site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   2450 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for October 6, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I have a suggestion for how to solve the problem of balancing the blog-length posts in the CWR with the more discussion oriented stuff a lot of people (like me) would like to see there, and I think I have a thought on why the confusion/frustration exists:

The original "culture war roundup" was meant as a containment thread for all of that weeks stupid culture war happenings. If some person showed up at a spa and insisted on exposing himself to a bunch of people in the locker rooms but insisted that he was just trans and this was just normal, instead of needing a lengthy blog post about this, you could post in CWR. It was a containment thread to prevent these sorts of common, repetitive posts from clogging up the more in depth discussions other people wanted to have.

[edit]: It's probably my fault for being unclear here. I am giving this as a historical example of the type of things which would get caught in the CWR, not as an example of the type of things which should be looked at as ideal posts for the CWR. I clarified in a response below that at least historically these types of posts stopped being made organically because people stopped interacting with them due to their repetitive nature. My general point, also made in that clarifying post, is that allowing users to organically enforce the culture of the community is a good thing, and I contrast this with what I perceive now, which is micromanagement. My response to the 'well tended gardens die to apathy' blog is that it is also possible to over prune a garden.

I think the problem is that the CWR thread has become a place where people go to post their blogs, and that they're trying to emulate the style (or more specifically the length) of SA's posts. In my opinion this results in lots of really, really unnecessarily long, usually pretty terribly written posts about long passed culture war topics. This is fine, and just like everybody else I've of course written tens of thousands of words of blog posts myself. So here's my proposal:

Split the blogs off into their own thread, call it "longform motteblog" or "the bailey: blogs from themotte" or something like that.

Allow the CWR to return to its roots: a weekly roundup of culture war topics.

Still remove low effort trolling, sneering, etc.

For reference, here is a link to the CWR from a random week in 2018: https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9sabky/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_october_29/

Notice how most of the posts here follow the form of: here is a current event, here is a couple of sentences either describing it or giving a jumping off point for analysis, and then lots of discussion. The longer posts/discussion type stuff is usually contained beneath one of these topics.

Here we can go back to 2017: https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/5z5dm1/culture_war_roundup_for_week_of_march_13_2017/

Almost every top level post made in there would be removed from the current themotte CWR thread.

Maybe this type of thing is just explicitly not what themotte is trying to do, and the name is really just a holdover. Hopefully this explains my frustration (which I believe is shared by others) with the way that length seems to be getting used as a proxy for quality. I hope this also explains the recent post (which I was banned for making) demonstrating that length is not a good proxy for quality, and is easily fakeable using LLMs. (Of course like most people who get banned for anything: I think this was completely unfair, I think the point I was making was obvious, I think it was on-topic, and I think I even made clear that I wasn't trying to deceive anybody, just demonstrate that length is a bad metric for judging quality, especially now that LLMs are cheap and available).

I value the CWR threads, obviously value themotte as a discussion forum, and it makes me sad to see something I value seemingly go away. I have enjoyed the CWR roundup threads for a substantial amount of time (at least 6 years), and I think my recent posts expressing this frustration are an attempt by me to keep that type of (imo valuable) discussion alive.

I agree. Some of these long posts are very good. Most are not. People need to learn how to write if they're going to write things that long, starting with learning to use hooks. The most common problem I find is that I get through the first paragraph and still have no idea why I should care what this person has to say or where this might be going.

I initially thought the temp ban for that top level post was a little excessive. But it does appear to be the case that it generated a lot of low-quality noise and very little good discussion. And I'm not super thrilled to have a lot of top-level posts that are basically, somebody please tell me more details about interesting happening X.

I'm not sure what really happened. Maybe the original SSC sub had an audience that was smaller and more connected to Scott's vibe, so low-quality posts were more likely to lead to high-quality discussion. But that doesn't appear to be the case here and now.

There's always the "be the change you want to see" option - try to post higher quality responses ourselves even if the original post or thread parent is bad.

