
I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views - randomname2
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/i-was-denied-admission-to-a-phd-program-because-of-my-perceived-political-views-reflections-of-a-sellout-how-diversity-would-strengthen-social-science
======
merpnderp
I once sat in on an academic research meeting where the PI of the group stated
"If there are any Republicans in the room, leave, you are fired." They felt
comfortable enough saying this even though there were obviously people there
from outside the group and nothing like that could be kept secret.

~~~
jacquesm
So, did you get up and leave out of solidarity with the Republicans? If
someone pulled that stunt here I'd be out of there. Politics are people's
private business (unless they hold a very visible function, then it becomes
relevant again but for folks just doing a job somewhere politics should be a
non issue).

~~~
Retra
>Politics are people's private business

What twisted hoops did you have to jump through to say something like that?
"Private politics" is not politics. It makes no sense to say something like
that. Politics is explicitly about interacting with other people in a non-
private way.

~~~
pcl
I imagine that what the author intended to say was something along the lines
of "An individual's political views are the private business of that
individual." I think that's pretty clear from the context.

~~~
Retra
I know what the author intended; my point still stands. The term for "non-
personal belief" in English is "political belief." Anyone who says otherwise
is usually either lying in an attempt to put their beliefs beyond criticism
(which may be warranted,) or simply repeating what their culture has taught
them to say. (This is only 2015, after all, and we are the cavemen of the
future. We have many self-contradictory and damaging cultural norms.)

Politics is explicitly about controlling other people, and there's nothing
personal about that.

~~~
engi_nerd
Or maybe English isn't their first language?

------
donatj
I was blocked by a large mass of people with a shared Twitter block list
including a number of comedy feeds I used to like to follow, because one of
them disliked my political affiliation I had listed on my Twitter page. The
person told me as much before blocking me. I've since removed it to prevent
future discrimination, but I shouldn't have to and I don't much care for this
brave new world.

~~~
woah
What if that political view is that you're a nazi and think the holocaust was
a good thing? Would it still be wrong for them to block you?

~~~
hguant
I think assuming the OC is a Nazi goes a bit far...

But to your point - yes of course it's ok to disassociate with someone who is
advocating violence or National Socialism, because it can reasonably be
inferred that said person isn't rational, or has a twisted sense of morality
than makes associating with them damaging to yourself. However, I'm assuming
that's not the case here - it had come in vogue in SWJ and intellectual
circles to immediately disregard anyone who has an incorrect opinion. Vote
republican? You obviously are a terrible human being. Fall in line with the
Democrats except you think abortion is wrong? Kill yourself.

~~~
geofft
The National Socialists were a legitimate, popular political party in Germany,
until they went too far off the rails for anyone to pull them back on.

Given the very serious discussions in US politics about placing US citizens in
concentration camps and refusing them re-entry to the country based on their
religion, the question about at what point a party becomes the National
Socialists must be a legitimate one to ask. Clearly we're not there _yet_. But
also, clearly there's a nonzero chance that we might find ourselves there very
soon.

------
rayiner
The fourth one was great. I grew up in D.C. visiting some of the greatest
museums in the world until I was bored of them. But some of the strongest
experiences I've had are attending church services with my wife and daughter
and listening to sermons.

------
FussyZeus
As someone who grew up in a strongly red area and with beliefs in that vein, I
know EXACTLY the kind of exclusion that the author is talking about to a
painful degree. For anyone who wants to experience it, walk into any Reddit
discussion and tell everyone you're a devout Christian and watch the pseudo
intellectuals exercise their "openness."

And yes it's true I'm far from the most religious person there is, and I
strongly believe in birth control, women's rights, on and on, I am constantly
assumed to be some Bible-thumping redneck by anyone who doesn't know me. It
also doesn't help that I regularly enjoy working with my hands, building
things, fixing things, which mind you when it comes to many things to fix
there's a great deal of intelligence required, but because it's not the fancy
coastal intelligence that gets you six figure jobs I'm assumed to be an idiot.

And then people wonder why Middle America has such a disdain for the cultures
and intellectual achievement, after they've spent their entire learning lives
being told how dumb they are by the snobs, most of whom can't even swap a tire
for a donut without calling AAA.

