site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   6208 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for December 2022

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

A few comments from the editor: first, sorry this is a little late, but you know--holidays and all. Furthermore, the number of quality contribution nominations seems to have grown a fair bit since moving to the new site. In fact, as I write this on January 5, there are already 37 distinct nominations in the hopper for January 2023. While we do occasionally get obviously insincere or "super upvote" nominations, the clear majority of these are all plausible AAQCs, and often quite a lot of text to sift through.

Second, this month we have special AAQC recognition for @drmanhattan16. This readthrough of Paul Gottfried’s Fascism: Career of a Concept began in the Old Country, and has continued to garner AAQC nominations here. It is a great example of the kind of effort and thoughtfulness we like to see. Also judging by reports and upvotes, a great many of us are junkies for good book reviews. The final analysis was actually posted in January, but it contains links to all the previous entries as well, so that's what I'll put here:

Now: on with the show!

Quality Contributions Outside the CW Thread

@Tollund_Man4:

@naraburns:

@Bernd:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@RandomRanger:

@Iconochasm:

Contributions for the week of December 5, 2022

@zeke5123:

@ymeskhout:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@gattsuru:

@Southkraut:

@Bernd:

@problem_redditor:

@FCfromSSC:

@urquan:

@gemmaem:

Sexulation

@RococoBasilica:

@problem_redditor:

Holocaustianity

@johnfabian:

@DaseindustriesLtd:

@SecureSignals:

Coloniazism

@gaygroyper100pct:

@screye:

@urquan:

@georgioz:

Contributions for the week of December 12, 2022

@SecureSignals:

@Titus_1_16:

@Dean:

@cjet79:

@JarJarJedi:

@gattsuru:

@YE_GUILTY:

@aqouta:

@HlynkaCG:

Contributions for the week of December 19, 2022

@MathiasTRex:

@To_Mandalay:

Robophobia

@gattsuru:

@IGI-111:

@NexusGlow:

Contributions for the week of December 26, 2022

@FCfromSSC:

@gattsuru:

@LacklustreFriend:

@DaseindustriesLtd:

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I get a QC for what was an explicitly quick and sloppy post without any editing or proofreading. This shames me. Is it the length? It must be true what they say. All that counts on the Motte is the length.

Well, I just lost my AAQCinity by sneering about feminism. The Motte just loved Germans this month.

All that counts on the Motte is the length.

Definitely feels that way. The Holocaust "Revisionist" dude wrote a lot of text, but (despite the claims of some other commenters) didn't actually cite any sources that provided evidence for his claims. He linked to some dramatic pictures and historical documents, but e.g. the claim about Majdanek is both uncited and irrelevant.

I would imagine there is an extremely strong correlation between the length of a post and the amount of effort put into a post (and theoretically, quality). Writing a long post that isn't complete gibberish at least requires some effort and forethought.

No longer true in the age of GPT-N.

A good short post can require a lot more effort and forethought. "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time," famously.

But figuring out what you can safely omit for brevity requires you to make assumptions about your audience, whereas length adds accessibility. Even if you could correctly say "I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin comment is too narrow to contain", who's going to trust that except (a fraction of) those who already agree with your conclusion? If you cite more sources and lay out a complete web of arguments, people who disagree with you become likely to actually find some specific and objective point of contention to reconsider or refute. And then even if your conclusion (or at least its support) falls apart because it turns out you made a logical mistake in step 9 or trusted a lousy source in step 10, at least steps 1-8 or even 11-22 might still have value in other contexts.

I wonder to what extent does the following fall into the category of "right-wing wrongthink" in Germany?

  1. Right-wing interpretations of the various Communist uprisings in Germany between 1918-1921

  2. A similar examination of the policy of the Communist Party of Germany in the Weimar Republic

I'm asking because I think there is a possibility in the future that Die Linke will have to be invited to the governing coalition after a federal election in Germany.

I can’t speak for German schoolbooks, but the Weimar Republic and Hitler’s rise to power is an optional topic in the British GCSE history syllabus. The 1918-1921 period is taught from an “Ebert good” perspective and is fairly both-sidesist about the Kapp and Spartakist putsches. There isn’t enough time to cover the Weimar era political parties in any detail, so the only thing that comes up about the KPD is that they wouldn’t support an anti-NSDAP coalition government when it would have made a difference.

