almost everyone here believes in putting the most competent people that can be found into these positions. They simply believe that, for empirical reasons, that a world in which the most competent people fill these roles is also a world in which a majority of those people will belong to certain races. They may be mistaken, but the goal always seemed to me to maximize competence, and let the racial makeup fall where they may.
I put a longer reply here. Basically, I don't think this is at all consistent with the policies enacted by the US right---especially the US alt-right that is more in line with this forum.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What did you think of this comment from that discussion?
As well as Amadan's below (a moderator).
There definitely are white nationalists here. There are also definitely a bunch of people here who are not white nationalists, and are against, say, a Jim Crow society, who still think that race can sometimes be of some evidentiary value. (And so might be against "race blindness," depending on how it is phrased.) I think there are more of the latter here.
I'll also note that you characterized the American right as being worse on this. But it is very much the norm on the American right to take an anti-DEI, anti-affirmative action stance precisely on the grounds that it is discriminatory and anti-meritocratic. I'm fairly confident that the American right is less racist and more meritocratic than the system of racial discrimination found throughout American society.
Insofar as it is more racist, I think that's in large part a product of the internet, and is worsening over time.
Well, I agree that if that were the prevailing view then my point about being worse on meritocracy would be much weaker. However, I do have a factual disagreement there---I think we all have a very strong cognitive bias to hyperfocus on racial differences over much more informative characteristics. For example, if you see another person walking on the street late at night in a somewhat sketchy area, I think the person's age, mannerisms, dress, etc. would give you much more information about whether you're in danger than if the person was white or black even though race is what everyone instinctually pays attention to first. If you don't correct for this bias---and maybe its so strong that you have to do something extreme like actively ignoring racial information all together---you won't get a very accurate picture of the world.
Furthermore, I think there is a real problem of people covertly arguing for policies that satisfy their actually anti-meritocratic racial preferences by exaggerating the evidentiary value of race, actively manipulating people through this cognitive bias. Part of this admitted paranoia is from extreme right-wingers explicitly saying that this is a deliberate strategy. Part of it is also since I just don't see how actually believing what the quoted comment claims can be consistent with opposition to skilled immigration---for example, Steve Bannon's stated policy preferences, which would be extremely bad for making sure the most competent people get the job:
Again, I was under the impression that Bannon is a pretty well-thought of figure here. Even worse, all attempts of mine of trying to ask here for non-racial reasons to oppose skilled immigration (to this Steve-Bannon extent) that aren't economic nonsense have been unpleasant failures.
On the left, we have DEI excesses and "extreme" affirmative action---i.e. going beyond just attempting to correct for bias that undervalues the qualifications of people in marginalized groups to make sure that institutions actually choose the most qualified candidates. However, I think this sort of extreme DEI or extreme affirmative action is very unpopular and gets shut down whenever it affects actual policy too much---like even in California affirmative action loses in elections.
On the right, you have Bannon/Miller-style drastic reductions in skilled immigration (I'll link this Cato article again). These do not get nearly as much pushback---Stephen Miller is still going to be one of the main influences on immigration policy if Trump wins in 2024. Furthermore, the right in the US is extremely deferential to inherited wealth. For example, cutting estate taxes seems to be one of the most important priorities of the republican party and I'm pretty sure if they were offered a chance to cut the top income tax bracket at the cost of raising estate taxes equivalently, they wouldn't take it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You admitted of discriminating against European Americans to such an extent, that even you noticed a decline in quality of students. You have 0 moral leg to stand on to condemn mere desire for discrimination.
More options
Context Copy link
First of all, I think you are mistaking "A handful of people with very strongly held and loudly and frequently voiced views" with "consensus opinion." I do not agree that the consensus view of the Motte is white nationalism and extreme nativism, and I don't think even the average white nationalist would agree with you that they'd rather have a white doctor than a more competent non-white doctor. Far be for me to speak for wignats, but one of the few remaining valuable aspects of this place is actually understanding how people whose views I despise really think, rather than assuming a mustache-twirling caricature of how they think.
Like, this is what I've been trying to do from my first post on this forum 4 years ago. It's worked pretty well with some topics.
