Confused about what an Intellectual Turing Test is? Click here! Please read, then vote at the end of the post. Feel free to speculate in the comment section about this person’s identity!

What discourse norms do you tend to follow? Why? Do you think everyone else should follow them, and why?

I make a point of being polite; I want to keep lines of communication open, because people who disagree with me can be really valuable. Someone who is skeptical of my conclusions will try harder to poke holes in my logic and might point out something I’ve missed.

There are limits, though. If someone’s just attacking me, or is making genuinely ridiculous demands on me or on society in general, I might decide it’s better to roll my eyes at them or snicker, rather than argue politely.

I do think the world would be a better place if everyone followed the same norms I do; although I of course would never approve of those norms being forced on anyone.

What is the true reason, deep down, that you believe what you believe? What piece of evidence, test, or line of reasoning would convince you that you’re wrong about your ideology?

My family immigrated to the US from a Soviet-sphere country when I was young. (I’m dating myself, I know.) I think that experience, and hearing the experiences of my family members, has made me appreciate the importance of liberty. Social Justice, by attacking people who don’t march in lockstep with SJ beliefs, effectively limits people’s liberty. When people see a fan artist bullied into a suicide attempt by SJWs because she drew a fat character as thin, that inevitably has a chilling effect on speech.

Short of divine intervention, I can’t think of anything that would convince me that my foundational belief in liberty is wrong. But I’m open to changing my mind about less foundational things. At one time, I was pro-life, because although I wasn’t sure if a fetus was a person in morally important ways, I felt it was wrong to risk murdering a lot of people unjustly. Over time, however, I became convinced that a fetus cannot meaningfully be a full person (although it is biologically human tissue), and I now believe abortion should be legal in most cases. In that case, it was reading careful arguments by philosophers that changed my mind.

Explain Gamergate.

The roots of Gamergate are deeper than “The Zoe Post.”

SJWs have been taking over a lot of culture – not with armed force, but with social pressure and unfair accusations of racism and misogyny (and other kinds of bigotry), designed to make all but the most stubborn opponents give in. In the case of gaming, this was shown in unfair reviews that paid more attention to social justice issues than to if the gameplay was actually, you know, good. It showed in awards giving to undeserving, uninteresting games because they checked off the right social justice boxes. And it showed in people – not just fans but also game designers – being afraid of setting off a social justice mob just because a pose was “too sexy” or a game’s avatars were not the SJ-approved race or color.

There were other issues, of course – SJWs make fun of people saying this, but there were (and still are) problems with ethics in gaming journalism. But even more than that, SJW overreach, and people resenting SJW mob tactics, had pushed a lot of people until they were ready to push back. The result, eventually, was GamerGate. (And, in science fiction, Sad Puppies.)