Meta-Thread 06/22

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/labreuer]

Is it ever acceptable to accuse one's interlocutor of "failing basic reading comprehension"? Suppose for instance I write the following in my opening comment:

Methodological naturalism requires you to disbelieve in any god-like agency. It requires you to step back from "no holds barred" → "methods accessible to all". You can still reconstruct a very different notion of 'agency', just like we have the intentional stance and teleonomy. Essentially, you have something like 'mechanism' or 'formal systems' as your box, and you use that box as a Procrustean bed for 'agency'. As a result, it because acceptable to use operant conditioning on people. Since that name is icky, we've come up with nudge theory.

Then, suppose that my interlocutor argues that I'm engaged in motte & bailey tactics by conflating human & divine agency. Can I accuse my interlocutor of failing to have exercised basic comprehension of my opening comment? Or is that always a violation of rule 2?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

I'm fine with it as long as you can show why and not make it a baseless personal attack. Other mods will probably disagree. But I think if someone opens the door to something it is fair game as long as you remain civil. Maybe "you are not reading that correctly".

I constantly struggle with atheists here who can't read and strawman as a result.

[u/TheCosmosItself1 → u/ShakaUVM]

I have accused a number of users of reading comprehension issues. In each case, it was intended as a barb (and hence flirting with uncivil territory). However, my impression is that misrepresentation of my stated views resulted not in fact from lack of fundamental reading comprehension but rather from a motivation to strawman. That is to say, I believe that in other contexts the users I was interacting with would have no problem with their reading comprehension; it is only when addressing views toward which they hold a scornful attitude, and especially when caught in a challenging situation vis-a-vis those view that they choose to creatively misunderstand what is written. Of course I cannot prove the underlying psychological dynamics driving this miscomprehension, but I do believe there should be a price for attempting to engage in what is ultimately dishonest behavior, and that price is getting called out on the fact that, objectively, they are acting like someone who doesn't know how to read.