naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29411 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
That's the best part - he was the one forcing the issues. The thing about the mod force is cmpletely backwards, for a long time, they were explicitly protecting him, letting him get away with stuff that got others banned. Even that wouldn't make so many people turn against him, if he had enough grace to concede when he was wrong.
I'm not asking you to side with the mob against a contrarian, I'm asking you to provide actual evidence for your theory that people hated him because he occasionally won a spat with a counter-progressive, rather than because he refused to engage in an honest manner.
I see how you would se e it that way, but surely you can see how "we have investigated ourselves, and found us free of any bias" might ring hollow to anyone on the outside.
I will say that there came a point where y'all got fed up with him, and it didn't take long for him to start stacking up bans after that.
I see how you would se e it that way, but surely you can see how "we have investigated ourselves, and found us free of any bias" might ring hollow to anyone on the outside.
Sure. People will believe what they want to believe. I've given up trying to convince anyone who goes on the "You're biased and you're too stupid/dishonest to acknowledge it" attack.
Come on, it's not an attack. Bias is not connected to being stupid, and while it's arguably a form of dishonesty, it requires more or less saintly levels of humility to grow past it, so it's unfair to expect anyone to be unbiased, and I never implied otherwise.
I do not think the mods were giving him a pass. I think he either had or developed a method of posting that was quite negative for the community, but very subtly so. It's one of the reasons I'm dedicating effort to actually arguing a position in detail in this thread, because what actually happened was much, much more complicated than "obviously bad poster gets away with it".
As someone unsympathetic to his general positions, it wasn't hard to pick up that something fucky was going on. But as I've mentioned elsewhere, I spent years, plural trying to have conversations with him, until I finally started getting a handle on how his schtick worked. It seems to me that the mods had a similar problem, and I really do think you need to understand what he's doing to mod him properly; otherwise, you're just banning a controversial but effortful poster because you don't like them, which is exactly the accusation being made here.
Obviously I have a different perspective on what was usually happening. Anyone arguing in a hostile environment will appear more antagonistic than his best-behaved critics. Given his ideological distance to the sub, he was relatively polite. His worse critics should have been more charitable.
As to his refusal to admit he was wrong, though I accused him of bad faith for that myself once or twice, I now think it’s his business. I don’t judge him for lacking the grace to do what most of us almost never do, even when we are not facing the threats, mockery and vociferous demands of hostile ideological opponents.
It's a bit weird then, that people don't seem to have issues with any of the other progressives currently posting here. Even the ones that flamed out and left in a huff never got sufjj a bad reputation.
I don’t judge him for lacking the grace to do what most of us almost never do
That's your choice, but it seems perfectly normal that other people will choose otherwise, particularly when they disagree that this is something most people almost never do. It is very weird then to go on psychoanalytical investigations, trying to figure out what the 'real' reason for people disliking him is.
It's a bit weird then, that people don't seem to have issues with any of the other progressives currently posting here.
The progressives here (more of them than I think people realize) largely learned not to directly engage in hot button culture war debates, because no one’s trying to fight a hostile mob in an internet debate.
I'm not talking just about the progressives we have here now, though. Darwin is probably the most notorious out of everyone whoever posted.
And sure, I get it's hard to post in hostile territory, but no one here actually made the argument that this is sufficient to justify his behavior, or to explain people's hostility towards him.
Have you argued for a position with very little support – honest inquiry, not a gotcha. I have, sometimes in here, and it’s an interesting dynamic. At first everything’s cool, but if you persist, the rudest part of the mob will accuse you of ignorance and stupidity, while the nicest will say you are obstinate and have ‘no interest in discussion’ . They progressively embolden each other and get annoyed by your refusal to admit “the obvious” until the knives really come out and you are declared a “troll”, a liar who can’t possibly believe anything so widely disbelieved. It seemed to me in those cases I was not wrong, they were.
But if I was wrong, then I guess it’s very difficult to recognize being wrong, and I have to absolve darwin. And if I was right, well then the mob knows nothing and I have to absolve darwin.
Have you argued for a position with very little support – honest inquiry, not a gotcha.
