Help Every community I engage with comes to hate me

[Adûnâi]

This isn't a sperg out, but it's a legit an "issue" with me - no matter what community I engage with, I end up getting banned, shunned or despised. I simply can't fit in? Do other people fit in seamlessly? Or have I simply been unable to find a proper group/circle for me? Anyone familiar with such a sentiment?

I feel like I understand when people hate me, but I'm never sure as to why. Just this month a Substack blogger, one of the only two I really followed, has banned me. And today I've been banned in chat on SaSu, too. In neither case was I ever rude or overstepping the boundaries, but I apparently still offended people.

Maybe it's just the English-speaking world which is famous for being offended? But then again, it doesn't depend on political affiliation as I trigger right-wingers and Nazis as well.

In a word, everyone ends up hating me... at least, when it comes to group talks. When it's 1 on 1, in DMs, I have had history of the past year when it ended up fairly alright (around 3-5 cases, the only people I had ever talked to as I only started DMs in mid-2023, due to the dead JP girl who randomly messaged me on Reddit).

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

Lots of things to consider here, I think.

Are there any patterns or things in common that you've noticed in these interactions? Topics of conversation that often result in people taking offence and/or you being banned? Did you have a relationship with the community beforehand, or have you been more of a lurker? If you were an active member of a specific community, did you notice the relationship change before you ended up being banned?

 

[Adûnâi]

Are there any patterns or things in common that you've noticed in these interactions? Topics of conversation that often result in people taking offence and/or you being banned?

Thanks! I guess, it could be chalked up to me always having my own mind, and no subscribing to the generally-held beliefs? Being a devil's advocate every time? Like here, I would be tempted to defend incels from slander, whereas on the incel forum I would rake my head for counter-arguments in favour of normies and girls.

Hell, while being pro-mortalist morality-wise, I do sometimes draw attention to how normies seem never to suffer too much and never to consider suicide.

I could also recount a few other things, such as when I suggested to a Nazi that Carthaginian child-burning might have been evolutionarily justified and thus not condemnable. Or how Gagarin went into space while being Communist (got me banned off another Nazi forum).

Or how the rise of China invalidates the idea that America is an evil empire hell-bent on keeping every country impoverished (got me banned off a Russian conspiracy Bolshevik-esque nutjob YouTuber).

I do understand why they hate me, but it's still remarkable how everyone comes to hate me over our disagreements. I guess, they just find their little corners where they feel safe, in a bubbly echo-chamber, and never venture outside? Whereas I do?

 

[dragonofenvy]

If I may be a bit blunt, if you're getting banned and shunned in every community, what, or who, is the common denominator in this situation? If everyone is shunning you, you should try to look at your own behavior and see if there's something in there that you think others may like. What I usually try to do is read the room so to speak and emulate how others act. For example, here on SaSu, barring a few instances, I keep all centrist and rightoid opinions to myself because people here do not want to hear those. Then as I was here more and people got used to my presence I started doing so more in some contexts and while a lot of people hate my guts for it, many are also pretty civil about it. This is just an example I'm not suggesting politics are why people don't like you, since I don't know you and have only seen about 3 of your posts.

Best thing to do is see how everyone else is asking and copy them, then slowly show more and more of yourself as everyone gets used to you. I'm really curious, for example, on why a Substack blogger would ban you? What did you say that would've prompted this? Sometimes yes there's no explanation and some people are pussies that are offended by everything. On the other hand, if you're being displaced from all communities, then this is something you have to look at yourself which is what you are doing right now, which is great!

The reason I say look at yourself is because if you're getting banned in SaSu chat of all things, I don't know, sure you could say people are salty over nothing but I think there's quite a bit of evidence (anecdotal anyway) that the admins are fairly tolerant of behavior that more members don't think is suitable. If they went with what the average member thought I'd probably have been warned a few times at the least if not outright banned for starting stupid shit. People don't like hearing things they disagree with. They fucking despise it. They only want to reinforce their beliefs and nothing more. Everyone. Even me. Even you. So that's why I try not to intentionally start stuff with people.

If you want to do this thinking exercise, then you could try giving me an example of what you say in the communities that might get you banned. Most people aren't just going to instantly hate someone in communities like this for no reason. On Twitter, maybe, but here? Or in Discord groups? I'm not sure. Bear in mind though, I've had very, very few interactions with communities outside of SaSu so I may not be the most qualified.

I do understand why they hate me, but it's still remarkable how everyone comes to hate me over our disagreements. I guess, they just find their little corners where they feel safe, in a bubbly echo-chamber, and never venture outside? Whereas I do?