</rant>

~~~
linkregister
It's amazing to me that the top-rated comment in this thread broadly
generalizes both "coastal intellectuals" and "Middle America" with insulting
stereotypes.

I'm embarrassed that the upvoters of this comment actually agreed with this
comment. One trip to Houston or Minneapolis is enough to verify the presence
of a thriving arts and culture scene. The anti-intellectual Middle America
trope is not factual.

One trip to Winchester, VA or Davidsonville, MD (Washington, DC suburbs) will
reveal farming communities that exude pragmatism. Hell, there's a popular trap
shooting range in Greenbelt, MD.

If DC or some other bogeyman city is so hostile to "bible-thumping", how can
you explain the large church attendance there?

I think this comment is a reaction to a handful of personal experiences that
you had. The rest of your comments aren't as hyperbolic as this one. I agree
that it is frustrating when dealing with rude people, but to generalize about
similar folks is exactly the thing that bugs you!

~~~
FussyZeus
> It's amazing to me that the top-rated comment in this thread broadly
> generalizes both "coastal intellectuals" and "Middle America" with insulting
> stereotypes.

It's amazing to me that you took this (what you've recognized as) hyperbole'd
and obviously emotionally filled post and assumed this is how I act in daily
life, a point which I didn't feel I needed to make but apparently must do so
is that of course I do not dismiss everyone from a coastal area as being a
pseudo intellectual. That doesn't stop the majority of them from proving to be
exactly that, but you know, I do try.

FTR, I never once intended to insult the midwest. I prefer it here, and that
may well be simply because I've never lived anywhere else.

~~~
derefr
Using hyperbole in a discussion about politics will almost always get you in
trouble. To be safe from this, you basically have to talk about your political
views with all the detached clinical nuance of a biologist "sacrificing" lab
mice to biopsy them. (That was hyperbole too, and I fully expect to get in
trouble for it.)

My personal ideal for "well-done political debate" is comes from economists:
they can quickly distinguish between facts, speculation about facts, and value
judgements, and then engage with the first two while steering clear of the
third. (It does make for some silly interviews, though: journalists basically
only care about people's value-judgements, and economists will redirect every
attempt at getting theirs into a discussion about some fact or another.)

~~~
engi_nerd
Quite often on the internet, and in life, I see situations that make me think,
"That guy got in trouble/got grief because he has a sense of humor and
everyone around him is wilfully not getting the joke".

------
ecopoesis
What school denied him? Because if was a public institution, bad on them.

But if it was a private university, then that's their right. Feel free to
disagree with them, but a private university is allowed to have political
views and admit folks to their programs based political views [1].

[1] [http://education-law.lawyers.com/school-law/can-private-
scho...](http://education-law.lawyers.com/school-law/can-private-schools-
discriminate-against-students.html)

~~~
waterlesscloud
Reading your link, it's not so much a matter of public vs private schools as
it is whether or not they receive public funding. And the vast majority of
private universities do.

~~~
kazagistar
I would say that the relevant question to this article would be if they should
be accepted into the broader academic journals and conferences if they are
explicitly biased. They have every right to enforce a bias, but then they have
no right to be thought of as scientists and researchers by the public at
large.

------
daodedickinson
Ideological homogeneity isn't the starting condition it's the ending
condition, the achieved goal. How could you see that homogeneity and then say
"this could be an issue only in an incredibly tribal ideological environment"
and not realize that's exactly what academia is and has been for a long time?
Have you not read your Saul Alinsky? There's a reason his devotee is the top
prez nominee (Clinton). Climate conferences, academia, these are pure
political spheres; you CANNOT rock the boat before tenure. With the net now,
nothing is under the radar, so you will have to resign yourself to a lower
tier placement, but it might be a great spot for you since politics determines
school ranking.

~~~
striking
> Climate conferences, academia

Are you sure the two are exactly alike? I realize there's a lot of soft
science that's ridiculous, but it's generally accepted that global warming
exists.

~~~
fleitz
It's fairly well understood that most organizations exist to perpetuate
themselves. If GW doesn't exist a whole tonne of organization cease to exist,
just as if GW does exist a whole tonne of organizations cease to exist.

Oddly, you'll find that organizations opinions on GW align fairly well with
their source of funding.

GW is a hugely political topic, and in my estimation has little to do with
hard science anymore.

~~~
jolux
You've provided no evidence of anything you've laid out here and you're trying
to disprove a theory agreed upon by 99% of scientists with indirect arguments
about their source of funding. Why exactly should I believe you? I'd love to
hear more about all of these points but find it hard to trust them currently.

