site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   4372 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 26, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean, one person mentioned that Zorba should talk with you about whether you want to remain part of the community. The others were just saying you should no longer be a mod. The latter is pretty reasonable on a few levels and not comparable to saying you shouldn't be part of the community.

At the end of your conversation, nobody was threatening any longstanding impact or indicating that they would treat you differently moving forward.

I think the main difference is that I had no clout to begin with. If I were a mod I'm sure that one guy would have been calling for my de-modship. As-is he just advocated for less respect to be given to religion here. "Time to burn some witches". Hard to treat me differently moving forward if I am not really a character on this site the way you were--most of these people won't interact with me ever again regardless. I don't have much goodwill to lose in the first place, at least not nearly as much as you did.

Dismissal isn’t comparable, either. People weren’t coming around en masse to tell Kulak he didn’t belong in the community after the article. They just disagreed with it!

Sure. The nature of the sin was different--idiocy versus dishonesty. Not to mention Kulak has never had (and certainly doesn't now have) the influence here which you wielded at the time that piece was released.

I still haven't read the vast majority of the responses to your piece. I'm sure you know more about it than I do. I just think you took the wrong lesson away from it. The bad reception was because we're highly committed to honesty, not because we're highly committed to the Right.

one person mentioned that Zorba should talk with you about whether you want to remain part of the community.

Reread this and think about the words you wrote, please.

that one guy

You're linking one heavily downvoted jerk, but also--that's the point. Yes, being a somewhat public figure means more people have more opinions about you more aggressively. Having hundreds of people pile on you at once, many of them people you've had longstanding friendly relationships with, feels very very different than a single contentious conversation.

Anyway, since you're mentioning the reaction to the banned books list, look at it. He got some light criticism, a few people questioning his premise, quite a bit of interest. That's it. Nothing particularly notable, nothing dramatic.

The bad reception was because we're highly committed to honesty, not because we're highly committed to the Right.

There are high motives and low motives for every decision. I wouldn't flatter yourself too much here (though I also wouldn't imply that no critics had good points.) I didn't walk away thinking "these guys are highly committed right-wing partisans," I thought, "Huh, these people are willing to make and nod along to false, conspiratorial claims about me and hop in on a massive dogpile in which my character, my motives, and my membership in this space all become topics of heated controversy, thinking the worst of me and extending no grace whatsoever in a time when I could really use it." Unless you've been on the other end of something like that, I suggest not acting too much as if you know what it's like.

Similarly, you can choose to believe that it's just partisanship making people react in silly ways, but I've been around here a very long time and watched many of the best people here move on due to one or another comparable frustration. Explanations of why this forum zeitgeist was acting reasonably and nobly every time only go so far. At some point, it becomes simpler to leave than to explain, and poster after poster has made that calculation.

Anyway, that's enough talk of the bad blood. I usually don't bring it up because at this point I'm in a very lucky position on the whole and I prefer to remember the good memories here. There's plenty of good here, now as ever; I'm just some guy who's been around far too long and seen far too much.

Yeah, I don't think we're going to reach agreement on this, but I appreciate the time you've taken to discuss it.

All the best.

As a postscript, two final notes on the reaction at the time that I was looking for and finally found -- this is the full set of reactions to my original comment, and this is rdrama's reaction to the motte's reaction. Note in particular this comment and the replies below it from people who frequent both forums.

https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/TheMotte/comments/ubedpi/_/i6p0wyy/#comment-info

If you're going to be a journalist, you need to be careful about precisely this type of thing.

You created and printed out fake worksheets to back up your claims. That's a level of preparation most 'it was only a prank' jokes don't go for. Now, the next time anyone gets a story with alleged "here is hard copy evidence", how are they to believe it's true? How do they decide or weight "don't investigate this, it's all fake like that furry story"? There are exactly these kind of stories about "here's the curriculum about CRT/gender and transgender that the school board is pushing on the kindergarten classes" going around, with alleged 'hard copy' evidence of "this is a screenshot of the actual teaching materials". Whatever level of scepticism that should always be around such allegations, now you've made it tougher to risk "if I go ahead with this story, will I end up looking like a fool?" and that is a loss for the public interest, because if these stories are fake, we need to know, and if they're true we need to know, too.

You've pissed in your own nest, sorry to say.

This post was spot on. That's what people who want to dismiss the evidence say every time now, and you helped them. LoTT has been one of the only people actually gathering and publicizing evidence of the batshit things teachers are pushing on American kids, and she was your first target, coincidentally(?) at the same time as the entire left wing organized a simultaneous assault trying to ruin her life.
Just why, dude.

I resent the implication! I'm being taken out of context. Cherry-picked I tell yah! I'm sorry that I've provided the one bit of lame pushback against religiosity both acerbic and 2002 atheist cringe basic enough to be used as evidence of a greater conspiracy against Tenaz.

El Motte Parte Dos has a lot of religious folks these days that aren't shy about treating it as the truth and even openly evangelizing, which still strikes me as something weird for a place that is supposedly honestly truth seeking and at least rational adjacent. Can't help it if that grinds my gears.

There's no conspiracy--it's just a right-leaning post of mine that (rightfully) saw a lot of pushback.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats