site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3mo ago (text post)   2437 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for January 2024

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.

Quality Contributions to the Main Motte

@MadMonzer:

@George_E_Hale:

@Meriadoc:

@LetsAllSitDown:

@themoosh:

@FarNearEverywhere:

Contributions for the week of January 1, 2024

@ymeskhout:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@100ProofTollBooth:

@firmamenti:

@Capital_Room:

@gog:

@George_E_Hale:

@gattsuru:

@To_Mandalay:

@papardus:

@Hoffmeister25:

Contributions for the week of January 8, 2024

@Folamh3:

@NullHypothesis:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@rayon:

@gattsuru:

@RandomRanger:

@ControlsFreak:

@Amadan:

Contributions for the week of January 15, 2024

@ymeskhout:

@doglatine:

@SSCReader:

@gattsuru:

@HlynkaCG:

@FiveHourMarathon:

Contributions for the week of January 22, 2024

@Martian_Expat:

@kopperfish:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@felis-parenthesis:

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

(Reposting post-reboot):

(from the leadup to papardus's comment)

No matter how many epicycles go into justifying the position and adding layers of nuance to it, there has to be some point where you take a step back and notice that the only thing they care about is vilifying racial minorities, blaming all of our problems on them, and advocating for policies against them. There has to be a word for that position regardless of the aesthetics that it is cloaked in.

Well said, and I wish I shared your optimism. Unfortunately, the English language doesn't care about what "has to be".

Heading off to a calmer front of the Culture War, it would also be nice if there was a word for a fictional character that is confident, driven, and in charge of their own decisions. Unfortunately, attempts at describing that sort of person get misinterpreted as lifting heavy weights and punching really hard.

The problems with "strong characters" are magnified a hundredfold with "racist". I've largely given up on using both of those terms because they do not enlighten the listener as to which claims I'm making.

Do you truly, really believe that there should be no legitimate way to ever have that conversation [about racial bias] at all?

Quite the opposite: If elected to the position of Language Czar, I promise to simplify and enable those conversations by creating a single word that unambiguously and specifically refers to those people. This will fix a glaring oversight where cross-burning KKK members are given the same label as people who get high scores on implicit association tests.

What, roughly, do I think the word “racism” means? Not just what does it not include, what should it definitely include?

To a first approximation, I don't. That's the entire problem. Toss it on the euphemism treadmill (dysphemism treadmill?) and let it sit in the dustbin of history.

imagine if I argued “right-wing people have abused the term free speech into complete meaninglessness because almost all of them invoke the first amendment in response to private actors criticizing them or banning them from a forum etc”. You can’t really deny that a large number of people actually do this all the time, but this is a terrible comment, right?

Oddly enough, I don't think you would have the opportunity here.

Take this comment, posted today. It's about someone being fired for making political statements, but the phrases "free speech" and "freedom of speech" don't show up in any of the 20 comments currently in that thread.

If you did find an appropriate target, then go for it. I'm sure someone would clarify which principles were at issue, and if necessary expand on why they are worth defending (or defying).

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