I have, a few times. I definately got accused of being stupid or ignorant. I don't recall people saying I "wasn't interested in discussion", but getting brusque and dismissive replies even from the more thoughtful people is certainly a challenge to one's morale. The tail-end of your experience I can't speak to from my own experience, but I think I've definately seen something along those lines play out with others.
Where I disagree with you is your conclusion. The problem isn't being wrong. It's talking to people in a way that undermines a productive conversation, and that's a bad thing to do no matter whether you're correct on the facts or not. That's the pattern of behavior I've been trying to demonstrate to you so far in the long thread.
For another example where bad faith accusations fly, see the gemmaem thread, of which I said pretty much the same thing:
I honestly think the gemmaem thread is an unfair pile-on, of the kind so prevalent in large subs. Sort-of outsider comes in, gets tons of criticism, if he or she reacts with even a fraction of the hostility shown to them, it's proof of bad faith, moral failings, deliberate refusal to accept the oh-so-clear-and-popular truth, and the gloves come completely off. I mean gemmaem's constantly reiterating that she's here in good faith, basically begging for charity, and she's not even a real outsider for us!
Any human slip from robotic, highest-decoupling arguing is interpreted as 'female shaming tactics' and the like. That doesn't mean there isn't some truth to those things, but people really underestimate how difficult it is to argue cleanly in unfamiliar enemy territory, and with so many hostile judges. Out of charity, we should be the ones to decouple: outside, female shaming tactics exist, but in here, an argument is just right or wrong.
I mean really, what is one-person shaming? Shaming requires a collective. She can't shame anyone, and neither could darwin.
Have you argued for a position with very little support – honest inquiry, not a gotcha.
My "Elon Musk is not a genius, and his flagship companies are probably going to crash and burn soonish" take seems to be unpopular going by the down votes, I was challenged to two bets as a result of it, but it didn't seem to generate a dogpile. Sometime soon after moving from reddit, I also defended the Hassidim and the way they apparently extract resources from the American welfare system.
A take generated massive blowback was "surrogacy, and all forms transhumanism are evil". There were a few people backing me on it, so maybe you'll say it doesn't count, but even now Darwin is not the only progressive, and he was even less alone back on the day.
I have, sometimes in here, and it’s an interesting dynamic. At first everything’s cool, but if you persist, the rudest part of the mob will accuse you of ignorance and stupidity, while the nicest will say you are obstinate and have ‘no interest in discussion’ .
And how were you behaving in these cases? I'm pretty familiar with your style, it's pretty entertaining, so I tend to stop scrolling when your name pops up in the feed. But the truth is you're pretty antagonistic, so I don't understand why you're surpsied at the reaction, or why you'd blame it on mob dynamics.
But if I was wrong, then I guess it’s very difficult to recognize being wrong, and I have to absolve darwin
It's good to have the same standard for others as you do for yourself, but other people might not have that much of an issue admitting they're wrong.
The second issue is that there are levels of admitting you're wrong. When you don't have so much pride invested in something you might say "oops, looks like I got carried away there" or something, or if you have some humiliry, you could do one of those "things I was wrong about" posts ymeshkout does every once in a while.
But by far the most common approach is to back off, and be a bit more cautious in the future, and Darwin never cleared that bar. He would jump in with a bombastic claim, it would turn out he cannot back in literally any way, he would indeed back off, and then just do the same thing again in the future. People would have a lot more sympathy for him, if he wasn't acting like GPT prompted to defend progressivism no matter what.
I’m sorry, my ego got the better of me, I can’t let the accusation stand that the mob was always right and it ‘s just me being an asshole.
So here. I make an argument against the OP ,who presents a popular position. My comment is largely upvoted. Just two comments down, I get this sort of shit:
Are you actually interested in having a conversation and understanding what the other side is trying to claim, or do you want to try and score sick burns instead?
And
Do you really not believe this? How many women do you know?
Further down in a different branch:
I don't have sources on hand and am not putting together stuff for some clown who can't read
I'm pretty familiar with your style, it's pretty entertaining, so I tend to stop scrolling when your name pops up in the feed .
Thank you. I like your style too. I do think a bit of spice is more entertaining and “drives engagement”, aside from all the other benefits, like the pedagogic eviscerations described above.
But the truth is you're pretty antagonistic
Perhaps, compared to the median here, now. But we’re talking about a flock that started off exceptionnally tame, and was then shaved and sterilized (see darwin and all the others).