Dang it. I posted my lengthy response just as you posted this. You figured it out already. Yes. This is exactly it. Do not bring this stuff into communities. Let them live in the echo chamber. Now, if we're joining, say, a gaming community, don't bring this stuff at all. It's a gaming community. The "echo chamber" for that is gaming (it's a discussion not an echo chamber but I'll use them interchangeably in this context). Politics or controversial opinions shouldn't be brought in. The only things controversial you could bring up is saying that Baldur's Gate 3 isn't good or something.

TLDR: Being a contrarian isn't welcome in communities. Believe me, I'm a self-proclaimed contrarian on here. People hate it. I don't have the niche views you do and hold myself more to the center, but if you're saying stuff on a Nazi forum that isn't pro-Nazi, yeah they're gonna ban you. If you're saying something on a communist YouTuber's page that is Pro-America, yeah no shit they're gonna get rid of you. The supermajority of people have little tolerance for differing opinions. Extremists, on the other hand, are the most intolerant people in the world, and they don't even realize it. Try to emulate how people in that community act and slowly step out of bounds here and there and see how they react. If you don't like the reaction, pull back a bit until you find somewhere comfortable enough.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

Thanks! I guess, it could be chalked up to me always having my own mind, and no subscribing to the generally-held beliefs? Being a devil's advocate every time? Like here, I would be tempted to defend incels from slander, whereas on the incel forum I would rake my head for counter-arguments in favour of normies and girls.

Well, I'm sure you understand how that kind of interaction might come across as needlessly antagonistic. People are generally not interested in having their beliefs challenged, especially in communities that lean towards a particular ideology or set of beliefs. Incels are not looking for pro-normie/pro-women arguments, Nazis don't care about the merits of communism, pro-life sites won't want to listen to pro-choice or pro-suicide arguments. It is a sign of close-mindedness and lack of curiosity, but that is how many communities work. Anyone going against the grain will quickly be seen as a nuisance.

Why do you think you choose to engage in this way? It doesn't seem to me like you're defending a particular point of view that you subscribe to, but rather that you seek to challenge people's beliefs regardless of what they are. And, have you tried engaging with communities that are not focused on a particular ideology like the ones you described? Something less politically or socially-charged maybe?

 

[Adûnâi]

Then as I was here more and people got used to my presence I started doing so more in some contexts and while a lot of people hate my guts for it, many are also pretty civil about it.

Thanks for the input! But isn't it arrogant to assume that people would ever recognise your or my name? Even here, I technically have more posts than you do, but you haven't seem my posts.

Although you are right in that in the Discord chats, at least, I could never really talk. I do enjoy forum interactions (I have some history on Unz, for example), although still can't bring myself to chat that regularly.

Of course, as I'm autistic and opinionated, I can't exactly emulate other people, as I don't even properly understand what moves them. Just a few months ago (when I still had my last Discord account), I got banned off the Janitor AI chat... for using a rule34 tag! Apparently, an official rule34 tag was offensive. And this very month, I have learned that the mostly commonly used legal term "ch!ld p0rn" is considered offensive? And now it's CSPAN or whatever? (But then again, it's a mark of the English language which considers words outdated every decade, hard to keep up...)

I'm really curious, for example, on why a Substack blogger would ban you? What did you say that would've prompted this?

Ah, I'm not sure about the rules of this particular website (what if it's advertisement or something?), but there are two bloggers whom I could have offended.

1. One blogger is super chill and nice and still is welcoming - I argued against the thesis by Preparata about how WW2 was rigged from the start because in my opinion, Preparata does not consider the fall of France, namely, how hard it would have been to rig the fall of France while still winning the war against Germany.

2. The other blogger (the one who did get triggered) - his idea is that the Russo-Ukrainian war is rigged, and Putin is a CIA agent, and he expected the second Kursk Ukrainian offensive in Jan 2025 to be a huge success... when it turned out a failure - but I wasn't even mocking him, just noticed that his forecast turned out incorrect.

The reason I say look at yourself is because if you're getting banned in SaSu chat of all things, I don't know, sure you could say people are salty over nothing but I think there's quite a bit of evidence (anecdotal anyway) that the admins are fairly tolerant of behavior

I'm not sure if I can discuss this here? : ( I wish I could, because there are so many questions I'd love to ask, but it's all probably autistic and against the TOS.

To be fair, I haven't been banned on the website (but mainly because I stopped posting after getting a few warnings). And the chat people do seem much crueller than the forum denizens - I got called a troll multiple times a few days ago, really cruel.

Hell, even mentioning politics in this post might get me banned probably, because politics is not allowed outside the political section? Unless it's for the haters of Trump? See, I kind of understand the general gist, but still super difficult.

It doesn't seem to me like you're defending a particular point of view that you subscribe to, but rather that you seek to challenge people's beliefs regardless of what they are.

