3 ms·

# Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism > Good online communities die primarily by refusing to defend themselves. > Somewhere in the vastness of the Internet, it

# Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism > Good online communities die primarily by refusing to defend themselves. > Somewhere in the vastness of the Internet, it is happening even now. It was once a well-kept garden of intelligent discussion, where knowledgeable and interested folk came, attracted by the high quality of speech they saw ongoing. But into this garden comes a fool, and the level of discussion drops a little—or more than a little, if the fool is very prolific in their posting. (It is worse if the fool is just articulate enough that the former inhabitants of the garden feel obliged to respond, and correct misapprehensions—for then the fool dominates conversations.) Read the whole thing: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...

jpalawaga 2y ago
That’s rose coloured. Maybe people were more intelligent, but even 10 years ago people would absolutely flame each other in GitHub issues on public projects.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  I suspect the author is thinking back to more than ten years ago. But yes; even newsgroups, BBSes, etc. were subject to this kind of stuff. People have always been people, even smart people with money to purchase computers.
  - FactKnower69 2y ago
    >I suspect the author is thinking back to more than ten years ago. Yes, "good ol' days" types will always move the goalposts further and further back when you point out that things were exactly the same in the mythical time period they want to return to
    - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
      There were days when internet search engines had operators and really showed results, not "relevant" SEO. Botnets weren't a thing, either.
      - pavel_lishin 2y ago
        But OP was talking about humans' behavior toward each other - I'll grant that SEO-spam maybe falls under that, but I don't think that Google's leadership fucking up search results is the same.
anal_reactor 2y ago
I wholeheartedly agree with the general message of the essay, and it really explains my experience with groups.
nine_k 2y ago
Pacifism only works if there is someone who can protect the pacifist. In the Christian religion, God ultimately protects the virtuous pacifists by putting them in Heaven, away from bullies. In an online forum, there's no transcendental force to render such a service, so...
- weinzierl 2y ago
  This is only true for a very narrow definition of pacifism. It is the literal reading of Matthew 5:39. But not even all Christian scholars subscribe to that definition, let alone pacifists in general. Many pacifists are perfectly ok with self-defense.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Certainly, not all Christians are pacifists, and not all pacifists are Christians. But, to my mind, pacifists choose to not fight back by definition, or that would be violence, so their prolonged existence is only possible because other social mechanisms hold back violence which would destroy them. Interaction with these mechanisms may be the point of holding a pacifist position: say, a monk or a nun may have a higher moral authority because of a declared personal abstinence from any violence, and hence indirectly incentivize lay people to protect them. Of course there are people who call themselves pacifists but admit a right for self-defense, but only not organized or military; such a position again is only possible when someone else would partake in a defensive warfare and protect them. Abstaining from aggression while being ready and willing to respond to aggression with full force, lethal when required, looks to me like the most logical "lawful good" position. It has a chance to produce an equilibrium when multiple parties live in peace for a long time, and any violent deviations are quashed.
    - weinzierl 2y ago
      "But, to my mind, pacifists choose to not fight back by definition, or that would be violence, so their prolonged existence is only possible because other social mechanisms hold back violence which would destroy them." Again, this is a valid, but narrow definition of pacifism. One that is more often found in misguided Christians who take Mathew 5:39 literally than serious scholars. The willingness for self defense does not preclude pacifism at all. A good example is Mahatma Gandhi who is widely recognized as a pacifist, yet argued that it is better to fight than to be a coward in the face of injustice.

jpalawaga 2y ago

That’s rose coloured. Maybe people were more intelligent, but even 10 years ago people would absolutely flame each other in GitHub issues on public projects.

pavel_lishin 2y ago
I suspect the author is thinking back to more than ten years ago. But yes; even newsgroups, BBSes, etc. were subject to this kind of stuff. People have always been people, even smart people with money to purchase computers.
- FactKnower69 2y ago
  >I suspect the author is thinking back to more than ten years ago. Yes, "good ol' days" types will always move the goalposts further and further back when you point out that things were exactly the same in the mythical time period they want to return to
  - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
    There were days when internet search engines had operators and really showed results, not "relevant" SEO. Botnets weren't a thing, either.
    - pavel_lishin 2y ago
      But OP was talking about humans' behavior toward each other - I'll grant that SEO-spam maybe falls under that, but I don't think that Google's leadership fucking up search results is the same.

anal_reactor 2y ago

I wholeheartedly agree with the general message of the essay, and it really explains my experience with groups.

nine_k 2y ago

Pacifism only works if there is someone who can protect the pacifist. In the Christian religion, God ultimately protects the virtuous pacifists by putting them in Heaven, away from bullies. In an online forum, there's no transcendental force to render such a service, so...

weinzierl 2y ago
This is only true for a very narrow definition of pacifism. It is the literal reading of Matthew 5:39. But not even all Christian scholars subscribe to that definition, let alone pacifists in general. Many pacifists are perfectly ok with self-defense.
- nine_k 2y ago
  Certainly, not all Christians are pacifists, and not all pacifists are Christians. But, to my mind, pacifists choose to not fight back by definition, or that would be violence, so their prolonged existence is only possible because other social mechanisms hold back violence which would destroy them. Interaction with these mechanisms may be the point of holding a pacifist position: say, a monk or a nun may have a higher moral authority because of a declared personal abstinence from any violence, and hence indirectly incentivize lay people to protect them. Of course there are people who call themselves pacifists but admit a right for self-defense, but only not organized or military; such a position again is only possible when someone else would partake in a defensive warfare and protect them. Abstaining from aggression while being ready and willing to respond to aggression with full force, lethal when required, looks to me like the most logical "lawful good" position. It has a chance to produce an equilibrium when multiple parties live in peace for a long time, and any violent deviations are quashed.
  - weinzierl 2y ago
    "But, to my mind, pacifists choose to not fight back by definition, or that would be violence, so their prolonged existence is only possible because other social mechanisms hold back violence which would destroy them." Again, this is a valid, but narrow definition of pacifism. One that is more often found in misguided Christians who take Mathew 5:39 literally than serious scholars. The willingness for self defense does not preclude pacifism at all. A good example is Mahatma Gandhi who is widely recognized as a pacifist, yet argued that it is better to fight than to be a coward in the face of injustice.