naraburns nihil supernum
2yr ago
(text post)
33284 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
As far as I know, Darwin isn't currently banned, and having spent years arguing with him, I'm pretty sure the above is his alt.
I did too, and playing @guesswho ? Is a waste of our time. This proxy accusation is ludicrous, if you want to criticize him, link him.
The real darwin was not charitable, but neither was he treated with appropriate charity by the sub. In the end he was confronted with every perceived wrong thing he ever said wherever he went, swarmed by a mob demanding he yield. He never gave an inch, but he was more than capable of making good arguments (although obviously he made some bad ones too) .
They were often arguments we could not make and had not seen before, at least a few notches above standard reddit dross. Sometimes he would chew up a careless right-winger who got ahead of himself, that’s why they hated him imo. Granted, he would not be particularly nice about it, like a ymeskout, SSCreader, Soriek or gdanning might be. But perhaps the greater abrasiveness was better for our epistemic hygiene. People should fear mild disembowelment for saying something stupid.
Don’t ask me to side with a mob against a contrarian who won’t admit he’s wrong. Although he may have been wrong – he was most likely wrong – a mob forces the issue through social pressure and the weight of numbers (and ultimately in this case, mod force) , and that is not legitimate.
That's the best part - he was the one forcing the issues. The thing about the mod force is cmpletely backwards, for a long time, they were explicitly protecting him, letting him get away with stuff that got others banned. Even that wouldn't make so many people turn against him, if he had enough grace to concede when he was wrong.
I'm not asking you to side with the mob against a contrarian, I'm asking you to provide actual evidence for your theory that people hated him because he occasionally won a spat with a counter-progressive, rather than because he refused to engage in an honest manner.
Obviously I have a different perspective on what was usually happening. Anyone arguing in a hostile environment will appear more antagonistic than his best-behaved critics. Given his ideological distance to the sub, he was relatively polite. His worse critics should have been more charitable.
As to his refusal to admit he was wrong, though I accused him of bad faith for that myself once or twice, I now think it’s his business. I don’t judge him for lacking the grace to do what most of us almost never do, even when we are not facing the threats, mockery and vociferous demands of hostile ideological opponents.
It's a bit weird then, that people don't seem to have issues with any of the other progressives currently posting here. Even the ones that flamed out and left in a huff never got sufjj a bad reputation.
I don’t judge him for lacking the grace to do what most of us almost never do
That's your choice, but it seems perfectly normal that other people will choose otherwise, particularly when they disagree that this is something most people almost never do. It is very weird then to go on psychoanalytical investigations, trying to figure out what the 'real' reason for people disliking him is.
Have you argued for a position with very little support – honest inquiry, not a gotcha. I have, sometimes in here, and it’s an interesting dynamic. At first everything’s cool, but if you persist, the rudest part of the mob will accuse you of ignorance and stupidity, while the nicest will say you are obstinate and have ‘no interest in discussion’ . They progressively embolden each other and get annoyed by your refusal to admit “the obvious” until the knives really come out and you are declared a “troll”, a liar who can’t possibly believe anything so widely disbelieved. It seemed to me in those cases I was not wrong, they were.
But if I was wrong, then I guess it’s very difficult to recognize being wrong, and I have to absolve darwin. And if I was right, well then the mob knows nothing and I have to absolve darwin.
Have you argued for a position with very little support – honest inquiry, not a gotcha.
I have, a few times. I definately got accused of being stupid or ignorant. I don't recall people saying I "wasn't interested in discussion", but getting brusque and dismissive replies even from the more thoughtful people is certainly a challenge to one's morale. The tail-end of your experience I can't speak to from my own experience, but I think I've definately seen something along those lines play out with others.
Where I disagree with you is your conclusion. The problem isn't being wrong. It's talking to people in a way that undermines a productive conversation, and that's a bad thing to do no matter whether you're correct on the facts or not. That's the pattern of behavior I've been trying to demonstrate to you so far in the long thread.
For another example where bad faith accusations fly, see the gemmaem thread, of which I said pretty much the same thing:
I honestly think the gemmaem thread is an unfair pile-on, of the kind so prevalent in large subs. Sort-of outsider comes in, gets tons of criticism, if he or she reacts with even a fraction of the hostility shown to them, it's proof of bad faith, moral failings, deliberate refusal to accept the oh-so-clear-and-popular truth, and the gloves come completely off. I mean gemmaem's constantly reiterating that she's here in good faith, basically begging for charity, and she's not even a real outsider for us!