Eh, not exactly! In politics, I would like to brain-storm and argue for the most sensible combination of ideas - after all, not every one thinker is alike, and especially Nazism is super diverse, ranging from hard biological racism to the more wacky idealistic spiritualism.

Regarding suicide, I'm actually "of two minds" - I consider personal morality (suicide) to be separate from collectivist ideologies (necessarily pro-life). So I can be without a contradiction - merely splitting the two realms. And of course, there are still many unknowns to debate - maybe suicide is the only rational choice, and even the machines will kill themselves (or even that man's destiny is in bringing the grey goo scenario)? Or maybe suicide is weakness, and normies prove that humans can cope enough? Or maybe some humans can, and others can't, and it's predetermined?

And, have you tried engaging with communities that are not focused on a particular ideology like the ones you described? Something less politically or socially-charged maybe?

I'm not sure, I guess, there are r/changemyview and r/TheMotte which I considered engaging in, but I feel I'm too stupid/ignorant for actually defending my points, dunno^^

 

[dragonofenvy]

Thanks for the input! But isn't it arrogant to assume that people would ever recognise your or my name? Even here, I technically have more posts than you do, but you haven't seem my posts

Yes. You're right. But some people do know me. Not everyone, but some. Just like some people know you, just not me. Apologies if I sounded arrogant it wasn't the intention. I was trying to explain that, given enough time, people do warm up to you, but not everyone's going to know you, of course. That goes for every community especially large ones, but even in the large ones a couple of people recognize you but the majority will not.

2. The other blogger (the one who did get triggered) - his idea is that the Russo-Ukrainian war is rigged, and Putin is a CIA agent, and he expected the second Kursk Ukrainian offensive in Jan 2025 to be a huge success... when it turned out a failure - but I wasn't even mocking him, just noticed that his forecast turned out incorrect.

Yeah that sounds like it's on him being mad that his forecast was wrong and not liking someone pointing it out.

Of course, as I'm autistic and opinionated, I can't exactly emulate other people, as I don't even properly understand what moves them.

Me too but I did get good at copying people from a logical standpoint. I try to "just" look at what other people say and talk like them. When having interactions with people on voice calls or irl, I'll even adopt their speech mannerisms and their accent slightly if needed. Very manipulative yes, but it does make people like you more when you're like them. A big problem with understanding what moves people is that we think from a logic-based standpoint whereas a lot of people think from an emotion-based standpoint. Before people say anything, thinking with BOTH logic AND emotion is the best way to understand others. Anyways, when trying to understand people based on logic it doesn't work when most people are emotional and not detached like us.

"ch!ld p0rn" is considered offensive? And now it's CSPAN or whatever? (But then again, it's a mark of the English language which considers words outdated every decade, hard to keep up...)

Yes, us Americans really like to use soft language which I imagine to someone else is frustrating. Believe me, it's frustrating to me too. I don't know why, for example, I have to use "undocumented migrant" and not "illegal immigrant." Why I have to say pr0n and not porn. It doesn't make sense. But I don't try to make sense of it. I adapt as best I can.

I'm not sure if I can discuss this here? : ( I wish I could, because there are so many questions I'd love to ask, but it's all probably autistic and against the TOS.

If you're comfortable with it I'd be open to DMs about it.

 

[Adûnâi]

Me too but I did get good at copying people from a logical standpoint. I try to "just" look at what other people say and talk like them.

See, one of the pitfalls could be that without a difference in opinion, there won't be any grounds for talking in the first place. If I have something to say... will it be the same that has already be said? (I do wonder if I could talk to people on a regular basis, or would run out of topics to discuss - that was in fact the basis for the current chat ban, too.)

Yes, us Americans really like to use soft language which I imagine to someone else is frustrating. Believe me, it's frustrating to me too. I don't know why, for example, I have to use "undocumented migrant" and not "illegal immigrant." Why I have to say pr0n and not porn.

Ahaha, I would have never guessed the former would be considered offensive anywhere, that's genuinely humorous! I'd call them "aliens" because normies only think of UFOs (oh wait, it's UAPs now). And zoomers say "corn" which honestly is great, sounds like Cockney rhyme English.

I even compiled a decent list once of the terms which got phased out. Such as Peking > Beijing, veneral > STD > STI, chastity belt > chastity cage/device (Little Russia > the Ukraine > Ukraine (/banned)).

If you're comfortable with it I'd be open to DMs about it.

Huge, thanks for the invitation! I hope I'm not gonna be too annoying^^

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

Eh, not exactly! In politics, I would like to brain-storm and argue for the most sensible combination of ideas - after all, not every one thinker is alike, and especially Nazism is super diverse, ranging from hard biological racism to the more wacky idealistic spiritualism.

