Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antioch]

I think that the real problem here is the Phillips Head side of the Phillips Head vs Hex screws debate. I mean there was that Hex enthusiast and collector whose life they just totally ruined for posting photos of his old-fashioned vintage hex screw heads in the Phillips pinterest, there was constant hate mail and shit. I'm pretty sure the guy took his own life after that.

Also, liek, Danial Radcliffe just said one thing for Hex as a joke, in some tweet, when he was thirteen and barely famous, and he got death threats in the mail from the Phillips Head people. It's little known, and has been covered up wuite a bit by the Phillips Head media, but they ruined his life for a few years, you know? It's scary shit, could happen to anyone brave enough to raise their head and challenge the Phillips Head consensus.

There was also this tech guy on Vimeo who did reviews and shit like that of hardware stuff, and he mostly just talked about power drills and especially DeWalt lines and stuff. But then he's also got massively into the whole Hex thing, and next thing you know the Phillips head guys were like, calling operation Yewtree on him and stuff like that, and mailbombs and shit, not that a Phillips head user could assemble a working mail bomb

Anyway, I totally agree with everything you guys are saying. But three's a lotta people out there who wouldn't, so keep it real.

But hex IS superior......Phillips heads strip way too often.

[Frumple]

So, it could be said that the Internet hate machine got its start as the Muslim hate machine, though with different tactics (fewer firebombings).

... it could be said, it would just be freakishly, massively wrong, to the point of probably needing to be considered as an intentional and blatant lie intended to be supporting some issue that had little to nothing to do with the mentioned internet hate machine. Net's shit has pretty much fuck all to do with the stuff surrounding rushdie, and even less specifically to do with muslims. Could make the argument about religion in general, but you'd still be on hella' sketchy grounds. Largely different demographics, significantly different motivations, massively different degrees of actual offline power. The centuries of hatred religions have been peddling may be a related phenomenon, but that's the closest it gets.

[birdy51]

Here's one. I wish the Catholic Church and organized religion in general would stop being viewed solely through a negative light. Whenever it's brought up in debates, it always seems to be in the light of that of an unwanted step-child, which irks me. There is a reason that organized religion exists, and it's not because it's an evil hate monster.

[Loud Whispers]

Hm, isn't the rabid internet outrage mob a right wing phenomenon?

Others before me have responded to this better and I've nothing more to add except where I've already given proven examples where this is false

And isn't it also true that many (most?) conservatives/reactionnaries are decidedly lacking in moral courage...

I imagine the importance of perspective is critical here, as the moralities of conservatives is different to reactionaries is different to progressives etc., and I've never met a reactionary before. The stereotype for conservatives I've never heard have lacked moral courage, given that the whole alignment only exists because there are millions of people who refuse to back down when threatened over their beliefs, which I don't think is unique to conservatives in this modern world. Moving back from the political, where opinions come easy and decisions are cheap, and the difficult moral decisions? The personal ones, where there is no easy answer, only difficult choices? When it comes to moral courage, conservatives' propensity for living by principles gives them an advantage. Neocons are exactly as you stereotype, being the worst fusion of con and neolib. If anything, the negative stereotype for a conservative is not for a lack of moral courage, but for a presence of moral hypocrisy - not living by the principles one preaches.

These are so much better.
Rather than playing by the rules of mob stupidity perhaps we should be thinking of ways to dismantle the apparatus and its weapons. 

The way I see it, one cannot disarm the mob without ruining what makes the internet such a unique medium for discussion. However, one can attempt to limit the ammunition given to the internet hate machine by practicing careful control over one's personal information and remaining absolutely, resolutely adamant that you will never kowtow to angry mobs.

So, it could be said that the Internet hate machine got its start as the Muslim hate machine, though with different tactics (fewer firebombings).