Any human slip from robotic, highest-decoupling arguing is interpreted as 'female shaming tactics' and the like. That doesn't mean there isn't some truth to those things, but people really underestimate how difficult it is to argue cleanly in unfamiliar enemy territory, and with so many hostile judges. Out of charity, we should be the ones to decouple: outside, female shaming tactics exist, but in here, an argument is just right or wrong.
I mean really, what is one-person shaming? Shaming requires a collective. She can't shame anyone, and neither could darwin.
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 -
I did too, and playing @guesswho ? Is a waste of our time. This proxy accusation is ludicrous, if you want to criticize him, link him.
The real darwin was not charitable, but neither was he treated with appropriate charity by the sub. In the end he was confronted with every perceived wrong thing he ever said wherever he went, swarmed by a mob demanding he yield. He never gave an inch, but he was more than capable of making good arguments (although obviously he made some bad ones too) .
They were often arguments we could not make and had not seen before, at least a few notches above standard reddit dross. Sometimes he would chew up a careless right-winger who got ahead of himself, that’s why they hated him imo. Granted, he would not be particularly nice about it, like a ymeskout, SSCreader, Soriek or gdanning might be. But perhaps the greater abrasiveness was better for our epistemic hygiene. People should fear mild disembowelment for saying something stupid.
Really? You don't think "never giving an inch" even when confronted with "every wrong he ever said" might have more to do with it?
Don’t ask me to side with a mob against a contrarian who won’t admit he’s wrong. Although he may have been wrong – he was most likely wrong – a mob forces the issue through social pressure and the weight of numbers (and ultimately in this case, mod force) , and that is not legitimate.
That's the best part - he was the one forcing the issues. The thing about the mod force is cmpletely backwards, for a long time, they were explicitly protecting him, letting him get away with stuff that got others banned. Even that wouldn't make so many people turn against him, if he had enough grace to concede when he was wrong.
I'm not asking you to side with the mob against a contrarian, I'm asking you to provide actual evidence for your theory that people hated him because he occasionally won a spat with a counter-progressive, rather than because he refused to engage in an honest manner.
Obviously I have a different perspective on what was usually happening. Anyone arguing in a hostile environment will appear more antagonistic than his best-behaved critics. Given his ideological distance to the sub, he was relatively polite. His worse critics should have been more charitable.
As to his refusal to admit he was wrong, though I accused him of bad faith for that myself once or twice, I now think it’s his business. I don’t judge him for lacking the grace to do what most of us almost never do, even when we are not facing the threats, mockery and vociferous demands of hostile ideological opponents.
It's a bit weird then, that people don't seem to have issues with any of the other progressives currently posting here. Even the ones that flamed out and left in a huff never got sufjj a bad reputation.
That's your choice, but it seems perfectly normal that other people will choose otherwise, particularly when they disagree that this is something most people almost never do. It is very weird then to go on psychoanalytical investigations, trying to figure out what the 'real' reason for people disliking him is.
Have you argued for a position with very little support – honest inquiry, not a gotcha. I have, sometimes in here, and it’s an interesting dynamic. At first everything’s cool, but if you persist, the rudest part of the mob will accuse you of ignorance and stupidity, while the nicest will say you are obstinate and have ‘no interest in discussion’ . They progressively embolden each other and get annoyed by your refusal to admit “the obvious” until the knives really come out and you are declared a “troll”, a liar who can’t possibly believe anything so widely disbelieved. It seemed to me in those cases I was not wrong, they were.
But if I was wrong, then I guess it’s very difficult to recognize being wrong, and I have to absolve darwin. And if I was right, well then the mob knows nothing and I have to absolve darwin.
I have, a few times. I definately got accused of being stupid or ignorant. I don't recall people saying I "wasn't interested in discussion", but getting brusque and dismissive replies even from the more thoughtful people is certainly a challenge to one's morale. The tail-end of your experience I can't speak to from my own experience, but I think I've definately seen something along those lines play out with others.
Where I disagree with you is your conclusion. The problem isn't being wrong. It's talking to people in a way that undermines a productive conversation, and that's a bad thing to do no matter whether you're correct on the facts or not. That's the pattern of behavior I've been trying to demonstrate to you so far in the long thread.
For another example where bad faith accusations fly, see the gemmaem thread, of which I said pretty much the same thing:
I mean really, what is one-person shaming? Shaming requires a collective. She can't shame anyone, and neither could darwin.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link