Specifically, the main quality factors in people reading a Wikipedia page are (a) the existence of the page (!), (b) whether the page has the stuff they were looking for.
(c) whether the information on the page is accurate.
I proxied the first by number of pages, and the second by length of the pages that already existed.
Except not all topics and not all information are of equal interest to people.
In this approach, you concede a need to at least occasionally intervene in a particular kind of dispute such as banning the white supremacists
Another problem with this is what does one mean by "white supremacists"? The definition used by the people who most advocate banning them tends to include anyone who believes in certain statements about the differences between races that are almost certainly true. For example, how race correlates with IQ. This is especially a problem for a forum that wants to be "rational".
You seem to be conflating quantity and quality.
To mention the elephant in the living room, I wonder if the increasingly broken wikipedia mod culture has something to do with this.
What about ostensibly apolitical posts that nonetheless use hot button issues as examples?
What about situations where a hot button issue comes up in the context of discussion?
Here is Vox Day explicitly arguing that if conservatives can be fired for expressing their opinions, so should NFL player for disrespecting the flag.
We all know that the NFL wouldn't hesitate to act if players started throwing Nazi salutes; they already come down hard on the expression of any opinion that is negative about homosexuality.The Rubicon has been decisively crossed, so it's time to start cracking down on "speech" Americans don't like.Always play by the rules that are actually in place, not by the rules that you wish were in place.
We all know that the NFL wouldn't hesitate to act if players started throwing Nazi salutes; they already come down hard on the expression of any opinion that is negative about homosexuality.
The Rubicon has been decisively crossed, so it's time to start cracking down on "speech" Americans don't like.
Always play by the rules that are actually in place, not by the rules that you wish were in place.
This certainly seems rather accusatory, seeing as (as far as I know) Ozy doesn't actually support doxxing random social media users and is certainly not responsible for the actions of the entire SJ movement.
Except the OP is presented as an arguments against the elements of SJ that would oppose it.
Ozy's claim here, as far as I can tell, is that, even if people on Our Side stopped doing bad things, that wouldn't automatically cause people on The Other Side to stop doing bad things. Do you actually think that Ozy is wrong about this, or do you only disagree that the evidence they present is sufficient?
Yes, it's a lot easier to maintain a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium than to return to one once you're side has started defecting.
Also, many people who dox don't conceive of the situation in this way. "I doxxed someone, so in return I got doxxed. Therefore, I will never dox again." No, when they dox people it's good because those people are bad; when they get doxxed it's bad because they're a good person.
While near as I can tell this does seem to be a good description of how SJ's think, the typical way the Alt-Right thinks is, "The SJ's dox us, therefore we're justified in doxxing SJ's".
"intersectional" strikes me as an example of an intentionally confusing term, at least I've never been able to figure out a meaning beyond "a word people throw into arguments to make it a norm violation to notice that said arguments make no sense".