The value of brevity is that you can scan many comments for valuable information in the same amount of time as reading a single long post. And I actually enjoy the long posts that are filled with dense/valuable information, when that’s the simplest way to convey complex information. So maybe there should be a rule to encourage brevity because it’s better for the reader.

I don’t know if it’s just me but I would be interested in more original / creative ideasmithing related to culture, even if that’s not an original intended purpose of the forum.

I still think there’s room for a Link Roundup. Maybe a thread one day a week that’s only open for one day a week would be a good balance between the concerns of “not wanting to discourage effort posts” and “y’all have some interesting links saved I want to read”. We can call it the sunday sneaky link thread or something.

I don’t know if it’s just me but I would be interested in more original / creative ideasmithing related to culture, even if that’s not an original intended purpose of the forum.

Amen! Too much negativity and snark, too little creativity and true seeking of understanding when it comes to Culture.

I know it didn't really go anywhere, but I wanted to thank you for this post. The discussion on what makes good posting quality ended up being more interesting than I expected. These examples from a few years ago make me even more salty about that time I scanned and transcribed an article from a 1968 issue of the Time Magazine, and it got deleted because I posted my commentary in the comments instead of the top level post, but ultimately I think I also agree with the others. These issues became too routine to allow "look at what just happened"-posting, and would effectively turn us into KotakuInAction, or something.

I've had this conversation a lot lately.

Go through my old posts:

  1. The amount of effort we are asking for is super low. Just like two paragraphs.
  2. The point of this website is discussion. If you can't be arsed to start a simple discussion about something you brought up what makes you think other people want to talk about it? I often see low effort posts around fundamentally boring topics.
  3. It comes off as demanding content from other people cuz you are too lazy to think for yourself on a given topic. Let the content creators pick the topics they care about.
  4. There is a crowding out effect with discussions. If one person takes the time to write up a long post where they think about it deeply and another person just rushes to post the story and get hot takes, then all the discussion happens with MrHotTake. So that system would reward people who rush posted and didn't think through a topic.

Previous versions of CWR did not have this length requirement, and yet fostered many, fantastic discussions for half of a decade.

What did precious versions of the CWR have that allowed them to be so high quality, and yet not require the length requirement you are outlining here?

As far as demanding content etc. again I just ask you to look at previous CWR threads back on SSC. These seemed to follow a traditional discussion style where a topic is introduced, and as you go down the tree the posts become deeper and longer. There were many, many, many really good discussions that happened in these spaces.

Those were valuable and I think we have lost something now that they’re not allowed to happen in that form. There are a LOT of places to write the type of blog posts that have taken over the CWR threads.

I understand you have had this discussion a lot, but I think that’s because there are enough people who found value in the types of discussions that were previously allowed, and miss that. Originally when themotte splintered off of the SSC sub, and then finally off of Reddit, it was proposed and grown as an extension of those existing communities and the move was being done for practical reasons, not to change the format to more blog like posts.

That could be where the frustration is coming from. If the pitch had been to move away from the existing CWR style and towards the current blogpost style, I suspect there would have been more pushback.

My first point in the list is how you don't really need that much effort to meet the minimum standards. If two paragraphs is hard for you to write, what are you doing here? It took you what, 5-10 minutes to write this response to me, and its double the length you need.

The longer posts have happened organically.

I think we are just going to go in circles on this forever.

I don’t believe that length is a proxy for quality, and I think they enforcing length requirements for a discussion forum results in people writing extremely low quality posts so as to avoid being banned or having their discussions removed. The noise has gone up substantially, and the signal has gone down. While I understand the intent, I think that the effect is obvious.

You’re right that I don’t have a problem writing several paragraphs to accompany submissions. The reason I don’t like the length requirements are not because I’m unable to fulfill them. It is exactly as I keep saying: this policy drives the quality of posts down because it incentivizes bad writing.

I think this is a bad thing. Obviously.

It's not a length requirement, it's a requirement to start a discussion and invest some amount of effort. Length is easy to quantify and generally people say enough things within certain lengths that I can give that as guidance.

We have a general policy of not removing discussions. If you see disappeared posts it's cuz the user deleted them.

