My first thought was “what’s with all these recent LW posts complaining about online discussion peeves outside of LW”? Toward the end, you tie it back to useful advice with
But I do suggest that you should be very cautious about using that accusation, because you may be placing yourself in a situation where you will never change your mind.
The accusation of “motte-and-bailey” got a lot more popular recently, but it’s really no different from accusing (when done to me) or pointing out (when I do it to you) much older terms of X bias, bait-and-switch, deceptive-sales-tactics, etc.
In most cases, there are two different problems you’re reacting to:
you’re (trying to) lower my status by pointing out problems in a group I align with.
you’re (intentionally or accidentally) being imprecise with your proposition.
The second should probably just get to double-crux as quickly as you can. The first should usually be addressed separately from the nominal debate (but it will be very ideosyncratic in exactly how).
My first thought was “what’s with all these recent LW posts complaining about online discussion peeves outside of LW”? Toward the end, you tie it back to useful advice with
The accusation of “motte-and-bailey” got a lot more popular recently, but it’s really no different from accusing (when done to me) or pointing out (when I do it to you) much older terms of X bias, bait-and-switch, deceptive-sales-tactics, etc.
In most cases, there are two different problems you’re reacting to:
you’re (trying to) lower my status by pointing out problems in a group I align with.
you’re (intentionally or accidentally) being imprecise with your proposition.
The second should probably just get to double-crux as quickly as you can. The first should usually be addressed separately from the nominal debate (but it will be very ideosyncratic in exactly how).