~~~
midwest1
I believe the number is somewhat less than 99 percent. If you are referring to
the Cook study, the study borders on fraudulent, to be kind. Hard to type
using my phone, I have a couple of posts from 70 days or so ago explaining my
problem with that study.

No one really knows how big that consensus is, or what the consensus even is.
Too much noise in the way.

~~~
nkurz
Jose Duarte, the author of the post being discussed, has written compellingly
on why he feels the Cook article is outright fraud, and that the correct
percentage (if there is one) is closer to 80%. Here's an entry point, but you
might need to follow the links for context:
[http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-
counting](http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-counting)

~~~
midwest1
It's also quite easy to verify for yourself by visiting the web of science
search. Then one can be assured it isn't a devious lie from the Koch brothers.
;)

I would be interested to know why Duarte feels the correct number is 80, and
which IPCC model, if any of them, that consensus includes. I'm going to have
to catch up on his blog.

------
xupybd
Anyone else notice, that an article about assumptions made based on political
views immediately stirred up religious arguments. Why does one have to be
religious to be on the right and non-religious to be on the left?

(I'm not from the USA so maybe this is an American thing?)

------
jolux
"Why would they?

There's been lots of noise lately about how conservatives don't respect
science or the intellectual sphere. Why would they? They know we're
politically biased."

This is where it took a turn for me. I'm basically in agreement with
everything else, and it's personally eye opening to gain a greater
understanding of these kinds of biases, but when you take a few bad apples in
the social sciences (literally what? five? six?) and extrapolate that out to
justify distrust of all of science, it becomes problematic.

The leftists I know (not including myself, though I share similar views) don't
dislike conservative attitudes towards social science or other "soft"
sciences, in fact most of them take it as a foregone conclusion that
conservatives won't like them. They dislike point blank denial of facts such
as that of human-caused climate change perpetuated mostly by conservative
think tanks and consumed by an undereducated population of people who
legitimately don't know better.

The problem is really that we live in a culture that does not value education
very highly, nor does it enable good forms of it for the majority of our
nation.

And just for fun, let's take the opposites of this so-called "urban
intellectualism" that is expressed with these characteristics:

"... is ingenious, a deep thinker." vs. is dumb, a shallow thinker.

"... values artistic, esthetic experiences." vs. values uncreative, ugly
experiences

"... is inventive." vs is uninventive

"... is sophisticated in art, music, and literature." vs. knows nothing of
art, music, or literature

"... likes to reflect, play with ideas" vs likes to avoid introspection, take
things at face value, and move on.

Pardon me if a few of those don't seem obviously better to more than just
liberals than their alternatives. I know a lot of conservatives who would be
exceptionally proud to call themselves inventive, sophisticated, deep thinkers
with passions in art and literature.

You're doing intellectual conservatism a disservice by acting like these are
all things conservatives would be offended to see described as "openness." If
being an intellectual, sophisticated person is synonymous with being a
blinkered bourgeois intellectual liberal then I'm friends with an awful lot of
blinkered bourgeois liberals who are also big fans of Austrian economics.

~~~
defen
> They dislike point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused
> climate change perpetuated mostly by conservative think tanks and consumed
> by an undereducated population of people who legitimately don't know better.

The left disregards science when it suits their politics as well, e.g. IQ -
[https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/645301814955388930](https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/645301814955388930)

Regarding the opposites-list - just because someone doesn't consider himself
an "ingenious, deep thinker" doesn't mean he thinks he's a dumb, shallow
thinker. It's all relative - who or what are you comparing yourself to?
Compared to Steven Pinker, I'm a dumb, shallow thinker. Compared to the
_average_ American, I'm probably ingenious, a deep thinker. The statement as
given is not quantifiable on a 1-5 scale.

