naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29363 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
We are far from the content-free insult comment you tried to pin on him at first. Your examples are not even 10% as bad as guesswho’s comment.
Your assessments are your own, but it seems to me that the initial reply to the Kaplan post, at least, was considerably worse. Further, have you considered his extensive explanations of how his initial post was entirely innocent and reasonable and anyone who thinks otherwise is just being irrationally hostile? If not, give it a read; if you feel up to continuing this conversation the additional context might help.
I am quite certain that guesswho is darwin, and I think it's reasonably likely they'll either admit it eventually or a solid consensus will emerge among the rest of the posters, including yourself; to my eye the stylistic tics are too numerous and obvious to ignore. I want to be clear, though: I think the question of whether they actually are darwin or not is essentially trivia. What I think actually matters is that their posts are bad in a very, very similar way to the way darwin's posts were bad. To the extent that people remember darwin fondly, I think that is because they do not actually remember what he was like. To the extent that darwin's treatment is significant, I think it's worth looking at the nature of his participation.
In any case, we've looked at five threads, and it seems to me that at in at least four of those threads, we're pretty far from Darwin being a high-quality contributor who got snippy with people who were rude to him. Would you agree that in those threads, we've seen him initiating with low-effort and highly inflammatory posts, and that other posters expend significant effort attempting to have a civil conversation without much success?
I can’t believe this discussion has logically arrived at a point where I’m supposed to make “Darwin’s 10 shittiest arguments ever” for him, which I am positive I am 100% opposed to.
I do not think the arguments we're looking at are unusually bad relative to Darwin's average output; my memory is that his posting quality was as consistent as it was awful. unfortunately, I think you do actually have to do this, for a simple reason that I hope I can now demonstrate.
“Well, I think it makes a rather big difference whether the state enforces censorship, or private persons. For one, no one gets put in jail. For two, the option is still there in theory. Obviously government censorship is far more absolute. And it would violate people’s right of self-association to force them to provide services to just anyone. If Jeff Bezos only wants to sell diverse literature, that is his inalienable right.” Or something? I’m going to take a pass on the connection to communism, but I’m sure an argument can be made somehow.
This is an entirely reasonable interpretation of Darwin's initial comment, and it seems pretty similar to the interpretation several of the posters went with when formulating replies, which were then ignored. I think what you wrote would have been a much better comment than what he went with, considerably less inflammatory, and somewhat higher in content. Unfortunately, the problem is that this is an argument you are imagining, not the argument Darwin actually is making. He absolutely is not claiming that Bezos or any other businessman has a right to sell whatever they choose. He absolutely is not arguing that private censorship is okay (or wrong), or even agreeing that state censorship is wrong (or okay). The argument you are imagining does not exist in that thread.
That may seem like a strong claim. Fortunately, I can prove it pretty solidly, because in that very thread darwin himself very explicitly said so.:
Not exactly. As you imply, I'm really speaking for a more moderate and nuanced position on the whole issue.
I'm attempting to illustrate how extreme the position I'm responding to is, by drawing a parallel to another ideology which the speaker themself would probably find radical and objectionable.
Yes, I am a little worried about deplatforming in cases where corporations have monopolistic power to distort the public discourse in coercive/violent ways, and I've talked a lot about that - my hope is that we can find a technological solution using decentralized social media platforms, but that may be too optimistic and we might have to do something more drastic eventually.
But I also think that the extreme version of this ideology - coercing private entities to host speech and actions they disagree with, making it functionally impossible for people to build private spaces with the people and discourse they prefer, limiting societies ability to condemn and ostracize bad or dangerous ideas - is just another form of tyranny and violent coercion all it's own.
This isn't a situation where you can make simple categorical imperatives and ignore all nuance - either direction you go while doing that will end in a bad place. This is a situation where you have to lie to the murderer but not to your spouse.
My comment was meant to point out to OP that they were ignoring a massive pile of important context and nuance, and in doing so they were implicitly embracing conclusions that they probably don't support. And yes, I said it in a flippant way, because OP was comparing the entire Blue Tribe to an evil Pope trying to brainwash and control the ignorant masses. I do tend to mirror the tone and energy of the comments I'm replying to.
Emphasis mine.