Ban lengths are pretty light for low effort posting. Usually no ban at all. 1 day recently.

I am not asking for length I am asking for some/any signal. Not a signal from the outside world but from the poster, the one who is supposedly posting because they are interested in a discussion.

I am typically trying to stop posts that have no signal at all.

I don't get why writing two paragraphs is destroying quality. It barely takes any effort, and if it does take a bunch of effort for someone, then I don't get how the rules forbidding them from dropping bare links is somehow preventing a quality contributor from being here.

I'm not incentivizing long posts I'm disincentivizing content-less posts.

This post is longer than it needs to be. I do this all the time when I write. I make the same points in multiple ways. I have found over many years of online discussions that this is sometimes the most efficient way to get through to someone.

If I don't say it all up front it just ends up coming out over multiple posts. But by the end of it those posts are long buried and the casual readers have dropped off. That's if the other participant even wants to bother having a multi day back and forth.

I think what is happening is that we are asking people to say something, and they are realizing it's hard to say things in a short and concise way. So they have longer posts. Or they start saying something and realize they have a lot to say.

What stimulating discussion do you expect to get from “trans bad” link drops?

Consider the halcyon days of internet atheism. When someone made a post about “look what those theists did this week, I don’t believe they generated high-quality intellectual output. I think they got a seductive burst of outgroup bad! and went on their way. It’s a recipe for echo chambers.

The atheist-adjacent communities which stuck around, including the ones which would eventually give us this site, took a harder stance against point-and-laugh posting. At the very least they had to couch it in an elaborate Theory of Human Rationality, or something.

What stimulating discussion do you expect to get from “trans bad” link drops?

If this is what you think my post said, then I don't believe you read it, and I certainly hope you never advocate for continuing to enforce the post length limits that are being enforced here.

If some person showed up at a spa and insisted on exposing himself to a bunch of people in the locker rooms but insisted that he was just trans and this was just normal, instead of needing a lengthy blog post about this, you could post in CWR.

I'm saying the other solution is to not have this. Which is my understanding of the current rules and the current lack of Bare Link Repo.

For what it's worth, I think the bar for a top-level is not actually that high. You are correct that people are likely to sprawl out as wannabe Scotts, but I think that fear of getting modded for low-effort is rarely why. There are a lot of reasons why a community of regular SSC readers--ones with a monthly tradition of picking the longest, densest posts as Quality--would feel the urge to sprawl.

In the context of a forum, I prefer shorter posts (1-2 paragraphs max) as they leave more room for interpretation and discussion, and are good writing prompts. Long, engrossing reads are better a stand-alone blog posts.

I will acknowledge that it's rare to see someone respond to the entirety of a long post, like really craft a response of equal depth that addresses all the main points in the parent post, simply because it's a lot of effort and most people won't want to spend the effort unless it's one of their pet causes. But a lot of times with long posts people will pick out one or two points and just respond to those, and that can generate a lot of interesting sub-threads.

balancing the blog-length posts in the CWR with the more discussion oriented stuff a lot of people (like me) would like to see there

Blog-length posts generate tons of discussion!

If some person showed up at a spa and insisted on exposing himself to a bunch of people in the locker rooms but insisted that he was just trans and this was just normal, instead of needing a lengthy blog post about this, you could post in CWR.

Posts like this are frankly just not interesting anymore.

How many incidents have we seen like this over the past decade (it's been almost a decade since GamerGate!)? How many more outrage-bait links do we need? Trans person did this, woke corporation did that, liberal college gone mad did this that and the other... is anyone in 2023 not informed that these sorts of things are going on? This is just normal reality now.

The metagame for culture war discussion has evolved. If people want to keep discussing these issues that have already been beaten into the ground many times over, I don't think it's too onerous to stipulate that they should contribute something original and substantial.

Split the blogs off into their own thread, call it "longform motteblog" or "the bailey: blogs from themotte" or something like that.

Well. I wouldn't prefer that. The blogposts are the main reason I enjoy TheMotte and I like that our current formal and informal standards nudge people towards more longform posting.