~~~
jolux
It's absolutely a relative question, which is why it's not asking for an
objective answer. It's asking for self perception, which may also be
problematic but is different from what you're implying. If you cite a single
tweet claiming IQ is replicable (admittedly from a reputable source) you're
only showing one side of the story while claiming "the left" rails against IQ
without science behind it. Well, there is science behind it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man)

------
hackuser
Is there any evidence that someone rejected him on that basis? I didn't read
the whole article in detail, but it seems like a suspicion with nothing to
substantiate it, and a lot of hearsay about what some people told him about
the risks.

~~~
Yen
At the end of the article, under the header "The original post from July,
2014", he describes his experience. In summary:

1\. In 2007, 14 Jewish Members resign from the advisory board of the Carter
Center, due to disagreements over statements in Carter's book.

2\. OP blogged about this, apparently in support of their statement. (The
original original blog post is not linked to)

3\. Some undetermined amount of time later (it sounds like at least a year
later), OP applies for PHD programs at several schools.

4\. When interviewing for a PHD program at one unnamed school, the interviewer
explicitly asks about OP's blog post, about OP's political views on Jimmy
Carter, and outright admits that the other faculty members oppose OP's
admission to the program, on basis of his blog post.

~~~
MichaelMoser123
Wow; its amazing that the school called him back and confronted OP on his
political views. OP mentions that HR people would never do that for fear of
being sued, has the university some form of immunity against being sued? Is
industry a more liberal place than academia?

Also what exactly was the keyword that put him into the 'enemy camp' \- was it
support of Israel, criticism of Carter or both of them that raised the red
flag for them ?

~~~
Yen
From the article:

> She also asked if I "really" felt that way about Jimmy Carter.

and

> During the call, I got the impression that they thought / were worried that
> I was a conservative. The horror.

------
rdancer
This is the same old tired schtick: you must be a member of the Party to
progress in your career, and reactionary views are incompatible with holding
certain jobs.

It reminds me of Gad Saad talking on Joe Rogan's podcast about being denied
professorship at various universities for not being Christian enough. I
believe at one point he was asked to write a short essay on his relationship
with Jesus as his saviour (at which point he realized that job offer wasn't
probably going to work out). [I don't have a link at this time]

------
squozzer
I offer as a hypothesis the belief that graduate study programs, even in hard
sciences such as physics, aren't looking for scholars, but disciples.

~~~
BellsOnSunday
Unless you want to put the word _some_ in there your hypothesis/belief is easy
to falsify/repudiate.

~~~
littletimmy
As a matter of fact, a leading philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn would agree
with that. He talks about science progressing by way of paradigm, and graduate
programs a way to induct people into a paradigm.

The book is called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Very interesting
read.

~~~
BellsOnSunday
My point was that there are exceptions to the rule. I don't think the
exceptions (scientists with, generally speaking, open minds who pass these
habits on to students) are as rare as people reading Kuhn might think. I don't
think there is a correlation with doing brilliant work or sparking a paradigm
shift, but not everyone is small minded and protective of their territory.
Maybe it just seems that way to me because I'm not very ambitious, but I
notice quite a few people who don't fit the Kuhnian stereotype.

------
adamconroy
Welcome to life. The only thing that matters is what is perceived.

------
ljw1001
Uh, although 'crowded' is leading the witness, "The earth is like a crowded
spaceship with limited room and resources" IS an observable fact.

~~~
Blackthorn
No it is not. Like every simile or analogy, there is more that's not true with
it than there is that's true with it.

------
typon
I don't understand why Republicans automatically deserve respect from the
'liberal' intellectuals? If I disagree with someone on basic axioms of our
society (climate change is real, xenophobia is bad, etc.) I'm not going to get
much traction in other topics.

I agree with his other points though: liberal bias in science is a great
danger and needs to be removed.

------
OJFord
Does 'rationalisation' have some strange meaning in this context that I'm
unfamiliar with?

As far as I'm concerned any view justifying the matter is a rationalisation,
left or right wing politically; agree or disagree it's certainly nothing to be
upset about being called a rationalisation.

~~~
josinalvo
Rationalization is usually said when the conclusion comes first, and the
"reasoning" latter. First you decide what you think, then why. This
"reasoning" is considered suspect, and called a rationalization.

~~~
dang
"So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one
to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do."

[http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page18.htm](http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page18.htm)

~~~
OJFord
This is what I mean below [0] really - I think the doubt cast on the validity
of the thought/decision/thing being rationalised it is asked of someone else.

My rationalisation is just what I think makes it rational. No negative
connotations here. "How do you rationalise that, then?" is where the doubt
creeps in.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10748700](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10748700)

------
fromMars
I grew up in a red state, too, and as an atheist, I got tired of being told I
was going to hell by peers and forced to pray at school events.