It's good to have the same standard for others as you do for yourself, but other people might not have that much of an issue admitting they're wrong.
But did you admit you were wrong on musk and the hassidim?
He would jump in with a bombastic claim, it would turn out he cannot back in literally any way, he would indeed back off, and then just do the same thing again in the future. People would have a lot more sympathy for him, if he wasn't acting like GPT prompted to defend progressivism no matter what.
I agree he did that, but those constant GPT/ Devil’s advocate comments, while not optimal, were still valuable. He defended his ideology as best he could. It was actually a good signal – you knew that if darwin retreated into total bullshit and random one-liners, progressives really had zero case on that issue. Like when a lawyer starts arguing against the death penalty instead of arguing the innocence of his client.
He has not been replaced by anyone. Sometimes our more-progressive posters will make arguments, and they’re usually of high quality and very polite and everything, but they cannot equal the sheer volume of progressive perspective/apologia darwin helpfully provided. For a sub so focused on condemning the woke, we really should grant them legal representation in every discussion.
Perhaps, compared to the median here, now. But we’re talking about a flock that started off exceptionnally tame, and was then shaved and sterilized (see darwin and all the others).
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this is a pretty weird point to make. For one, if anything, we ended up "untamed". Some of the more gentle posters flamed out, other got blackpilled and aren't in the mood for going through the motions of pretending there can be a good faith basis for whatever they're disagreeing with.
This point is further undermined by the example you posted below. You can't tell me you're exhibiting a normal level of aggression while everyone else here is tame and sterile, while complaining about the time you were civil and got aggressive push-back.
To the example itself, you're right. What I thought was happening definitely was not happening there. On the other hand, your original post was at +42/-8 and the other ones hover at -10-ish. It looks like the majority is on your side, but they moved on, while a manospherish core stayed behind to disagree with you. This seems neither here nor there, re: darwin.
But did you admit you were wrong on musk and the hassidim?
Other than the downvotes, no one really bothered pushing back against my take on the Hassidim, so I don't see how am I supposed to admit I was wrong. As for Musk, like I said, I left the conversation with 2 outstanding bets, basically if Starship makes it to orbit, I'm wrong. So I don't think it's hard to come up with a way to leave people with the impression you're participating in good faith, even when running into an irreconcilable difference of opinion.
I agree he did that, but those constant GPT/ Devil’s advocate comments, while not optimal, were still valuable.
I disagree. Originally my hopes for this place were that we might get people of different ideologies could gather here and come to some kind of synthesis, and push the world in a more reasonable direction. That ended up being hopelessly naive for unrelated reasons, but "GPT prompted to defend a particular side no matter what" is completely toxic to the idea. A less naive use for this place is to try to understand where the other side is coming from, where exactly the disagreement lies etc. You won't change the world with that, or solve any problems, really, but it is edifying. GPT Devil's Advocate is toxic to that as well.
you knew that if darwin retreated into total bullshit and random one-liners, progressives really had zero case on that issue.
Not really. He could write a whole essay even when the left really had zero case on the issue, for example by diverting the conversation to a completely different issue, but adding enough padding that you don't notice the topic has changed.
For a sub so focused on condemning the woke, we really should grant them legal representation in every discussion.
I disagree. Any group you do this for will end up shitting up the place.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this is a pretty weird point to make. For one, if anything, we ended up "untamed".
I’m making a distinction between the antagonism of a mob (which is usually both high and invisible) and the antagonism of a lone opponent (which is far more harshly perceived, monitored and punished, and therefore rare these days. Although I’m pretty sure the mods didn’t intend this). A man will do things as part of the mob he would never do on on his own, so the antagonism of the mob doesn’t require the individuals in them to be anything other than tame. It’s a normal_commenter + overwhelming_majority_support = total dickwad theory.
The quality of being antagonistic to an appropriate degree, especially to the worst parts of a mob, has disappeared from themotte. Our regular progressive posters, with all due respect, are far too kind to the mob, show undue deference to it. They're kind of forced to by the rules and mob rule. If they acted appropriately (ie like darwin, by answering the antagonism of the mob) they would be banned for it (so would mob member #17, but he's replaceable). So the few people who have some ‘contrarian antagonism’ left are relatively close to being banned.
