@Countermeasures @judgedread As noted, this is a :checkem::moon: problem: I'm complaining about the zealots, and people want to debate the merits of the zealots' worldview. Engaging means that I have let the zealots control the agenda, so I probably shouldn't. (See the top post in the thread.)

I posted something about some code I wrote, and I'm scrolling through the notifications and for the nth day, it's people that are three degrees downstream from someone that wants to shift the Overton window. Exactly one person perused the code enough to give feedback, a single line of feedback; a few people told me they couldn't understand it, and those people were coders; and, finally, I got a flood of horseshit and it was all the same flavor. What the flavor was doesn't matter, really; I've got my own philosophical horseshit to litter the roads with, and I don't even want to do that.

So, you know, that having been said, I keep jumping on this with both feet and I don't see a reason to stop now.

> injustice associated with putting the boots to the entire group

I'm a little less concerned with whether the world is just than I was when I was wee. Justice is a personal concern: you can't be a society. I'm not going to take responsibility for society, but I can take responsibility for myself.

Race is a bad heuristic for real decisions. If someone wants to use it, they're free to cause themselves problems. I won't be conscripted, I don't want to hear their sales pitch, and I sure as hell don't want to get all the tardspam. That was the topic: getting spammed by retards. One man with a thousand megaphones, to borrow a metaphor from the (very good, though it seems to have 404'd) article you sent me, is giving me tinnitus. I'd really like to talk about code (which is relevant to me) and not constantly get the sales pitch (which is not) from the shills. The shills don't want to let you opt out, and that was my complaint.

Other than that, how someone makes decisions doesn't cause me trouble, until they start trying to decide for society. Since a lone guy can't decide for society, people try to build a rudder, and once there is a rudder, without exception the wrong person will get his hand on the wheel, and again without exception, he will completely fuck it up.

> By an accident of birth that could be *us*.

Once the ruleset includes doing it to them, it includes doing it to whoever else. I can't help noticing that I happen to be whoever else.

> *capture the enforcement mechanisms*.

This is the issue, you know? The enforcement mechanisms are too big and too pervasive. It's not a problem that the wrong people got their hands on them: it's a problem that they exist. The problems you describe in this paragraph and the next paragraph completely are reliant on the existence of those mechanisms and the willing serfs. There's no opt-out, and there is only one reason to create a system which people are born into with no opt-out.

> will not actively report bad faith actors in the group to the enforcers in the larger society.

Yeah, you cannot have people that expect to engage with an open society but to preserve their ingroup's insularity; that's their problem, not mine. To pick a relatively neutral example, there are forums that engage in this kind of extremely insular behavior, but that stick their tendrils into other places, like fedi. Or the ISD/BMBF/BND: I don't get to participate in the German government's decision-making process, so it's maximally insular from my perspective, so I would like to minimize German government influence.

> It's a big mess, and I haven't even gotten started on the *religious* aspects of this problem.

Yeah, I've seen that, I forget the word, "fix the world", one of the schools of thought has that as a tenet. Whatever philosophy requires you to interfere with other people against their will, compel them indirectly by controlling their society, etc., that's a diseased philosophy: "I have a divine mandate to fuck with you and I don't have time for your concerns so I'm going to build a rudder". That was my complaint with the tardspam: they lose their shit over my complete inability to care what they have to say. It is the most important thing to them and they can't maintain that worldview without total buy-in to the collective delusion of their choice.

So, the solution is a force-multiplier, and that's why I am writing this code, and I'm kind of in the middle of nowhere so if I want to bounce ideas off anyone, it's the internet, but as @pnotifbot indicates, I've been getting an unusually high number of notifications since I started pushing this code. As I'm both paranoid and cynical, I can't help but wonder if someone intends to frustrate me, but the decision tree doesn't branch whether or not that is real or driven by paranoia: I end up doing the same thing whether I assume it is true or I assume it is false, which means it doesn't matter. Whatever people think about any other given race or religion, it's the same. I can only afford to worry about things that actually do affect my decisions.