This
part is wild. The commenter provides direct evidence from the alt
right guy’s comment history that he is a holocaust denier and thinks
that “Jews invented racism” among other things, and the mod threatens to
remove the comment providing that evidence rather than adjust
his moderation of the discussion.
Edit:
Also this entire part, wow.
In reality, HBD serves as a pretty functional alternative to the
universal narrative (racism/white supremacy) regarding pretty much any
hot topic.
“Why are so many ‘minorities’ incarcerated/victims of police
violence?”
“Why are so many ‘minorities’ falling behind in school?”
“Why is the average income of ‘minorities’ so low?”
“Why is our historical perspective so void of the contributions of
‘minorities’”?
The universal narrative (because of racism/white supremacy) just does
not hold water. Not only is there virtually no evidence supporting this
theory, it doesn’t pass muster on its’ face.
Right? It's such blatant bad faith. [Here that same moderator is saying that she's not sure if a person cordially responding to hateful abuse might just be making it up because they have a history on SneerClub.](https://twitter.com/CultGuide/status/1362018956022792195) But a nazi who is very obviously a nazi? Couldn't _possibly_ comment on his odious statements.
We have to seek for the truth and account for it. Except for when the truth is "this guy obviously holds some peculiar opinions", definitely don't account for that when looking at his arguments.
>E: 3 months for attracting a 'hate mob'. Christ on a stick lol wtf.
It's just about the only Motte mod decision I've seen that I think is even remotely reasonable. Like... Yeah, probably bad form to make reasonable arguments _and_ imply that reasonable arguments aren't worth doing by sneering about the whole thing.
Doesn't make up for the nazi coddling but 🤷♂️
Redline maps still correlating so well with racial segregation is eye-opening. That systemic racism can be perpetuated without the need for any *explicit* institutional racism changed the way I think about this stuff.
I can’t remember who pointed it out (might have been Step Back History, but I’m not sure), but here’s another ridiculous consequence: redlining was banned in 1968, so for most Black families, the earliest they could have finished paying off a 30-year mortgage was *1998*, which is within my lifetime (I’m 29). Blows my mind whenever I think about it (and not in a good way).
And the percentage of black families that had the connections to get a mortgage (I guarantee you that unofficial redlining did not end in 1968) and the cash for a down payment was not that high.
Ok, I went looking for the video you mentioned but couldn't find it. Doesn't appear that SBH has done a video on redlining (unless I missed it somehow).
I did find one by Extra Credits (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyiwk3D-3ag). Is that it?
Wow, now that you have [tabood](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WBdvyyHLdxZSAMmoz/taboo-your-words) the word 'black' it suddenly feels way less offensive and racist.
This is true but also discounts the women and minorities that have played the dutiful servants to a system that ruthlessly seeks to save and make money to the extent that even the laws and measures that aren’t blatantly racist (and there are a lot), are ok with people of any color being collateral damage.
White men deserve to be hung out to dry for the shit they do, but unfortunately minorities and women can be just as ruthless. And that kind of racial reductiveness leads to the idea that Kamala Harris is somehow a good alternative to any white man.
White men made most of the rules, but who tf are the clowns upholding them?
I don’t listen to redscare but the sub has introduced me to some interesting art/music/movies. I enjoy the discourse but loathe when people go out of their way to hate things just because they are popular or “normie”. Is redscare known for having a particular stance on trans people??
I’ve posted *once* on FDS because a specific post was recommended to me by Reddit that I found totally odd. I haven’t been back.
I’m fairly new to Reddit and I’m not sure where I belong. SneerClub was recommended to me but tbh I don’t really know wth it is. My basic aim is to be open minded but critical, and avoid being an ass.
/r/redscarepod has posts like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/redscarepod/comments/loazdb/this_resonates_with_me_but_also_seems_it_might_be/) very heavily upvoted, and generally seems to run along those lines as far as any sort of minority action stuff goes. /r/FemaleDatingStrategy is run by former /r/gendercritical types and has recently found *reddit's* ToS so arduous as to warrant setting up an offsite forum with lots of dogwhistling about how "we can't run afoul of reddit's ToS and say the subreddit is female only" so go to the website to talk about other stuff. The overlap of the two subreddits is enough to prick my ears, at least.
I’ve only been using Reddit for a couple months and the algorithm is still trying to figure me out. Have I said anything in this thread that you would consider offensive?
Not at all. In fact, I only clicked on your username because I found it funny. I've just been in too many arguments the past couple of days about how extending good faith where none is warranted can lead to inadvertently supporting racists and the like, so I'm not particularly inclined to assume someone posting in those particular subreddits is not an awful person. Not without at least pushing the issue a little bit.