Regarding suicide, I'm actually "of two minds" - I consider personal morality (suicide) to be separate from collectivist ideologies (necessarily pro-life). So I can be without a contradiction - merely splitting the two realms. And of course, there are still many unknowns to debate - maybe suicide is the only rational choice, and even the machines will kill themselves (or even that man's destiny is in bringing the grey goo scenario)? Or maybe suicide is weakness, and normies prove that humans can cope enough? Or maybe some humans can, and others can't, and it's predetermined?

Ah, I see where you're coming from, I think. It sounds like you're seeking more philosophical or conceptual discussions, rather than mere repetition of well-known talking points for or against a particular subject. Probably a bit of intellectual sparring, too. If this is the case, your average online community is unlikely to be a good fit for that. I don't interact with Nazis myself, but I don't imagine your average Nazi would be interested in the philosophical nuances of every individual position that falls into the category of Nazism, just like your average Christian won't be interested in debating Christian mysticism or the various flavours of Gnosticism, and your average suicidal person won't care about the various theoretical or moral frameworks through which suicide can be examined. I don't know if this is just because of the examples you've given, but it also seems like you tend to gravitate towards controversial topics, and that makes it even more difficult to find people who are interested in philosophical discussions. Most people will have fairly simplistic views in favour or against a given subject. So, maybe the kind of engagement you're seeking is simply not the kind that will go over well in your average online community.

I'm not sure, I guess, there are r/changemyview and r/TheMotte which I considered engaging in, but I feel I'm too stupid/ignorant for actually defending my points, dunno^^

Don't have any experience with those communities, but if your goal is to challenge others, part of that is being challenged yourself, sometimes to the point of realising that the idea or belief you had can't be defended once you look at it closely enough. But that is kind of the point. You can engage simply with the intention of improving your own understanding. If you find yourself unable to argue your point meaningfully, then you've identified something that can be changed or improved. It doesn't really matter if you "win" or "lose" a discussion on the Internet, what matters is refining our own view of the world, and of ourselves.

 

[dragonofenvy]

See, one of the pitfalls could be that without a difference in opinion, there won't be any grounds for talking in the first place. If I have something to say... will it be the same that has already be said? (I do wonder if I could talk to people on a regular basis, or would run out of topics to discuss - that was in fact the basis for the current chat ban, too.)

Yes. I don't have an argument against that. I for one think small talk is pretty boring and mundane, and I also don't know how to do it. Usually when I talk to people it's when I'm playing a video game, and almost always about the video game we're playing. Never really any opinions being thrown around. Perhaps that might help? Finding some activity you can do and joining that activity's community and then do that activity while talking about it? Easier said than done of course. I belong to a whopping 1 whole community of a couple people I know on discord that I play games with sometimes and haven't found one since. Briefly I was in a SaSu one but other than lurking forever I wasn't able to relate to anyone. It's gonna be a hard battle but since you're already engaging in communities you're interested in there might be one out there for you that's specifically tailored to your hobbies and not political, philosophical, or others that require thinking.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

And zoomers say "corn" which honestly is great, sounds like Cockney rhyme English.

I've noticed some people around here saying "sewer slide" instead of suicide. Kind of baffling considering the name of this website, but the idea of reading it in a typical Cockney accent makes it hilarious.

 

[Adûnâi]

It doesn't really matter if you "win" or "lose" a discussion on the Internet, what matters is refining our own view of the world, and of ourselves.

Sure, just recently I published another update to my ethno-cultural map of the world, and I got genuinely great feedback regarding my impression of the American geographical sub-cultures, and the maritime Chinese influence in SEA. So it can work out.

like your average Christian won't be interested in debating Christian mysticism or the various flavours of Gnosticism

Ironically, that blogger is super into Gnosticism as well. Sure, I do think that the controversial is where it's at, thesis and anti-thesis. (Partly why I'm also drawn to dead game communities - seeing how games die, and how players cope and keep the lie alive).

What saddens me is that these echo-chambers are also for people who literally don't think for themselves and indeed merely regurgitate, or actually just repeat words based on triggers. I can observe my mom in reality to be an extreme case of this - she sometimes randomly triggers and starts writing paragraphs about the Russian invasion, even though it's utterly irrelevant to the subject (no, we didn't even suffer in this invasion, it's all in her mind, hyper-reality).

Finding some activity you can do and joining that activity's community and then do that activity while talking about it?

This is definitely good advice, I talked to a person in August 2024 who did say she didn't remember anyone who didn't game with her, made a big impression on me. But I could never imagine playing with anyone, it's way too social. (Maybe I could go to movies/libraries if the war ends and I do end up meeting this future gf of mine.)