...In other words, he doesn't actually endorse anything he wrote in that original comment. Nothing you described above was at all the argument he claims to be making, which is unsurprising since the argument he claims to have been making cannot be straightforwardly derived from what he actually wrote. Everyone in that thread who assumed he was speaking plainly and in good faith wasted their time, as you did just now, because he had zero intention of actually prosecuting the argument he implied he was making. His actual argument was that agreeing with BJ's position necessarily makes you either a socialist or a hypocrite, because the only possible response to private censorship is nationalizing the platforms. That's it. That's the entire content of his original post, according to a detailed explanation by the man himself.
Welcome to arguing with Darwin.
Given that his own explanation of his comment completely contradicts your understanding*, it's worth looking at what he actually said in some detail.
Yes, if you completely ignore the difference between government coercion and private businesses.
Did the original essay ignore the difference between government coercion and private business? No, in fact, because the essay is solely about why "book burning" is a bad thing in the abstract, not about whether people should be prevented from doing it, much less how this prevention might be accomplished. His final conclusion is that "book burning" is a loser strategy anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it. Darwin completely ignores the argument BJ made, preferring to substituting an argument that he himself finds more convinient. He does this, by his own admission, because he was annoyed that BJ was saying something negative about his preferred ideology.
Of course, it wouldn't be very persuasive for him to straightforwardly say "This abstract question is dumb, let's talk about a different concrete issue instead". What he does instead is frame his comment as an accusation: "you completely ignore [x]", rather than as a statement of his own views: "I think [x]". Because he does this in as inflammatory a manner as possible, people are too busy reacting to his snarling tone to notice he's pulled a switcharoo on the actual argument being made. Further, the frame of the discussion is now whether the OP did or did not ignore something important about an issue the OP did not even address; meanwhile, in darwin's mind, he has not even offered an opinion of his own at all, so he has zero reason to respond to those like yourself who "misinterpret" him as having done so.
Which, hey, if you're willing to do that, I have a whole lot of socialist literature about the evils of capitlaism to share with you.
He's making an accusation of hypocrisy here, trying to imply that the OP's argument is indistinguishable from socialism, so if you accept one you have to accept the other. This is absurd for a whole host of reasons, in addition to being low effort and inflammatory. And again, the mistake here would be to actually argue the point, because none of this is at all valid: he's provided no actual argument for the similarity between what he claims is the OP's argument and socialism, but in fact he is lying about what the OP's argument even is. At no point in the essay did BJ say anything about forcing anyone to post anything; in fact, he concluded that we should do nothing at all, because this behavior is self-destructive.
I stand by my original claim: That comment contained no argument at all. That is to say, a straightforward interpretation of his message results in an argument he does not "intend" to make and so will not engage productively with, and the message he actually wants to deliver is implied indirectly by interpretation of a highly inflammatory statement he claims not to actually mean. This is not mind-reading on my part, but rather darwin's own explanation of the comment in question.
It seems to me that this is a profoundly shitty method of communicating. It is hard to imagine a more perfect example of the exact opposite of the sort of conversation our rules are meant to encourage. In a mere two sentences, it badly violates most of the rules in the header. When people attempt to engage productively, he claims they've misunderstood him, and that his behavior is totally reasonable, while making vague anodyne statements that imply but never actually commit to reasonableness, while mixing in further sarcastic, passive-aggressive or just generaly smug digs at them for not understanding how obviously right he is. This encourages them to continue engaging and generally results in frustration and hostility, which he paints as unreasonable aggression on their part.
And again, I emphasize that this is how Darwin opens conversations, and that comments of this nature were the norm. We've looked at a mere five threads, and four of them contained multiple instances of this behavior. Darwin was absurdly prolific; I'm confident I can present you with an arbitrary number of examples.
...You wrote more, and I intend to reply to it, but I'm past 10k characters and would like to see if this changes your assessment any. I'll break it here.
I am quite certain that guesswho is darwin, and I think it's reasonably likely they'll either admit it eventually or a solid consensus will emerge among the rest of the posters, including yourself
My eyes quickly glaze over any trans discussion, but I think there’s less than a 1% chance of guesswho being darwin, and you can quote me on that. He’s an antagonistic progressive, he's got progressive stylistic ticks, that’s basically the extent of the similarity. Other arguments include: as you say, darwin was prolific, why would he even use an alt, and keep it secret, after he did leave that time he was banned, just to make a few random comments. It's not parsimonious.
In any case, we've looked at five threads, and it seems to me that at in at least four of those threads, we're pretty far from Darwin being a high-quality contributor who got snippy with people who were rude to him
He did get a lot of AAQC. So you'll have to concede these aren't his best arguments, at least.