Not a racist and not a terf. I’m just not online enough to know the reputations of any subs lol. That said, I’m pretty over the idea that white men have a monopoly on being evil. They just got there first :/
> White men made most of the rules, but who tf are the clowns upholding them?
You have a point, but when we're talking about *why* the system exists in the first place, it only makes sense to talk about its progenitors.
What is your take on Kamala’s truancy program? She was undoubtedly the “rider” of legislation that disproportionately harmed POC and single mothers.
Edit: Also downvoting people who are non-combative but critical is kinda lame. I think it’s an important discussion. It shouldn’t have to be said but I am neither male nor white.
Alternatively, through the lens of HBD, just about everything falls
into place. And not only is there a mountain of evidence for it, but
there has also been a constantly expanding mountain of evidence for it
for at least 100 years. If you’d like me to link sources because you
consider this claim inflammatory I’d be happy to do so but all I’d do is
go to google and copy/paste the first results - it is all available to
the general public and has been the whole time.
Riiiight because race scientists 100 years ago were totally unbiased
and did not let their bigotry influence their work
thats also the guy who defended james fields and banned anyone who was calling him a neo nazi terrorist
personally that was the lowest point I've ever seen the motte and the reason why I dont post there anymore. it's amazing nobody seems to have an issue with someone like naraburns modding their sub. he wastes no time putting his mod hat on and writing long authoritative screeds to make sure that nobody impugns the honor of racist terrorists
You ask me to back up my claims about HBD, I give you a paper about the evolutionary history of the kob antelope, and you're still not happy? Geez it's just impossible to reason with you SJWs.
Obligatory recommendation of Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man to anyone who hasn't read it. Incredibly relevant to this day, and there's a reason it's the single most hated book by HBD creeps. (And if something pisses of HBD creeps, that's generally a good sign.)
I hope that nobody missed the irony in the moderator calling
us a hate group… immediately after spending three modposts
defending a dude named “TheAltRightIsAllRight” from accusations of bad
faith and racism and after having someone else point out, “Hey,
this dude is a holocaust denier who thinks jews invented racism”.
Also no response to my point, merely a whole bunch of ranting about
what an asshole I am. Definitely very rational. Had an effortful
response all typed up, might post it here along with a “motte-to-bailey
translation”, i.e. dropping the mealy-mouthed bullshit.
Also, please tell me I’m not the only one who caught this.
People ignorantly asserting that all I want to do is
“platform racists” is a good example of how intellectually bankrupt your
hate group is. When probably-actually-bad people stay just within their
motte while posting here, that’s the point.
I dunno fam, feels an awful lot more damning than anything I
could ever say.
Whoops, fucked up the link. Here
is the fixed link. I’m talking specifically about the interaction
involving the dude with “alt right” in his name and the moderator who
defends their racist garbage from mild criticism, even after others
point out that they’re definitely a lying nazi.
Another great example of themotte moderation. Misrepresenting the pug
nazi salute (and related case) as “Teaching a dog to roman salute, is a
criminal offense there” is
fine. Calling out the ‘roman salute’ part (and more) otoh, that gets
you a
warning. (I’m ignoring here that the roman salute is made up as in
there is no proof it was used by the Romans at all).
Lying and misrepresenting things is fine on themotte, as long as you
do it in
style.
Calling for removing free speech of ‘the woke’ in reaction to the
woke not being free speech, warning,
explaining how what HBD is uncharitably, ban
for a week.
And I apply those rules to racists and non-racists alike. The mod
team is aware of users who try to slowly inch out from their mottes. We
notice and moderate them, too. We like to be careful about it, and get
it right. When other users break the rules in an attempt to lash out at
their outgroup, however, we have to handle the overt rules violations
first.
(All that while calling SC a hategroup).
E: unrelated to that, I came across this
post of a person trying to understand the sneerclub complaints
without naming sneerclub. It gets esp funny when they are going all in
to defend ‘coca cola is red tribe’ (guess im red tribe then) in the
reactions to this post.
that's kind of funny that he's tacitly acknowledging that the community contains "racists and non racists" like that's a normal or good thing. we had to add a few racists to our moderation team to properly address the demographic diversity of our community
naraburns is just a straight up racist white supremacist though, he spends hours and hours a day moderating his sub to make sure that racists feel very welcome there. he invents the most ridiculous and tortured logical stretches and cloaks it in ten page thesis about how listening to racists is very important and enlightening
Jesus christ
>It certainly can be uncharitable to accurately describe someone's post. Charity is often about looking beyond the literal words on the page and trying to read the best version of those words. Steelmanning is not an act of reading precisely what is read, but of imagining the strongest version of the substantive point. Accuracy does not imply charity!
"We might ban you if you accurately describe what someone said!"
The mental gymnastics one has to engage in to come out of a post
pointing out literal nazi argumentation thinking the actual hate group
are instead the people who correctly identify hard racism for what it is
and have a strong ideological and moral aversion to it.