However, specifically on the topic of skilled immigration or racialism vs. meritocracy, I never seem to get any replies that don't confirm the mustache-twirling caricature---and this was actually not at all what I expected to happen! Furthermore, the mustache twirlers have been generally been extremely unpleasant to interact with---even right now, I'm getting replies with bizarre false claims and misquotes. The mustache twirlers also have very long history of making unmoderated personal attacks (see especially the linked and endorsed reddit post there).
I would be very happy to be proven wrong here---for example, do you have examples of anti-skilled immigration posts that aren't the caricature of "we want to do this because it's important to us that the US stays more white"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do a from:user search for the word. He has a... Peculiar definition of it and uses it in every single post. It's how I instantly recognized he was this guy from reddit without remembering the 6d4 thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No reason to burn this bridge. I enjoy the new freer X as well, but the ground has not even settled yet. That is a land ruled by a mad an capricious man that any day may change his stance and wipe us from existence. That and, while I understand why the current obsessives might sour your experience, there is still magic here. I think before this election is done we'll need to rely on it again.
There is every reason to burn this bridge. I'm not interested in politely ignoring the angry drunk ranting on the edges of my conversation every time I go to the local pub to chat with my friends. There are plenty of good people here, but at this point, most have either built accompanying presences elsewhere or can do so, and I think they should. I'm sure there is still magic here for others, but others don't have the angry drunk ranting on the edges of every conversation they have in the pub, and I have enough places without that that I no longer need to cling to what I once had here.
Well, if things change I'd welcome you back.
More options
Context Copy link
I would encourage you to stay, but it’s your choice.
I've already been gone except to cross-post my articles here, more or less. I miss our conversations, but I don't miss them enough to have them in front of the loud, bitter minority here. Yassine and everyone before him had the right idea; on the scale of things, I've been hanging on much longer than most. It's time to amputate the limb.
You really think Twitter is better for friendly, long form discussion? People’s individual substack comment sections? Where else is there? I can’t really find anywhere to go.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You just spent weeks digging through old grievances dating back a decade, and then made it a top-level post about it. On multiple websites, even.
Yes, I realize that you feel yours are important and valid and other peoples are beneath acknowledgement, but this is part of why you are getting pushback from people with longer memories of your past conduct.
How can it be a glorious diaspora if you keep coming back after denouncing it?
This isn't your first flounce. You came back after establishing the Schism, you came back after Liberals of TikTok, you came back after the site switch, and probably several more breaks I'm not recalling offhand. Between the recruitment attempts and the self-promotion efforts but also just to discuss emerging and contemporary news, you never stay away for terribly long. In much the same one that one is not stuck in traffic, but a part of the traffic, you are (still) a Mottizan.
You may leave for awhile, and all the longer for it being called out on it, but you'll return as you have multiple times before.
Until you come back again, and not just for the last words tonight or tomorrow.
I think it's misleading to call it "old grievances dating back a decade" when it's ongoing behavior that began a decade ago.
Just as it's misleading to dismiss criticisms Tracing's conduct during and since the LibOfTikTok affair as old grudge, given that a part of the bad behavior was the non-repentance, which is itself ongoing behavior.
This is a critique of argument structure, specifically why the defense of Tracing has to retreat from a motte-offense of categories of unacceptable behavior (the categories of bad behavior which is the subject of condemnation in the slam-pieces) to a bailey-defense of degrees and relativism (ongoing behavior is not a big deal because the other party is so much worse). The counter to a relativism-motte retreat is to reject the redefinition of standards and re-emphasize the original standards being used in the bailey-argument, which was itself categorical.
'My opponent is a [category = bad]' is not enough of an argument when one is also part of [category], and retreating later to 'My opponent is a [category=me=bad, but them > me]' after making the first argument is just a retreat to special pleading as to why the initial categorical argument isn't important after all. Similarly, defenses on a category level aren't really defenses if the category is also shared.
