site banner
AnotherSiteAnotherName  2yr ago (text post)   3888 thread views

The Motte and the future

So the move has been made. Potential shut down by Reddit has been avoided. Huzzah!

But people are still worrying about where new members are going to come from. And things are still being organized in the same terrible way as /r/ssc when they were trying to quarantine the culture war from the rest of the sub. And sprinkles around you have a few small threads for other weekly topics or talking about the new site.

A dedicated site deserves a nu start. Rather than purposely making quality writing harder to find, it should be highlighted. (I know the quality contributions roundup exists, but it certainly isn't exhaustive.) Seriously, have you ever gone back and tried to read an old weekly culture war thread with its thousands, potentially tens of thousands of comments? It is an unnecessary slog if you are looking for something and don't have a link. And sometimes you 'continue reading' and go back only to find that you've lost your place. It just makes you say, "I blue myself."

I do have some suggestions on some of the changes I'd like to see more that there is a dedicated website. First, I'd like to see a webpage highlighting quality contributions and other content from the forum. Something that I can easily link a friend to rather than a nested comment in response to some insane person ranting "There's a man inside me!" Or whatever.

Secondly, I think some editorial prompts for content for the sure would be good. Adversarial collaborations and whatever else. Just easier ways to find good writing from the site.

18
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And what would you say to people like me, who have enough experience with the woke that we've concluded progressives are not coming from that position? I absolutely refuse to lie for your feelings. If that means that you're less likely to participate, that is unfortunate but not really a problem; I'm not vulnerable to threats of taking your toys and going home.

There are certain tonal requirements per the rules, sure. But 'polite' does not demand deference to woke's self-image in contradiction of its actions.

Personally, I'd say that you might be on the wrong community.

Ideological diversity is the entire point of this place, and that's not hyperbole, we have a Foundation that defines the point:

The purpose of this community is to be a working discussion ground for people who may hold dramatically different beliefs. It is to be a place for people to examine the beliefs of others as well as their own beliefs; it is to be a place where strange or abnormal opinions and ideas can be generated and discussed fairly, with consideration and insight instead of kneejerk responses.

All of the community's rules must be justified by this foundation.

If you feel so negatively about left-wing people that you're not able to discuss things with them then you're in the wrong place.

I disagree with your interpretation of your Foundation. The entire point of this place is to have a «working discussion ground», that's the first item on the agenda and the value of diversity is contingent on satisfying this criterion.

Some beliefs can be genuinely irreconcilable with that, for example any sincerely held and practiced belief in the utility of shitting up the discussion for most of the people here. Some beliefs are just so epistemologically alien and uncharitable that they don't lend themselves to a productive discussion. Some are plain dumb.

We must not become an echo chamber, but it is perfectly expected that some beliefs, even expressed with formal respect to our tone standards, are in fact not conductive to having a working discussion ground, and the community would be wise to reject them and their adherents precisely to protect its value and purpose. It may be the case that the standard issue Twitter/nu-Reddit militant wokism is grounded in beliefs of this kind.

Ideally, it would be a small sector of the left-wing spectrum, tucked between some dissident post-trotskyism and 4th wave anarcho-feminism. Philosophically, that's roughly what it is. Demographically, it happens to be a big deal.

Some beliefs can be genuinely irreconcilable with that, for example any sincerely held and practiced belief in the utility of shitting up the discussion for most of the people here.

Sure, and we boot people for that.

Some beliefs are just so epistemologically alien and uncharitable that they don't lend themselves to a productive discussion. Some are plain dumb.

This, however, I disagree with. "Their opinions are too uncharitable to be tolerated" is a classic way to shut down differing opinions. So is "their opinions are dumb". It may be true that there are opinions that are thoroughly incompatible with what we're going for here, but so far I haven't seen any; honestly, the general idea that people with differing opinions are unable to have good discussions is the closest I've seen.

This, however, I disagree with. "Their opinions are too uncharitable to be tolerated" is a classic way to shut down differing opinions.

Doesn't this just as easily apply to the earlier post? How do you escape the circle of uncharitability to the supposedly uncharitable? With enough charity in interpretation nearly nothing is uncharitable and the level of charity necessary to apply to social justice posts is the entire question here.

Far too many posts here are along the lines of 'as we all know, the woke progressive left are trying to force their ideology down our throats and the throats of our children to achieve cultural hegemony, and here's the new way that they're doing it'.

Is not a charitable way to interpret the posts in question.

It's not very honest to make me the bad guy here by focusing on meta level ideas about abstract interaction of opinions. In practice, when a Guy comes in with guns blazing and, brandishing his great and novel Beliefs, revives some discussion about, say, Trump supporters being covert Nazis, or people interested in genetics of intelligence being deeply dishonest fascists who need fraudulent science to justify an apartheid state – it... just doesn't matter how eloquent and polite and effortful he is. Because we know how it goes, I do, at least: no amount of good faith argument will achieve anything more than the guy disappearing without conceding a single point; were he honest and as intelligent as the quality of writing indicates, he'd have found all that before anyway. So there'll be some tired snarky response or not even that, he'll leave and/or get baited into a bannable offense, and you'll shake your head about evaporation of dissent.

But I think it's normal that such «dissent» evaporates. If we need new people, we need new people, from similarly niche but different intellectual traditions, people who can take the heat... the light, if you prefer, and keep defending and counterattacking and creating sparks.

I really don't care for a spar with Impassionata, even when she doesn't overstep the bounds of polite discourse. I know how it goes with her. You do too, which is why she had been banned on the sub. But when a newbie comes in with Impassionata-style attitude, is it really our fault that he finds the reception cold?

I didn't say I couldn't discuss things with them. I said I wouldn't lie to them. Interesting that you consider those things equivalent.

When all you have to say to someone is (or should be reasonably interpreted as) psyopping - that's not a discussion in my books. Explicitly declaring total war on the portion of the population you're attempting to converse with does that.

You're free to decide there's no discussion to be had with me. We don't even need to have this discussion about it, you can just stop without trying to convince me to care.

If you think the rules are about tone then you have misunderstood them. The rules have always been about sincerely assuming the best of your ideological opposites, not assuming whatever you like and then applying a varnish of decorum.

Just being honest, it is pretty well known that you can post any uncharitable thing you want as long as you bury it in 500 words and don't descend into slurs.

Yeah and I think it's a shortcoming of the site. It sometimes feels like you can say anything you like so long as you avoid pithiness at all costs and use enough rationalist jargon.

The rules are about tone because they can only be about tone. It is not actually possible to police internal states.

The idea that it is impossible to discern the personally held feelings of posters here towards progressivism because everyone's so level-headed and decorous is frankly risible.

Indeed, the rules are largely ridiculous, as they exist to tone police people whose feelings are not ambiguous. I've criticized them for years.

The rules have always been about sincerely assuming the best of your ideological opposites,

This is not an unlimited line of credit, and this community is not new. This is ground we have trod countless times before; of course there are grooves. For a similar example, claims about the 2020 election being stolen don't get unlimited intellectual charity; we had a more-or-less fair hearing and the stronger claims mostly failed to justify themselves.

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