This is just enlightenedcentrism with an extra dose of thesaurus.
Holy crap, some of the comments in that thread are
deranged.
(A policy that requires everyone else to pay or defer to green people
to compensate for their handicap would then leave us desperately
struggling to uplift turbocriminals, while also further empowering the
already disproportionately successful 70%. I think I speak for a
nontrivial number of tech-academics when I say that I am personally not
so much concerned about the low end of the bell curve as I am about the
people like Timnit Gebru, who, on top of already having innate talent
and privilege that does not fall short of anything held by people in
other ethnicities, get away with a cartoon medieval noble’s degree of
sociopathy due to the impunity their accidental inclusion in a bucket
that in the blank-slatist view is considered to be discriminated against
conveys them.)
I’m confident that our way is better than your way. Possibly I am
wrong about that, but it does seem to me that persuading people with
“bad opinions” to only express them in polite, carefully-reasoned ways,
and not immunizing them from polite, carefully-reasoned responses, will
do more good than kicking them out for being bigots.
There is an awful lot of unwarranted confidence in this
statement.
Well who could understand the sole reason fashos and bigots show their true faces is to make those ideas seem normal and arguable, and arguing with them justifies the worms' position as worthy of intellectual attention.
Certainly not outright dunces who pounce on any whiff of feminism as something to pour contempt on and cast out.
And I question whether letting you continue to post in the Motte
while soft-brigading us actually helps anyone. If we routinely banned
people for the stupid things they say elsewhere, you would already be
permabanned. Your little hate group has just found a way to be bigoted
and disdainful toward others without society at large canceling them for
it. It’s an admirable psychological hack! If you don’t mind living your
life as a hack.
People ignorantly asserting that all I want to do is “platform
racists” is a good example of how intellectually bankrupt your hate
group is. When probably-actually-bad people stay just within their motte
while posting here, that’s the point. That’s why the sub is named what
it is. If they go out and play in their sneering bailey at other times,
that’s a shame–I think we do things better here!–but I’m not going to
punish them for it. If you break the rules here, that’s when you get
moderated.
And I apply those rules to racists and non-racists alike. The mod
team is aware of users who try to slowly inch out from their mottes. We
notice and moderate them, too. We like to be careful about it, and get
it right. When other users break the rules in an attempt to lash out at
their outgroup, however, we have to handle the overt rules violations
first.
Gotta love that sleight of hand with the "hate group" bit there. Trying to transform people reacting to their racist AF behavior into some sort of bigotry against immutable characteristics. Classic bad faith stuff.
I wrote out a whole response to that but they locked the thread (and banned me for three months for sending hate their way. It's probably bad form to comment on something _and_ sneer at it, which would make this the first mod decision I've seen at the Motte in _ages_ that I don't think is absolutely awful and mostly serves to cover for nazis). Might as well repost it here:
>> You don't get to decide who can post here and who can't based on wrongthink.
> I was just trying to help you understand the argument, which I believed you misinterpreted. I am staying entirely within my Motte here. I think you made a bad call. I am telling you why I disagree with it.
>> I recognize that the zeitgeist has largely abandoned tolerance and outreach and the whole liberal project, but we haven't.
> This is not what I see when I see forums willing to ban race realists on the spot.
> Instead, I see a lot of people slowly noticing that certain ideas and ideologies typically come with bad faith or an agenda (something that you believe about the "woke" crowd IIRC), and that allowing them to state their opinions freely is generally _harmful_ to discourse and the community at large.
> (This is something Will Wilkinson discusses at length in his article, "[Climbing the Bell Curve to the Cathedral](https://modelcitizen.substack.com/p/climbing-the-bell-curve-to-the-cathedral/comments)", albeit in terms that are a fair bit coarser. More importantly, he discusses how he changed his mind on this issue due to personal experience with people like Sailer and Moldbug and the effects they had on the communities he was a part of.)
> I don't think it's fair to assume that they're somehow "less dedicated" to liberalism than you are. They've made observations that they interpret as consistent with this type of liberalism having exploitable flaws, and are trying to patch those holes, occasionally in very clumsy ways.
> You clearly disagree with this - you seem to believe that these flaws don't exist, or that the cost of patching them is too high. That's fine. But to paint yourselves as the lone bastion of tolerance, outreach, and the liberal project, simply because you personally do not believe that banning the discussion of certain ideas is good for discourse feels kinda irrational. It's painting anyone who disagrees with your specific interpretation of liberalism as illiberal. As an outgroup.
>>And I question whether letting you continue to post in the Motte while soft-vote-brigading us actually helps anyone.