This is relevant to not only rhetorical arguments intended to convince people to feel something (such as that the target of a piece deserves opposition/resistance), but also to contemporary culture war politics. It's a significant factor as to why years of attempts to condemn Donald Trump on categorical accusations fall flats- Donald Trump is a serial liar/exaggerator, but so are his presidential opponents, and retreats to relativism and re-definition after the fact undercut the credibility of the opening. We've seen this in things like MeToo, when the movement was broadly signal-boosted by the Democratic Party when it was starting, but then not-so-slowly dropped when it became clear the standards were goring Democratic icons as much or more than the Republicans. And for the Republicans, this was a common failure state of those Republican politicians who would categorically condemn same-sex relationships, before they were found to be having a same-sex side-piece. It didn't matter whether they were having less gay sex than their political opponents- it mattered that, having made a categorical moral condemnation, they were doing it at all.
There are absolutely ways to condemn vices one also shares, but from a structural argument perspective, part of that requires not adopting overly-broad categorical moral condemnations (or defenses). You can do more tailored categories that build-in exonerating contexts (killing is bad, unless in self-defense), or start from a position of relativity (I'm bad, but this is worse), or even as position of human failure versus intent (I struggle and fail, but they don't even try). You can even strip the moral condemnation from the argument, so that more neutral framings let an audience come to a conclusion on their own rather than lead them to it by the nose via early and often use of pejoratives.
Okay, I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here, but none of it seems to have anything to do with what I said on the object level.
So...? That's not a counterargument. Misleading comments or misleading articles don't justify misleading responses here. An ongoing problem is not an old grievance.
And Tracingwoodgrains's continual denial that they did anything morally or ethically wrong with the LibsOnTikTok is an ongoing problem is an ongoing problem, and one they and their defenders have tried to dismiss on the accusation that the issue is nothing more than an old grievance others are raising.
The point isn't that the subject of the slam piece is not an ongoing problem- the point is that it's not the only ongoing problem. Both actions can be wrong, and both can be ongoing, and both can have dated back years, but only one side has trying to dismiss criticism on the grounds of 'old grievance.'
This is special pleading. 'Old grievance' applies to both equally whether that's equally well or equally badly, and so either an ongoing problem cannot be dismissed as merely an old-grievance (which seems to be your perspective), in which case Tracing's defense argument is undercut, or ongoing problems can be dismissed on grounds of old-grievance, in which case Tracing's post can be dismissed on the same grounds.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Though he is getting pushback on something completely unrelated to the current post, purely because people are still holding grudges. I mean, this isn't the first time Trace has posted something since the whole LoTT affair, and while people sometimes bring it up (as people do - a lot of people here hold grudges against a lot of other posters), most people don't feel a need to snigger "Hey, what about that time you pranked LibsOfTikTok?" every time he posts.
@HRSCCK (an obvious alt spun up for such shit-stirring) started this with an unnecessary dig. When even @gattsuru tells you you're being petty, that's something.
Why do you believe Woodgrains pushback is based on things completely unrelated to the current post?
Tracingwoodgrains condemnations of Gerard include both explicit and implicit themes that Gerard is malicious, deceptive, dishonest, and taking exceptional effort in order to negatively shape others perceptions of his political opponents. The evidence of this goes back years, more than a decade ago. This is presented as to be contemptable, especially as he is unrepentant, a critic of this community, and doing this in obvious self-interest (in this case, ideological).
Tracingwoodgrain's LibsOfTikTok hoax was also malicious, deceptive, dishonest, and took exceptional effort in order to negatively shape others perceptions of his political opponent. The evidence of this goes back years, not even half a decade ago. Tracingwoodgrains is also unrepentent, a critic of this community, and doing this in obvious self-interest (in this case, self-publicity).
There is the surface-level subject of a post, and the meta-level subject of what a poster likes to talk about or return to. Woodgrain's thesis lacks sting or sincerity when its themes are things he is likewise guilty of (of kind if not degree), and noting this when he attempts to assert a moral high ground is not merely a matter of grudges, but of topling the meta-positioning of the argument.
And that pushback in turn revealed relevant context via the response- Tracing went from pejoratively opening his characterization with 'longtime malicious critic of this community' to a blistering 'screw you' burnout rant and posts about how bad this community had been for a long time. This is relevant information for the current post. It reveals not only information about the viewpoint biases of the author (by reminding otherwise-ignorant readers of narrator similarities with the subject of condemnation), but it revealed previously hidden information (the private views the writer has of his audience).
