site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   2226 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for September 13, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I can't get over the scene in his mockumentary where the folks at some kind of woke circle realize who he is and kick him out because they "fear for their physical safety."

I find myself wondering: do they really believe this? Do they literally think Matt Walsh is going to rise from his folding chair and physically assault them? I have to think they know they are full of shit and this is just rhetoric to justify kicking someone out whose real crime is being an ass. I do not like Walsh or his tactics, he's a troll, but ffs just say "You're an asshole and we don't feel like being mocked on camera, so gtfo," don't make up some bullshit about fearing for your physical safety.

Do they literally think Matt Walsh is going to rise from his folding chair and physically assault them?

They're not afraid of Matt; they're afraid of his fans, many of whom have no qualms with disrupting their lives with online and offline antics.

That's... okay, I can actually buy that. Having Matt Walsh make fun of you in his movie probably does set you up for harassment by his troll legion.

I am not sure how many of them were actually making that calculation, and how many were just reacting emotionally to a bad man who isn't on their side suddenly appearing in their midst.

If a leftist troll got unmasked at a church or a MAGA event or something, do you think people would be frightened and saying they feel threatened?

I think there may well be a thought process along the lines of "This person is known to unapologetically violate some societal taboos of the highest order. How do I know he won't violate the taboo against suddenly punching his interlocutor in the face? You claim there is a big difference and he for sure won't violate that one, but is it my duty to understand the details of the principles of people with insane evil morality?". There is such a thing as being afraid of something you can't predict - imagine being trapped with a bear (and the claim that this bear is strictly vegetarian at this time of the year) or a member of one of those uncontacted tribes that sometimes shoot outsiders on sight (but sometimes are happy to trade in shells and trinkets).

There is such a thing as being afraid of something you can't predict - imagine being trapped with a bear or a member of one of those uncontacted tribes that sometimes shoot outsiders on sight

Why should I imagine them, and not a member of the society I live in, but one that has a very different worldview? Do you think I have no taboos? The one against surrogacy alone is on the same level as these people have against "racism". It's the fact that you this is considered an apt analogy, while arguing in their defense that gives a massive WTF quality.

I don't mean to argue that the attitude I impute to those people is healthy for themselves or society at large - just that it does not have to be dishonest, nor even made from stuff that is unusual for humans. The less colourful example of a similar sentiment from your ingroup is plain xenophobia (in the traditional, literal sense), like how a British gentleman in the 1850s may have felt queasy about living in a street full of Orientals. This is not to defend being so estranged from internal political opposition that it becomes an unfathomable other to you, but that jug of milk has already been spilt.

What's so surprising about them using words of power to summon The Manager? It's how they solve every interpersonal conflict and take over neutral institutions. It would be an enormous surprise if they didn't reflexively use the same universally successful tactic here.

What's even the point of asking this question? If you're in 1930s Russia, is there any benefit in asking "wow, do you really believe this railyard manager was part of the vast fascist-capitalist-trotskyist conspiracy to wreck the glorious five year plan?"
Just by asking the question you're buying into their frame and positioning the argument right where they want it: fighting over how racist you are for daring to question the lived experiences of trans black womxn.

A 2014 tumblrinaction post doesn't help anything, or it would have stopped this a decade ago. It's been 84 10 years, it's time to let the haughty fake surprise posts go, before you end up saying "these kids are in for a shock when they meet the real world"

Yes, I do think it's useful to question whether people really believe what they are saying.

Your post is very random and appears kneejerk and written without much reflection or content beyond seething at your enemy tribe.

Just by asking the question you're buying into their frame and positioning the argument right where they want it: fighting over how racist you are for daring to question the lived experiences of trans black womxn.

This makes no sense and looks like outrage generated by ChatGPT.

I believe the progressive people in question were doing the same thing.

In other words, they lied and used the privilege of being taken seriously to cover it up.

And to make my point more plainly: yes, I know why they do it. At the same time, maybe I am just too literalist, but I am genuinely curious who is a true believer. Some people did believe in the Red Scare, and heretics, and witches. So when I see a woke person saying, very earnestly, "You are making me feel physically unsafe," I get that it's a tactic, and she probably does "feel" unsafe, but at the same time I don't buy into the whole NPC/zombie meme, so I want to know (and would ask if I were there): "No, seriously, can you explain? Do you think he's literally going to pull a knife on you?"

(It's a good thing I am not a public figure who can be cancelled.)

I suspect that at least some of them are so heavily immersed in the "words are violence" memeplex that they literally no longer see the distinction between someone politely but firmly disagreeing with them, someone teasing them in a good-natured fashion, someone making fun of them in a mean-spirited way (without laying a hand on them) and someone physically assaulting them.

Or they're so fully immersed in safetyism that they're unable to express any objection to a particular person's presence in a particular space without couching it in the language of safety and harm reduction.

The steelman is that stochastic terrorism something something -- you only need one or two complete nutjobs in an audience of (supposedly) three million followers and however many indirect listeners to go on a bizarre stalking incident or drive through someone's front door (or just send a lot of junk e-mails or phone calls, which they counts as physical safety). That's still not a very strong steelman, given how rare it is, but they do act like they believe it.

That said, having seen similar stuff in other environments, I'd expect that the average person is either in the 'it's what I use to win in other contexts' or 'but the politics he advocates would hurt me' or even 'his political aisle used violence somewhere so he must be ejected'.

I find myself wondering: do they really believe this? Do they literally think Matt Walsh is going to rise from his folding chair and physically assault them? I have to think they know they are full of shit and this is just rhetoric to justify kicking someone out whose real crime is being an ass.

I would wager that they do genuinely believe that Walsh presents a danger to them in the moment that can be lessened by him being kicked out. However, that's about the extent of their thinking; there's no actual consideration for logic or physics or logistics of the situation. Rather, the logic is that someone presenting danger is a good reason to kick them out, and therefore if you want to kick someone out, claiming that they're dangerous is a good tactic. But if you claim that someone is a danger despite not believing that they're a danger, then that makes you a liar, which is bad, and you aren't bad. So you come to genuinely believing that this person presents a danger to you.

Do they literally think Matt Walsh is going to rise from his folding chair and physically assault them?

Only as much as it takes for the men they hope will come protect them to take their claims of unsafety seriously. They won’t defend themselves even if he was a threat- that’s beneath them; the most they will do is point their phone cameras (guns by proxy).

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