site banner
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Not to be too much us vs them but reading some of the comments on that thread...

If you imagine a total opposite of Julius Branson, you get these sort of posters. Instead of making ten alts to continue the war effort, they buckle under the pressure of ten downvotes. But what they lack in tenacity they make up for with narcissism. So unlike Branson they engage in a cold war in their own minds, not having any tenacity or alts to rely on, until they can post some narcissistic masochistic historical revision about what 'happened' and why things are now worse since their 'status' was not respected. I've never read a more pathetic diatribe of self centered nonsense.

For the record I'd take a Julius Branson and five of his alts over any one of these whiners. Absolutely pathetic.

I've never read a more pathetic diatribe of self centered nonsense. [...] Absolutely pathetic.

Meta-debate. I disagree that The Motte is anything like what OP is portraying, but that's just a difference of opinion. No need to morally shame them for disagreeing and thinking we're Voat... the sphinx is the least interesting part of a debate even when what he says is true.

The Motte is just a parlour game we all play. Barring the astronomical chance that someone here is a future revolutionary a la Lenin who reshapes the world according to theories they read here, The Motte provides zero external benefit and therefore people have zero duty to engage. There's no point if they're not having fun debates.

I agree with what you say for the most part. Whilst I think there is more value in the sphinx than you do.

I don't know if I am misunderstanding you but to me these people did engage by effort posting about the alleged woes of the motte. And considering the nature of their claims I'd stand by my assertions and 'shaming' language about where these claims come from. Though I am not trying to shame them to participate, I'm shaming them for participating the way they did.

I think your criticism is valid but I take issue with the wording of it. Why you would level that criticism at me for shaming 'them' when, as far as I'm concerned, and taking everything you say at face value, both parties are worthy of it? It seems to me, pardon the framing, that you walked into a 'fun' debate to tell me that it is low brow. I don't disagree but I'd still say it's worth having considering the lackluster display of the 'opposition'.

My complaint is the following.

Meta-debate is when you speculate about the motives and character of the other party rather than addressing their points. /u/trexofwanting wrote that he thinks The Motte is dead because he saw a post where someone calls a woman a slut. Instead of counter-arguing — for example, that trex is mischaracterizing the post, that one post does not represent the state of discourse, that speculating about female sexual nature is within bounds for The Motte's mission statement — you said he was only saying that because he was narcissisitic, lacks tenacity, and was unable to keep his emotions in check.

Even if that's 100% true (and trust me, I have an opinion on that) it's the lowest level of discourse. To the extent The Motte becomes dominated by meta-debate and social shaming, I'll find it less fun.

I wasn't referring to that comment or that complaint in particular. I was referring to comments more along the lines of mcjunker, and the general sentiment it imbues. Hope that serves as some clarification.