3 ms·

Here's one that seems to sum it up pretty well. https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9174vt/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_july_23_2018/e31i8i

Here's one that seems to sum it up pretty well. https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9174vt/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_july_23_2018/e31i8i3/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9174vt/cult... is a 2-part comment advocating for > Mandatory abortions of the congenitally ill. > Removal of tax incentives for homosexual marriages > Corporal or capital punishment for adultery. > Mental illness/having mental health medication prescribed disqualifying voting. > Paid sterilisation (i.e., trading your fecundity for a basic income). > National genotyping and IQ scoring as part of using any sort of public health subsidisation and education. > Allowing insurers more room to discriminate on any quality they wish, including genotype, education, and IQ (i.e., no more disparate impact or genetic discrimination laws at all). > La Sierra-style physical education in whatever public schools there are. > Removal of all protected classes/free segregation (as mentioned above). > Restructuring of "Free Speech" rights to include the "Right to Hate." And so on. Basically all of the most awful things a human being could compile into a bullet pointed list, with absolutely no explanation of why any of these things would have a positive impact on the world. The second part of the comment literally just contains these, verbatim, as bullets. These are the kinds of things one would advocate for if he wanted racism to be allowed (with a couple of other weird random points that most certainly trample on the rights of other groups). You'd have to completely ignore the rights of so many people to think arguing for any of these even approximates rational thought. One may argue that it is acceptable to merely permit this kind of thing, in the hopes that light may find it and disinfect it. But this particular comment is blessed as a "quality contribution" by the moderators here https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9174vt/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_july_23_2018/e31i8i3/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9174vt/cult.... So I dunno. Is this objectionable enough for you?

chipsa 8y ago
1. Your first link is broke, as it merely takes you to the Quality Contribution round up. 2. It was the second part of said two part comment that advocated any of that, which was not well voted, and provided no support for anything in there. 3. The quality contribution round up ends up being anything that anyone reports to the moderators as a quality contribution, with little discrimination on the part of the moderators. 4. Sometimes it's not the post itself that's the quality, but the responses to it that provide the quality conversation.
- striking 8y ago
  Blasted mobile devices. I wish I could edit the link in (https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/8xa97t/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_july_09_2018/e22rh1l/?context=3&sort=best https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/8xa97t/cult...) And yes, I mentioned that it was bipartite, and the second part had 11 votes which is maybe not excitingly high but not extremely low either. "Quality contributions" being barely moderated by moderators does not sound like a useful thing. How are we to know they're "quality" if the moderators don't actually test for their quality in some way? The responses only barely disagreed, and mostly against the mandatory abortions of the mentally ill. There is maybe one comment that makes an actual attempt at most of the silly points, and the original poster of this "quality" contribution did not respond to it.
rndgermandude 8y ago
>Is this objectionable enough for you? No. Most of it is objectionable to me, but none is objectionable enough to ban discussions around it.
- nullc 8y ago
  > but none is objectionable enough to ban discussions around it. Where is "ban discussions" around it coming from, certainly it's not something I said. It's also not something that happened here. (The thread was moved to another subreddit with weeks notice, the participants voted on the name, the result was highly promoted, etc.) My view is that there its material that few would want to be around or have their identity associated with. If guests at my home were carrying on about that, I'd politely try to get them to change the subject and failing that get them to leave. ... avoid inviting them in the future, and apologize discretely to my other gusts for having had to endure it. [And pray a fight didn't break out before I could intervene...] Stuff like that.
- striking 8y ago
  I'm not saying this kind of discussion should be banned for how objectionable it is. I'm saying the fact that the moderators have blessed this comment is objectionable for the many reasons I've put above. By all means, talk about this. But promoting a laundry list of unsubstantiated ideas that are no more than a thin veneer around human rights abuses just strikes me as... irrational.

chipsa 8y ago

1. Your first link is broke, as it merely takes you to the Quality Contribution round up. 2. It was the second part of said two part comment that advocated any of that, which was not well voted, and provided no support for anything in there. 3. The quality contribution round up ends up being anything that anyone reports to the moderators as a quality contribution, with little discrimination on the part of the moderators. 4. Sometimes it's not the post itself that's the quality, but the responses to it that provide the quality conversation.

striking 8y ago
Blasted mobile devices. I wish I could edit the link in (https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/8xa97t/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_july_09_2018/e22rh1l/?context=3&sort=best https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/8xa97t/cult...) And yes, I mentioned that it was bipartite, and the second part had 11 votes which is maybe not excitingly high but not extremely low either. "Quality contributions" being barely moderated by moderators does not sound like a useful thing. How are we to know they're "quality" if the moderators don't actually test for their quality in some way? The responses only barely disagreed, and mostly against the mandatory abortions of the mentally ill. There is maybe one comment that makes an actual attempt at most of the silly points, and the original poster of this "quality" contribution did not respond to it.

rndgermandude 8y ago

>Is this objectionable enough for you? No. Most of it is objectionable to me, but none is objectionable enough to ban discussions around it.

nullc 8y ago
> but none is objectionable enough to ban discussions around it. Where is "ban discussions" around it coming from, certainly it's not something I said. It's also not something that happened here. (The thread was moved to another subreddit with weeks notice, the participants voted on the name, the result was highly promoted, etc.) My view is that there its material that few would want to be around or have their identity associated with. If guests at my home were carrying on about that, I'd politely try to get them to change the subject and failing that get them to leave. ... avoid inviting them in the future, and apologize discretely to my other gusts for having had to endure it. [And pray a fight didn't break out before I could intervene...] Stuff like that.
striking 8y ago
I'm not saying this kind of discussion should be banned for how objectionable it is. I'm saying the fact that the moderators have blessed this comment is objectionable for the many reasons I've put above. By all means, talk about this. But promoting a laundry list of unsubstantiated ideas that are no more than a thin veneer around human rights abuses just strikes me as... irrational.