I take your point that this isn't necessarily concordant with what the CWR thread was historically. But thankfully, the mods' current vision of how the CWR should be run are more in line with my own than those of the BLR supporters, so I have less of a need to justify myself!

I value the CWR threads, obviously value themotte as a discussion forum

Then just... write a paragraph sharing your thoughts on a news story before you post it? I don't understand why this is so burdensome. I can't remember the last time someone got modded under the effort rule when they had written a complete paragraph. Certainly by two paragraphs I don't think anyone's ever been modded.

Posts like this are frankly just not interesting anymore.

I agree. I don't think you are understanding the point of this example within the full context of my post.

Then just... write a paragraph sharing your thoughts on a news story before you post it? I don't understand why this is so burdensome. I can't remember the last time someone got modded under the effort rule when they had written a complete paragraph. Certainly by two paragraphs I don't think anyone's ever been modded.

Look at the current CWR thread. It's getting about 1-2 topics per day of discussion. Again I'm not saying this is bad, I'm saying that it has replaced the CWR, which was a good thing to have.

I like (many of) the blogposts. More posts that are less dense would probably good, but I'd worry it'd run into the same reason we removed the BLR.

I'm not sure we want to see (from your links)

It boggles my mind that people are taking seriously the argument that cracking down on campus protests is about promoting free speech: http://www.alternet.org/education/right-wing-billionaires-are-funding-cynical-plot-destroy-dissent-and-protest-colleges

History is being rewritten by SJW activists to take minorities into account, while the right-wingers oppose this as communism. (link to now-dead post)

I don’t suggest getting rid of the blog posts, simply creating a containment thread for them, or better yet: allow them as top level posts below the stickies.

If some person showed up at a spa and insisted on exposing himself to a bunch of people in the locker rooms but insisted that he was just trans and this was just normal, instead of needing a lengthy blog post about this, you could post in CWR.

I think the whole point is that this kind of outrage bait is best suited to /pol/ or various other online forums or subreddits, rather than to this place. Another story about woke trans activism (something I’d say 95% of regulars probably take issue with) without commentary is just a space for people to affirm their beliefs without really saying or discussing anything. It’s like /pol/ collages of migrant crime stories, they just exist to make people mad and lower the quality of discourse; everyone there already agrees with the poster.

The value here (I’d say at least) is in interesting and civilized conversation with smart and often eloquent people who sometimes know things the average person doesn’t, I’ve learnt a lot here from people’s commentary. Another piece of evidence that something we all know is happening and all disagree with is happening isn’t necessary.

The CWR was originally a containment thread specifically for those types of posts. There is utility there if the CW is something you are interested in because you can come in and get a general sense for the current state of affairs. I think that the CW is radically transforming our society, and am thus interested in it, and having meaningful discussions with smart people about it.

Posting the 9000th “look at this trans person maybe this is actually autogynophelia!” take will just naturally receive less interaction, which is generally what the people posting are seeking.

The mods here are, in my opinion, engaging in the most common mistake that people with power make: believing in the idea of central planning or central authority. An individual mod (or small group of mods) cannot effectively plan or micromanage the discussions between thousands of people. The innovation that allowed Reddit, and digg before it, to succeed was the idea of distributed or decentralized moderation. Upvotes and downvotes actually are (with appropriate, hands off moderation to remove spam etc) actually very effective.

Discussion quality on both Reddit and digg took an obvious hit when overbearing moderators tried to micromanage the discussions. It is why Reddit has become such an awful echo chamber, and unfortunately (sadly, again because I value and have valued this community for so long) the signs of this are starting to show here.

Look at the CWR, the latest post is almost a full day old, and is about a sort of meta take on the CW in general not really a roundup of the weeks events.

Well tended gardens of course die due to apathy, certainly a blogpost we all have read and repeated to each other hundreds or thousands of times.

But overtended gardens never bear fruit.

Edit: as of now there actually is a new post in CWR, the previous one was 19 hours ago. The current post is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. It is essentially just a blog post about a realization the poster had about how good being a landlord is. Not exactly a bad post, but again really just a typical blogspot/Facebook style blog post.

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