site banner
confuciuscorndog  2mo ago (text post)   Edited 2mo ago   2167 thread views

Present fate of /r/CultureWarRoundup?

Many of you probably may remember a great old alternative to this place known as /r/CultureWarRoundup on Reddit. Due to its superior (which is by no means to say perfect), more "hands-off" moderation philosophy, it peeled off a good portion of the most intelligent people from here at one point (some of whom like me have returned a bit at least for the moment, many of whom probably did not) and was quickly gaining momentum, peaking at around 500 - 700 (IIRC, writing off the top of my head about all of this) replies per week to its main CWR thread while this place (back when it was on Reddit) at least once fell below 1K (or at least close to it) replies (again, IIRC) to the same (less than the activity now for the most part, as the moderation here's somewhat toned down its scattershot executions since then, not enough and not half as much as at the beginning of this site when they were trying to attract people by pretending to have reformed more comprehensively, but still somewhat, since those dark days of Hlynka (though a certain Amadan seems to relish the idea of bringing them back at least in part)). The people were speaking, and it wasn't looking good for this place, with the tides firmly turning in CWR's favor, but unfortunately, as jannies often do, CWR's own jannies started making their own very dumb decisions.

As Reddit started cracking down harder on wrongthink, stiffening new account requirements, shadowbanning more accounts without even pretending to respond to appeals from users that they aren't spambots (since of course that's never been the actual only or even main purpose of shadowbanning anyway), and in general making the site more of a pain to use, resulting in many of CWR's regular users getting banned from Reddit as a whole frequently (mostly only if they posted outside of /r/CWR (which most people did sometimes of course), yet occasionally even if not, as /r/CWR itself did suffer a few Reddit admin removals despite being mostly too small of a fish to worry about), exhausting their alt accounts, and finding it harder to make new ones/use the site effectively at all, CWR's jannies still doubled down on sticking with the platform in general, even raising new account length/"karma" requirements to post on the sub (and refusing to waive them for the new accounts of obvious regulars, which I know because I asked multiple times), perhaps due to paranoia about /r/SneerClub type infiltrators intentionally posting vastly incendiary/ToS-violating things to try to get them banned from Reddit (a concern I don't think ever actually materialized, whereas cutting off the earnest posters who actually wanted to post there but literally couldn't did). The great momentum they'd shown in overtaking this place began to crater as their regular users of the sub like me simply disappeared, unable to post because of the restrictions they foolishly chose to enforce in tandem with the Reddit admins in the hopes of avoiding the subreddit ban guillotine (which they've succeeded at so far... at the cost of their actual life anyway).

Though an eventual half-move to Saidit (which suffered from confusion as the Reddit sub stayed open as well, splitting the community, a mistake I do have to credit the mods here for not repeating after) restored some activity, it couldn't reignite the flame. Now both the still open Reddit and Saidit subs are in zombie mode. There was also a Matrix chatroom at some point, but the invite link to it seems to be entirely dead now (and of course nobody sensible wanted to move to a chatroom anyway which is not even close to the same medium).

So does anybody know what happened to these people? Where's the current venue for the continuation of SSC's CWR threads but with less of the crappy overbearing moderation you'll find increasingly more here (much like /r/TheSchism is an alternative but with even worse, crappier/more overbearing moderation)? Where can actual men engage in unrestricted intellectual discussion in a truly properly masculine fashion without effeminate finger-wagging jannies from California all too frequently interfering to whine about "antagonism" (the very essence of the competition of ideas, and therefore impossible to ban from it) or whatever as they do here (again, not as bad as in the past, but still too much)? Any and all info is appreciated. Thank you in advance.

-2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There was also a Matrix chatroom at some point, but the invite link to it seems to be entirely dead now

The "Matrix" for CWR is still there but due to the shit garbage brokenness of Matrix it's impossible to link anymore 🙃. You might have seen my previous unhinged rant about Matrix but as you can see this is just another example of how it doesn't work.

But if anyone wants to get manually slurped into the room, shoot me or any of the old CWR frens a DM.

This isn't really about CWR as such, or an attempt to answer the question, but I'm fascinated enough by something to write about it anyway.

Specifically, what's the idea of masculinity here?

Where can actual men engage in unrestricted intellectual discussion in a truly properly masculine fashion without effeminate finger-wagging jannies from California all too frequently interfering to whine about "antagonism" (the very essence of the competition of ideas, and therefore impossible to ban from it) or whatever as they do here (again, not as bad as in the past, but still too much)?

Pardon me if this is uncharitable, but I think this mistakes aggression for masculinity, or perhaps more importantly, for manliness. We define the term 'man' not only in distinction from 'woman', but also in distinction from 'child'. "I have become a man" suggests maturity and growing up. It also suggests some idea of virtue - indeed, the etymology of virtue, the Latin virtus, quite literally means 'manliness' (from vir, 'man' in the sense of adult male human).

What is discussion in a 'truly masculine fashion'?