Bluntly, because who, whom? Trace made a fool of someone his detractors approve of because she mocks people they hate. And while I don't approve of what he did (and I said so at the time), let's be real here - pranking a noted Internet bombthrower whose entire schtick is nutpicking people on TikTok to point and laugh at (and try to get fired) is not the same as what David Gerard is accused of doing over the course of years. You act like this was some great moral failing instead of an ill-considered Opie & Anthony-level stunt.
As for being a critic of this community, yeah, and we get criticized from the opposite direction by the past denizens of that other great abandoned wasteland of Motte expats, CWR. Some of whom crawled back here and continue to lob the same whining complaints. This is not the first time Trace has criticized this community and talked about his complicated relationship with it, but I don't think what he's said is at all comparable to David Gerard's active hostility and malice.
I agree with you that Trace should stop flouncing, and grow a thicker skin.
You seem to be conflating my views on Woodgrains (which you almost certainly don't know) with the views of others (some of whom you certainly aren't accurately reflecting).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe to you. But to others it's relevant when someone writes a magnum opus about the immorality of the deception of a certain person, when they have also proudly engaged in deception.
If there is a fair criticism in there somewhere along the lines of "Who are you to be criticizing David Gerard when you do the same thing?" I haven't really seen it. All I am seeing it "Oh, nice story, by the way, fuck you for that time you pranked Libs of TikTok." I mean, speaking of who?whom?, you'd gushing all over this story except that you apparently hate Trace more than you hate David Gerard.
Then you must be trying not to. I don't know how it could be stated more clearly. It wasn't exactly my opener, but I got to it quickly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Quoting for posterity in case you decide to delete this as you have various other things that even you later realized countered your self-sought reputation.
There are, of course, many ironies that could be noted here, but again- posterity.
I deleted my LoTT stuff because, in one of the worst moments of my time online, it was too much for me to engage with the community I had come up within as they reacted less charitably and more harshly to me than everywhere else on the internet. As for this one, don't worry. I meant every word of it and have no intention of deleting it. I reiterate the same to you. Go screw yourself.
People build the communities they deserve.
Yawn. Get off your victim complex and grow thicker skin if you want to be a public writer in a community based around rhetorical argument. You just spent self-admitted weeks doing internet archeology for the sake of a slam piece, and you're flaming out of a modicum of pushback a much more recent time that you were duplicative, dishonest, manipulative, and deliberately so for another boo-post.
You've meant every word of your previous flame-outs as well, and had no intention of deleting them too until your temper cooled and your ego was pricked enough by the reputation damage to try damage control. This is merely cutting off your previous lines of retreat and preserving the record.
You have no high ground here, and your reputation is not beyond reproach. Defending your thesis on such will not protect it.
How is the Schism going, anyway?
It’s going great! Here’s the most recent quality contributions roundup:
https://old.reddit.com/r/theschism/comments/1dsozbw/quality_contributions_up_to_30_june_2024/
Culturally, it has become exactly what I envisioned it being, and I am proud to have helped lay the foundation for one of the healthiest discussion spaces online, even as my own attention has moved mostly to Twitter.
Thanks for asking, and take care.
Almost every single one of these is at least half a year old? I don't think that indicates a particularly healthy community.
I get the feeling I'm one of the few posters that actually uses the QC report function (professorgerm back there), but yes, it's quite low activity, and yes, Trace has more or less abandoned it for hanging out on twitter with Hanania et al. So it goes.
It's usually a pleasant little place, except for one poster's approximately annual visit, and while I understand Trace's frustration with the motte I find his wielding the schism this way quite... distasteful.
More options
Context Copy link
The Steven Universe and Buddhism ones are newer, but yeah, the schism's not got a ton of activity.
I expect Trace means more healthy in terms of community norms than community, and in that sense, the people there probably do more closely match the approaches to discussion that he wants.
More options
Context Copy link
The Schism averages around 100 comments a month on the monthly discussion threads. The Motte is somewhere around 1000 a week, give or take a few hundred depending on current events.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You announced that you were better than everyone and were starting your own community, and it turned out to be such a ghost town flop that even you can't maintain any actual interest in it.
More options
Context Copy link
And I am sure David Gerard is quite likely proud to have helped lay the foundation for improving the health of the public record.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link