@kyleha I'm talking about a text issue. An example would be Irenaeus's "Against Heresies", which rebuts a lot of Gnostic beliefs and is the only remaining record of many of those beliefs.
@conny_asf_ggg good point! I think the culture of the Celts of western Europe as filtered through the written records of the Greeks and Romans is another example.
@mpjgregoire not strawman, not extreme minority view.
I think it's a pretty common phenomenon in classics. For example, philosophers whose work is only known because their detractors' books are still read.
I thought I remembered a thinker who was known only for having been attacked by Schelling, being said have been preserved in Schelling's critique like a fly in amber, but I cannot find this! Nor would it be a word if we could find it.
I've wondered about this with Benno Kerry; I'd like to see what Frege was responding to, but AFAIK Kerry's articles haven't been translated and maybe not reprinted.
This is exactly the kind of thing Germans have a word for but nobody else does! I'm not sure there's a specific term in English but I get what you're meaning here (I think) and it's about only knowing someone's work via the references to them by others and not the original work. It's not about debating per se but about the original author's work being known only via other people referencing it to argue against it.
The family academic says that when it happens (frequently) in historical research, the second document in the situation is called a "refutatio".
There's also the term "agrapha" for a quotation e g., within the refutatio) that has no known/identified original source. Which is not exactly the same of course.
Doesn't have an answer for the scenario as a whole, though. Sounds like if you just say "broken backlink" in Latin or Ancient Greek you'd fit right in, however....
@kyleha@mastodon.social
No, a straw man is an argument intentionally constructed to be weaker than the opponent's actual argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man?wprov=sfla1
I've seen this situation a few times on the fediverse while I've been here.
Right now, I'm seeing a lot of rebuttals to concerns about commercial postings on the fediverse. I haven't seen anyone express those concerns; just the rebuttals.
An excessive immune response to an irritation that either barely exists, or only superficially resembles the substance that truly justified the response?
Exactly what I was thinking. I know where this comes from - people don't want to draw the attention of folks with the "wrong" opinions. But at the same time it makes it very difficult to engage, since I have no idea where these opinions originate from, or how exactly were they voiced. Very confusing indeed.
Hypothesis: the concerns played out almost entirely in individualized replies to specific posts and not anywhere they'd be in the spotlight. Artists and other people trying to sell something would be predominantly exposed to them, other people don't necessarily see any of them.
agreed. Reminds me of how folks keep saying “you can’t say ‘Merry Christmas’ anymore!!” … like, no one is saying you can’t, people. Though, *if it’s all you ever say/post* you might annoy a few folks ;)
I haven't seen the source post but it seems to have grown out of someone on the kolektiva instance complaining about people selling their art/crafts on Mastodon (I'm guessing there's a good chance it was a troll but it could have just been someone who's decided they're going to make anarchy into some kind of rigid fundamentalist ideology and is now overeagerly policing everyone...ah, the irony). I think Kolektiva has gathered their person and dealt with it (though not 100% sure).
I have seen someone I follow expound on how Mastodon needs to pay for itself by allowing commercial advertising (it seems pretty clear to me they just don't understand Mastodon or the fediverse and are going full startup product manager, I assume they'll catch up eventually). I suspect for people who haven't ever been on non-commercial social media or engaged in discussions about the open web it's a big adjustment conceptually and behaviorally.
I don't know what to call it, but I think it is a special case of context collapse. Every person has a unique and different feed. So one person is seeing X in their feed, they post anti-X, but you aren't following who they're following, so you see only anti-X. Context collapse.
It seems to me that means that the power of people driven engagement is working. Views the community doesn’t support are simply not gaining traction, but remain local (ie concerns about commercialness), while views held in common are shared (the rebuttals).
To help temper an overactive ‘allergic’ immune response we could all take a moment to ask if a rebuttal has context before we boost; if the answer is no, maybe wait or research before passing it along.
Same experience here. I started to see similar bunches of threads since 2-3 days ago in my stream. These were composed of people expressing outrage or indignation about a "Mastodon purity police" discouraging freelance artists from advertising or selling their wares on Mastodon.
No context on where the original exchange occurred or who was discouraging the advertisement or sale of said artwork. I did surmise that this must be due to the recent #TwitterExodus 🤷♂️🐦
I HAVE seen people post general anti-capitalist / anti-corporate notions. A general distaste for "brand accounts" etc.
