Theme: in most conflicts, all sides deserve to lose.
"Yeah no. Naked fucking cruelty from a group of people who already know that shibboleths are simply arbitrary tools of social control is not a win for anyone. I thought the people in this space were cool and interested in exploring ideas judgement free and this is anything but."
Postrats get many Ls for being Fascists. I condemn you to be spiteful mutants...oh wait, that already happened.
Moritheil and ZHP get Ls for not realizing 'postrationalist' is yet another euphemism for Fascist. The very first time I saw one I knew they were 'nice' in the [be nice, or else] way, and they have never disappointed my expectations.
ZHP gets an L for getting upset. You don't get upset when your predictions come true.
"His response suggests that he shouldn't be on the internet, however. The social world is broken right now, but getting angry on-line is never the right move."
Note date. Did you enjoy the retrocausal explanation? Very cool.
In short: why are you arguing with Fascists? Communism has never been tried and I guess talking down a communist has never been tried.
Mori gets an L for thinking ZHP is worth defending. He's a liar. He wants you sick and weak. ZHP lets the New Yorker tell him who to care about, such as David Foster Wallace. His prediction failed because he got high on his own supply. I guarantee ZHP tweets put Mori's hackles up, same as they do mine and yours, but Mori ignores the sensation.
Of course there's Ws to go around as well.
Mori has good relationships with several higher-quality people, and postrats really are an insult to rats.
The postrats got all their friends to agree with them. Big ol' hugbox. Lots of self-confidence. ZHP really does let them live rent-free in his head.
ZHP has his 30,000 twitter followers or whatever, and he certainly sees that as a win, and they support his behaviour. Postrat morality really is gay with a side of faggot.
Your tastes may differ, but I find these less important than the part where they have bad judgment of character, can't see the road they're driving on, and/or are Fascist. Further, all three are rooted in the sin of Pride. They're not making different mistakes, they're making the same mistake different ways. Any condemnation between them immediately boomerangs. Accounting adds up to L.
By the way, most likely the real story is everyone wanted to fight because they see themselves winning the fight. Had a craving for conflict and didn't see themselves as guaranteed to lose. The targets were largely incidental. Happenstance.
By the way, let's do a quick spot-check on eigenrobot. In theory he's one of the good ones. In reality he's very good at pretending to follow the rules. Goes a few inferential steps higher.
"i legitimately have no idea what is going on"
Or rather, he knows exactly what's going on, but only at hunch level, and is thus very carefully ensures he doesn't see anything which confirms the hunch and might make him have to take a side.
At best, when it comes down to you vs. the Fascist, he will try to go Switzerland and not take sides. At worst he will attempt to appease the Fascist. The former would be honourable if he took a firm neutral stance, the way Switzerland in fact does, instead of trying to look like everyone's friend.
If you're genuinely neutral you don't try to sound innocent. You don't talk about it at all because you don't care. Imagine Switzerland constantly issuing statements on the yellow vests, the way the CCP is constantly scolding America.
As I mentioned recently, if someone is dishonourable to you, there's no reason not to be dishonourable back, as viciously as possible.
However, more importantly: if it reaches the point where you've allowed someone to be dishonourable to you, you dun fukt up. If you see Aaron coming, build a wall. Don't wait for him to get there. If you can't build a wall to stop him, then you fukt up earlier and now need to undo your error before it compounds. Probably with a GTFO manoeuvre. Though you can also stand somewhere Aaron won't see you. (I do this a lot. E.g. Google wants to delete my blog but doesn't know it exists.) Make sure you don't stand around drooling like an idiot until there's a problem, the way Lucius did.
I once gave a postrat the benefit of the doubt. I let him follow me. Later I made a mild joke about trannies, which was hardly unrelated to his OP, and he immediately went to defcon 2 and used unrelatedness as an excuse. Sadly I'm not disagreeable enough to enjoy being treated like that. I asked myself: did he ever hold a leftist to the alleged standard? No, of course not. Blocked for being a liar. Wall up.
Any unpleasantness was ultimately my own fault, and indeed I knew the risk I was taking. When it didn't pan out, I closed out the postrat's account as far as I was concerned. If I hadn't always been capable of simply blocking him, I wouldn't have taken the risk in the first place.