I don't think it can be identical with mere aggression. If I think about unrestrained aggression, I typically picture children. I think of a kid throwing a tantrum. Shouting swear words and angrily jumping up and down might be behaviour we indulge in a child, but it's generally seen as shameful for an adult to do that. On the contrary, if I think about virtuous manly behaviour, I often think of tightly restrained behaviour - I think of self-discipline and control. To give a pop culture example, a few years back there was that popular Critical Drinker video talking about adult behaviour in Star Trek, and that is to say, often, manly behaviour. Spock and Kirk are engaging in a more masculine fashion when they're controlled and professional. Wild, violent outbursts like those of the reboot series make them look less manly, and more like children.

Rather, my sense of masculine virtue in discursive norms involves things like courage, honesty, resilience, patience, self-control, responsibility, and so on. This may lead to contentious arguments - it doesn't conceal or hide disagreement - but neither does it lead to petty screaming or tantrums. On the contrary, it keeps emotional responses under control, and is not driven by petty egotism either.

Sidenote: I have a theory that one day I'll write out in greater length that there's something in male psychology that tends to be more other-regarding, focused on the exterior to the self, even self-forgetful at times, whereas there's something in female psychology that's often more self-regarding, more aware of and focused on self-presentation, and the connections between self and other. This strikes me as a trend rather than an absolute, but on the intuitive, gut level, something feels basically 'male' to me in an outwards-looking posture towards the world, getting fascinated by things and even endowing them with spiritual value, whereas something feels more 'female' to me in focusing on one's representation of the self, in who-one-is-to-others, and so on. I venture this only as a half-baked thought I need to work on more, but if so, it would be consistent with a picture of virtuous masculine discourse that's about firmly and with a sense of practical discipline working out a shared problem, whereas virtuous feminine discourse would represent a different mode, perhaps more about shifting or aligning perceptions in an interconnected social web. That said, I say that conscious that actually-existing human beings shift between masculine and feminine modes at times as needed, and even that I myself use the feminine mode more often than most men.

Anyway, I bring it all up because having visited CWR (though never commented there), the impression I had was that it wasn't particularly manly at all. It tended more towards what I guess I'd call the childish mode, which is all about giving voice to immediate emotional reactions and visceral responses. It was more aggressive, and, if you're not used to it, it can be easy to confuse the masculine mode with mere aggression, but that does not ultimately equate to masculinity. That's boyishness, not manliness.

I have a theory that one day I'll write out in greater length that there's something in male psychology that tends to be more other-regarding, focused on the exterior to the self, even self-forgetful at times, whereas there's something in female psychology that's often more self-regarding, more aware of and focused on self-presentation, and the connections between self and other.

Interesting theory. I would disagree. My view is that both feminine and masculine are, at their highest calling, focused on the "exterior of the self" or "self-forgetful" as you call it. I believe the ideal of both feminine and masculine is one of care-taking, but the care-taking takes different forms. For the masculine, the care-taking is in forms of protection and provision (and this can find expression in the form of things to deploy, problems to solve, situations to fix) and for the feminine the care-taking is in forms of nurture (which typically plays out in human-to-human kindness, warmth, affection). And that this is why the masculine-feminine mix is so powerful to procreation, because working together gives children exactly everything they need.

[Edit: You're 100% right that men and women embody a mix of these masculine and feminine traits at different times.]

Of course, I might be wrong and you might be right. Or both of us might be wrong. I dunno. But this has been my experience and perspective.

Yes, I'm venturing this not as a definite claim about the world, but rather as a tentative theory or an impression that definitely needs to be explored further. Still, I think it aligns with the much-repeated observation that men are more thing-oriented and women more people-oriented. I'm also probably influenced by the bit with Mars and Venus in Perelandra, where the protagonist perceives Mars, the masculine figure, as like a sentinel standing atop a wall, gaze reaching out towards the horizon, in whose shadow we shelter; and Venus, the feminine figure, like a mother looking downwards and inwards, encircling and nurturing those she cares for. The male looks outwards and the feminine looks inwards. Likewise when people like Chesterton criticise Buddhism for being effeminate, they put that in terms of its interiority, its looking-inwards at the expense of engagement with the world. (I do not think this is a fair criticism of Buddhism, though, and I actually regard the Buddha as quite a masculine figure.)

But outwards/inwards is just a metaphor - it's not quite what I'm trying to express. It's something like a direction, a mental mode. Possibly gender isn't the right language to describe it at all, since as I said, I think all people use both the masculine and feminine modes, and it's merely that the genders traditionally tend more in one direction. However, I struggle to find language that quite captures the distinction I'm drawing. That could indicate that I'm just conceptually confused and that this is nonsense; or that the distinction I perceive is genuinely difficult to pin down.

I think it is difficult to pin down, but keep trying. For what it’s worth, I believe your Mars/Venus dichotomy here layers easily on my distinction of care taking. Mars is looking outward as a mode of care (protection and provision etc) and Venus is looking downward (rather than inward, I would say), also as a mode of care (nurture and nourishment etc). I haven’t studied the details of Buddhism so can’t talk much on that.

Where can actual men engage in unrestricted intellectual discussion in a truly properly masculine fashion without effeminate finger-wagging jannies from California all too frequently interfering to whine about "antagonism" (the very essence of the competition of ideas, and therefore impossible to ban from it) or whatever as they do here (again, not as bad as in the past, but still too much)?