> 🤷♂️
> I feel like I represent a perspective that is very rare here - the perspective of the "woke". I believe I occasionally present that perspective well. Given that that's kinda the number one outgroup here (certainly moreso than, say, members of the alt-right), I figure there's some value in that.
>>your hate group
> I hope you spotted the irony in calling Sneerclub a hate group after spending three modposts in a row defending the good faith of a holocaust denier who, it was later shown, was definitely acting in bad faith.
Harry G. Frankfurt’s 2005 book On Bullshit explains it all.
Should be a citable reference when confronting most SSC type arguments.
He is the professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton after all and an
expert in rationalism. This book took and already cynical me and rooted
me in a healthy, permanent skepticism.
Can I just say, I absolutely loathe the term “HBD”. It’s so
fucking smug. It is always said with a knowing wink and a smirk, the “we
both know what I am but you’ll never prove it” chuckle.
I can’t think of a better use of the motte and bailey – the racism
hides in the bailey while the veneer of science lives in the motte.
Yeah, but also there's nothing scientific about “scientific racism” and nothing real about “race realism”. Pretending to be cold-headed calculators who simply present uncomfortable facts is *the* right-wing strategy.
Reminds me how Brent Dill, before he was exposed as a horrendous serial abuser, would post shit like “RedPill is true but awful”. Like he really hates that it happens to be true, he wishes it wasn't, but he has to bow his head solemnly and accept the cold, ruthless facts.
This part is wild. The commenter provides direct evidence from the alt right guy’s comment history that he is a holocaust denier and thinks that “Jews invented racism” among other things, and the mod threatens to remove the comment providing that evidence rather than adjust his moderation of the discussion.
Edit:
Also this entire part, wow.
Riiiight because race scientists 100 years ago were totally unbiased and did not let their bigotry influence their work
I hope that nobody missed the irony in the moderator calling us a hate group… immediately after spending three modposts defending a dude named “TheAltRightIsAllRight” from accusations of bad faith and racism and after having someone else point out, “Hey, this dude is a holocaust denier who thinks jews invented racism”.
Also no response to my point, merely a whole bunch of ranting about what an asshole I am. Definitely very rational. Had an effortful response all typed up, might post it here along with a “motte-to-bailey translation”, i.e. dropping the mealy-mouthed bullshit.
Also, please tell me I’m not the only one who caught this.
I dunno fam, feels an awful lot more damning than anything I could ever say.
Whoops, fucked up the link. Here is the fixed link. I’m talking specifically about the interaction involving the dude with “alt right” in his name and the moderator who defends their racist garbage from mild criticism, even after others point out that they’re definitely a lying nazi.
Another great example of themotte moderation. Misrepresenting the pug nazi salute (and related case) as “Teaching a dog to roman salute, is a criminal offense there” is fine. Calling out the ‘roman salute’ part (and more) otoh, that gets you a warning. (I’m ignoring here that the roman salute is made up as in there is no proof it was used by the Romans at all).
Lying and misrepresenting things is fine on themotte, as long as you do it in style.
Calling for removing free speech of ‘the woke’ in reaction to the woke not being free speech, warning, explaining how what HBD is uncharitably, ban for a week.
Anybody can play this game btw, just look at naraburns comment history, you will find gems like this:
(All that while calling SC a hategroup).
E: unrelated to that, I came across this post of a person trying to understand the sneerclub complaints without naming sneerclub. It gets esp funny when they are going all in to defend ‘coca cola is red tribe’ (guess im red tribe then) in the reactions to this post.
You give these types of people the smallest amount of power and this is what they do with it lol
[deleted]
welp it doesn’t get much more blatant than this
The mental gymnastics one has to engage in to come out of a post pointing out literal nazi argumentation thinking the actual hate group are instead the people who correctly identify hard racism for what it is and have a strong ideological and moral aversion to it.
This is just enlightenedcentrism with an extra dose of thesaurus.
My takeaway: the mods are either racist or Nazi-sympathetic, and really fucking incompetent about it.
https://twitter.com/CultGuide/status/1364865641203838986
Holy crap, some of the comments in that thread are deranged.
There is an awful lot of unwarranted confidence in this statement.
The moderator’s response to your post is gold:
Harry G. Frankfurt’s 2005 book On Bullshit explains it all. Should be a citable reference when confronting most SSC type arguments. He is the professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton after all and an expert in rationalism. This book took and already cynical me and rooted me in a healthy, permanent skepticism.
like to say challenging stuff but hate to be challenged… what do they mean by that?
Can I just say, I absolutely loathe the term “HBD”. It’s so fucking smug. It is always said with a knowing wink and a smirk, the “we both know what I am but you’ll never prove it” chuckle.
I can’t think of a better use of the motte and bailey – the racism hides in the bailey while the veneer of science lives in the motte.
https://i.imgur.com/83yENbv.jpeg