Nah I reckon it's just a very human thing. Any consensus gets enforced by mobs has a tendency to get enforced in angry ways. Poor Rushdie though, dude just wanted to write a book

Since when has voting been the touchstone to right/left?  More than that they are styles of behaviour, or ways to approach the world, an entire ethics...
Just because Joseph Stalin was a 'Communist' does not mean he was on the left any more than the KGB were radical cheerleaders.  Gulags, bullying, repression, denial of self expression, an entire apparatus of authoritarianism - I'm pretty sure you're getting the picture.

Eh...? There is great danger in simply defining all good in the world to be left and all evil in the world to be right, for starters left/right is not terribly useful and for seconds it feeds into very simple tribalism where one side defends their ills as necessary to crush the other side. We're all in this boat together, seems unnecessary to dig up genocidal leftists as representative of modern progressivism, except as top banter

Continuous policing plus shutting down dissent vs artistic freedom and diverse voices, reminds me of right vs. left.  And a diversity of voices means all the voices.  Shutting down those you don't like is business as usual for reactionaries.

May I inquire as to what is a reactionary to you? Because I imagine people are using it to mean synonymous with far-right, instead of to mean people trying to revert to a previous system versus revolutionary movements. Otherwise I am rather confused, for example people placing conservatives beside reactionary when one tries to cultivate and order and the other tries to revert it, very confusing for me ^_^
I am very much in agreement on the diversity of voices, I have seen in every walk of life people who value this. Some call it freedom of expression, some call it frankness, some call it art, some call it bants, some call it the free market of ideas, some call it the diversity of voices, some call it the free flow of ideas and concepts and some call it the information age. If there are so many reasons so many different people value this one tool, then it is just as likely there are as many reasons to shut down the free web. I think this is a different issue, one of consensus manufacturing, information control and censorship though - as with this policing, a great deal of the time the policing is self-directed at those most similar. It likewise does not serve as an effective measure for shutting down debate, it very much is merely about serving retribution upon people for having contrary opinions or misstepping in the shark tank - to quote a rather chilling phrase concocted when progs were discovering the hilarious combustible properties of the web: "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."
Thus it is acceptable to ruin people's lives for being problematic, which is itself problematic, because everything is considered problematic by such communities.

Regardless of the flags waved, or the content of the positions (reputedly) held, there is the overarching form of expression, or way of interacting with the world.  To oversimplify - is the behaviour inspired by love and a desire for sharing and improvement or by hate and a desire for confrontation and destruction.  Opening things up or shutting things down.  Two very different styles of behaviour.

Ah! Time for a new controversial topic, on the axis of love and hate. I stand in opposition to the rhetoric my local MPs often find themselves speaking, namely that they are motivated by love and their enemies are motivated by hate. It is interesting, I like the approach to try and categorize political leanings by psychological motivation, however it is sadly only used to dismiss the opposing side as irrational, vile and evil. One thing I can appreciate in modern nationalists is that they now can appreciate that foreign nationalists are motivated by much the same ideals and conceived virtues as they are, even between such ones as are hostile to one another. Put another way, 'What is love? (Baby don't hurt me). What is hate?' I recommend not assuming the mantle of judgement in arbitrating what is loving and what is hateful, ergo we can destroy everyone the judge deems hateful. Most people I find are motivated by a desire to do good, yet most will likewise not understand that we do not all have the same conception of good. Makes conflict seem more tragic with this in mind - look at WWI, so many assured what they fought for was right in the world, Catholics, Sunnis, Protestants and Orthodox all waging war to protect the absolute truth, and then it turns out to be the absolutes weren't so absolute

It is one thing to be at odds with people wanting to deny the rights to same-sex marriage but quite another to want their blood for holding the contrary position.  It is murkier still in the context of this thread since Eich refused to apologise and stepped down (=was forced out) as CEO of Mozilla instead and this only 11 days after the Mozilla board appointed him already knowing the full story of the political donation.  Oh, and should we mention the three high profile board members (2 former CEO's) who resigned in protest at the time of his appointment... um, yeah?  Still this is the world of corporations complete with image and media manipulation and all that goes with it; no sympathy for these shenanigans even or especially in an organization which prides itself on its progressive credentials.

