site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   4067 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 14, 2024

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There are no banned words here. You're still welcome to give an example of calling people a slur that isn't antagonistic and waging the culture war.

If you call someone stupid, you will be modded. That doesn't mean "stupid" is a banned word.

You're still welcome to give an example of calling people a slur that isn't antagonistic and waging the culture war.

Let me venture an attempt, using just the words HlynkaCG used.

"Fagots (sic) exist."

"Trannys exist."

"Elf Brahmins exist."

These seem to be "calling people a slur". Is it "antagonistic and waging the culture war"? Am I already modded? I must say, if even these examples count as bad, I cannot imagine any possible way they could be used that wouldn't be considered "antagonistic and waging the culture war". Perhaps they could be mentioned, but again, I believe this would be enshrining exactly the use/mention distinction into the rules of the forum and simply banning all uses as being inherently "antagonistic and waging the culture war". You're right that the result isn't that they would be "banned words" at the same level of utter stupidity that led to that business professor getting fired for teaching his students a common Chinese word that sounds a lot like an English slur, but I think it'll be pretty hard to maintain that there is any possible way that someone could use them without being banned.

I say this as someone who has no interest in actually using such words1, and I don't think you'll find any sort of inkling toward wanting to use them in any of my comments; I'm not that kind of person, myself. But I sure do prize clarity, especially when it comes to rules that result in folks like HlynkaCG being banned... and right now, we ain't got it.

1 - The only exception being 'retarded', because I think it's, uh, dumb that it's gotten the hate it's gotten. It's a clear example of an impossible euphemism treadmill that will never stop eating every word that even comes close to it, even when they're perfectly fine words on their own. I will forever continue to talk about internal combustion engine timing as being advanced or retarded, and if someone is late to the party, I will almost certainly joke that, "It's okay, they're just retarded. They'll be here soon."

"Fagots (sic) exist."

"Trannys exist."

"Elf Brahmins exist."

These seem to be "calling people a slur". Is it "antagonistic and waging the culture war"?

Probably, but it would depend on the context. It's not like we make a judgment based on a single keyword. If your entire post is a rant about your outgroup, including "faggots exist," we're probably going to point out that dropping insulting terms just because you hate your outgroup is making it unnecessarily inflammatory. If you are responding to someone who said "Faggots don't exist" and said "Yes, faggots exist," we'd probably let it go (or maybe tell both of you to chill out). Of course that's a contrived example, just as your sentences above are contrived examples (why would you be asserting that "X exists" but using the most pejorative term for X?)

Am I already modded?

Obviously not, this is clearly a mention and not a use. Don't be disingenuous.

but I think it'll be pretty hard to maintain that there is any possible way that someone could use them without being banned.

We don't usually start by banning people, we start by telling people "Please speak like you want everyone to be included in the conversation." We have never had a policy of banning people outright because they used a bad word. We have always had a policy of telling people not to use slurs just to express how much they despise their outgroup. Don't be disingenuous.

I say this as someone who has no interest in actually using such words1, and I don't think you'll find any sort of inkling toward wanting to use them in any of my comments; I'm not that kind of person, myself. But I sure do prize clarity, especially when it comes to rules that result in folks like HlynkaCG being banned... and right now, we ain't got it.

Don't be disingenuous. Hlynka was banned not because he dropped a bunch of slurs in one post, but because he was using slurs to be excessively belligerent to another poster for no reason, and he has a long track record of doing this (not necessarily with slurs, but being unnecessarily belligerent), and we've told him repeatedly to dial it down and he won't. And you have been around long enough that you know this.

Seems reasonable that the line is not just the use/mention distinction (as you had previously said, leading to the current confusion). instead, it's just about some ethereal balance of positive/negative vibes that your comment gives concerning the group in question. Thus, why @FiveHourMarathon can point to his comment where he said, "The obnoxious slurs were right," but if you had essentially the same post focusing on geopolitics, but found a way to say, "Of course, the obnoxious slurs were wrong," that's probably a moddin'. Gotta get enough positive vibes to pump those numbers up, make sure it doesn't sound like you're just dumping on the outgroup.

Instead it's just about some ethereal balance of positive/negative vibes that concern the group in question

This is right and good.

If the rule is against being antagonistic, or boo-outgroup, that is inherently a vibe-based thing.

Use of slurs can be done without those pitfalls, but it's easy to use them badly, and it's unsurprising that people get modded for using them in antagonistic comments and not for using them more suitably (as he explained why it fit his comment).

We have always modded taking context and intent and the overall tone of posts into account. If you want to call that "some ethereal balance of positive/negative vibes," sure, whatever.

You know what dumping on the outgroup looks like, and you do not have a principled objection to the distinction between use and mention, or between @FiveHourMarathon's post and @Hlynka's.

https://www.themotte.org/comment/164812?context=3#context

Comment I made that got AAQCed for some reason. I use the word Faggots in the comment. Was not modded, no scolding was handed down.

One obvious difference, the joke about the motte is accurate, is that it's a single word in a wall of text. So writing more is going to help you avoid getting modded compared to drive by slurring, which is nearly always going to draw attention. Another is that it serves the argument being made, calling the anti war protestors faggots was a choice to capture the mindset of a patriotic American of the time.

So the rule is more like, if you use slurs the rest of your post better be Motte quality stuff. The comment will be held to a higher standard.

So is "I think {thing} is retarded" alright?

As long as {thing} is not another poster.

Wait, 'Trump is retarded' would be OK? That seems inconsistent with recent moderation around 'tranny'?

I'd treat "Trump is retarded" the same way I'd treat "Trump is an idiot." If you're making an effortful post with a real argument (the thesis of which is Trump's idiocy), I probably wouldn't mod it because you called him "retarded." If you're just dropping a "Trump is retarded" comment because you don't like Trump, I'd ding it for low effort, but I'd do the same for "Trump is an idiot."

That makes sense -- but what I mean is that this seems inconsistent with "Contrapoints is a tranny" being a problem -- even though "tranny" doesn't particularly imply anything bad about Contrapoints ! (unlike, say, "Contrapoints is retarded")

I observe a 100% correlation between those who call someone a tranny (besides themselves in jest) and those who imply something bad about that person and about them being trans.

You might as well try to argue that "retarded" doesn't imply anything bad because arrested intelligence isn't necessarily bad.

I'm not going to argue either of those things, but the point is that it's not a direct insult like 'retarded' -- it's unlikely that anyone would call me a tranny, but while I recognize the valence, to put this in personal terms: somebody calling me a 'honky' or something seems less bad than calling me retarded? Would you yourself prefer 'sun_the_second is a <insert crass racial slang>', or 'sun_the_second is <insert crass denigration of your intelligence>'?

Even taking the crassness out of it I'd probably prefer to be called a honky to 'not very smart' or something?

The hardest-hitting insults are the ones that are technically (and obviously) correct but add a negative valence to it. They stick. So no, I wouldn't be particularly offended if I was called retarded, I'm nowhere close to sub-90 IQ and don't look like it either. It's like when back in childhood some kid called me a fatso (I've never been above regular BMI). I was just confused and wondering if that kid couldn't see very well.

More comments

The last time I've heard that word used neutrally is never.

Whatever your stance is on using it, saying that it's not a pejorative is hard to maintain in good faith.

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