That is why there is almost no ideological diversity here. It's simply not expressed anymore, as soriek said. Guys like darwin protected the expression of their viewpoints, they were guard dogs against the mob.
I’m making a distinction between the antagonism of a mob (which is usually both high and invisible) and the antagonism of a lone opponent (which is far more harshly perceived, monitored and punished, and therefore rare these days. Although I’m pretty sure the mods didn’t intend this). A man will do things as part of the mob he would never do on on his own, so the antagonism of the mob doesn’t require the individuals in them to be anything other than tame. It’s a normal_commenter + overwhelming_majority_support = total dickwad theory.
If the idea is that mob dynamics somehow turn "tame" behavior into "dickwad" behavior, you're losing me. I can understand it can be overwhelming for a certain type of personality, and I'm for minimizing these sort of dynamics, but the idea it is somehow equivalent to having an actual troll being antagonistic (and worse, that we therefore need actual trolls to pus back against the mob), makes no sense to me. And again, your example contradicts this. The dude calling you a clown wasn't "tame", he should have eaten a ban for that, but probably no one reported him.
On the other hand, if the idea is that the members of the mob encourage each other to be more dickwadish - sure, but then just ban them, don't try to balance them with trolls. Someone like darwin doesn't help here, he makes things worse.
That is why there is almost no ideological diversity here. It's simply not expressed anymore, as soriek said. Guys like darwin protected the expression of their viewpoints, they were guard dogs against the mob.
There are advantages to ideological diversity, but aiming for it as a goal in itself will encourage all sorts of negative things, from outright trolling to crybullying.
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That's the best part - he was the one forcing the issues. The thing about the mod force is cmpletely backwards, for a long time, they were explicitly protecting him, letting him get away with stuff that got others banned. Even that wouldn't make so many people turn against him, if he had enough grace to concede when he was wrong.
I'm not asking you to side with the mob against a contrarian, I'm asking you to provide actual evidence for your theory that people hated him because he occasionally won a spat with a counter-progressive, rather than because he refused to engage in an honest manner.
Everyone kept saying that; it was never true.
I see how you would se e it that way, but surely you can see how "we have investigated ourselves, and found us free of any bias" might ring hollow to anyone on the outside.
I will say that there came a point where y'all got fed up with him, and it didn't take long for him to start stacking up bans after that.
Sure. People will believe what they want to believe. I've given up trying to convince anyone who goes on the "You're biased and you're too stupid/dishonest to acknowledge it" attack.
Come on, it's not an attack. Bias is not connected to being stupid, and while it's arguably a form of dishonesty, it requires more or less saintly levels of humility to grow past it, so it's unfair to expect anyone to be unbiased, and I never implied otherwise.
I do not think the mods were giving him a pass. I think he either had or developed a method of posting that was quite negative for the community, but very subtly so. It's one of the reasons I'm dedicating effort to actually arguing a position in detail in this thread, because what actually happened was much, much more complicated than "obviously bad poster gets away with it".
As someone unsympathetic to his general positions, it wasn't hard to pick up that something fucky was going on. But as I've mentioned elsewhere, I spent years, plural trying to have conversations with him, until I finally started getting a handle on how his schtick worked. It seems to me that the mods had a similar problem, and I really do think you need to understand what he's doing to mod him properly; otherwise, you're just banning a controversial but effortful poster because you don't like them, which is exactly the accusation being made here.
Yeah, maybe "bias" is the wrong for it. I can get on board with "there was fuckery afoot, that is hart to put one's finger on".
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
Obviously I have a different perspective on what was usually happening. Anyone arguing in a hostile environment will appear more antagonistic than his best-behaved critics. Given his ideological distance to the sub, he was relatively polite. His worse critics should have been more charitable.
As to his refusal to admit he was wrong, though I accused him of bad faith for that myself once or twice, I now think it’s his business. I don’t judge him for lacking the grace to do what most of us almost never do, even when we are not facing the threats, mockery and vociferous demands of hostile ideological opponents.
It's a bit weird then, that people don't seem to have issues with any of the other progressives currently posting here. Even the ones that flamed out and left in a huff never got sufjj a bad reputation.