Would you agree that in those threads, we've seen him initiating with low-effort and highly inflammatory posts, and that other posters expend significant effort attempting to have a civil conversation without much success?
There’s low-effort, and there’s content-free. Strictly low-effort posts are only really bad if they express a very common idea (for the sub), imo. As to ‘inflammatory’, it is just a function of a commenter’s ideological distance. We need to tolerate inflammation, as it is a key aspect of the body's immune defenses.
...In other words, he doesn't actually endorse anything he wrote in that original comment. Nothing you described above was at all the argument he claims to be making, which is unsurprising since the argument he claims to have been making cannot be straightforwardly derived from what he actually wrote.
Disagree, he does endorse the interpretation partly with:
But I also think that the extreme version of this ideology - coercing private entities to host speech and actions they disagree with, making it functionally impossible for people to build private spaces with the people and discourse they prefer, limiting societies ability to condemn and ostracize bad or dangerous ideas - is just another form of tyranny and violent coercion all it's own.
This is getting into way too many details of one argument. Our fundamental disagreement is whether his behaviour here is bad. What is the rule, applicable to all commenters, that he broke ? “The defendant made a short comment that implied a certain argument, but then later only partially endorsed it, and in further clarifications it became clear that he endorsed another argument more”
The fact that he is incorrect from our pov, that ‘the only possible response to private censorship is nationalizing the platforms. That's it.’ is weak, is not for us to punish (through force).
You are using his own, extensive clarifications to catch him in a contradiction, when they put the lie to your other accusations, that he was just sniping, that he wasn’t engaging. Wouldn’t it be worse if he had not explained what he meant?
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Your assessments are your own, but it seems to me that the initial reply to the Kaplan post, at least, was considerably worse. Further, have you considered his extensive explanations of how his initial post was entirely innocent and reasonable and anyone who thinks otherwise is just being irrationally hostile? If not, give it a read; if you feel up to continuing this conversation the additional context might help.
I am quite certain that guesswho is darwin, and I think it's reasonably likely they'll either admit it eventually or a solid consensus will emerge among the rest of the posters, including yourself; to my eye the stylistic tics are too numerous and obvious to ignore. I want to be clear, though: I think the question of whether they actually are darwin or not is essentially trivia. What I think actually matters is that their posts are bad in a very, very similar way to the way darwin's posts were bad. To the extent that people remember darwin fondly, I think that is because they do not actually remember what he was like. To the extent that darwin's treatment is significant, I think it's worth looking at the nature of his participation.
In any case, we've looked at five threads, and it seems to me that at in at least four of those threads, we're pretty far from Darwin being a high-quality contributor who got snippy with people who were rude to him. Would you agree that in those threads, we've seen him initiating with low-effort and highly inflammatory posts, and that other posters expend significant effort attempting to have a civil conversation without much success?
I do not think the arguments we're looking at are unusually bad relative to Darwin's average output; my memory is that his posting quality was as consistent as it was awful. unfortunately, I think you do actually have to do this, for a simple reason that I hope I can now demonstrate.
This is an entirely reasonable interpretation of Darwin's initial comment, and it seems pretty similar to the interpretation several of the posters went with when formulating replies, which were then ignored. I think what you wrote would have been a much better comment than what he went with, considerably less inflammatory, and somewhat higher in content. Unfortunately, the problem is that this is an argument you are imagining, not the argument Darwin actually is making. He absolutely is not claiming that Bezos or any other businessman has a right to sell whatever they choose. He absolutely is not arguing that private censorship is okay (or wrong), or even agreeing that state censorship is wrong (or okay). The argument you are imagining does not exist in that thread.
That may seem like a strong claim. Fortunately, I can prove it pretty solidly, because in that very thread darwin himself very explicitly said so.:
Emphasis mine.
...In other words, he doesn't actually endorse anything he wrote in that original comment. Nothing you described above was at all the argument he claims to be making, which is unsurprising since the argument he claims to have been making cannot be straightforwardly derived from what he actually wrote. Everyone in that thread who assumed he was speaking plainly and in good faith wasted their time, as you did just now, because he had zero intention of actually prosecuting the argument he implied he was making. His actual argument was that agreeing with BJ's position necessarily makes you either a socialist or a hypocrite, because the only possible response to private censorship is nationalizing the platforms. That's it. That's the entire content of his original post, according to a detailed explanation by the man himself.
Welcome to arguing with Darwin.
Given that his own explanation of his comment completely contradicts your understanding*, it's worth looking at what he actually said in some detail.