I for one think small talk is pretty boring and mundane, and I also don't know how to do it.

I once managed to talk to a peer male person irl for 10 whole minutes in May 2023, imagine. And it was about CSGO (which I hadn't even played). I wonder if I could maybe develop those skills, but I have no idea where to engage with people irl at all (that's a completely different matter, granted).

You were suggesting that you and another user should hook up, which they were highly uncomfortable with. (paraphrasing, since I didn't catch all of it)

The person in question didn't say they were uncomfortable though? I said "apologies" at first and tried to be super polite about it? But how else do people hook up then?

There were some other details, like the person mentioned an activity, and that their partner did not like it, and I happened to daydream about that activity for the whole day prior. So I thought there was a connection, with strings attached. How is that awkward?

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

Sure, I do think that the controversial is where it's at, thesis and anti-thesis

If you believe Hegel, the dialectic applies to literally everything, not only to controversial subjects. That is itself a rather controversial view in some circles, which is kind of funny.

What saddens me is that these echo-chambers are also for people who literally don't think for themselves and indeed merely regurgitate, or actually just repeat words based on triggers. I can observe my mom in reality to be an extreme case of this - she sometimes randomly triggers and starts writing paragraphs about the Russian invasion, even though it's utterly irrelevant to the subject (no, we didn't even suffer in this invasion, it's all in her mind, hyper-reality).

I share this frustration, actually. Unfortunately, there is not a lot we can do about it — you can share information with people, try to expose them to other ways of thinking, but you can't force them to engage with any of it if they don't want to. And, ultimately, as a species we rather enjoy the comfort of being surrounded by like-minded people who view things like we do, say the things we say, and act the way we act. There definitely are people out there who enjoy the challenge and the brain-storming but, in my experience at least, it's a minority.

That being said, it might be worth trying to engage with people in other, less controversial contexts. Not in a shallow way, mind you, because I can't imagine you'd get much out of shallow interactions. Trying some offline interactions might be nice as well, though it seems like that's not an option for you right now? When it becomes possible again, finding some local activity or group that interests you could be a way to start — something at the library, or a coffee shop. Just putting yourself out there a bit, maybe becoming a "regular" at some place you enjoy visiting. Those things can help with developing meaningful relationships with others, and people will naturally be more receptive towards you if they've seen you around before a few times. You don't need to become friends with everyone, or even have multiple meaningful interactions with every person you talk to. Those kinds of relationships are few and far between, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy some companionship here and there.

 

[Adûnâi]

If you believe Hegel, the dialectic applies to literally everything, not only to controversial subjects. That is itself a rather controversial view in some circles, which is kind of funny.

If I'm not mistaken, this could encompass the issue of how every ideology necessarily changes with time and new conditions? Even biological races do? So for example "preserving the race" means little if even the blue eyes were "invented" at some point in pre-history. So our very ancestors looked different to us (let alone the siblings of Australopithecoi).

My response to that, incidentally, is that we are supposed to share the genetic lineage of a particular idea - for example, modern liberalism may be different from the "libertarianism" of the American founders, but there's an unbroken chain of thought going through the ages, the current era has an internal logic of descent. Conversely, the same would be true for the future - as Gandalf said, "the weather of the future generations is not our concern, our task is to clear the weeds" [paraphrasing].

And, ultimately, as a species we rather enjoy the comfort of being surrounded by like-minded people who view things like we do, say the things we say, and act the way we act.

But the bigger issue is when they don't even have a privilege of friends and family that think likewise (then maintaining harmony would make sense, like in the clannish East Asia). But in reality, they merely parrot the TV propaganda, which is of no use to anyone. (But then again, I never understood how advertisements are a thing at all, lmao, or that people... browse the YouTube feed, or the horror.)

something at the library, or a coffee shop. Just putting yourself out there a bit, maybe becoming a "regular" at some place you enjoy visiting.

Being a creep, gotcha^^ But seriously, that is kind of true. While I don't think it would be successful, I never even tried. All I did (aside from being locked in a room all my life) is attend schools, but I never knew how to speak there (aside from the teachers who were legally obliged to listen to my suifuel squeaky voice).

 

[pollux]

You know, I think your choice of communities is rather...interesting. You seem like a good kid though.

Most of the communities you seem to have gone are not of the type that takes criticism well. I'd suggest avoiding political communities in general, especially if you're autistic.

 

[dragonofenvy]

But the bigger issue is when they don't even have a privilege of friends and family that think likewise (then maintaining harmony would make sense, like in the clannish East Asia). But in reality, they merely parrot the TV propaganda, which is of no use to anyone. (But then again, I never understood how advertisements are a thing at all, lmao, or that people... browse the YouTube feed, or the horror.)