The only thing I might add is that OKCupid did not lead the assaults. They were the vanguard, but not the lead - there are some suspicions that as he refused to step down as CEO, this controversy was manufactured so as to lend public support to his forced resignation. Else wise, it would merely seem to be the company forcing the guy who invented javascript to resign.

So in all three cases there are more than enough people willing to defend these people who rightly/wrongly have been harassed by mobs, whether they have apologised or not.  But honestly the mob succeeds in shutting down views that it does not like in advance if we resort to creeping around with a lack of moral fortitude.  (Note that this is not an argument for painting a massive target on one's back either.) It also plays into the mobs hand if we join in their tactics of flagrant confrontation or harrassment, particularly when other avenues exist to be pursued.

The three examples picked were people in the public spotlight, for better or for worse. With exception to the teenage girl, two were significant public figures, the CEO was forced to resign and the scientist reduced to a quivering wreck while the girl attempting suicide multiple times. If you look at my very first example, the man who made the poorly worded tweet condemning a veteran's widow, his life is ruined and few have noticed. In most cases involving ordinary people, no one has defended (and I am certain, could not have defended) ordinary people subjected to the mob. I suppose it's worth mentioning too that 'the mob' isn't a defined group of people, rather a phenomenon caused by loads of people - see the abuse of social media for stalking and harassment linked earlier. The number of people I've seen have their lives ruined by merely internet mobs is rather astounding, it just blurs into one continuous streak informing one why information security is so important. 4chan, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook or whatever, one thing to consider is that in real life if you want to destroy someone, that takes a lot of effort, something only the determined or psychopathic may do with ease. On the internet it is easy to muster 5,000 people from across the world, with each one putting in a few minutes or hours, they will have put in thousands of hours work on dismantling one person - for the individual within the mob, the required effort to ruin someone's life is minimal.

p.s.  Staring into the well of human misery is an unpleasant experience; got to hope it never looks back at me, or at least too closely...

One gets jaded very quickly

[Frumple]

Here's one. I wish the Catholic Church and organized religion in general would stop being viewed solely through a negative light. Whenever it's brought up in debates, it always seems to be in the light of that of an unwanted step-child, which irks me. There is a reason that organized religion exists, and it's not because it's an evil hate monster.

Not just because it's an evil hate monster If you're denying that's not a pretty significant part of it, though, you've seriously missed some parts of the history and nature of religious organizations. None of them got big and none have stayed that way without leveraging quite a bit of antipathy, towards other religions at the absolute least. Plenty of other stuff, too, but being an evil hate monster (to indulge in your hyperbole, heh, since it's not quite that extreme, usually) is absolutely one of the reasons they exist.

Depends a lot on what circles you're running in, though. Folks that pay much attention to the practical/secular state of organized religions generally aren't exactly going to be impressed, these days. Even much of the good they do is tainted by inefficiencies or distortions that wouldn't be there if not for the support said practices feed back into the organizations or preconceptions that come with them (If you're looking for a particularly nasty example of the latter, look at the stateside Alcoholics Anonymous -- there's more going on there than just the religion aspect, but a lot of its worst practices are cored in it.). Add on all the ways many of said organized religions have been taking advantage of their status over the years and trying to shit on a lot of the secular stuff that's helping people to one extent or another (education in general, certain health issues, various civil issue, etc., etc.), and it gets increasingly difficult to give them more credit than a sort of, "Well, they're trying... I guess." And very easy to be rather more negative.

If you're around folks that give religious organizations fairly uncritical acceptance vis a vis their charity work (much of it of a "spiritual" nature, which is to say it's actually proselytizing and trying to exploit people down on their luck for conversions or running normal intraorganizational stuff and claiming it for tax purposes, rather than charity worth the title) et al, you'll see a lot more support, particularly when they're involved themselves in their local religious scene. They are often enough significant parts of a community, for better or worse.

But yeah, organized religion catches a lot of flak. Lot of flak to catch.

[birdy51]

Any organization that has been around for an appreciable amount of time acquires guilt. My fear is that the shadow of guilt can overshadow what good has been done.

