Definitely aimed at the hegemonic ideology and not me, since I relate intensely to this paragraph:
If I had had to suffer through a few more skeptics calling me racist because I wanted to know why there were giant underwater pyramids, I probably would have believed in Atlantis even harder, out of spite, and never talked myself out of it. And then when ivermectin came along, I would have thought “Scientists? Experts? They’re the guys who are so dumb they can’t even figure out Atlantis existed when there are giant underwater pyramids right in front of their eyes. Screw them, I’m listening to Bret Weinstein."
I often find myself leaning into weird or unsubstantiated beliefs due solely to resentment at how much scorn is poured on people who dare question the relevant orthodoxy. I'm probably a lot more willing to entertain HBD or even JQ stuff simply because asking a good faith question about either topic (and others like them) gets you shouted down, ostracized, blacklisted etc.
It's actually worse than Scott's example, because unlike the the guy Scott is beefing with, who apparently knows something about ivermectin, most people aren't even capable of arguing the "orthodox" positiom but still wouldn't hesitate to puff up and self-righteously shout some string of load catchphrases at you to score social points for being a Doubleplus Goodthinker "LMAO HORSE DEWORMER INJECTING BLEACH LOL" It's all so tiresome.
Nothing aggravates me more than (for a more recent example) someone who knew virtually nothing about Ukraine and had literally never even heard of the Azov Batallion prior to February 2022, but overnight decided that of course Ukraine doesn't have a neo-Nazi problem and this is obviously just fake news dreamt up by Putin from whole cloth as a half-hearted casus belli and to even suggest that Ukraine might have a neo-Nazi problem means that you've been brainwashed by Putin and his army of social media bots. Like how could Ukraine possibly have a neo-Nazi problem - its President is literally Jewish??*
*An argument routinely made by people who, funnily enough, have no problem believing that the US was a racist/white supremacist country in the years 2009-16, despite the ethnicity of its then-President.
That is actually very common. Most people who want to discredit conspiracy theorists actually know very little about the subject and the conspiracy theorist actually knows a great deal more (albeit often with his own bias that misleads him). When starting dialog, the discreditors are quickly faced with a failure which they don't want to accept and simply start mocking the opponent.
I already said in another place that I totally support Scott on his stance to write a long and detailed rebuttal. Maybe his choice about ivermectin wasn't the most interesting to majority but people write detailed PhD theses about more boring subjects and learn a great deal about many things. Who am I to say which subjects one should engage to and which are not allowed?
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
nopie 1yr ago
Don't forget that in a lot of cases the conspiracy theorists are actually correct. There actually weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and I'm sure you can point at a more recent event where the conspiracy theory take was correct as well. I agree that sometimes the discreditors just fail in the argument and bring out the mockery, but there are a lot of instances where "simply start mocking the opponent" is actually the optimal strategy right from the get-go.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
nopie 1yr ago
Most people who want to discredit conspiracy theorists actually know very little about the subject and the conspiracy theorist actually knows a great deal more (albeit often with his own bias that misleads him).
Well this exact effect is exactly why (in a historical sense) this website exists, isn't it? Scott amputated spicy discussions from his blog because people who knew more than him about spicy conspiracy Topic X kept derailing every discussion about every other mundane Topic Y by claiming (with evidence derived from their greater knowledge) that Topic X was actually closely related to Topic Y and dragging entire comment sections into the flames.
Fast forward several subsequent additional amputations and here we are.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
Butlerian 1yr ago
Wait, what? The ACX comment section doesn't have any topic bans I'm aware of. I know Motte was amputated from the SSC subreddit due to Scott caving under pressure, though.
Nobody is perfect. He needs to maintain his brand with his substack and some of these discussions can damage it.
I am being charitable to him and assume that he doesn't denounce lockdown restrictions only because he cannot without damage to his reputation. It is the same Kolgomorov's complicity he wrote about.
I can put my bets that the public is volatile. Crowds that demanded that everyone stays at home, will soon demand for blood of those who issued these orders. But I have nothing to lose if my bets do not work out. For him it is much more riskier. And he can join the crowd too when it demands blood.
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 -
Definitely aimed at the hegemonic ideology and not me, since I relate intensely to this paragraph:
I often find myself leaning into weird or unsubstantiated beliefs due solely to resentment at how much scorn is poured on people who dare question the relevant orthodoxy. I'm probably a lot more willing to entertain HBD or even JQ stuff simply because asking a good faith question about either topic (and others like them) gets you shouted down, ostracized, blacklisted etc.
It's actually worse than Scott's example, because unlike the the guy Scott is beefing with, who apparently knows something about ivermectin, most people aren't even capable of arguing the "orthodox" positiom but still wouldn't hesitate to puff up and self-righteously shout some string of load catchphrases at you to score social points for being a Doubleplus Goodthinker "LMAO HORSE DEWORMER INJECTING BLEACH LOL" It's all so tiresome.
Nothing aggravates me more than (for a more recent example) someone who knew virtually nothing about Ukraine and had literally never even heard of the Azov Batallion prior to February 2022, but overnight decided that of course Ukraine doesn't have a neo-Nazi problem and this is obviously just fake news dreamt up by Putin from whole cloth as a half-hearted casus belli and to even suggest that Ukraine might have a neo-Nazi problem means that you've been brainwashed by Putin and his army of social media bots. Like how could Ukraine possibly have a neo-Nazi problem - its President is literally Jewish??*
*An argument routinely made by people who, funnily enough, have no problem believing that the US was a racist/white supremacist country in the years 2009-16, despite the ethnicity of its then-President.
That is actually very common. Most people who want to discredit conspiracy theorists actually know very little about the subject and the conspiracy theorist actually knows a great deal more (albeit often with his own bias that misleads him). When starting dialog, the discreditors are quickly faced with a failure which they don't want to accept and simply start mocking the opponent.
I already said in another place that I totally support Scott on his stance to write a long and detailed rebuttal. Maybe his choice about ivermectin wasn't the most interesting to majority but people write detailed PhD theses about more boring subjects and learn a great deal about many things. Who am I to say which subjects one should engage to and which are not allowed?
Don't forget that in a lot of cases the conspiracy theorists are actually correct. There actually weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and I'm sure you can point at a more recent event where the conspiracy theory take was correct as well. I agree that sometimes the discreditors just fail in the argument and bring out the mockery, but there are a lot of instances where "simply start mocking the opponent" is actually the optimal strategy right from the get-go.
More options
Context Copy link
Well this exact effect is exactly why (in a historical sense) this website exists, isn't it? Scott amputated spicy discussions from his blog because people who knew more than him about spicy conspiracy Topic X kept derailing every discussion about every other mundane Topic Y by claiming (with evidence derived from their greater knowledge) that Topic X was actually closely related to Topic Y and dragging entire comment sections into the flames.
Fast forward several subsequent additional amputations and here we are.
Wait, what? The ACX comment section doesn't have any topic bans I'm aware of. I know Motte was amputated from the SSC subreddit due to Scott caving under pressure, though.
More options
Context Copy link
Nobody is perfect. He needs to maintain his brand with his substack and some of these discussions can damage it.
I am being charitable to him and assume that he doesn't denounce lockdown restrictions only because he cannot without damage to his reputation. It is the same Kolgomorov's complicity he wrote about.
I can put my bets that the public is volatile. Crowds that demanded that everyone stays at home, will soon demand for blood of those who issued these orders. But I have nothing to lose if my bets do not work out. For him it is much more riskier. And he can join the crowd too when it demands blood.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link