Think of it from their perspective. We'll use the person in your example. The person who just consumes TV propaganda. In their view they hold the better beliefs. They want whatever reinforces their belief. That is how everyone is to some extents. If I told you "no people don't just consume propaganda bro literally nobody in the world does that you're wrong." What would be your immediate gut reaction to the response? Trying to prove me wrong, or asking me "why?" A lot of people will go down the prove me wrong path immediately because they do not want to hear another perspective, especially a perspective that in my case would be an objectively incorrect statement but it doesn't matter whether or not it's correct. In my example, in my head, I am right and I don't care about other's views.

I think in this instance you might want to try first thinking about how the other person is thinking rather than going in with the assumption that they parrot TV propaganda. There's a reason they believe in what they believe. Maybe they personally benefit from it. I for example have the thought that private charity is superior to public (government) charity because I've personally benefited from private charity and never once from the government. I talked about how FEMA (disaster relief in the US) was ineffective because I only thought from my perspective from private charity helping me. This person talked about how he and his family got payouts from FEMA and how I was wrong in thinking that FEMA was inefficient and bad. We are both correct in this instance. I had my thought because I wasn't thinking about it from someone who might've benefited from FEMA, just my own views.

If you're going to go in somewhere with some niche viewpoints, try to think if the people here would have even thought about something like that in the first place.

such as when I suggested to a Nazi that Carthaginian child-burning might have been evolutionarily justified and thus not condemnable.

This for one thing is a particular instance I, and probably about 98% of the population have never heard of. Nearly everyone also holds the opinion that the act of Nazis burning people to death is bad. When you bring in something like evolutionary justification for death it starts sounding less "niche" and more "extreme". Very, very, very few people think about something like this. People reading this are already off-put by the discussion. I think that's what you're missing. It's hard as an autistic person to be able to think about other perspectives at times but when you become aware of it, it starts getting easier. It doesn't need to be at an emotional level either. I get by with just the logical level even if it isn't the best.

As the above commenter said your community choices are, well, pretty out there. Abnormal. Most normal people are going to be concerned about this. While some of these things may be important to you there are reasons that people condemn them. I tend to lean towards condemnation of Nazi killings for one regardless of what kind of justifications they used.Overall though? I don't really care if you say Nazis are good or Nazis are bad if you have a bad opinion it doesn't affect me in any way I don't have any emotional stake in it I only care about whether you're a good person to me or not. I don't care if you have extreme viewpoints. But you have to remember, it affects everyone else. Especially things like I quoted.

 

[Adûnâi]

Most of the communities you seem to have gone are not of the type that takes criticism well. I'd suggest avoiding political communities in general, especially if you're autistic.

But politics is the lifeblood of this world, and I'm all into history and geography (WIAH is literally my alter ego if I could make videos and talk in my voice).

If I told you "no people don't just consume propaganda bro literally nobody in the world does that you're wrong." What would be your immediate gut reaction to the response? Trying to prove me wrong, or asking me "why?" A lot of people will go down the prove me wrong path immediately because they do not want to hear another perspective

Yeah, and in your example, people who don't believe in propaganda would create their own cozy bubble (that's the case with the libertarian opposition in Russia, of the kind who call the opposing view holders "bots", dehumanising them).

Asking "why" is anathema to so many folks! People usually have zealous religious beliefs, and they refuse to try to take the world as it is and draw conclusions. Hell, suicide rights are like that, too - why would you expect any society to promote suicide? (If I'm being more reasonable, I'd try to attach it to other issues such as Christian concept of human rights, for example, working in that already established framework. But that's the same as [hypothetically] trying to spread feminism under Sharia law - feminists would get offended and refuse to cooperate, see.)

This for one thing is a particular instance I, and probably about 98% of the population have never heard of. Nearly everyone also holds the opinion that the act of Nazis burning people to death is bad.

Actually you've misread, the Nazi in question was opposing child-burning, and I was "supporting" child-burning (or at least, arguing, "if science showed that child-burning were beneficial to your race, you would reject child-burning and reduce your race's chances of survival because you value morality over your race, so you're not a racist".

People reading this are already off-put by the discussion.

To be fair, while I'm always accepting of any people, I do concede that some filtering works wonders. If people are put off by something as innocuous as frivolous thought experiments about history and culture, it's their loss^^

It's hard as an autistic person to be able to think about other perspectives at times but when you become aware of it, it starts getting easier. It doesn't need to be at an emotional level either. I get by with just the logical level even if it isn't the best.

