site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   5127 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 24, 2023

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Stop being so hateful and condescending. Proper "improper" capitalization can actually improve clarity. There's a reason why people do it.

What is the purpose of this excessive reaction? Stop being so belligerent.

My response is fine. People should be kinder.

If you get a red modhat comment telling you not to post something, your comment is not fine.

You asked me a question. I responded with my reasoning. And my opinion is not going to change, red modhat comment or not.

That person called their coworker a midwit. Not in passing, but as a directed insult. This is rude and I don't like it.

No ruder than calling someone a "cuck", surely. Get off your high horse.

I do not personally know Tom Scott

So it's fine for you to insult a public figure by (literally or figuratively) calling him so unattractive and unmanly that his wife is fucking other men behind his back.

But if I say that a former colleague of mine is of average intelligence (without mentioning her name, nationality, the company she worked for or any identifying characteristics whatsoever), then I'm being "rude" and "hateful".

Moreover, your absurd double standard implies that it would be okay for you to call my former colleague a midwit (based on my description of her), but not for me to do so - because I know her personally?

With all due respect: get lost.

It's rude to insult anyone. And I am rude sometimes.

It's not nice of me to call Tom Scott a cuck, but I don't think of him as a real person. The only reason why I am able to insult him in the first place is because Tom Scott, the person, does not exist. I wouldn't speak like that about anyone I know, because they would be real, and even just thinking badly of them would make me feel terrible.

Insults deindividualize a person. In the case of Tom Scott, he's already deindividualized as an online entity to me. However, you can't call your coworker a midwit without knowingly engaging in deindividualization. I, on the other hand, could call her that.

Edit: I will not respond to your comment if you wish not to continue the conversation. I will, however, make a note here that I have thought and written about this topic at lenght. The labor of deindividualization significantly differs based on familiarity, on whether you know someone or not. This is what makes insults bad. And rudeness is only a partial reflection of this labor.

More comments

It's not "hateful" to say that a particular writing style annoys you. Does finding it annoying when people misuse the word "literally" make you a bigot? Obviously not.

Proper "improper" capitalization can actually improve clarity.

Sure, it can. But is "the Government decisions have made a major impact on the Company's ability to do business" any more clear in meaning than "the government decisions have made a major impact on the company's ability to do business"? No, obviously not. It's an irritating stylistic quirk that doesn't aid in conveying one's meaning at all.

You called a person you Know a certain species of midwit. I think "midwit," even in the abstract, is not nice, but it's at least excusable.

I believe that capitalizing words improves readability. This is something I'm used to seeing in philosophy. Capitalized terms denote specific concepts or ideas that are different from the general meaning. For instance, when you capitalize "Company," it signifies your specific workplace. I find it clear. I mean, even Rationalists do this a lot too.

I think "midwit," even in the abstract, is not nice, but it's at least excusable.

Of course it's not nice, but it's not "hateful". If you'll read my original comment closely, you'll notice that I never said that this stylistic choice is never justifiable, only that it's often done to no good end by people who don't understand the purpose it's meant to be used for.

You're right, sorry.

Sure, it can. But is "the Government decisions have made a major impact on the Company's ability to do business" any more clear in meaning than "the government decisions have made a major impact on the company's ability to do business"? No, obviously not. It's an irritating stylistic quirk that doesn't aid in conveying one's meaning at all.

Hard disagree. If this were some sort of essay or some excerpt from a book, I would agree with you completely. But if this is for some sort of report that's being written for work, then consistently capitalizing Government and Company like this would greatly aid in clarity and comprehension when reading the document. Now, if it's inconsistent or one-off, then yeah, that's strictly worse than just using proper capitalization. But if it's consistent, that aids in comprehension speed greatly in my experience.

To each their own, I suppose.

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