As such, I have a lot of Christian friends but, it is understandable that some
"intellectuals" are hostile to those with strong religious beliefs given that
many with similar beliefs deny scientific concepts like evolution, advocate
teaching creationism in schools, and deny the existence of global warming.

~~~
talmand
I'm curious, how exactly were you forced to pray at school events?

Regardless, maybe the intellectuals should stop being hostile, have an honest
dialogue with such people, and maybe they'll get somewhere.

~~~
munin
being forced to pray at school events is pretty simple, the teacher asks "why
aren't you praying?" and sends you to the principals office. nobody within a
200mi radius of you thinks that there is anything wrong with this because
"it's the way it's always been" and there's no higher power to appeal to,
so...

how can you "have an honest dialogue" with someone that thinks that you are
going to burn in Hell and tells you that your ideas about women, voting, and
abortion are "the Devils"?

~~~
talmand
No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not
forcing you to pray, you can continue to refuse to pray in that case. Were you
somehow forced to pray once you got to the principal's office? There is always
a higher power to appeal to unless the head of your country's government and
legal system agrees with the sentiment. I agree it's a hard path to take, but
the option is there.

I guess in the same way you try to have an honest dialogue with a person that
insists you are stupid and they can dismiss anything you say because of your
beliefs. Both are equally guilty of refusing to participate in the dialogue.
Many of the intellectuals refuse to see their failing is evident as much as
the overly religious person's failing.

~~~
dragonwriter
> No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not
> forcing you to pray

Imposing punishments for failure to comply is coercion, and fairly described
as forcing, or at least _attempting_ to force, someone to do the act toward
which the coercion is directed.

~~~
talmand
So, going to the principal's office is a punishment so severe that it forces
the student to pray when said student doesn't want to? I mean, if they were
beating the child I could agree, but a trip to the principal's office? I fail
to see how that can force anyone to do anything.

------
Zikes
If everyone in a research group thinks the same way and agrees on everything,
why do you need a whole group?

~~~
isolate
If everyone in government is a Democrat, why do you need elections?

~~~
Zikes
If everyone has been so far as to do look like, why do you even?

~~~
isolate
I guess English is not your first language? I can't understand anything past
"been", which is surprising given how easily I understood your last question.

~~~
tricolon
That was a reference to a meme: [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/has-anyone-
really-been-far-eve...](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/has-anyone-really-been-
far-even-as-decided-to-use-even-go-want-to-do-look-more-like)

~~~
isolate
Yeah, sorry, I graduated junior high a while ago. The guy probably assumed I
was disagreeing with him, which is fair, I suppose.

(But anyway thanks for educating me.)

------
ap22213
Well, at least they weren't being politically correct, right?

Personally, I look down on people who are members of any political party. I
truly try not to be biased, but it's pretty hard not to generalize. People who
seek out association with amorphous groups just seem intellectually weak,
lazy, or worse.

The irony is that I'll probably be down-voted for stating my opinion (the way
things are these days).

Edit: Actually you guys are even cooler than that. You're down-voting my old
posts, too. I admire your commitment to group-think!

~~~
hguant
No, you'll be down voted for being pretentious. This is a lazy, "I'm so
superior hahaha look at how great I am" comment.

You're being this guy.

[http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-
mentioni...](http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioning-
he-doesnt-own-a-tel-429)

~~~
ap22213
Sure, you can be annoyed with my tone or even not like me personally. But,
down-voting me just for one of those reasons - that's just a form of
suppression / censorship.

But, on the other hand, I know I violated the guidelines, so I took a risk.
Just trying to prove a point.

~~~
derefr
Well, yeah; that's what downvoting means: "I want to protect everyone else
from wasting their time reading this." It certainly is suppression; and
everyone who wants to be here has signed up for suppression.

Calling it censorship, though, makes it sound like you think of HN as your
blog. HN is a forum; a downvote is the virtual equivalent of what happens in a
real public forum when people—as a group—decide to walk away from someone so
they can talk without that person's viewpoint interrupting them. It's not
censorship; the person is still free to talk. It's a decision to not _listen_
, and a persistent notice posted that the person is—for people whose tastes
agree with those that walked away—not worth one's time listening to.

You can say anything you like by responding to an HN comment as a quote on
your own blog. Anyone trying to deny you _that_ would be attempting
censorship. Everything else, though, is just the reaction of a community-as-
organism to something that community doesn't like. It's no more censorship
than a single person ignoring you and walking away is.

