site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   2467 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 13, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does anyone else really dislike people citing video-essays as proof of their argument? I find them to be a really poor way of expressing information compared to text. The amount of time needed to watch it is very long. No ctrl-F either.

Plus looking at youtube transcript is a very user-unfriendly experience. I'm happy with video for visual things like 'Shanghai is a really pretty, advanced looking city from the perspective of people walking through at night' or 'this is how some criminal accosting happened'. But for expressing arguments it's not in the same league as text.

Yes. Mainly because I do most of my online reading on my commute or on public transportation and I don't always feel like plugging in earphones to accommodate a video. I can read much faster than these people talk, especially if they're being circuitous. In addition I find most video makers pretty narcissistic. As others have pointed out, other rhetorical devices are involved in video than those suited to text.

At this point I often don't even like when people cite textual essays that take a long time to get to the point. I can appreciate a good bit of extended writing very much, but usually not when I'm trying to get up to speed on it in order to participate in a discussion.

The audio format isn't the main problem imo, if you were citing a lecture in a university course it'd be annoying to read the transcript but fine. The real problem is video essays are universally uninformative because they're made for the kind of people who watch youtube. I can't think of a single 'video essay' that isn't strictly inferior, purely by information content, to a piece of text.

Yes. Video is unacceptable in my mind because it is lazy. It takes less time to produce but more time to watch, saving the creator a few hours but costing the audience in aggregate thousands of hours. I don't consume content that doesn't respect it's audience.

Strongly agree. Also in a counterpoint to @ymeskhout's recent cross-examination post, I think video or spoken content makes it much harder to catch errors. A lot of obfuscation can hide in tone, pitch, volume, rapidity of speech, etc.

This problem is even worse in longform video!

I agree with this criticism, which also means I disagree that it's a counterpoint to my post! I never tried to claim that video > text in all or even most instances. I demonstrably vastly prefer reading and writing than any other medium. My point was very narrow, extolling the virtues of real-time conversations that exist with the ability to tease out someone's position with higher precision, and a better opportunity to root out dishonesty. Beyond those two specific aspects, it's hard for me to think of other advantages.

I would cite a video essay if it provides video examples of a particular individual lying or contradicting himself/herself. Things you can't prove with text. But for a scientific or philosophical argument, text is more efficient.

I agree. I can tolerate a 5-10 minute video if it’s well produced and looks interesting, anything longer I don’t bother with. And it actively annoys me when someone links an hour long ramble and tells me to watch it to understand their argument.

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