magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
felipec 1yr ago
I believe the appropriate retort would be: "Fare you well; your suit is cold."
...Well, not quite. This is the second article of yours I've read; both have been "haha, everyone's such a moron because they don't know this thing I know" gloating but getting basic facts wrong about the main subject of your post ("what is Z4?" and "who is and isn't a Rationalist?" respectively), and on top of that, both times you've gone in the comments section trying (quite fruitlessly if your reaction counts are any barometer) to out-rhetoric your critics.
I'll be blunt: if, the next time you make a thread linking your blog and I see it (i.e. not the one you've already made that I haven't read yet; a new one), the article is this poorly-researched and/or you're playing these kinds of games in the comments, I'll stop following your links. I'm not asking that you even write something good - that'd be unfair, since nobody can write good articles all the time and some people can't write good articles any of the time - just a) don't act all superior without getting the basic premise of your article right, b) either don't engage with the criticism, or do it in a constructive fashion rather than trying to score points.
This is the second article of yours I've read; both have been "haha, everyone's such a moron because they don't know this thing I know" gloating but getting basic facts wrong about the main subject of your post ("what is Z4?" and "who is and isn't a Rationalist?" respectively)
Two converse error fallacies don't make one right.
Your conclusion is still unjustified.
You talk as if your intellect is superior to mine, but I seriously wonder if you even know what a converse error is, and if you can provide an example without looking it up.
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 -
This is all part of a ploy to get me viewing another mediocre substack.
Not today!
All that glitters is not gold.
I believe the appropriate retort would be: "Fare you well; your suit is cold."
...Well, not quite. This is the second article of yours I've read; both have been "haha, everyone's such a moron because they don't know this thing I know" gloating but getting basic facts wrong about the main subject of your post ("what is Z4?" and "who is and isn't a Rationalist?" respectively), and on top of that, both times you've gone in the comments section trying (quite fruitlessly if your reaction counts are any barometer) to out-rhetoric your critics.
I'll be blunt: if, the next time you make a thread linking your blog and I see it (i.e. not the one you've already made that I haven't read yet; a new one), the article is this poorly-researched and/or you're playing these kinds of games in the comments, I'll stop following your links. I'm not asking that you even write something good - that'd be unfair, since nobody can write good articles all the time and some people can't write good articles any of the time - just a) don't act all superior without getting the basic premise of your article right, b) either don't engage with the criticism, or do it in a constructive fashion rather than trying to score points.
Two converse error fallacies don't make one right.
Your conclusion is still unjustified.
You talk as if your intellect is superior to mine, but I seriously wonder if you even know what a converse error is, and if you can provide an example without looking it up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link