What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

Wherein lies the assymmetry?

Everything.  It's a clash of civilizations, of basic value systems.

[Jacob]

Everything.  It's a clash of civilizations, of basic value systems.

I mean I agree with that. Many of the shit-fights we have are predicated on fundamental differences in how we perceive the world, and in values.

I don't follow how that makes the shit-fights themselves asymmetrical. Can you explain?

[Admiral Yi]

I mean I agree with that. Many of the shit-fights we have are predicated on fundamental differences in how we perceive the world, and in values.

I don't follow how that makes the shit-fights themselves asymmetrical. Can you explain?

Please keep in mind this is a stylization and therefore a simplification.

We constitute two broad camps guided by two different moral codes.  The camp I identify with i call the rationalists.  We believe in cost/benefit analyses, weighing of conflicting principles, and civil discourse as a means of resolving differences, and the primacy of reason, logic, facts and evidence as instruments in that discourse.

The other camp I now call the romantics.  I only recently came up with this label.  Previously I used more pejorative terms, this one I think has the advantage of being value-neutral.  Romantics believe in two principles AFAICT.  Compassion for the weak and loyalty.  Those are nice principles. Unfortunately they lead to negative consequences.  Oh, one more important principle, the authenticity of emotion in guiding action and thought. Authenticity of emotion combined with compassion produces anger against opponents.  Your opponents are no longer just humans with different perspectives, they are evil, not decent human beings who deserve civility.  Civility is in fact a show of weakness, a sign that your compassion is not at the level required to be a decent human being.  Civility is a lack of commitment to the cause.  Romantics are rude and feel very justified in being rude.  Romantics also have a different idea about facts and evidence than rationalists do.  Romantics believe they have discovered the one great truth that renders things like facts and evidence of lesser importance.  Loyalty means romantics have to agree with the untruths (i.e. lies) spoken by their friends and allies.

Rationalists get upset about lies and rudeness.  Romantics get upset by evil, i.e. not agreeing with them.

I am happy to answer any questions.  I reserve the right not to answer any that are rude.

[Jacob]

I don't have Yi's patience to turn the other cheek perpetually.  Zoupa has cussed me out unprovoked repeatedly, to the point that I don't engage in any kind of discourse with him anymore, but I indulged to respond in kind just this one time.  I don't consider it bullying, because for one it was a single post by a single poster, not a campaign of harassment by a clique.

You are as much part of a clique as the clique you rail against. There are no campaigns of harassment. People post shit when they feel like it, and when a handful of people who kind of agree on something are annoyed enough by the thing you posted to respond - and the people who agree with you can't be bothered to pile in to support you - it feels pretty shitty. That's true whatever side you take on any given issue. We all have a natural confirmation bias towards noticing the dickheads who have the incorrect opinions or take issue with what we say.

Saying "it's different when I do it because..." does not mean you're not part of it. We all think it's different when we personally do it.

You know what would help, though?  If you directed these kinds of posts at the posters you agree with.  You've had a few opportunities just in the last day in this thread, but it was only my post where you decided to talk about the tone.  Or is your stance that cussing out people is fine, as long as it's done by people who don't speak out against it?

My stance is:

As a private poster (99+% of my engagement) I enjoy good respectful discussion that illuminates interesting topics; I appreciate thoughtful insight and analysis from perspectives that are different or more informed than mine; I value mutually respectful exchanges of position and reasoning, on the occasion we manage those; I enjoy a bunch of the non-shitpost trivia and slice of life stuff (the bit about WWI naval computers being a recent example).

Once upon a time, I used to enjoy a good shit-post slugfest, but the joy's gone out of it years ago. So there are a number of posters I mostly avoid. I'll still engage occasionally because "it might be different this time" or due to a lapse in self-control or judgement.

In general my philosophy is if you dish, you should be ready to take. If you don't want to deal with something, don't engage. Use the ignore list if you must. I try to follow that myself, but fail sometimes.

As a mod, my stance is that I'll delete spam when it shows up, I'll occasionally split or merge a thread, and perhaps once or twice a year when something gets out of hand* I'll do some light moderation - mostly about staying on topic.

*(judgement call obviously, but based on the duration and intensity and, most importantly on the amount of feedback from posters who aren't normally bothered by things)

I'm not moderating for tone, and I'm not moderating for content. I don't have the bandwidth, the interest, nor do I believe I have the authority - especially when it comes to regulars (and we're all regulars at this point).

So when I engage you on tone, it's poster to poster. And why did I respond to you as opposed to anyone else? I'll tell you...

• You're someone who occasionally* takes a self-reflective approach when engaged, so you're worth engaging with (*not intended as a backhanded compliment here, that shit's hard and occasionally is about as good as anyone can aim for). We've sometimes managed to find mutually respectful points of agreement, even on topics where we have wildly different perspectives. So you're worth engaging with, even if it typically turns into a fairly energy intensive commitment, and even if our batting average is trending lower and lower.
  
• You've been going on loudly, frequently, and at length about the tone on languish. You also take pride in your strong, consistent principles. So when you so obviously fail to be the change you're looking for I'm going to point it out because of 1. above, but especially because...
  