You mentioned for instance AA. One can argue that it's ineffective. One can argue that it helps. I shall argue neither. What I will argue is that it was one of the first formal societies dedicated to helping people in the grips of addiction. Their methods, while in desperate need of updating, are nonetheless important.

The rise of the church led credence to the idea that we should help one another, and while they were crusading ass hats, there were also those who formed the first hospitals in the church's name.

Dated, yes. But nonetheless, they were the basis to be improved upon.

[Frumple]

Eh, you don't have any actual need to worry about the overshadowing bit, at the absolute least in christian majority countries. You can run into a lot of criticism and expressed dubiousness online and a few places in meatspace, but in practice people still give churches so much latitude they're fucking the US tax system, managing to be one of the largest fraud markets in the world, and actively interfering with politics and research both medical and scientific. We ain't to the point things are going to be overshadowed yet, not even close. Nearest it's coming to it is people are starting to avoid the reverse a bit more than they used to, and there's still a hell of a long way to go before treatment is even equitable in most places in the world, never mind actively against it.

Rest of it, though... there's not argument to be had vis a vis the AA -- it's actively detrimental, and has been since its inception. In being one of the first formal societies to start overshadowing other organizations and efforts that wasn't rooted in significantly counterproductive methods centered around religion, it's done a fairly significant amount of damage to actually helpful efforts to combat alcoholism, just by dint of making them less noticeable. To say nothing of what they've done by propagating their practices. Their methods are important, but only in the sense of being a warning and example for repudiation.

Religion (not Christianity or "the" church, mind -- the first European hospital type institutions were greek, and predate meaningful christian spread) was indeed tied to initial forays in medicine, but that's the most you can say about it and there's a number of areas now where they're actively attempting to impede it. Their laurels don't mean shit when they're getting people killed or consciously interfering with medical research and treatment that could save the lives or futures of millions.

Church being what led credence that people should be less of a shit to each other is complete bullshit, though. If there's any lie the devil's sold well it's that it takes a book and a priest to be a good person. It gave an excuse sometimes, but ethics and basic human decency isn't even remotely reliant on it, for all a good chunk of Christian historians and whatnot liked to massively warp their depictions of other societies as a means to make their beliefs and countries look better.

The problem ain't guilt, or past action, really. It's current action, current behavior, and the nature of an organization built around what religions (or at least our major ones) are. It ain't the crusades, it's the churches today that are abusing the concept of charity for tax benefits, the organizations that have been working counter to efforts to bring the AIDS epidemic under control, the ones promoting horribly unhealthy (psychological in particular) practices because the scripture of the religion and traditions of the church demand it, and so on. Some do good, even a fair amount of it, but that by no means indicates the rest of it should be given more consideration than we do anything else, or that the negative aspects of the efforts that are having a positive effect should be ignored. Secular organizations that act like churches tend to usually get shat on pretty hard. A non-religious non-profit in the US would stand major risk of losing funding and federal support (hell, pretty sure criminal charges, too) if they tried writing off recruiting efforts as physical charity, and churches do that all the ruddy time.

... for all that's all pretty negative, I'm definitely very supportive of positive religion-based efforts that are doing actual good, and it's not a necessary fact that something done by a religious organization is going to go to pot. But I've been in and around churches all my life, long associated with folks fairly active in at-least stateside church stuff, and familiar enough with what's called charity efforts et al to definitely say any religious organization claiming to do good probably needs even more scrutiny than secular ones, and they've got built in problems to boot. We really need to stop giving them so much bloody slack, especially the ones trying to pull shit using their status as a religious organization as leverage.

[birdy51]

I think on your last point, we can be agreed.

When any organization, religious or otherwise, begins to treat others as if they were less than a human being, then there are problems to be had. The same goes when they mistreat disadvantaged people and extort them for their own profits.