Did the original essay ignore the difference between government coercion and private business? No, in fact, because the essay is solely about why "book burning" is a bad thing in the abstract, not about whether people should be prevented from doing it, much less how this prevention might be accomplished. His final conclusion is that "book burning" is a loser strategy anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it. Darwin completely ignores the argument BJ made, preferring to substituting an argument that he himself finds more convinient. He does this, by his own admission, because he was annoyed that BJ was saying something negative about his preferred ideology.
Of course, it wouldn't be very persuasive for him to straightforwardly say "This abstract question is dumb, let's talk about a different concrete issue instead". What he does instead is frame his comment as an accusation: "you completely ignore [x]", rather than as a statement of his own views: "I think [x]". Because he does this in as inflammatory a manner as possible, people are too busy reacting to his snarling tone to notice he's pulled a switcharoo on the actual argument being made. Further, the frame of the discussion is now whether the OP did or did not ignore something important about an issue the OP did not even address; meanwhile, in darwin's mind, he has not even offered an opinion of his own at all, so he has zero reason to respond to those like yourself who "misinterpret" him as having done so.
He's making an accusation of hypocrisy here, trying to imply that the OP's argument is indistinguishable from socialism, so if you accept one you have to accept the other. This is absurd for a whole host of reasons, in addition to being low effort and inflammatory. And again, the mistake here would be to actually argue the point, because none of this is at all valid: he's provided no actual argument for the similarity between what he claims is the OP's argument and socialism, but in fact he is lying about what the OP's argument even is. At no point in the essay did BJ say anything about forcing anyone to post anything; in fact, he concluded that we should do nothing at all, because this behavior is self-destructive.
I stand by my original claim: That comment contained no argument at all. That is to say, a straightforward interpretation of his message results in an argument he does not "intend" to make and so will not engage productively with, and the message he actually wants to deliver is implied indirectly by interpretation of a highly inflammatory statement he claims not to actually mean. This is not mind-reading on my part, but rather darwin's own explanation of the comment in question.
It seems to me that this is a profoundly shitty method of communicating. It is hard to imagine a more perfect example of the exact opposite of the sort of conversation our rules are meant to encourage. In a mere two sentences, it badly violates most of the rules in the header. When people attempt to engage productively, he claims they've misunderstood him, and that his behavior is totally reasonable, while making vague anodyne statements that imply but never actually commit to reasonableness, while mixing in further sarcastic, passive-aggressive or just generaly smug digs at them for not understanding how obviously right he is. This encourages them to continue engaging and generally results in frustration and hostility, which he paints as unreasonable aggression on their part.
And again, I emphasize that this is how Darwin opens conversations, and that comments of this nature were the norm. We've looked at a mere five threads, and four of them contained multiple instances of this behavior. Darwin was absurdly prolific; I'm confident I can present you with an arbitrary number of examples.
...You wrote more, and I intend to reply to it, but I'm past 10k characters and would like to see if this changes your assessment any. I'll break it here.
My eyes quickly glaze over any trans discussion, but I think there’s less than a 1% chance of guesswho being darwin, and you can quote me on that. He’s an antagonistic progressive, he's got progressive stylistic ticks, that’s basically the extent of the similarity. Other arguments include: as you say, darwin was prolific, why would he even use an alt, and keep it secret, after he did leave that time he was banned, just to make a few random comments. It's not parsimonious.
He did get a lot of AAQC. So you'll have to concede these aren't his best arguments, at least.
There’s low-effort, and there’s content-free. Strictly low-effort posts are only really bad if they express a very common idea (for the sub), imo. As to ‘inflammatory’, it is just a function of a commenter’s ideological distance. We need to tolerate inflammation, as it is a key aspect of the body's immune defenses.
Disagree, he does endorse the interpretation partly with:
This is getting into way too many details of one argument. Our fundamental disagreement is whether his behaviour here is bad. What is the rule, applicable to all commenters, that he broke ? “The defendant made a short comment that implied a certain argument, but then later only partially endorsed it, and in further clarifications it became clear that he endorsed another argument more”
The fact that he is incorrect from our pov, that ‘the only possible response to private censorship is nationalizing the platforms. That's it.’ is weak, is not for us to punish (through force).
You are using his own, extensive clarifications to catch him in a contradiction, when they put the lie to your other accusations, that he was just sniping, that he wasn’t engaging. Wouldn’t it be worse if he had not explained what he meant?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link