Most probably didn't have self-promoting creators in mind when they said it, but rather large commercial corporations.
But as someone who IS here at least partly to promote my project, and hopefully sell merch, get donations, etc, I can see how such messages can sound threatening.
I mean, I once got kicked off of a Google+ group for "self promotion", so I get the fear.
I'd pu it in the category of FUD. It seems to base itself on the fact that if if you want to convince people that A is true, it's more effective to say something that takes A for granted than to state A.
Kyle Hasselbacher
•Evan Prodromou
•No, a straw man is an argument intentionally constructed to be weaker than the opponent's actual argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man?wprov=sfla1
a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Evan Prodromou
•https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Heresies_%28Irenaeus%29?wprov=sfla1
work of Christian theology written in Greek by Irenaeus
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Jayarava
•Cornelia Östreich
•Witches or "wise women" of the Late Middle Ages.
Evan Prodromou
•Evan Prodromou
•I think it's a pretty common phenomenon in classics. For example, philosophers whose work is only known because their detractors' books are still read.
William Clare Roberts
•Matt Weiner
•I've wondered about this with Benno Kerry; I'd like to see what Frege was responding to, but AFAIK Kerry's articles haven't been translated and maybe not reprinted.
Fifi Lamoura
•n8 Doesn't follow you 🇺🇦
•There's also the term "agrapha" for a quotation e g., within the refutatio) that has no known/identified original source. Which is not exactly the same of course.
Doesn't have an answer for the scenario as a whole, though. Sounds like if you just say "broken backlink" in Latin or Ancient Greek you'd fit right in, however....
The King
•daaitoulaam
•Evan Prodromou
•Evan Prodromou (@evan@prodromou.pub)
MastodonEvan Prodromou
•Right now, I'm seeing a lot of rebuttals to concerns about commercial postings on the fediverse. I haven't seen anyone express those concerns; just the rebuttals.
Steve Scotten
•Ben Curthoys
•Sounds like the fediverse is allergic.
Paul
•Juan Luis
•samir, refactors yer people
•I take it as a sign that I’m following the right people.
Julian Fietkau
•Brian Campbell
•I think it comes about because people don't want to give extra attention to people who make bad takes.
But it does mean that you frequently see a lot of discourse with missing context.
Marc with a C
•Reminds me of how folks keep saying “you can’t say ‘Merry Christmas’ anymore!!” … like, no one is saying you can’t, people. Though, *if it’s all you ever say/post* you might annoy a few folks ;)
Evan Prodromou
•Fifi Lamoura
•I have seen someone I follow expound on how Mastodon needs to pay for itself by allowing commercial advertising (it seems pretty clear to me they just don't understand Mastodon or the fediverse and are going full startup product manager, I assume they'll catch up eventually). I suspect for people who haven't ever been on non-commercial social media or engaged in discussions about the open web it's a big adjustment conceptually and behaviorally.
Andre
•darkflib
•Pretty much as people are currently doing with the whole birdsite debacle...
mcc
•David Mitchell :CApride:
•To help temper an overactive ‘allergic’ immune response we could all take a moment to ask if a rebuttal has context before we boost; if the answer is no, maybe wait or research before passing it along.
Norobiik @Norobiik@noc.social
•No context on where the original exchange occurred or who was discouraging the advertisement or sale of said artwork. I did surmise that this must be due to the recent #TwitterExodus 🤷♂️🐦
Space Catitude 🚀
•Most probably didn't have self-promoting creators in mind when they said it, but rather large commercial corporations.
But as someone who IS here at least partly to promote my project, and hopefully sell merch, get donations, etc, I can see how such messages can sound threatening.
I mean, I once got kicked off of a Google+ group for "self promotion", so I get the fear.
Evan Prodromou
•acroll
•aeva
•Dame-Armiger Kali Ranya ⚔️🐈
•Lisa Dale Miller
•Keith Wilson
•Space Catitude 🚀
•On corporate media, I have strongly suspected it was an outrage-driven means of promotion. Not sure what it means, here.
Federico Adolfi
•Stefan Monnier
•Stephen Michael Kellat
•Reverse Dictionary
reversedictionary.org