[Frumple]

I guess? Probably point more to stuff like the satanism scare a bit back in the US, or whatever case of yellow journalism catching on a subject you care to pick... what you mentioned probably falls under the latter fairly closely. Particularly the former if you're talking about primarily manufactured issues, though. Folks don't like to talk about it too much, but the sort of collective hate being discussed is not even remotely a new phenomenon, heh, sometimes for stuff significantly more literally fabricated than what most internet shitstorms kick up over. Net's just made it a bit easier to kick up, and maybe somewhat less biased towards being a primarily conservative thing.

[Neonivek]

In all fairness wasn't Dungeons and dragons satanic?

Ohh and BDSM, definitely satanic.

Uhh what was also accused of being satanic back then? and I mean main stream satanic accusation... not like "Harry Potter".

[feelotraveller]

The nominal (self-identifying or phonologically attributed) definition of left(ist)/right(ist) doesn't work for me.  I thought the Stalin example would make that clear.  To pick another historical figure: on the nominalist view Hitler led a Socialist party, yep there in its name, so somewhat to the right of Stalin but still left of centre.  Um, no, I'm hoping that everyone in this discussion will see that there is a problem with that.  You want to maintain that hippy Stalin the sinister had a deep respect for difference, human rights, progressive change, etc.?  Good luck with that.  Far easier to acknowledge that despite the rhetoric he was deeply entrenched in the post-Tsarist culture of absolutism whilst steering the titan(ic) of state capitalism.

for starters left/right is not terribly useful and for seconds it feeds into very simple tribalism where one side defends their ills as necessary to crush the other side. We're all in this boat together, seems unnecessary to dig up genocidal leftists as representative of modern progressivism, except as top banter

It is quite possible that my attempts to schematize, all too quickly and too broadly a left/right typology are insufficient or in error but at least I've given it a go. (And I very much agree that things are much more multifaceted and varied/textured than that.)  The thing is that at a quick glance (i.e. correct me if I'm wrong ) everyone else is presuming that left and right are basically fixed and defined 'flags'. (Although the differences with regard to what precisely these flags consist in/of remain unspoken.)  I'm happy to drop the lingo (and although my attempts have no doubt perpetuated the use/misuse of the terms I was actually attempting to do something with it) but it was already part of the discussion well before I joined.  In fact you yourself seem(ed?) quite keen to be stirring the pot on these matters?  And not just on this occasion...

It's curious that although my focus is on behaviour the default 'fallback' seems to be that on the contrary it is just holding - or perhaps merely espousing? - certain preset (i.e. highly stereotyped and charicatured) beliefs belonging to self-identified 'camps' (note the military implication, again).  A conservative black is not a square circle and indeed (beware my example may be a fail, please feel free to provide a better) the Colin Powell's of this world do exist.  This also goes for the love/hate distinction, a simplification of something I already admitted to being grossly oversimplified: not motivations (okay they get attributed but subsidiarily not primarily) but behaviours.  You want to say mob harrassments of the type we have been discussing are loving behaviours? ("dismantling one person" "ruin someone's life", LW) Come again.

The internet is actually a very bad place to try to discuss ideas being much more centred on catch-phrases and the passwords of sensationalist coinage.  Tabloidic goobledegook is almost definitionally anti-idea being blinkers rather than sight, image and represenation rather than form and substance.  This is a very good example since what I am trying to say has been evaluated with respect to the 'nominal' definitions of left/right with little attention to the (perhaps somewhat confused/confusing ) ideas I am trying to ennunciate.

May I inquire as to what is a reactionary to you? Because I imagine people are using it to mean synonymous with far-right, instead of to mean people trying to revert to a previous system versus revolutionary movements.

In the sense that I attributed above a reactionary is one who reduces a discussion to the unchanged terms of evaluation.  Okay that's a little cheeky.  In more classical terms the latter of your options (but it's not forced choice my inner child screams...).  More generally a reactionary is someone who attempts to shut down progressive change, that is the opening up of the political spectrum to the new, in favour of an idealized golden age.  (I say this in a loose and experimental way so no doubt this will be subject to massive scrutiny? Ha, ha.) And yes we could quibble about the alt-right but their vision of the new smacks of something very old and hackneyed as far as I can see. 