Yeah, ultimately, what is each of us seeking? Validation? Discussion? Belonging? Honing one's skills? Who knows. And reality is a rather complex and opaque matter, where clarity is rare. It's a given that it's a mess.

But using people sounds boring. Maybe I'd do it if I were psychopathic enough. And could get legal drugs and legal hookers. But that's not a way for me either. Hence searching for curious discussions is what I'd ideally pursue.

 

[dragonofenvy]

But using people sounds boring. Maybe I'd do it if I were psychopathic enough. And could get legal drugs and legal hookers. But that's not a way for me either. Hence searching for curious discussions is what I'd ideally pursue.

So you've found your way. Rather than adapting to everyone else, you want to seek out like-minded people. This is going to be a hard road to take, harder than my adaptation path, but it's still theoretically possible but will take a very long time. Maybe a good place to start is rather than going all in on the conversations you want to pursue start on a smaller scale. I don't know what that smaller scale would look like, but I'd imagine it'd be something like only disagreeing slightly. Rather than going far-left to oppose someone's far-right opinion, agree with some parts of it but point out just a couple of flaws at a time rather than doing a blanket statement of them being wrong, regardless of your intent. Differing opinions in of themselves imply wrongness whether you mean them to or not. If people are being outraged dial it back the next go around.

Actually you've misread, the Nazi in question was opposing child-burning, and I was "supporting" child-burning (or at least, arguing, "if science showed that child-burning were beneficial to your race, you would reject child-burning and reduce your race's chances of survival because you value morality over your race, so you're not a racist".

Ah I see. You were being a contrarian in this case. Even doing a thought experiment about "supporting" (arguing for for fun but not actually believing it) is a big NO to people. Everyone would look at you being devil's advocate as you being a Nazi. That's just how people think. They take words on the internet at face-value. Why wouldn't they? How are they supposed to know it's a thought experiment?

To be fair, while I'm always accepting of any people, I do concede that some filtering works wonders. If people are put off by something as innocuous as frivolous thought experiments about history and culture, it's their loss^^

While it's true isn't it a bit much to write everyone off as it being their loss? It's going to be hard to find communities with this thinking.

Yeah, and in your example, people who don't believe in propaganda would create their own cozy bubble (that's the case with the libertarian opposition in Russia, of the kind who call the opposing view holders "bots", dehumanising them).

Yes, and this is how everyone is. This time around I'll generalize just to really hone in the point. Everyone has a bubble. Everyone. Me and you included. People don't want that bubble broken. You need to be careful about this.

 

[Adûnâi]

Yes, and this is how everyone is. This time around I'll generalize just to really hone in the point. Everyone has a bubble. Everyone. Me and you included. People don't want that bubble broken. You need to be careful about this.

Okay, I do need to sleep already, but this thing behooves (yay, I've used the word) replying. I feel like I'd love to have my bubble popped (xd). For example, I consider America to be a declining power with no hope in sight, but if they summon their strength and go on a rampage, I'd only love to be proven wrong.

I dunno, I feel like every position has upsides and downsides. Peace breeds complacency, but war can break a nation forever. But running from war is degeneracy. But running from peace is what Germany did, and peace is actually more difficult to succeed in. And so on, it goes on and on.

The only stale thing about my thoughts would be movement?

 

[pollux]

But politics is the lifeblood of this world, and I'm all into history and geography (WIAH is literally my alter ego if I could make videos and talk in my voice).

Yeah, but it is also a very social thing for most people. You will inevitably treat it objectively, which isn't a wrong thing to do, but a lot of people won't like that.

I think there are a few internet communities that would treat politics in a more objective manner, maybe you should look for them.

 

[SpamMusubi]

Just curious, what did you say that got you chat-banned on SaSu? Maybe the mod could share their reasoning too.

 

[Adûnâi]

I think there are a few internet communities that would treat politics in a more objective manner, maybe you should look for them.

Would you have any suggestions? The only real ones I have encountered might be TheMotte and Unz, I loved debating with one person at Unz (with him supporting a deterministic and technology-centric outlook, and me gravitating towards cultural/idealism). But there are usually way too many people, so that might be the reason why I'm not at all consistent or comfortable there.

My ideal is like following a specific blogger, reading his every entry, and then sharing my thoughts extensively in the comments, but so far, two of the three bloggers have banned me over the years, haha.

To be fair, a few months ago, I got introduced to another blogger, and I argued about politics with him, and while we disagreed (I took a stance about Russia being controlled by the West), he was cordial about it. So things like that do happen.

The best thing about such engagements is when I can cite sources and actually engage at an objective level (like how Russia transferred military assets to the Ukraine in 2015, for example). That way, any potential onlooker could decide our arguments' merits for himself.