Based on the reading around the course I did, this is consistent with the consensus of English-language historians who are not writing explicitly pro-communist history.

That's actually pleasantly surprising.

I'm not clear on what you mean by right-wing interpretations or examinations. Please clarify.

I'll give it a shot.

As far as I can tell, the rightist view was that Communists are the enemies of the German nation, which they explicitly wanted to dissolve together with all others, agents of chaos and degeneracy, with Jews overrepresented, and had to be fought by the means the German state still had on hand, which were the Freikorps (officers' detachments) and nothing else i.e. the struggle of the Freikorps was legitimate.

With respect to the KPD, the predominant criticism against them is, as far as I can tell, that their actions were a necessary (but not solely sufficient) prerequisite of the Nazi seizure of power. Also, their "anti-fascist action" was 1. a farce (as they considered Social Democrats and all right-wing parties to be fascists) 2. counterproductive (as it played into the hands of Nazis).

Honestly, that's largely too academic for it to feature at all in public discourse. The vast majority of Germans will discuss these topics exactly once - in school - and never think about them again. And in school during my time the narrative was one of good versus evil, i.e., SPD and associates against NSDAP and nazi collaborators. Jewish representation wasn't a topic at all, Jews were simply the sacred cows of victimhood. Nitty-gritty details like actual uprisings, socialist republics, street fighting, Freikorps were ignored altogether.

Modern retellings of the entire era in Germany really, really don't manage to be anything other than extremely moralizing condemnations of anything associated with the nazis - anything from conservatives to nationhood to the military to Germany as a whole. Documentaries, public speeches, museum exhibits, doesn't matter. The Weimar Republic - all of it - is in most contexts nothing more than story about how the nazis came to power, and everyone likes to not think about it.

So I guess strictly speaking what you wrote is wrongthink, but it's also a non-topic in general.

Not much to add (maybe later, or if there is a question I can actually speak to), but I just wanted to confirm what Southkraut said here. It matches my own experience in German schools to a t.

I'll have to say I'm somewhat surprised. (Not regarding the part about Jewish sacred cows though, that's for sure.) One a scale of 1-10, my surprise is maybe level 3 or 4. After all, the 1918-21 period was crucial for the entire German nation, no matter how we slice it. Nationhood itself was at stake. But again, I'm not that surprised that awareness of this is basically suppressed.

(For example, I once came across descriptions about the Ruhr Uprising of 1920, which I actually never heard anything about before, and later found that only rather scant information is available about this even in German, even though this event had clear long-term political ramifications; also, the numerous leftist victims of the uprising's suppression by the Freikorps only actually have one obscure monument dedicated to them in Hagen, which I guess even local antifa never visit. And the monument dedicated to the suppressors actually still stands in Essen!)

But anyway, portraying the SPD as the gread force of good against the Nazis? Really? That's almost comical, consider just how useless that party actually was (and have always been), on balance, when it came to actually ever reaching its stated aims. Zentrum was arguably a much more serious opponent of the Nazis.

I don't generally nominate QCs myself (since I'm the final arbiter of what gets into the report) but at a guess, you gave a straightforward and informed take on something most Mottizens know little about. I see a lot of AAQC nominations from people who seem to feel like they've learned something. Of course, it's possible to feel that way while "learning" false things, or while learning nothing at all! But this is not the "actually true and meticulously edited" report.

Mine was an unusually short one :shrug: you only need to hit a certain wavelength that gets a handful of people to really like the post and that doesn't necessarily directly align with quality as much as we'd hope.

Is @Southkraut correct that Mottizens are dyed-in-the-wool Size Queens? Or, as @aqouta protests, is the motion of the ocean more important than the size of the boat? Perhaps this question is only girthy enough for the Small Scale Questions thread.

Nah, we just like side-strange. It's fun to cheat on American politics with German or Finnish politics for a fling or ons.

Or a bastardized version of Warhammer 40k politics (my nomination this time).

Side-strange is definitely the way to go for AAQCs. It's never what I consider my best posts that get nominated, but almost always what I consider my unique posts.

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