That's your choice, but it seems perfectly normal that other people will choose otherwise, particularly when they disagree that this is something most people almost never do. It is very weird then to go on psychoanalytical investigations, trying to figure out what the 'real' reason for people disliking him is.
The progressives here (more of them than I think people realize) largely learned not to directly engage in hot button culture war debates, because no one’s trying to fight a hostile mob in an internet debate.
I'm not talking just about the progressives we have here now, though. Darwin is probably the most notorious out of everyone whoever posted.
And sure, I get it's hard to post in hostile territory, but no one here actually made the argument that this is sufficient to justify his behavior, or to explain people's hostility towards him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Have you argued for a position with very little support – honest inquiry, not a gotcha. I have, sometimes in here, and it’s an interesting dynamic. At first everything’s cool, but if you persist, the rudest part of the mob will accuse you of ignorance and stupidity, while the nicest will say you are obstinate and have ‘no interest in discussion’ . They progressively embolden each other and get annoyed by your refusal to admit “the obvious” until the knives really come out and you are declared a “troll”, a liar who can’t possibly believe anything so widely disbelieved. It seemed to me in those cases I was not wrong, they were.
But if I was wrong, then I guess it’s very difficult to recognize being wrong, and I have to absolve darwin. And if I was right, well then the mob knows nothing and I have to absolve darwin.
I have, a few times. I definately got accused of being stupid or ignorant. I don't recall people saying I "wasn't interested in discussion", but getting brusque and dismissive replies even from the more thoughtful people is certainly a challenge to one's morale. The tail-end of your experience I can't speak to from my own experience, but I think I've definately seen something along those lines play out with others.
Where I disagree with you is your conclusion. The problem isn't being wrong. It's talking to people in a way that undermines a productive conversation, and that's a bad thing to do no matter whether you're correct on the facts or not. That's the pattern of behavior I've been trying to demonstrate to you so far in the long thread.
For another example where bad faith accusations fly, see the gemmaem thread, of which I said pretty much the same thing:
I mean really, what is one-person shaming? Shaming requires a collective. She can't shame anyone, and neither could darwin.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My "Elon Musk is not a genius, and his flagship companies are probably going to crash and burn soonish" take seems to be unpopular going by the down votes, I was challenged to two bets as a result of it, but it didn't seem to generate a dogpile. Sometime soon after moving from reddit, I also defended the Hassidim and the way they apparently extract resources from the American welfare system.
A take generated massive blowback was "surrogacy, and all forms transhumanism are evil". There were a few people backing me on it, so maybe you'll say it doesn't count, but even now Darwin is not the only progressive, and he was even less alone back on the day.
And how were you behaving in these cases? I'm pretty familiar with your style, it's pretty entertaining, so I tend to stop scrolling when your name pops up in the feed. But the truth is you're pretty antagonistic, so I don't understand why you're surpsied at the reaction, or why you'd blame it on mob dynamics.
It's good to have the same standard for others as you do for yourself, but other people might not have that much of an issue admitting they're wrong.
The second issue is that there are levels of admitting you're wrong. When you don't have so much pride invested in something you might say "oops, looks like I got carried away there" or something, or if you have some humiliry, you could do one of those "things I was wrong about" posts ymeshkout does every once in a while.
But by far the most common approach is to back off, and be a bit more cautious in the future, and Darwin never cleared that bar. He would jump in with a bombastic claim, it would turn out he cannot back in literally any way, he would indeed back off, and then just do the same thing again in the future. People would have a lot more sympathy for him, if he wasn't acting like GPT prompted to defend progressivism no matter what.
I’m sorry, my ego got the better of me, I can’t let the accusation stand that the mob was always right and it ‘s just me being an asshole.
So here. I make an argument against the OP ,who presents a popular position. My comment is largely upvoted. Just two comments down, I get this sort of shit:
And
Further down in a different branch:
(That’s me.)
I don’t think I was antagonistic, no.
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you. I like your style too. I do think a bit of spice is more entertaining and “drives engagement”, aside from all the other benefits, like the pedagogic eviscerations described above.
Perhaps, compared to the median here, now. But we’re talking about a flock that started off exceptionnally tame, and was then shaved and sterilized (see darwin and all the others).
But did you admit you were wrong on musk and the hassidim?