(I suspect Reelya is using the term in a more or less codified Marxist sense to mean those on the left who do not have their opinions certified by card carrying member of the Party intelligensia.  Or to use less polemical terms those on the left who have impure, confused, tainted, mixed, positions rather than being paragons of leftist orthodoxy.  And yes I have problems with such forms of nominalism, the power structures they invoke and the forms of behaviour that they encourage.)

[Edit: To bring the two senses back together let me cite graffiti of the barricades:
"Run Comrade, the old world is behind you."]

If anything, the negative stereotype for a conservative is not for a lack of moral courage, but for a presence of moral hypocrisy - not living by the principles one preaches.

But that is precisely one form of the lack of moral courage.  Refusal to be open about ones true principles.  Note that it shuts down 'relevant' discussion of the principles motivating political behaviour.  A whole anti-politics, at least if we think of politics as a discussion rather than a quest for power.  And a few questions if I may: is this where you see the diversity and plurality of conservatives, in the many faceted forms of deception that they use?  I mean I just don't get it.  I don't see a diversity of conservative voices - maybe a little flavouring here, a little colouring there, but it makes Zamii's little alterations seem positively radical by comparison.  Or do these voices exist but just never get spoken because they are too busy obeying the leader and towing the party line, maintaining the monolithic nature of the inner sanctum (cabinet solidarity or whatever)?  Or does it on the contrary imply that each conservative has a somewhat different world that they are attempting to preserve?

In most cases involving ordinary people, no one has defended (and I am certain, could not have defended) ordinary people subjected to the mob.

Yes that's a good point (even if I disagree with the parathentical comment...).  In this regard a better case study/set of examples would be the far more common, as I understand it, cases of schoolyard cyberbullying.  Yes a couple of features are a bit different, particularly with respect to the degree of anonymity of the mobsters (it's never absolute, I think there were prosecutions of a few of the bullies in the Zamii case).  But it by and large takes the 'flag-waving' political element out of the equation and lets the phenomenon of online mob harrassment show itself perhaps in a somewhat different light.

One gets jaded very quickly

In my case it's more long term disgust and general renunciation of a large part of the human race than quick jadedness.  Although of course I can't really do that.  Mind you Bay12 is a pretty nice place...

[Cheeetar]

Unpopular/controversial opinion: White supremacists are genetically predisposed to being less intelligent and have a higher occurrence of obesity.

[redwallzyl]

Unpopular/controversial opinion: White supremacists are genetically predisposed to being less intelligent and have a higher occurrence of obesity.

what way would the correlation go?

[McTraveller]

I find it amusing that on one hand, people like to say "don't stereotype" but on the other hand, when it comes to religion and politics, people like to stereotype.

e.g., "Republicans" or "Liberals" or "Christians" or "Muslims" or "Atheists"...

It has actually gotten to the point that I am sad being called a Christian, because the type of things that get labelled "Christian" diverge pretty wildly from what I believe.  And that's just on a personal level - for "larger" versions just look at the differences between Presbyterian Church USA, Presbyterian Church of America, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and Orthodox Presbyterian Church - they are all called "Presbyterian" but have fairly significant differences in what and how they teach - but just saying "Presbyterian" will often lump them all together.

So perhaps it's "controversial", perhaps it isn't, but: instead of always assuming things about people based on the names of the organizations or philosophies with which they associate themselves, we should get to know the people on an individual basis.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: To feelotraveller (click to show/hide)

You want to maintain that hippy Stalin the sinister had a deep respect for difference, human rights, progressive change, etc.?  Good luck with that.  Far easier to acknowledge that despite the rhetoric he was deeply entrenched in the post-Tsarist culture of absolutism whilst steering the titan(ic) of state capitalism.

Ahahaha you're having a giggle, can't turn communists into capitalists simply because they were genocidal, Lord knows we've got too much revisionism going on with marxist historians

Anyways what you said about the left/right flags, aye that seems about right, though I must say I don't know what pot I'm stirring xD
By flags, do you mean identifiers? In the same way that often as we speak, with speak with certain social signals that one could use to identify roughly our beliefs or intentions?

