I hate that every single political sub (and a lot of other ones) has the exact same tone of being the enlightened rational geniuses among the crowds of idiot peasants. Like, Chapo was the only I actually liked because we didn't have that smug "holier than thou" attitude about everything (we just moaned and shitposted). But if you go to r/neoliberal, r/latestagecapitalism, r/libertarian, r/politics, whatever, it's all the exact same tone. it's like talking to the exact same person, but with differing views every time
(I only post Alan Watts somewhat ironically, because I think much of his mysticism amounts to an apathist position (1,2), encourages an enlightenment which is detachment; and sees our highest calling as an inward journey rather than outward actions)
That said, Alan Watts does provide some nice observations and metaphors, like this one about a dandelion seed which could be compared to memes/culture/indoctrination/propaganda in general.
Rather than acting ourselves, we should encourage others to act, and create the context in which they act as we desire. It is like the invention and implementation of up/down vote, which leads people towards agreeableness, intent to contribute, and ideological homogeneity.
(just consider how much more aggressively disagreeable people are on Facebook and Twitter which does not have a downvote)
The problem on Reddit is that what people seek is what they also create; the meme threads are the good stuff to them, and involvement in them is seen as contribution.
Even the contrarian attitude that most Redditors exhibit is agreeableness in so far as they are contributing what they consider to be valuable, and it gets the upvotes.
Actual substantive disagreement with the majority, or direct personal attacks, are rare and get systematically downvoted out of view.
Redditors will gladly use slurs and say terrible things about groups, but they don't so much do it towards individuals; they often oppose ‘acts of racism’ but not racism as a whole.
(obviously, there are many kinds of Redditors and subreddits, I don't mean to say they are a monolith, but it is clear enough to whom I refer)
To have a better culture under a system with up/down votes similar to Reddit, a strong shared idea of what constitutes a valuable contribution is important to maintain.
I think the best way to do this is not via moderation, but via struggle session type things where the opinions and actions of the majority (or large fractions of thereof) are challenged.
When a moderating group tries to force unpopular rules, the only thing that happens is user revolt, disengagement, and eventual decline.
Moderation is effective only against a disruptive or harmful minority of users. I've seen this same thing play out on Reddit over and over...
A good culture requires being proactive, setting standards before things get out of hand, and repeatedly arguing against bad takes rather than banning them outright.
(the recent Twitter approach of fact checking Tweets in line seems like a useful one; admins should consider adding 'mod notes' or 'struggle session link' at the top of post descriptions, rather than just deleting things)
The first few members always define a culture for years to come; doesn't matter if its a subreddit, company, organization, anything really. This is exactly the power of being proactive.
We have to change things before the majority starts to adopt harmful attitudes, because then it becomes so much more difficult to improve things.
Anyway, that's my take.
Downvote pig poop balls, it is disgusting and encourages shock humor. It drives away people with the self-respect not to look at poop on balls.
And it is totally speciesist that this scatporn is allowed at all. It is for the greater good.
I hate that every single political sub (and a lot of other ones) has the exact same tone of being the enlightened rational geniuses among the crowds of idiot peasants. Like, Chapo was the only I actually liked because we didn't have that smug "holier than thou" attitude about everything (we just moaned and shitposted). But if you go to r/neoliberal, r/latestagecapitalism, r/libertarian, r/politics, whatever, it's all the exact same tone. it's like talking to the exact same person, but with differing views every time
deleted by creator
So basically this, we are all the shill responding to itself.
(I only post Alan Watts somewhat ironically, because I think much of his mysticism amounts to an apathist position (1, 2), encourages an enlightenment which is detachment; and sees our highest calling as an inward journey rather than outward actions)
That said, Alan Watts does provide some nice observations and metaphors, like this one about a dandelion seed which could be compared to memes/culture/indoctrination/propaganda in general.
Rather than acting ourselves, we should encourage others to act, and create the context in which they act as we desire. It is like the invention and implementation of up/down vote, which leads people towards agreeableness, intent to contribute, and ideological homogeneity.
(just consider how much more aggressively disagreeable people are on Facebook and Twitter which does not have a downvote)
The problem on Reddit is that what people seek is what they also create; the meme threads are the good stuff to them, and involvement in them is seen as contribution.
Even the contrarian attitude that most Redditors exhibit is agreeableness in so far as they are contributing what they consider to be valuable, and it gets the upvotes.
Actual substantive disagreement with the majority, or direct personal attacks, are rare and get systematically downvoted out of view.
Redditors will gladly use slurs and say terrible things about groups, but they don't so much do it towards individuals; they often oppose ‘acts of racism’ but not racism as a whole.
(obviously, there are many kinds of Redditors and subreddits, I don't mean to say they are a monolith, but it is clear enough to whom I refer)
To have a better culture under a system with up/down votes similar to Reddit, a strong shared idea of what constitutes a valuable contribution is important to maintain.
I think the best way to do this is not via moderation, but via struggle session type things where the opinions and actions of the majority (or large fractions of thereof) are challenged.
When a moderating group tries to force unpopular rules, the only thing that happens is user revolt, disengagement, and eventual decline.
Moderation is effective only against a disruptive or harmful minority of users. I've seen this same thing play out on Reddit over and over...
A good culture requires being proactive, setting standards before things get out of hand, and repeatedly arguing against bad takes rather than banning them outright.
(the recent Twitter approach of fact checking Tweets in line seems like a useful one; admins should consider adding 'mod notes' or 'struggle session link' at the top of post descriptions, rather than just deleting things)
The first few members always define a culture for years to come; doesn't matter if its a subreddit, company, organization, anything really. This is exactly the power of being proactive.
We have to change things before the majority starts to adopt harmful attitudes, because then it becomes so much more difficult to improve things.
Anyway, that's my take.
Downvote pig poop balls, it is disgusting and encourages shock humor. It drives away people with the self-respect not to look at poop on balls.
And it is totally speciesist that this scatporn is allowed at all. It is for the greater good.
deleted by creator
There's definitely similar "holier than thou" bullshit with the Chapoverse. But it doesn't seem to be as common.
But the whole "unironically calling people lib when they believe a slightly different path to socialism exists" thing happens with some regularity.