I agree he did that, but those constant GPT/ Devil’s advocate comments, while not optimal, were still valuable. He defended his ideology as best he could. It was actually a good signal – you knew that if darwin retreated into total bullshit and random one-liners, progressives really had zero case on that issue. Like when a lawyer starts arguing against the death penalty instead of arguing the innocence of his client.
He has not been replaced by anyone. Sometimes our more-progressive posters will make arguments, and they’re usually of high quality and very polite and everything, but they cannot equal the sheer volume of progressive perspective/apologia darwin helpfully provided. For a sub so focused on condemning the woke, we really should grant them legal representation in every discussion.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this is a pretty weird point to make. For one, if anything, we ended up "untamed". Some of the more gentle posters flamed out, other got blackpilled and aren't in the mood for going through the motions of pretending there can be a good faith basis for whatever they're disagreeing with.
This point is further undermined by the example you posted below. You can't tell me you're exhibiting a normal level of aggression while everyone else here is tame and sterile, while complaining about the time you were civil and got aggressive push-back.
To the example itself, you're right. What I thought was happening definitely was not happening there. On the other hand, your original post was at +42/-8 and the other ones hover at -10-ish. It looks like the majority is on your side, but they moved on, while a manospherish core stayed behind to disagree with you. This seems neither here nor there, re: darwin.
Other than the downvotes, no one really bothered pushing back against my take on the Hassidim, so I don't see how am I supposed to admit I was wrong. As for Musk, like I said, I left the conversation with 2 outstanding bets, basically if Starship makes it to orbit, I'm wrong. So I don't think it's hard to come up with a way to leave people with the impression you're participating in good faith, even when running into an irreconcilable difference of opinion.
I disagree. Originally my hopes for this place were that we might get people of different ideologies could gather here and come to some kind of synthesis, and push the world in a more reasonable direction. That ended up being hopelessly naive for unrelated reasons, but "GPT prompted to defend a particular side no matter what" is completely toxic to the idea. A less naive use for this place is to try to understand where the other side is coming from, where exactly the disagreement lies etc. You won't change the world with that, or solve any problems, really, but it is edifying. GPT Devil's Advocate is toxic to that as well.
Not really. He could write a whole essay even when the left really had zero case on the issue, for example by diverting the conversation to a completely different issue, but adding enough padding that you don't notice the topic has changed.
I disagree. Any group you do this for will end up shitting up the place.
I’m making a distinction between the antagonism of a mob (which is usually both high and invisible) and the antagonism of a lone opponent (which is far more harshly perceived, monitored and punished, and therefore rare these days. Although I’m pretty sure the mods didn’t intend this). A man will do things as part of the mob he would never do on on his own, so the antagonism of the mob doesn’t require the individuals in them to be anything other than tame. It’s a normal_commenter + overwhelming_majority_support = total dickwad theory.
The quality of being antagonistic to an appropriate degree, especially to the worst parts of a mob, has disappeared from themotte. Our regular progressive posters, with all due respect, are far too kind to the mob, show undue deference to it. They're kind of forced to by the rules and mob rule. If they acted appropriately (ie like darwin, by answering the antagonism of the mob) they would be banned for it (so would mob member #17, but he's replaceable). So the few people who have some ‘contrarian antagonism’ left are relatively close to being banned.
That is why there is almost no ideological diversity here. It's simply not expressed anymore, as soriek said. Guys like darwin protected the expression of their viewpoints, they were guard dogs against the mob.
If the idea is that mob dynamics somehow turn "tame" behavior into "dickwad" behavior, you're losing me. I can understand it can be overwhelming for a certain type of personality, and I'm for minimizing these sort of dynamics, but the idea it is somehow equivalent to having an actual troll being antagonistic (and worse, that we therefore need actual trolls to pus back against the mob), makes no sense to me. And again, your example contradicts this. The dude calling you a clown wasn't "tame", he should have eaten a ban for that, but probably no one reported him.
On the other hand, if the idea is that the members of the mob encourage each other to be more dickwadish - sure, but then just ban them, don't try to balance them with trolls. Someone like darwin doesn't help here, he makes things worse.
There are advantages to ideological diversity, but aiming for it as a goal in itself will encourage all sorts of negative things, from outright trolling to crybullying.
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
More options
Context Copy link