It's curious that although my focus is on behaviour the default 'fallback' seems to be that on the contrary it is just holding - or perhaps merely espousing? - certain preset (i.e. highly stereotyped and charicatured) beliefs belonging to self-identified 'camps' (note the military implication, again).  A conservative black is not a square circle and indeed (beware my example may be a fail, please feel free to provide a better) the Colin Powell's of this world do exist.

I don't understand what this means, sorry

You want to say mob harrassments of the type we have been discussing are loving behaviours? ("dismantling one person" "ruin someone's life", LW) Come again.

No, actually to the contrary - the entirety of my posts have been condemnations of mob harassment. The crux of that particular segment you replied to, is that the concept that one can judge the loving and hateful intentions of others and deliver retribution upon that judgement is itself a mechanism through which the mob finds its acceptable targets. In general, it is also what entrenches divides in people, culturally, politically and so on, in that it is easy to treat your neighbour as an enemy when you convince yourself that any action they take against you is motivated by hatred, while any action you take is motivated by love. Thus when the mob ruins someone's life, it is acceptable because the mob judged them hateful, therefore acceptable for destruction

The internet is actually a very bad place to try to discuss ideas being much more centred on catch-phrases and the passwords of sensationalist coinage.

Only if you're cancerous and utilize such mediums of brain degeneration as reddit; where anonymity, civility and continuity prevail, OC (original content), Ideas and argumentation occurs with no restraint yet not destruction in a sea of shitposting. It's a fine equilibrium that is hard to maintain, but certainly allows for unparalleled discussion - especially at such a time when academia enforces homogeneity.

In the sense that I attributed above a reactionary is one who reduces a discussion to the unchanged terms of evaluation.

For the sake of clarity, please don't. Reactionary already has a good use that it does not need its definition usurped by one so wholly unrelated, mankind has already lost literal literally, it does not need further murder of the English tongue ;P

Okay that's a little cheeky.  In more classical terms the latter of your options (but it's not forced choice my inner child screams...).  More generally a reactionary is someone who attempts to shut down progressive change, that is the opening up of the political spectrum to the new, in favour of an idealized golden age.  (I say this in a loose and experimental way so no doubt this will be subject to massive scrutiny? Ha, ha.) And yes we could quibble about the alt-right but their vision of the new smacks of something very old and hackneyed as far as I can see.

Ah, that would be interesting and I could certainly see that usage being valuable if progressivism gained more mainstream traction - but not the experimental definition. Under that definition everyone would become a reactionary, as everyone is opposing the proposed changes their opponents make towards a progressive change. Under the current one where a reactionary is either serving as a counter-revolutionary in reverting to a previous system, the definition is well... Defined. Take for example Weimar Germany, a monarchist would be reactionary while the communists and nazis would be revolutionary.

(I suspect Reelya is using the term in a more or less codified Marxist sense to mean those on the left who do not have their opinions certified by card carrying member of the Party intelligensia.  Or to use less polemical terms those on the left who have impure, confused, tainted, mixed, positions rather than being paragons of leftist orthodoxy.  And yes I have problems with such forms of nominalism, the power structures they invoke and the forms of behaviour that they encourage.)

Nah, Reelya is saying the opposite
Actually reading it is weird, like a progressive mirror of myself xD
It's the whole sense of accepting your side has its fair share of chucklefucks who think identifying with [x movement] makes them inherit the virtues of [x movement], without actually living or following any of the principles they're supposed to stand for. Simply saying that anyone who fails to follow those virtues is not a true member doesn't achieve the goal of saving face, nor does it help improve your own side's standards

But that is precisely one form of the lack of moral courage.  Refusal to be open about ones true principles.

