From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

Nextdoor is a Social Platform, that felt that removing anonymity, keeping it local, and better policing/community standards would make a different type of Social Media platform. While the created might have been well intentioned leftist activists, they failed to understand that wokescolds will ruin everything you give them a voice in. So it has all the maturity and depth of a Twitter, wrapped in false civility and double standards of leftist PC thought-police, moderating anything.


It can best be summed up by an exchange I had with one of the local self-assigned moderators, who tried to Socratically barb me with the question of what I thought Nextdoor was for, and how it was different from other Social Media. (This was from someone who always politely supported one of the local environmental activists, and politely scolded anyone that questioned her obnoxious sanctimony or false information and scaremongering).

My Reply

My perception of Nextdoor is that it's like the Stanford Prison experiment, meant to prove the wokescolds will ruin everything with their unique combination of know-it-all sanctimony and complete lack of self-awareness towards their own actions (and hypocrisy).

So Nextdoor assumed that by eliminating anonymity that people would behave better. But it fails to understand that democracy is only as successful as the culture it's practiced in. If you give a bunch of bay-area fascists democracy, they will use it to vote everyone that disagrees with them off the island. (They also misunderstand what fascism is, so see that term an extreme insult, when it was a political position that advocated for regulatory social democracy and collectivism, with socialist ends justifies the means overtones).

So wokescolds like Tessa will use Nextdoor to spread their form of hate (of capitalism, economics, tolerance, free speech), to try to bully everyone else into thinking/acting in a way that they want. While others who align with her views, will expend their energies scolding anyone who responds with some more reasonable counter-balances or who replies with more factual based information. Not to mention they'd be outraged if someone was putting up information about marching for pro-life issues, a MAGA rally, or anything that didn't conform with their political alignment... all under the cover of the selectively applied terms of use.

Thus it's like the other social platforms, but worse because of the hypocrisy and lack of introspection of many of the list moms and people that feel a need to control others, is wrapped in the false flag over remaining civil towards others while they are uncivil to any voice that contradicts their own views. It's all the worst sanctimony of Facebook, with some fake civility that's not present in twitter, but still with the same agendas of the most vocal participants: to make themselves or their causes appear the biggest victims, when really, their henpecking activism and intolerance towards others disagreeing with them is what causes the backlash that they play the victims over.

Since I'll be relocating in 6 months to Free America / Texas. (We've been driven out of California by the intolerance of the community), I'll be curious to see if the tyranny of the majority works better in a social platform in Red States or not. Historically, I feel that progressives are valuable and reasonable as long as they don't get 50%+1 of the vote, as they value consensus and recognize when they don't have it. And they only become insufferable once they have the plurality or majority. But I'll find out. (As usual, Nextdoors policies are poorly thought out, and I can't join my new community, until I take possession of the property and get the postcard from it).

Why, what do you see about Nextdoor that makes it different?

Homeless Exchange

I outraged Nextdoor neighbors when they asked how to address Homelessness, and I explained some of the problems.


There are many reasons for homelessness. But there’s a truism — they’re like really smart squirrels: if you feel/house them, they will come, and you will get more.

Since no one actually wants them around (despite their claims to the opposite) — everyone has a disincentive to help for any length of time. You do something nice, and in return you find needles, refuse, and a few smelly crazies screaming at your kids. So the money dries up, the programs decay, and then they get shoo’ed off somewhere else. My solution was, “I give generously to the town next to mine”.

The pied piper. We should start programs in each others communities to help and try to get free market competition going. The more you donate to your neighbors, the cleaner your neighborhood will be.

They lost their nut at what a heartless bastard I was. But I was trying to explain that’s better than being a brainless bastard. If you have rich communities, donating heavily to other areas to lure the problem away (instead of see suffering as the payback for their donations), they see a net ROI of fewer refuse/homeless and crazies. That will incentivize them to donate more. (You get what you incentivize). So they will give more over time, instead of less -- which is how the system works now. It fixes NIMBY with BMNBY (Better my neighbors back yard).

You would end up have communities fighting to donate more and more to help the homeless... go somewhere else. The amount of money you have going in to helping the homeless would skyrocket. Poor states and areas could start programs to house them, and other cities/states could sponsor them (as long as they could ship more there). If you believe in the programs helping people, this is a net good.

The problem is you take away people’s sanctimony card. They no longer get to feel superior because they’re donating for self-interest. (The housing values or safety in their neighborhoods). And some prefer the sanctimony to actually helping more. more...

Of course the neighbors were mortally offended by such reasoning, not because it is wrong, but because it is both right and it offends their reason for being: to hold the moral high ground. When given the choice of solving problems, or perpetuating problems but feeling superior, the far left (and thus far left communities) will always choose the latter, and attack anyone who tries to open their eyes to the former. Thus I was attacked, had polite posts removed, and harassed for making such posts. While the moderators ignored those who behaved worse, but were more in the majority of the collective outrage mob.


📚 References

Written 2018.10.09