~~~
ap22213
Interesting perspective. If that's the current common view, then in a way I
feel really outdated. I clearly haven't been paying attention and honestly
haven't been aware that 'down-voting' has changed in meaning over the past 10
years or so.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's good to learn new things.

Although I feel kind of aged at the moment, it also makes me feel good knowing
that I can now suppress people much more liberally and not [care if their
content was meant to be constructive or not] _. Who knew?

_ edit from: give a shit

~~~
derefr
I'm not sure if it's the majority view, but it's certainly held by a decent
percentage of people.

I think the change happened gradually; people saw what happened as the result
of espousing populist "everyone has a voice and a downvote is only for
trolling" policies, on sites like Slashdot and Digg and early pre-subreddits
Reddit: a reversion-to-the-societal-mean of cat pictures and other "shallow
content", and the complete inability to have a discussion on a topic of any
controversy.

The reaction, as seen originally in MetaFilter and SomethingAwful, and lately
in post-subreddits Reddit, Tumblr, Discourse, Slack, etc., is that attempting
to create a community that contains people with diametrically-opposed
viewpoints is _silly_ , and the fundamental verb of community-building is
moderation: banning people who don't fit in, so that what's left is a pleasant
place to have a conversation without anyone needing to expend any effort in
tolerating anyone else.

The group who believes in the early, populist systems, calls the second wave
of systems "echo chambers"—but engaging with that idea at an object-level is
silly, because I really believe there's a fundamental difference between the
_environment_ in which the two kinds of forums were built.

The first wave of forums were built from the ideas of Usenet, IRC, and ISP-
hosted chatrooms: open-access "places" that served as Schelling points for
anyone interested in a topic. There was no real _possibility_ for moderation,
and the sheer scale of the problem (the possibility of a 10000:1 user-to-
moderator ratio) made "community-building" impossible. Also, it was, for many
people, the only place online where they _could_ express themselves—for anyone
who wasn't enough of a wizard to put together HTML and a web-server, the shiny
"POST" button on a forum somewhere was the only way to get their opinion out
there.

The second wave of forums is being built in an environment where everyone has
their own blog (or Twitter/Facebook feed), people can asymmetrically "follow"
one-another's blogs in numerous ways and "unfollow" when they lose interest,
and people each use _many_ small forums to engage in their interests, where
frequently these blog posts are shared (this being the usual way people's
personal blogs get discovered.)

In this newer system, each forum is less like a "place", and more like a
"group"—a circle of friends that happen to share a common interest, but who
also share values that allow them to get along even when not talking about
that interest. People bounce around between many small group-forums (HN being
one of those) until they find a few forums compatible with their values, and
then stay active in _all_ of them, fully comfortable with the idea of
participating in several non-overlapping spheres that _could_ be connected and
mixed together, but that aren't, for social rather than topical reasons.

One more interesting aspect of the newer Internet is that, when engaged in
these group-forums, people naturally lean toward developing "faces": different
presentations of aspects of themselves, tuned to the interests and values of
the group. I would never talk about e.g. my weekends spent with my girlfriend
with my online D&D group, because they're all single so it'd just annoy them.
What I do on the weekend is an aspect of _me_ , but it's not an aspect of
"that guy that posts in that Slack team." And so on for each group-forum we
engage with.

I can understand missing the old "place culture" of the Internet—the heady
days where a forum was just everybody that happened to like something or be
somewhere, where both heavy arguments and friendships could spring up. But I
think I prefer the current culture: the one thing it's done for me,
personally, is to remove some "perennial arguments" from most of the places I
visit. Having a community means being able to have a culture, with cultural
mores like "we know we don't agree about X, and at this point more ink spilled
on the subject is just wasted"—and being able to teach that culture even to
new members who weren't there for the original arguments. There's much less to
roll my eyes at on the new Internet (though there _is_ the whole concept of
"hate-blogging", where people build communities based on a shared _distaste_
for something, and then sometimes things leak out of those communities and
it's quite painful.) It's also much simpler to make "real" friends (as opposed
to acquaintances), since joining a group-forum is less like joining a society
(which tells you nothing about how likely anyone there is to like you), and
more like joining a club (where, if you liked the club enough to join, this
greatly increases your chances you'll like the people _in_ the club enough to
become personal friends.)

~~~
engi_nerd
Reddit's reddiquette advises users to use the downvote arrow only to indicate
that a post is not constructive or off-topic. Further, users are told that
it's best not to downvote just because they disagree with something.