I find hypocrisy is independent of moral courage. In its vaguest, moral courage is standing by one's principles and applying them even in the face of danger or retribution, whilst hypocrisy is the pretense of upholding principles that one does not hold for the sake of profit in some form. Someone who lacks moral courage will not live up to their own principles out of anxiety or fear, so a lot of what drives moral cowardice is involuntary (indeed, would anyone desire to lack moral courage?). Hypocrisy on the other hand is a disguising of true principles for the purpose of some gain, there's something more nefarious in hypocrisy.

Note that it shuts down 'relevant' discussion of the principles motivating political behaviour.  A whole anti-politics, at least if we think of politics as a discussion rather than a quest for power.

I think of politics as not the quest for power, but the question of power: What will be done with it?

And a few questions if I may: is this where you see the diversity and plurality of conservatives, in the many faceted forms of deception that they use?  I mean I just don't get it.  I don't see a diversity of conservative voices - maybe a little flavouring here, a little colouring there, but it makes Zamii's little alterations seem positively radical by comparison.  Or do these voices exist but just never get spoken because they are too busy obeying the leader and towing the party line, maintaining the monolithic nature of the inner sanctum (cabinet solidarity or whatever)?  Or does it on the contrary imply that each conservative has a somewhat different world that they are attempting to preserve?

I think there may be geographical differences involved here, because we have very different experiences. To answer your points to the best of my ability, the only thing I can say is that it may be a simple consequence of your geographical location and social circles.

If a conservative talks to a conservative in the country, does it make a noise to the progressive in the city?
Moreover, it may also be the case that birds of similar feather are difficult for the unfamiliar eye to tell apart, but for the birds the differences are striking. As to towing party lines or serving obediently to monolithic politburos, I've never gotten that impression from conservatives (ordinary people mind you, not referring to MPs or something), they usually are averse to politics and have a much heavier emphasis on individual responsibility and morality. Politics has a tendency to make people forget that they are the locus of change, that politics can only do so much, it's the difficult personal choices that matter most. In this current era I find progressives to be the most politically active of groups, which is probably just because they have a very large following of Uni students, and Uni students are the right mix of energy/boredom/skills to have politically active people. On the topic of deceptions, I am ignorant on this topic, my experience with conservatives is frankness and honesty (again, referring to normal people. I dare not say there exists an honest politician).

Yes that's a good point (even if I disagree with the parathentical comment...).  In this regard a better case study/set of examples would be the far more common, as I understand it, cases of schoolyard cyberbullying.  Yes a couple of features are a bit different, particularly with respect to the degree of anonymity of the mobsters (it's never absolute, I think there were prosecutions of a few of the bullies in the Zamii case).  But it by and large takes the 'flag-waving' political element out of the equation and lets the phenomenon of online mob harrassment show itself perhaps in a somewhat different light.

I think the flag-waving political element is important though. Consider how my original argument, some associated this behaviour with con/right internet mobs, whilst others associated this behaviour with prog/left internet mobs. Despite both conducting in this behaviour at the same time, there is a keenness to minimize the impression of 'our guys' doing it whilst maximizing the impression of 'their guys' doing it. I don't think one can cross this barrier without accepting that both sides are bitter from seeing injustice inflicted upon those aligned with them, and even so I'm doubtful that a 100% bipartisan effort would even achieve long lasting changes upon people's behaviours when in the mob - any goodwill from jolly cooperation between left and right would evaporate under the raids of people who are bored, or when the next election cycle occurs

In my case it's more long term disgust and general renunciation of a large part of the human race than quick jadedness.  Although of course I can't really do that.  Mind you Bay12 is a pretty nice place...

Honestly despite all I've seen I still wouldn't forsake the human race. Despite its exceptional propensity for heightened cruelty, it consists of a good many people who keep trying to make things better.

I find it amusing that on one hand, people like to say "don't stereotype" but on the other hand, when it comes to religion and politics, people like to stereotype.
...
So perhaps it's "controversial", perhaps it isn't, but: instead of always assuming things about people based on the names of the organizations or philosophies with which they associate themselves, we should get to know the people on an individual basis.

Not just religion and politics, also things like clothing, culture, race and name