I care because there’s a lazy argument for censorship which goes: don’t worry, we’re not going to censor honest disagreement. We just want to do you a favor by getting rid of misinformation, liars saying completely false things. Once everybody has been given the true facts - which we can do in a totally objective, unbiased way - then we can freely debate how to interpret those facts.
His isn't talking to you and his point isn't to trust media. He's talking to people who want to ban 'disinformation' and his point is that the way media lies already precludes any simple bright lines for that.
It is quite questionable whether any of this target audience reads Scott, though.
It is quite questionable whether any of this target audience reads Scott, though.
At the very least it arms the audience he does have. That is, people who oppose censorship and read his piece will have a better understanding of this argument against it. And then upon encountering someone who is pro-censorship they can more lucidly argue the point and/or drop a link to this article.
To the extent that Scott is engaged in a crusade against censorship, his crusade has clearly failed. The epistemological problem presented by Media generally is a serious one, and while I have not read this article, none of Scott's previous work and none of the descriptions I'm seeing here indicate that he is capable of productively grappling with it.
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 -
What does Scott aim to achieve with this series of articles?
Let it be known that its irrational to distrust media 100% of the time when they tell the truth 99% of the time?
Im sorry Scott, but I dont need the media to tell me the weather, I can look outside or use alternative methods to figure out indisputeable facts.
If you are a liar at the margins, you are useless to me, Im here for the 1%, the margins, the edges of our bounds are what matters, not the mundane.
He literally states his goal in the article:
His isn't talking to you and his point isn't to trust media. He's talking to people who want to ban 'disinformation' and his point is that the way media lies already precludes any simple bright lines for that.
It is quite questionable whether any of this target audience reads Scott, though.
At the very least it arms the audience he does have. That is, people who oppose censorship and read his piece will have a better understanding of this argument against it. And then upon encountering someone who is pro-censorship they can more lucidly argue the point and/or drop a link to this article.
To the extent that Scott is engaged in a crusade against censorship, his crusade has clearly failed. The epistemological problem presented by Media generally is a serious one, and while I have not read this article, none of Scott's previous work and none of the descriptions I'm seeing here indicate that he is capable of productively grappling with it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link