site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   2906 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 28, 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.

Lie might be the wrong word. I don't care if they're true, but it seems like a violation for them to inconsistent but concealed in a way that can't be called out.

Like if I put on anon mode and started doing some "As A Woman" bit, that should be bannable.

IMO, any argument premised on the speaker's personal identity should be bannable regardless.

Dafuq? Quite a few of our best AAQCs involved people using their personal identity and knowledge to provide valuable context lost to the rest of us.

You're not going to win that one. Even 4channers often divulge personal details in their greentexts.

"Premised on" is an important qualifier in my post. People should feel free to cite personal knowledge and experience, but if their argument rises or falls based on that personal knowledge or experience being true, I think they are failing to make a real argument. If their argument boils down to "trust me bro, I know what I'm talking about" it's not contributing to the discussion.

I sometimes mention that I am a lawyer, and I am, but I don't expect anyone here to give me special trust or deference on legal topics because of it. I don't expect anyone to even believe me when I say I'm a lawyer. My arguments need to be independently supportable via evidence and reason, not purported credentials or lived experience.

So, any time someone cites personal experiences or opinions it should be bannable? How far does that extend? Does citing one's profession? One's nationality? That seems kinda unworkable.

Any time someone makes an argument premised on (i.e. an argument that rises or falls based on) personal experiences or opinions being true, they should be warned or banned for doing so. People need to make arguments that other people can engage with. Claiming epistemic privilege based on identity, credentials, lived experiences, etc. is antithetical to this. It's the fallacy of appeal to authority.

How do you define premised in a useful way?

It's tough to draw the line between "argument premised on a personal experience," and "argument that uses an anecdotal story to illustrate a theory."

I also find that people sharing their personal experiences can help me to understand their arguments even if I still disagree. Many times I've seen arguments about marriage, gender-war stuff, dating; and inevitably one of my interlocutors tells me something about themselves and I say OH NOW IT MAKES SENSE. I hear people forwarding theories about how marriage is terrible and women are awful blood-sucking harpies, and then they start talking about their wives and I remember how blessed I am. I hear people talking about how awful modern women are to date, and I realize I need to check my pretty-privilege and whatnot. It is useful to have that knowledge, it helps to bridge the gaps.

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