Just curious, what did you say that got you chat-banned on SaSu? Maybe the mod could share their reasoning too.

Oh no, let's not touch upon it, it's all been resolved now, and the mods have indeed been super lenient^^ But feel free to DM me, of course, I'm always open to DMs (wait, maybe I should put it in my profile signature?

 

[pollux]

Would you have any suggestions? The only real ones I have encountered might be TheMotte and Unz, I loved debating with one person at Unz (with him supporting a deterministic and technology-centric outlook, and me gravitating towards cultural/idealism). But there are usually way too many people, so that might be the reason why I'm not at all consistent or comfortable there.

My ideal is like following a specific blogger, reading his every entry, and then sharing my thoughts extensively in the comments, but so far, two of the three bloggers have banned me over the years, haha.

To be fair, a few months ago, I got introduced to another blogger, and I argued about politics with him, and while we disagreed (I took a stance about Russia being controlled by the West), he was cordial about it. So things like that do happen.

The best thing about such engagements is when I can cite sources and actually engage at an objective level (like how Russia transferred military assets to the Ukraine in 2015, for example). That way, any potential onlooker could decide our arguments' merits for himself.

Uhh yeah, I was going to suggest TheMotte. If you liked TheMotte then maybe you will like Data Secrets Lox? It's a forum based on the blog by Scott Alexander (Astral Codex Ten, previously Slate Star Codex). I don't go there much though, so I can't say how good it is.

The blogger I follow the most nowadays is Zvi Mowshowitz, but he mostly blogs about AI. Though he post somewhat often about other topics too, he has "roundup" posts about a lot of things.

 

[Adûnâi]

If you liked TheMotte then maybe you will like Data Secrets Lox? It's a forum based on the blog by Scott Alexander (Astral Codex Ten, previously Slate Star Codex).

Tremendous, thanks! I'll look into it! If we're going by the names, I think it's safe to mention that the two bloggers above were:
1) Slavland Chronicles (aka Rolo Slavskiy aka Rurik Skywalker) - translates Russian sources regarding sabotage and treason and foreign control of Putin's Russia;
2) Neo-Feudal Review - high-IQ and lively critique of the Western cabal ("Trump is a trap for the naive", up my alley);
Also, 3) Dr. Robert Morgan on the Unz Review is rather splendid for dispelling racist misconceptions about the Civil War (from his much more racist and AnPrim perspective, ironically enough).

The blogger I follow the most nowadays is Zvi Mowshowitz, but he mostly blogs about AI.

Cool, I'll check him out! What is his take on AGI? David Shapiro famously predicted AGI by September 2024 and then had a melt down (he's solidified yet again since, he tends to do that, with deleting videos and erratic behaviour).

 

[pollux]

Cool, I'll check him out! What is his take on AGI? David Shapiro famously predicted AGI by September 2024 and then had a melt down (he's solidified yet again since, he tends to do that, with deleting videos and erratic behaviour).

Coming soon, and catastrophic if we don't solve alignment (he is from the rationalist crowd, so he is very concerned about existential risk)

For the record my own opinion is that it's not coming soon, it will be mostly bad if it indeed comes, but the current level of AI will still get better and it will be transformative.

 

[Adûnâi]

Coming soon, and catastrophic if we don't solve alignment (he is from the rationalist crowd, so he is very concerned about existential risk)

For the record my own opinion is that it's not coming soon, it will be mostly bad if it indeed comes, but the current level of AI will still get better and it will be transformative.

Thanks! One thing I've noticed with the AI people (or at least those that I've watched) is the total absence of any talk about politics. Because what if the US government is planning a nuclear WW3 in the near future, and an AI singularity would be the only thing to stop it? See, that's what I would bring up and rile folks against me^^

(While sure, it's not their specialty, but one would think it at least deserves passing mention?) (Trump's ban of LGBT could be a preparation for nuclear war, too, but nobody ever talks about it lmao)

 

[pollux]

Thanks! One thing I've noticed with the AI people (or at least those that I've watched) is the total absence of any talk about politics. Because what if the US government is planning a nuclear WW3 in the near future, and an AI singularity would be the only thing to stop it? See, that's what I would bring up and rile folks against me^^

(While sure, it's not their specialty, but one would think it at least deserves passing mention?) (Trump's ban of LGBT could be a preparation for nuclear war, too, but nobody ever talks about it lmao)

Honestly, between an AI singularity and WW3, I think our chances are higher with the latter...

Anyway, most of the original talk about AI risk (with respect to AGI and superintelligence) came from the rationalist community, and they never dealt with this in a political way (except recently). The original discussion was mainly about how to solve alignment, or AGI timelines (i.e when we were getting AGI) rather than a social discussion about AGI.