🧵 View Thread
🧵 Thread (18 tweets)
how mistake theorists undermine themselves 1. correctly (explicitly) notice that scapegoating doesn't fix things 2. correctly (implicitly) notice that ambient conflict theory waters mean any open discussions of bad behavior will be socially redefined into calls for scapegoating https://t.co/BZH23BiS41
3. implicitly conclude the social redefinition forces will always win and shouldn't be fought 4. adopt an ontology that occludes huge swathes of real and commonly encountered types of conflicts, flavors of adversariality, and the mental states associated with them
5. censor conversations about conflict, adversariality, bad-faith, power, bad behavior (cuz that "just is" gearing up to scapegoat) 6. UNTIL SHIT GETS REAL, then scapegoat to resolve the tension, feel bad about it, partially cover it up, and try not to think about it
this is what michael is describing here https://t.co/PmTegfp3WX
@KatjaGrace @RatOrthodox The basic problem with truth culture so far is that it normally discards logic and dogmatically pretends not to be engaging in conflict while actually lashing out ineptly with its eyes closed and being directed to fight against itself. https://t.co/MiFQhU8dCK
conflict theorists, at peak, assert that thinking, reason, fairness, cooperation, etc aren't real and there is only raw power fights and it's always been that way, you fucking retard hard to see how to reform that https://t.co/nO4dpcRia4
mistake theorists haven't been traumatized out of seeing that truth and good are things, but don't let themselves understand conflict clearly enough to prevent their groups from getting coopted by conflict theorists that vibe like mistake theorists
@natural_hazard i agree & think you’re on the right track to offer the needed reforms. i loved your thoughts on this at fluidity too but the great thing about mistake theory is that it’s concise af. what’s the minimum viable reform that would make MT actually awesome?
so what *should* people do in these situations? let's say, and this is a completely hypothetical example, that you have a loose online community with no central authority that can exclude and censure people. and in this community, [ok, I'm past the character limit now] a bunch of people are going "hey why the fuck are we tolerating a RAPIST?" and a bunch of other people are going "why are you bringing this up? what exactly are we supposed to do about it and also there's a vibe that you're going to go after other people next" and the only outcome so far is an extreme ratcheting of the exact sort of tension that invites resolution via a scapegoat
@yashkaf @natural_hazard Ask them what they want to do about it. Repeat until some action is taken or the person gets tired because they don't really care about the situation and were merely using it as a prop for something else.
@yashkaf in the chaos/tpot thing, there's not much of a "we" that can take the actions either side is positing, and tpot is defs not a unit of organization that my thread feels relevant to like, I know *vibecamp* makes some vague gestures at having standards/judicial protocol, but/
@natural_hazard @aleksil79 i have takes on this that seem to mesh pretty neatly here https://t.co/DBSOv06DhV
what creates conflict theory out of mistake theory is that mistakes beget more mistakes and if someone's entire epistemic and ontological basis is wrong, they can just decide "letting you say those terrible things" is the real mistake and act to silence you for pointing it out. https://t.co/uwpYitefx7 https://t.co/fe1rXjM2KD
curious for @ben_r_hoffman's take on this in part from remembering a time that he referred to something as ~"clearly scapegoating" when from my perspective it didn't look like scapegoating so I have a sense he's already trying to avoid this failure mode