• You've been on a long campaign to get me to moderate the people who annoy you for tone and content, and it's beyond tiresome. Especially because you're insinuating all sorts of personal and moral failings on my part, not to mention the pseudo-conspiracy theory you've been constructing about motivations and cliques and unfairness. Believe it or not, you're not the only poster who's wanted me to moderate posters for "objectively reasonable" reasons (who just happened to really get under that person's skin too), but you are the only one who's been carrying on about it for what seems like years by now (and in public), and the only one who's making it 100% personal. So when you're being so obviously hypocritical, it's hard for me to resist pointing it out.

[Jacob]

Please keep in mind this is a stylization and therefore a simplification.

We constitute two broad camps guided by two different moral codes.  The camp I identify with i call the rationalists.  We believe in cost/benefit analyses, weighing of conflicting principles, and civil discourse as a means of resolving differences, and the primacy of reason, logic, facts and evidence as instruments in that discourse.

The other camp I now call the romantics.  I only recently came up with this label.  Previously I used more pejorative terms, this one I think has the advantage of being value-neutral.  Romantics believe in two principles AFAICT.  Compassion for the weak and loyalty.  Those are nice principles. Unfortunately they lead to negative consequences.  Oh, one more important principle, the authenticity of emotion in guiding action and thought. Authenticity of emotion combined with compassion produces anger against opponents.  Your opponents are no longer just humans with different perspectives, they are evil, not decent human beings who deserve civility.  Civility is in fact a show of weakness, a sign that your compassion is not at the level required to be a decent human being.  Civility is a lack of commitment to the cause.  Romantics are rude and feel very justified in being rude.  Romantics also have a different idea about facts and evidence than rationalists do.  Romantics believe they have discovered the one great truth that renders things like facts and evidence of lesser importance.  Loyalty means romantics have to agree with the untruths (i.e. lies) spoken by their friends and allies.

Rationalists get upset about lies and rudeness.  Romantics get upset by evil, i.e. not agreeing with them.

I am happy to answer any questions.  I reserve the right not to answer any that are rude.

I enjoy that breakdown and find it a fascinating starting point for a number of possible discussions. Thank you for articulating it. I'll endeavour to not be rude in any of my responses.

There are some things I agree with, some things I recognize but would frame very differently, and some things I think are off the mark.

It's getting late here, so I'm not going to be able to give it the full response but I do have a few perhaps not fully cohesive thoughts before I head off.

The first thought is that the descriptions are very biased (perhaps understandably so). The Rationalist description articulates how Rationalists like to see themselves; while the description of the Romantics is a collection of all the things that Rationalists find annoying or off-putting about the Romantic positions. IMO a better and more useful version of the model would describe both sides in terms they'd recognize and be willing to say "yeah that's fair, the represents my point of view" (and it's a limited number of people who are going to embrace "it's perfectly fine to lie" and "I think people who don't agree with me are evil and less than human" as the core values of their philosophy).

I'll also note that I believe the whole rudeness / respectful discourse thing is pure (and incorrect) bias. There are plenty of people who'd consider themselves to be in the Rationalist camp who are rude as fuck (some of them used to post here); and there are people who'd be in the Romantic side of things who are perfectly civil.

My main point for now, however, is that one of the biggest weaknesses of the Rationalist camp is their ability to delude themselves and exclude data from their mental models, while convincing themselves that they are in fact being perfectly logical and rational. The classic example of that is the stereotype of the highly educated engineer who is profoundly confident that they're experts in fields they know little about, because they've logically reasoned themselves to a conclusion based on a small handful of facts they've selected; and it's basically just lucky coincidence that the only rational conclusion lines up with the engineers self-interest.

There's a lot more to be said here - and I expect you'll disagree as well - but I really need to go to bed now.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know what you're saying dude. How about we just say you win, I'm a terrible piece of shit and everyone's happy.

Sure. Armistice for now, we do the same thing over again in a day or two.  I can live with that.

[Zoupa]

The camp I identify with i call the rationalists.  We believe in cost/benefit analyses, weighing of conflicting principles, and civil discourse as a means of resolving differences, and the primacy of reason, logic, facts and evidence as instruments in that discourse.

You are not a part of the serious discussion, you are a prop, an exhibit.  Joan is making a heroic, well intentioned, and thankless effort to broker some sort of accomodation between the nutjobs (you) and the centrists.  This discussion only has purpose to the extent that it informs Joan of the terrain in which he is operating.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps dim witted people will invariably be drawn to romanticism over rationalism.

It's not condescension.  It's the subversion of treating your feeble, dim witted attempts at sarcasm as literal.

Simple pleasures for simple minds.

Civil discourse.

[HVC]

Yi, that's an interesting, but I feel flawed view. No one person is just on one side of that divide. We have posters who I think you would consider part of the rational cadre who exhibit the traits you attribute to Romantics when confronted with certain topics or posters. To be all woke ( ) I'll compromise and say theres a spectrum between the two that each person holds. Where they sit on the spectrum isn't about the person themselves but the topic on hand. If you can be dispassionate about a topic you're more likely to be logical.

Another fatal flaw is not so much with your classifications, but one based on the personality of a person who believes they're logical, fact based and rational. Such a person often discounts the fact they can be biased and illogical. This causes them to discount anything they disagree with as wrong, even when they themselves are in fact wrong. "I'm always logical so can't be wrong" type thing. This stifles their ability to learn, change, and grow. To clarify, because I think it's important, that's not a veiled dig. Of posters who profess to be logical arguers you're the most likely, in my view, to consider the other side and change your views when you deem it reasonable. That can't be said for every poster.


All that being said I still don't get how that makes argument between rationalists and romantics asymmetrical