NOTES:
1) Excellent disambiguation of categories of curation into manners(decorum), content, and bias(want, position, viewpoint). This is correct.
2) Why does any person have the right to ignorance in matters public? Isn’t that a violation of the requirement for participation in democracy under rule of law? Why does any person have the right to social construction of a falsehood for personal or group psychological comfort? Isn’t that committing a fraud and a public harm? Why does a person have the right to demand social construction of a psychological comfort provided by a falsehood or an irreciprocity? In fact, in summary, why does anyone in a democracy who wishes to participate in public discourse have any right to fail to adapt to the truth if that truth consists of the fact that they are engaged in a crime against the commons? Why do I or why does anyone have the right to advocate a crime of irreciprocity?
2) Both sides demonstrate the same behavior: Right conspiracy narratives vs Left oppression narratives. The difference is that the right conspiracy theories are described as actions whereas the left as feelings, psychology – both of resistance to dominance expression. The same is true of ‘attacks. The right threatens by action, the left by disapproval and social undermining. This is what we should expect given the origins of right (male) and left (female) cognitive, emotional, and moral biases.
3) Why should we allow any ‘religion’ into the discourse if it is defined as a false promise of freedom from formal (truth, logic), physical (scarcity), behavioral (acquisition, self-interest, amorality), and evolutionary (mutation, accumulated defect, class differences due to it, and the absence of natural selection). So the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and the pseudoscientific reformation of those religions (marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, anti-male feminism, pc-woke, anti-west, anti-whiteness), because these are all impossible frauds that bait people into hazard, cause political conflict because of it, and put us in the position we’re in today.
4) The underlying argument – as unpleasant as it is – originates in female (maternal dysgenic) vs male (paternal eugenic) reproductive strategies, and the cognitive, emotional, moral, and political biases that result. Unfortunately, the science is rather unpleasant. So the left attempts to suppress the right for this underlying reason, and the right to aggressively pursue resistance to suppression. In other words, the postwar ‘war’ against (borrowing from Lindsay and the Neo-Marxists) the “institutions of cultural production” consists of a rebellion against the painful fact that European civilization is and was, aggressively eugenic, particularly after 700ad. In fact, the entire Marxist, pomo, woke project is a revolt against the Darwinian explanation for western rates of development in the bronze, iron, and steel ages.
5) This is the origin of all our present political conflicts. Unfortunately, this is a scientific, not moral question. And unless we can find a solution to this problem we will continue to produce the results we’ve observed over the past hundred and fifty years. So IMO the problem is not so much moderation but opening the discussion as to what to do about the fact that we don’t get a choice. We must come up with a solution that’s an alternative to the neo-liberal presumption of endless growth as a means of avoiding addressing the underlying issues. We need a political, economic, and social solution to a problem that none of us want to acknowledge exists – but is determining our future every single day precisely because we don’t.
6) The rule of moderation is you may not advocate a crime of any kind, including one that consists one that claims a false promise of freedom from the laws of nature is possible, and that to overcome the laws of nature we must conduct trades with each other.
7) Aaron is intellectually dishonest but it might not be his choice. He may simply be ignorant and acting on a set of justifications to priors he didn’t originate. I won’t go into the various techniques of deceit he’s using because from my observations he is unaware that he’s engaging in deception. He is, rather simply, conflating truth and approval, falsehood and disapproval, and ignoring whether or not a crime or an act of production has been performed. (This is the deep hole of sophistry in ethics.) But he is just justifying his biases and then prevaricating on a pretense of neutrality he doesn’t demonstrate. FWIW: there does exist a human instinct to behave has he does and almost all mothers instinctually do it, because they use the seductive power of motherhood to control children, other women, and men. In other words, there is a biological origin or at least tendency to certain biases in deception.
I have to give up because I can’t listen to him any longer.
It would be interesting to speak with Jim Rutt on the criteria for content moderation, and present uses of ‘AI’ (Bayesian pattern recognition) to filter all three criteria (Decorum, Content, Position). We should note that we can (FB does) easily determine your sex, age, religion, economic class, political affiliation, and where you were raised, and likely IQ (facility removed I think) within something on the order of 100 clicks.). There is no reason that FB (or Twitter) doesn’t just filter more aggressively, and expose our access to filter by these same traits, or some archetypes of those traits to make it easier, in order to include or exclude people from our discourses. Likewise, there is no reason governments can’t do the same. The reason they don’t is (a) they don’t want governments to interfere and agitate their customers, and (b) dopamine hits created by instigating moral panic keeps us engaged (and enraged.)
Personally, I have a lot of haters, particularly on the right. If we filtered decorum and content (esp porn, spam, scams) I’d be happy to limit my feed to people who can manage a sentence with polysyllables. 😉
