site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   4730 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 24, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I do not personally know Tom Scott

So it's fine for you to insult a public figure by (literally or figuratively) calling him so unattractive and unmanly that his wife is fucking other men behind his back.

But if I say that a former colleague of mine is of average intelligence (without mentioning her name, nationality, the company she worked for or any identifying characteristics whatsoever), then I'm being "rude" and "hateful".

Moreover, your absurd double standard implies that it would be okay for you to call my former colleague a midwit (based on my description of her), but not for me to do so - because I know her personally?

With all due respect: get lost.

It's rude to insult anyone. And I am rude sometimes.

It's not nice of me to call Tom Scott a cuck, but I don't think of him as a real person. The only reason why I am able to insult him in the first place is because Tom Scott, the person, does not exist. I wouldn't speak like that about anyone I know, because they would be real, and even just thinking badly of them would make me feel terrible.

Insults deindividualize a person. In the case of Tom Scott, he's already deindividualized as an online entity to me. However, you can't call your coworker a midwit without knowingly engaging in deindividualization. I, on the other hand, could call her that.

Edit: I will not respond to your comment if you wish not to continue the conversation. I will, however, make a note here that I have thought and written about this topic at lenght. The labor of deindividualization significantly differs based on familiarity, on whether you know someone or not. This is what makes insults bad. And rudeness is only a partial reflection of this labor.

It's not nice of me to call Tom Scott a cuck, but I don't think of him as a real person. The only reason why I am able to insult him in the first place is because Tom Scott, the person, does not exist. I wouldn't speak like that about anyone I know, because they would be real, and even just thinking badly of them would make me feel terrible.

Some of the best (worst) mental gymnastics I've ever read.

And all this over the word "midwit" which isn't even an insult.

It's not mental gymnastics; I'm sincerely expressing why I don't mind insulting someone I don't know. And this extends beyond insults to all aspects of life. Our concern is naturally highest for those closest to us. When this isn't the case, we start caring more about rocks than our families.

The badness of an insult derives from the labour of deindividualization required in producing it. The closer someone is to us, the more challenging it should be to express negative thoughts about them. I find it horrifying how somone can casually insult their coworkers and not feel anything.

That is the most nonsensical post hoc rationalisation for bad behaviour I've ever heard in my life and I have no interest in interacting with you any further.

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