Hello everyone! The mods at got back to me about the removal of my essay (makes more sense to call it that than a mere "comment"), and this is what they said:
Now this is coming from the mod team, It's still possible that their condemnation came as a result of mass report abuse as I suspected. It definitely arrived at their attention because of it.
In any case, I'm not fussed about it and neither should you be, nor am I saying it's justified. This is merely the way the internet works on large platforms like reddit, and when things get frontpage attention the rules are different. Yes, people say the same or worse every single day on , , and nearly every political subreddit you can think of. There's also a positive correlation between the amount of attention a given work receives and the amount of scrutiny it draws. I didn't set out the other day to write an op ed in the New York Times, or even make a viral reddit thread! Regardless, it resonated with tens of thousands of you because there is a deeper truth that is recognizable, but not yet refined. That said, I want to take a moment to address a common criticism that it's received:
This essay paints conservatives with a broad brush, and does not include enough nuance.
Yeah. Duh. I'm talking about roughly 100 million people in the Unites States alone. That's the right brush for the job.
There seems to be this idea from both well meaning critics and bad faith trolls that if I don't say something comprehensive then it is not correct. According to my word of the day calendar this is balderdash.
Let's lean into this, though. How much nuance is necessary? Apparently in order to avoid the wrath of the mods all I need to do is say the magic words, "Not all conservatives necessarily think this way," and all is well, easily done. But don't we already know that? Isn't a little bit of nuance implied? Is it too much to ask that I assume a certain amount of intelligence from my audience, such that the concept of exceptions to rules isn't a foreign one?
Let's say I can't. Am I obligated, as some critics say, to mention exceptions to the rule? If so, how many? What about the fiscally conservative but socially liberal? Whatabout the libertarians? Whuddabout green conservatism, pragmatic conservatism, right wing populists, Reagan Democrats, the Nativists, the "small-c" conservatives, the--
You get the idea. Grouping people together based on identity is infinitely multiplicative,
Suffice it to say, groups are groups because they share things in common, and it's okay to talk about those things in broad terms so long as you're not being discriminatory towards people for their immutable characteristics, such as race, gender identity, ethnicity, religion, etc. That's what the and are for.
However, One cannot attack another group based on "Identity," which isn't really defined, and could be defined by any characteristic, immutable or not. Likewise you can't attack an individual because that's harassment. There's no clear standard for what the difference is between an attack and a criticism, and therein lies the trapdoor we stand upon. Anything you say can and will be used against you with a report function.
Reading my original words above, it doesn't even expressly demonize conservatives. It certainly doesn't demonize "all" conservatives, because I never used that word either. All of that is in the admin's head, who is making inferences based on their best, but ultimately human judgement. I'm not mad about it, but I want to clarify this:
I don't think it makes someone a bad person to not want a better world for everyone. If that's not something that motivates you, it's not up to me to force you to be different. Most conservatives do operate on a completely different moral spectrum than we do, and that's okay. When one is advocating for and enacting policy that causes undue harm to others, violates their civil rights, and erodes the fabric of this nation, that's when it's a problem. That's an ideologically neutral litmus test that can be applied fairly to anyone. If an admin extrapolates that value judgement differently, that's on them. For my part, this is the last I'm talking about this moderation incident. More important work lies ahead.
Finally, I will address one other very common criticism:
The essay wasn't civil, and it paints conservatives in a bad light.
There is a difference between being civil and being nice. I'm not nice. If some performative markers of civility are needed to keep my content up, so be it. To be clear, after five years of "Own the libs" and "Fuck your feelings" I don't owe them civility either, but to you I do, because these ideas are worth developing, spreading, and percolating in the minds of the persuadable. I need your help to do that.
Until then, enjoy your Memorial Day weekend. I will be back next week.
