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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Noob question: Can someone explain to me why arguing for something you don't believe in can sometimes get you modded or at least warned? I've witnessed it a few times and don't understand what the personal beliefs of the author have to do with the quality of an argument.
Example:
https://www.themotte.org/post/530/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/108271?context=8#context
It's worth mentioning that it's fine to present arguments against what you think if you're transparent that that's what you're doing (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain), so that shouldn't really hurt your ability to make any argument.
More options
Context Copy link
If person A is arguing thing B I disagree with because A believes B, I may want to write a thoughtful reply convincing A of !B.
If person A is arguing thing B I disagree with for some other reason, I definitively don't want to write such a reply, because A already believes !B and doesn't need convincing.
If P(person A believes B|person A argues B without noting devil's advocacy) drops significantly below 1, it therefore becomes a much-less-good deal for me to make those kinds of replies - which are at the core of the kind of discourse theMotte attempts to nurture. I risk wasting my time and feeling stupid.
To troll is to drag a baited hook through the water, punishing those who bite down. If you want to encourage people to bite down on food, therefore, it's best to forbid baited hooks. Signposted devil's advocacy is fine, though, because the hook's not baited.
More options
Context Copy link
You have to realize on the internet, when you arrive in a space your first original idea has probably been done a hundred times before and become annoying.
If I go on a Sixers fan forum and suggest trading Tobias Harris, the regulars will jump in with a million jokes about my ability to sustain an erection or mocking me for thinking they'll trade him straight up for Ja Morant. Trading Harris is super obvious and most sixers fans kinda want to see it, but it's been gone over a hundred million times already anywhere fans congregate.
Patterns emerge of bad content, even if it seems fine to a newbie eye, which will get noticed by mods.
More options
Context Copy link
First, the guy’s arguments were terrible, intentionally so. He never stuck arounnd to win any debate, and he had some weak opponents.
Second, why is lying bad, is that your question? It’s a very lossy, costly form of communication. Imagine if a sizeable minority of the people here were just aping their opponents to make them look bad or to troll, and this was accepted practice.
The other commenters would have to spend energy figuring it out, and then either : respond in kind with even stupider arguments, which will attract actual idiots, thinking they are in good company. Or call out the dishonesty, which is against the rules – you can’t have both the expectation to be believed and the normalization of lying.
But okay, say you favour the latter and consequently the mods should get rid of the charity rule. Every statement woud have to be double-checked and evaluated against all of a user’s other comments to maintain the coherence of his presented worldview. The coherence of even honest opponents’ worldviews would be called into question. Every debate, not just those presented by a few suspect users, would devolve into the question ‘is he lying?’.
So ironically, if we take the statements of likely liars at face value, all statements would no longer be worthy of being taken at face value.
Lying leads to suspicion, and the more suspicion, the harder it becomes to discuss the object level issues, “something-lurker” .
To me, devil's advocacy, false flagging and lying are not synonymous. I often use it in my personal life if I'm genuinely undecided on an issue or want to make sure my understanding of my "enemy" does not amount to a strawman.
That said, from the other replies I gather trolls can use it to waste time. I don't understand the mechanisms completely but I'll just trust the more experienced posters for now. I also didn't know that it's fine to argue for anything as long as my real worldview is stated for context, which resolves any issue I have with this rule.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
All of our rules, but especially the requirement to speak plainly, are meant to encourage good faith engagement where you can reasonably assume that the person you are talking to is being honest and straightforward with you and not playing games, trolling, collecting examples of "bad responses" for future use, or trying to spring a gotcha on you. We are extremely permissive about allowing almost any argument, but we are very strict about how you present those arguments.
If you want to play devil's advocate, or steelman a position you don't necessarily endorse, you need to be up front about it.
Additionally, mods often see things you do not, which also informs our decisions about whether we believe someone is a bad actor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link