A community gets ruined either by getting too large (Eternal September, evaporative cooling effect) or moderator ineptitude. I respected that this socialist subreddit could somewhat maintain its niche character while allowing good-faith opposition. 90% of their userbase still sucked at counter-intuitive concepts in social-science, but that's true of many remaining centrist or conservative subs on Reddit (eg. r/timpool, r/theleftcantmeme, r/conservative).
Today, I noticed my flair had switched from the unique [malthusian ancap] to the [regarded lolbert] dunce cap. I find out that a recent comment of mine had unceremoniously removed, rather than collecting dust. In fairness, I wrote that on 2 hours of sleep and realize that the incomplete 2nd sentence might have been misconstrued as attacking the parent comment instead of critiquing Sowell. Still, my suspicion is that a trigger-happy janny saw my 3rd sentence as more threatening to their narrative than the usual right-wing comments they leave up. That's a red flag towards what other content they've been pruning, left or right leaning.
My fault for having any faith in tarts who have a century-long tradition of using the incoherent definition of liberal. Side-note: I also noticed that r/outoftheloop lost the neutral PoV it had 9 years ago.
I'm posting here since r/kia2 used to vet based off activity in anti identitarian subreddits, including stupidpol. I'm also asking if this thread about only spam-marked comments becoming invisible was or still is accurate.
Stupidpol's moderation is unique. They have like 50 mods, most of whom can override each other, so how that sub is run can vary from thread to thread, day to day. Mods aren't typically booted unless their behavior is especially bad, with their behavior being overlooked since they'll get shuffled in and out of the role anyways.
That said, Stupidpol is a schizophrenic place. That the userbase is "classically Marxist," for lack of a better term, means they don't really have much in common with the typical lefty. Even still, none of them developed their beliefs in a 19th century world. They're all the product of turn-of-the-millenium politics. You can see that in how many still hold onto prog beliefs, or how, despite being an "anti-idpol" sub that defines right-wing political labels as a form of identity politics, they still identify as "left." For all their posturing at being above modern politics, you can still see the conditioning from 2000s-2010s lib programming like The Daily Show.
It's still the culture war, it's just them shadowboxing 2009's culture war. For as much as it would make them seethe, they're not all that different from many conservatives in that respect.
To your side note, OotL was the first subreddit I noticed made heavy misuse of spam filters to delay anti-establishment comments to allow the narrative time to establish itself. A comment supporting the political orthodoxy appeared instantly, one that didn't was delayed for at least 12 hours, but sometimes days, long enough to effectively not exist on Reddit.
Some leftists and post-modernists make profound insights into sociopolitical phenomenon, which is why I bothered in the first place. Even then, I always see their preferences making their findings undependable.
A week ago, I was looking up min. wage stances both for another post and to judge which subreddits to ditch. I found one decent upvoted take directly addressing why such pollicy is dumb. The rare economically (or socially) literate socialist would favor basic income over min. wage. For reasons you've better explained, I find any further enlightenment from stupidpol limited.
Have you read Conflict of Visions by Sowell? Can you grok the unconstrained vs constrained argument Sowell presents in that book?
I'm going through Basic Economics, although the start is a bit of a slog since it repeats essentials I learned in my teens. If I get through my backlog, I'll add Conflict and its sequel to my list. Sowell rephrases the constrained vs unconstrained as right vs. left in originally linked video. The expanded point I would have made if I wasn't trying to fall back to sleep is that Sowell's summary describes political intellectuals, and doesn't adequately account for low-info voters, and other authoritarian personalities. Hence "average person isn't intellectually/logically coherent or interested", and I apply that both to their ideologies and everyday unadaptible decision making.
Was that a joke or are you really an anarcho-capitalist who subscribes to malthusianism?
Tongue in cheek, but I do genuinely ascribe some merit to neo-Malthusian observations, if not their statist proscriptions. I find it consistent with other philosophers who find human societies fragile. It is worthwhile to consider the natural limitations of our planet, but without the premature conclusions, fakery, and double-standards the establishment elites subscribe to. The only claim I'll make is that it would be disastrous if we had 1950's birthrate with elvish lifespans.
For example, I find anthropogenic global warming inconclusive and adherents inline with the oversimplictic unconstrained camp mentioned in Unknownsailor's comment. My concern is more about Fermi's Paradox; what's the upper-bound of our planet's depletion versus ideal population range, and how do we minimize risk of a nuclear extinction before, and if interstellar travel is feasible.
If you are concerned about Fermi's Paradox, the put your fears to rest. It is not evidence of a "Great Filter." Fermi came up with the paradox in the 1950's at a time when EVERYTHING was literally broadcast over the air, both television and radio. It was a time before cable or fiber optics became the standard, a time before phased array antennas and laser interlinks. Essentially he did not account for the fact that more advance civilizations have less wasteful emissions. less energy is used more efficiently, leaving less to no energy for us to detect even 10's of light years away, let alone hundreds. How could we detect something transmitting in a fiber optic cable on Mars?
What did you expect from a Marxist sub? The only reason it opposes the woke cult, aka Rainbow-Marxism, is that its in competition with their own vanilla form of Marxism.
Anywhere that can delay Eternal September and entryism is of interest to me.
Your first mistake was to still be using Faggit.
Too much general tech expertise has been confined to reddit and hackernews for me to give them up, despite woke monoculture leakage worsening annually. I should spend more time on other tech/geek communties like 8chan.moe, Matrix chat. If there are other active general tech/geek communities out there, I'm not finding them
Yeah, it's crazy to me that anyone here still uses Spez's CP exchange as anything other than a source of point and laugh at the retard material.
Personally, I find it very distasteful that a mod would reflair me after I voluntarily went through their self-identification processs, since it prefers name-calling over reading comprehension. That and not reserving lolbert for libertarians who believe in BLM and open-borders.
The Venn diagram of libertarians and libertarians that support BLM and open borders is a near perfect overlap. :)
The Mises Caucus upset would tend to disprove that. Although there's nothing official in the platform about BLM, wokism is why a lot of libertarians decided to reform the party. Here's an analysis of Mises position on borders, by the way. There has always been some conflict there among the different flavors of libertarianism.
Yes, it is starting to change, but past experience tells me to not hold my breath.
I support the Mises Caucus but they have an uphill battle, with the libertarian brand diluted in the common lexicon, distinct from LP-USA shenanigans. MBA fuckwads (Bobby Kotick) who read the cliff-notes to Atlas Shrugged, wooks in love with their heavily taxed pot (IIRC only 1 or 2 states did it properly).
There was absolutely no difference between that subreddit and a thousand other subreddits populated by the exact same communists.