site banner
Sir_Pings_a_Lot  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   3265 thread views

Am I an acceptable poster for theMotte.org?

Hi, I'm a long time reader of Slate Star Codex and I used to post on the Reddit forum until I got banned. There are a few reasons that I believe I got banned.

  1. Uncharitably claiming that Leftist censorship was a threat to the rationalist community

  2. Advocating for violence

  3. Not being kind

I understand why all of these things could have been a problem on the Reddit community, but I would like to know if they're still going to be a problem here, since I don't want to invest a lot of time creating a profile and having good-faith discussions with people if I'm only going to be banned again. Here are the reasons that I think these three issues shouldn't be a problem anymore.

  1. I was right, and everybody who disagreed with me was wrong. The fact that the community had to move here proves it. I'm not expecting an apology but I think that time has proven me correct on that score.

  2. Violence is a completely justifiable response to tyranny. While calls to violence may be against Reddit rules (and the community was right to ban me from Reddit because my rhetoric could have caused problems for the mods) there are no such rules here. In fact, rdrama (which helped set up this offsite community, and whom you should all be grateful to) actively encourages calls to violence. If a rational and logical case can be made for violence then I think there is no good reason not to hear that case out. If you're forced to censor people you disagree with because you're unable to make a stronger case for pacifism over violence in the open marketplace of ideas, then you should question whether your pacifism is actually a worthwhile philosophy.

  3. Kindness and truth are different terminal values. If you optimize for kindness then it is self-evident that you will have to sacrifice truth at some point. Obviously the Reddit community has chosen kindness as its terminal value, but I'm hoping that this offsite community is enlightened enough to choose truth.

I'm linking to a few articles from my Substack here so you have a few examples of my style of writing and can make a better judgement about whether I would be a good fit for the offsite community. I'm also on rdrama where my username is sirpingsalot. If you think I'm not a good fit for the offsite either, then no hard feelings - I'm happy to take my ideas to more sympathetic communities instead. I just don't want to put in the effort of investing time and energy here if I'm only going to get banned again for the same reasons.

-23
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'll tell you something for nothing - going into anywhere with that attitude is only going to end up with friction and it'll all end in tears. Maybe you were right and everybody else was wrong, but were you a pain in the arse about it? Because if you steam into a debate with "I'm the only sensible person who knows the truth here and the rest of you are a bunch of sheeple", I for one will roll up my sleeves and have an argument with you even if the topic is "is grass green" and you said "yes it is".

This is what I mean when I say kindness took precedence to truth in the old sub. When it turns out over time that I was right and other people were wrong, I expect them to be humble and admit it. If their pride takes precedence over the truth, and it's more important for them to stubbornly avoid admitting that they were wrong rather than conceding error, then I'm going to hurt them really badly until their survival instinct kicks in and they learn to prioritize facts over their hurt feelings. For example, if you don't like that I said "the grass is green" because you previously said it was blue, and I rubbed it in your face later when I was proven right, so you prefer to continue arguing with me about the color of the grass even though we both know you're wrong, then my position is that you will eventually admit the grass is green when we elect somebody who starts executing people who don't believe in the color of the grass. In other words, objective truth is more important to me than either your ego or your life. I don't see any value in the continued existence of people who are unable to admit when they're wrong because their pride takes precedence over the truth.

Am I going to attack people that way here, on this specific website? No, of course not. This is just my general philosophy of life. On this specific sub, I'm here to have fun. That means I will be polite and obey all the rules, except for "be kind" which I really can't do since that's a very nebulous and poorly defined metric. (And if the mods can offer a more concrete definition of "kindness" that is not subject to their individual whims then I'm happy to comply with "Be Kind" also. For example, you calling me a "moron" seems very unkind, but I notice no mods are stepping in to punish you for that. So I would like a definition of "kindness" that is more clear and precise so that instead of having that rule be selectively weaponized against me, it will be weaponized against everybody equally.) Instead, I will attack my enemies indirectly by supporting politicians who dog-whistle for their deaths, as well as promoting ideologies offsite that are inimical to their continued existence. Like I said, I'm not here to spread propaganda, I have plenty of other places where I can do that. I'm here for fun, and hopefully to learn something. But I don't like people who can't admit that they were wrong just because they think I'm a big meanie, and those people are my enemies. Are you capable of sharing a website with somebody who is your enemy as long as they agree to be polite and play by the same rules you do? Are you capable of even sharing a world with that person? These are important questions to ask.

Now my question is, can the Motte handle this attitude, or is "kindness" (whatever the hell that means) more important than honesty and truthfulness? I would like a mod to weigh in, because I don't feel like investing my time here if I'm just going to be banned again. If the mods don't feel that I'd be a good fit, then no hard feelings - I'll spend my time elsewhere.

You have not given any examples of how you are smarter and better. Your descriptions of what happened in your personal life could be easily read another way, in favour of the other person.

If you start off with "Punch me in the nose, I dare you" then you have no right to be surprised or offended when you get punched in the nose.

In other words, objective truth is more important to me than either your ego or your life.

No, your ego is nore important to you than objective truth. Objective truth does not require that people accept it; it is enough to be correct. "I am correct and you must admit it" is the ego speaking.

Objective truth does not require that people accept it; it is enough to be correct. "I am correct and you must admit it" is the ego speaking.

Not really. In a democracy other people's opinions directly affect you and yours. In a forum that aspires to implement the "better" parts of democracy the same applies, as far as not having your opinions silenced in various ways goes.

So if there's a substantial number of people who'd rather argue that grass isn't green than admit that they were wrong, your options are a) use democratic means to crush them, b) switch to a less democratic political system where their wrong opinions don't matter, or c) vote with your feet towards a community that's more amenable to a or b.

  • For example, you calling me a "moron" seems very unkind, but I notice no mods are stepping in to punish you for that

Technically, she called you an idiot, and no one said anything until we (I) noticed it. Now I have - are you satisfied?

I have to say, now that I know you who are (I had my suspicions before), that if you follow your previous patterns, yes, you will probably wind up banned. Of course, you do have the option of changing your behavior so that doesn't happen. Hope springs eternal.

But this rather self-centered thread you started just to try to secure some sort of assurance from us that you can say whatever you want however you want without being banned does not bode well for your willingness to conform to community norms. The rules are, for the most part, pretty much the same as they were in the old sub, we just don't have to worry about AEO slapping us down because we let people be a little too forthright in their opinions on CW topics.

Thank you for appreciating the shades of distinction between "moron", "cretin" and "idiot". He's not a moron, he's smart. In a dumb way. Where he thinks showing off how he is sociopathic is somehow clever and impressive. Or perhaps that we will be intimidated by the veiled threat of drawing his ire upon us unless we fawn and slobber over him.

(I don't know why I'm writing in sentence fragments recently, I must have read something that affected my prose style).

OK, thanks for the candid assessment. I'll go elsewhere, no hard feelings.

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