The vast overwhelming majority of users on that site use downvotes to indicate
disagreement, or dislike. That interpretation of downvoting has, like it or
not, spread throughout the internet. Here? Yes, probably even here.

>The first wave of forums were built from the ideas of Usenet, IRC, and ISP-
hosted chatrooms: open-access "places" that served as Schelling points for
anyone interested in a topic. There was no real possibility for moderation,
and the sheer scale of the problem (the possibility of a 10000:1 user-to-
moderator ratio) made "community-building" impossible.

It's quite possible to create a community in an IRC channel. I was part of
several quite vibrant communities in various IRC channels in the mid to late
1990s. It's also possible to moderate IRC channels. You can be kicked out of a
channel for a period of time, banned from channels, or even entire networks.
Operators in individual channels can even choose to grant "voice" to some
people and then set a channel mode (+m, for moderated) so that _only people
with voice can even speak in the channel_.

>One more interesting aspect of the newer Internet is that, when engaged in
these group-forums, people naturally lean toward developing "faces": different
presentations of aspects of themselves, tuned to the interests and values of
the group.

Sociologists have long studied how people present different aspects of
themselves to different groups depending on the norms of those groups. I would
not call that a feature _unique_ to the "newer" Internet, but the newer
internet does allow for greater separation of whatever parts of your
personality you feel like expressing.

I miss the old culture of the Internet because it was easier for me to find
people who shared my interests but had viewpoints different enough from my own
that it was possible to have very interesting conversations. Your definition
of community sounds, quite frankly, rather boring to me. I fall solidly in the
camp of "nothing interesting is happening without a little conflict". What has
been lost on this "newer" Internet is the ability to have an ideological
conflict remain purely ideological. There is a greater tendency for online
conflict to veer into the realm of the personal, especially in these modern
communities that you prefer, because there's a shortage of ideas that are
"permissible" to argue about.

My $0.02, anyway.

~~~
derefr
> It's quite possible to create a community in an IRC channel.

Sure, but it didn't used to be the norm. The usage of IRC has shifted over
time, from "channel-as-place" to "channel-as-community", with many of the
original "channel-as-place" IRC networks now dead or virtual ghost-towns. The
big reason everyone is in a love-fest for Slack but can't quite enunciate is
that it's IRC but with _multiple_ channels for _each_ community, which
encourages people to distinguish the two concepts further.

> I would not call that a feature unique to the "newer" Internet.

I didn't mean to imply it was, but rather that the first-wave of BBSes was a
unique time because there was very _little_ of that; everyone was their full
self, in all their horrible glory.

It may have helped that many Internet users up through the early 90s were
nerds without enough emotional intelligence to see the point in putting up a
face; and that the great number of these made it easier to drop one's own face
without being judged for it.

You can still see this effect on e.g. 4chan, where it's impossible to feel
"excluded" in any ongoing sense, because of the lack of persistent identity.
Anyone who says that "4chan's anonymity is valuable, because it generates a
lot of Original Content" means specifically that _people dropping face_
enables for some uniquely-interesting interactions.

> What has been lost on this "newer" Internet is the ability to have an
> ideological conflict remain purely ideological.

This still happens—but, instead of being an automatic result of everyone just
sort of airing their views in the open and colliding (and then blocking
everyone annoying enough until everyone who's left has this ability), you have
to actively look for a community where "keeping ideological arguments
ideological" is a cultural norm of that community.

[http://slatestarcodex.com/](http://slatestarcodex.com/) 's comments section
(which has somehow become a vibrant community, despite the worst UX for
community-building ever) is a pretty good example: there are people from
everywhere on the political spectrum, of several religions and varying
backgrounds, engaging with one-another on some decidedly controversial topics,
where it's the culture of the community—and the desire not to lose it—that
keeps everything civil.

~~~
engi_nerd
>Sure, but it didn't used to be the norm. The usage of IRC has shifted over
time, from "channel-as-place" to "channel-as-community."

Interesting. My experience is the opposite. The channels I am still involved
with are much less communities now than I knew a couple of decades ago.
Anecdotal so not intended as a refutation to your point, just a "hmm, that's
interesting..."

>you have to actively look for a community where "keeping ideological
arguments ideological" is a cultural norm of that community.

Which is one of the reasons why I like HN. Also the effective moderation here
does help.