To answer that question, first consider how to keep the discussion intellectual without either "finger-wagging jannies" or being flooded by sub-intellectual people whose valuable contribution amounts to figuring out new ways to rephrase "I HATE NIGGERS", in the best case.

In any competition, including that of ideas, someone has to make the loser go home eventually.

Short version: CWR is dead, yo.

I was a regular there as well as TheMotte on Reddit. Like it says on the tin, their weekly thread is the "Off-Topic and Low-Effort CW Thread". Mostly for rationalist-aligned or adjacent people who were firmly Red Team to post kind of Motte-ish stuff, but with substantially more low-effort ridicule of Blue Team. Fun place to let the hair down a bit, as they say, and talk a little trash without worrying about needing to coddle the other side. I do miss it a bit, but I also enjoy The Motte for what it is.

A decent number of the regulars moved on to a Matrix chat room. It's invite-only, you'll have to show post history that can convince the regulars that you'd fit in. I haven't posted there in a while; I have limited tolerance for chat rooms with people I don't actually hang out with in-person and drink with regularly. I don't know of anywhere you can find that kind of discussion on a public-ish threaded web forum now.

I used to post there occasionally, though not often. I largely abandoned Reddit about a year ago after my account was permanently suspended for some little thing I can't even remember and they started cracking down on ban evasion and a lot of subreddits started shadow banning accounts with low comment karma which made my alts almost unusable.

I realize I'm beating a banned horse here, but couldn't resist.

but still somewhat, since those dark days of Hlynka (though a certain Amadan seems to relish the idea of bringing them back at least in part)

The Amadan who banned Hylnka multiple times and whacked his alts when he kept coming back? Granted Hylnka the poster was not the same as Hylnka the mod, but you really have no clue what you are talking about. Hylnka was pissed at me for not modding harshly enough. And I am not the most trigger-happy or least lenient mod here.

So does anybody know what happened to these people?

CWR did not have the most intelligent people, just the most vitriolic, the ones angry that they couldn't just type "Fuck my enemies!" over and over.

It became boring because you can only write "Fuck my enemies" so many times before it becomes stale even for rage-posters. Some of them crawled back here, as you did, others are no doubt fedposting in some other dank corner of the Internet.

Where can actual men engage in unrestricted intellectual discussion in a truly properly masculine fashion without effeminate finger-wagging jannies from California all too frequently interfering to whine about "antagonism"

I don't do this often, but... LOL.

Maybe it's just me, but long, rambling, whiney rants with parenthetical after parenthetical, like someone who can't actually come to a point or close a sentence, is not a very masculine way of writing. Seethe-posting about how much you hate thots, sending screeching tirades by modmail and DM, a wall of text where you try to get in all your little digs about your Internet slapfights with everyone, these are not characteristics of someone looking for manly and intellectual discourse.

Good luck in finding glowier pastures, though if CWR wasn't based enough for you, I suggest just touching some grass.

Where can actual men engage in unrestricted intellectual discussion in a truly properly masculine fashion without effeminate finger-wagging jannies from California all too frequently interfering to whine about "antagonism"

I'm just a manly man looking for a super-masculine place to do the highest-T activity possible: whinging about what people are saying on twitter

What is more manly than a bicep?

Just as an editorial comment, one of your sentences contains 274 words, including 5 parenthetical comments nested within. That's a lot.

Their writing is better than most here, according to them:

https://www.themotte.org/post/1087/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/234268?context=8#context

Given that you seem to think highly of your own writing ability

I do, but I've never said that here, as nobody pays me enough (that is, anything) to write all that well here (nor have I received a single response from anyone at least very recently containing enough new and novel information to stimulate my thoughts enough to think I should communicate even better myself to hopefully receive more new and novel information back). (Though I do write well enough, and better than many/most here granting that they're also not getting paid, including many moderators.)

There's a video on Youtube somewhere of Steven Pinker giving a lecture in the UK while on a book tour and during the Q&A one guy in the audience used the limited amount of time to tell Mr. Pinker how well-received his writing was. One can only assume that this guy's writing was complete shit.

Whatever the successor to 8chan is?

Also, please cut down your sentences. They're way too long and hard to read! I count nine commas and 4 bracket clauses in just one sentence, that's way too much.

Beat me to it but I agree.

I don't think the mods here are overbearing.

Where can actual men engage in unrestricted intellectual discussion in a truly properly masculine fashion without effeminate finger-wagging jannies

Lots of places. 4chan, patriots.win, ruqqus, etc.

ruqqus died to death many years ago. Before CWR vanished in fact

KiwiFarms.

Also isn't X an option once again?

Maybe DarkRationality is still hiring.

What motivates someone to have this much vitriol for online discussion club internal drama?

In your time on this site, you’ve earned numerous warnings, two bans, and one QC, basically for the same thing each time. Call it what you want, but it’s clear that you’re not interested in whatever this site has to offer.

May you find what you’re looking for.

This thread will remain open in case anyone wants to give suggestions.

Good ban. And I loved CWR.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats