This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).
As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.
These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.
Quality Contributions to the Main Motte
Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris
Contributions for the week of September 30, 2024
Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris
Contributions for the week of October 7, 2024
Plausibly Concerning Something Other Than Trump v. Clinton Biden Harris
[null]
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think it's good because it reminds people what the better position is. Not just oppositional, but actually taking a stance which doesn't amount to rejecting one side or the other by embracing the opposite totally. But I acknowledge that it's hard to say something like "you're saying the truth, but you should be more sensitive to presentation" when the issue might be so lopsided.
But we don't expect people to be just human. We expect a level of rationality and reason.
I'm staring any my own response and trying to determine the same thing. How did I forget what I meant in ~24 hours? If I think of it, I'll let you know.
Right, but we're talking about people who don't have that thick skin. The asymmetry means that if you want to hear their ideas, you'd have to "take it", as it were, when they say uncharitable and unkind things.
That's a tall ask, and I recognize that. I can't say I'd tolerate it if I was treated that way. So maybe this whole thing is doomed from the start.
I think that often comes down to the vast inferential distance between the two sides. One man's hypocrisy is another's "clear distinct situations".
I suppose you're more right than I initially thought - this space probably is as good as it could be for what it's aiming at.
Well, the latter has the issue that sometimes one might hold a strong opinion, and feigning neutrality would be hard to pull off, and come off us dishonest anyway, but on the former I guess you're right, and I'll try to keep that in mind. I think I even managed to pull it off one time with words to the effect of "I do have my doubts sometimes, and if I'm wrong the opposing view that I find most likely to be true is...", followed by an expose on a group that holds a completely different view, which I disagree on the level of fundamental values. If that fits with what you had in mind, I guess it's something worth going for.
Funnily enough, that's something I'm willing to concede immediately. My tendency to sperg on some issues will probably get in the way of living up to this standard, but it's a standard worth aiming for.
I may have lost the track of the conversation somewhat, but I think that was my point. This is why I'm salty at all the people that outright flamed out - I thought we all signed up on for some baseline level of decoupling. But yeah, in the end we're all only human.
To be fair, I see how the roles are reversed now. It takes a different form, but between the downvotes on unpopular views, and the constant background hostility to progressivism, it must take a pretty thick skin to post here, if someone is leaning left. The only thing I'll say in our defense is that it's still better than most mainstream forums, as we don't ban for disagreement, and are at least theoretically aware of the value of having dissenting opinions. But in any case, my hat is off for the lefties that still hang out here.
Sometimes, maybe even often as you say, but there are cases where it's really pants-down "you literally said this never happens" type stuff. "No one is doing surgeries on minors" is something still being repeated by people who haven't caught up with what's actually happening.
Right, and my point was precisely that this understandable feeling of salt can and often does end up making you think the people who flame out are worse as people.
At least, that's been my experience with the communities I see - a string of bad impressions will make people earnestly say they are writing off the whole group. How serious of a statement this is can vary, something just one good experience can mitigate/eliminate the former bad ones. But spaces in which you have both good and bad experiences while still substantively disagreeing are rare, and I'm not sure if this one would qualify.
Entirely possible I'm projecting, of course. The tendency I'm describing is one that I feel at times and have to remind myself not to indulge in.
On that, I completely agree.
I've been experiencing the exact same thing regarding certain right-wing arguments. I find that people who say that are often genuinely ignorant and/or refusing to apply their standards. Not necessarily even maliciously, just in a tribal fashion where you're hyper-alert for what your enemies say but you don't really care what your own side does. I dropped the gender war stuff, so I'll take your claim for the more substantial claim in my eyes - that people are lying (meaning intentionally) about the surgery thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is that even good enough? My experience increasingly is that any place not straight-up banning people in accordance with progressive views will bleed away all the progressives posters, who'll explicitly state that they're leaving since they're not willing to share a space with -ists. And it's obvious why, given that they can always go to reddit or similar where they can and do get anyone banned when they're losing an argument. The SSC subreddit, while still better than reddit overall, is a prime example of this dynamic.
I don't even completely disagree with you, this place is clearly populated by a very stable niche at this point, even if it's a very different one than what some on the left allege. But I also don't know any place more tolerant of differing viewpoints, and at this point I'm at a loss how you even can get progressives to join a not-progressive space.
Progressives would be useful in the "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" framing which a lot of spaces with partisans, like this one, have. In this framing, you need maximally left-wing people so that we can let the arguments break upon each other and see what comes out at the end. If I were the stretch it based on my experience, you might make this space better by having pro-establishment liberals come aboard. But they would probably be turned away by the sheer number of people defending Trump.
I've been mulling over this answer and maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't see how you're even disagreeing with me. As I interpret it, even you seem to think that not banning many or most people willing to defend Trump (mind you, that includes quite a few moderate, left-leaning people that just don't think Trump is literally Hitler!) will instantly turn of the majority of establishment liberals. A view I agree with, but again, that precludes the possibility of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis", and not due to any action on themotte's side, but simply due to the basic attitude of establishment liberals.
In addition, as you may have noticed I slightly changed your wording from "pro-establishment" to just "establishment". This is because we actually still have quite a few "pro-establishment" liberals, in the sense of "I find the current right so odious I'm willing to vote establishment anyway". In fact it has so far included me, though I'm admittedly veering ever-closer to just say screw it. The only we lack are the liberals that are part of the establishment uncritically and without reservations, the NYT & Guardian readers and BBC watchers. And tbh, maybe it's because I'm completely surrounded by them here at university already, but I don't really miss them all that much. I know what they think quite well, and imo better than uncritically taking them by their word - I'm living with them, I know that they're frequently full of shit.
It's imo quite telling that themotte is still the kind of place where admins are going on anti-trump rants explaining why they prefer Kamala (but they dislike her as well), but that's not good enough for the establishment liberal, you need to be enthusiastic about Kamala.
Edit: FWIW I just took a look again at theschism and consider posting there occasionally to "see the other side" so-to-speak, but tbh that place looks, if anything, even more unhealthy.
I wasn't really disagreeing, just offering my thought on how one would go about bringing in people from a more mainstream elite perspective.
What makes you say that?
Edit: Also, I think the kind of establishment liberal who would hypothetically come here would not be an uncritical accepter of the NYT or the Guardian, they'd be able to at least entertain and defend the credibility of those papers.
For starters, I recognise almost every single prolific poster as someone who used to be one at themotte beforehand, and they number in the low double digits. themotte also has quite a few people who have been around for very long, but we also regularly have new posters I don't recognize immediately, it has way more prolific posters to begin with, and there is a decent amount of turnover. It's failing is that it almost exclusively attracts a certain group of disgruntled, cynical liberals with a small number of mostly educated genuine (far-)rightists. Theschism, as far as I can see, is at this point more like a club for a small group of friends that is open to others more in the technical than practical sense. That's fine if that's your goal, but it hardly feels like it even competes on the same level as themotte.
Maybe I was a bit harsh, but then we get to the point again that we actually do have quite a few people here who still on-net are pro-establishment, even if we are quite cynical about it.
I do agree that it doesn't compete with themotte in volume. The latter has a value theschism doesn't - I can come here to see what someone might say from a right-wing perspective, even if that's not what the typical right-winger would say. The intellectual stress-testing of pro-democracy arguments is something I appreciate at times as well.
People have described theschism as quiet, which is fair and something I'm trying to change by posting more. But quiet isn't the same as unhealthy, and I've long suspected most people here could do with less engagement with culture war topics. I've seen at least two accounts I recognize go through some blackpilling over the Trans Question because they engaged with spaces which drip feed the latest bits of outrage.
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