[potatolicious]

> "If you say two different and contradictory things, and do not very explicitly resolve them, and say which one is the final answer, you will get blamed for both things you said, and you will not be entitled to complain about it, because you did it to yourself."

If I can be a bit bold and observe that this tic is also a very old rhetorical trick you see in our industry. Call it Schrodinger's Modest Proposal if you will.

In it someone writes something provocative, but casts it as both a joke and deadly serious at various points. Depending on how the audience reacts they can then double down on it being all-in-good-jest or yes-absolutely-totally. People who enjoy the author will explain the nonsensical tension as "nuance".

You see it in rationalist writing all the time. It's a tiresome rhetorical "trick" that doesn't fool anyone any more.

[antonvs]

It's a version of a motte and bailey argument (named after a medieval castle defense system):

> "...philosopher Nicholas Shackel coined the term 'motte-and-bailey' to describe the rhetorical strategy in which a debater retreats to an uncontroversial claim when challenged on a controversial one."

-- https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/the-motte-and-the-bailey-a...

[directevolve]

In what rationalist writing? The LessWrong style is to be literal and unambiguous. They’re pretty explicit that this is a community value they’re striving for.

[sdwr]

The whole trick is having your cake and eating it too. The LessWrong style exploits the gap between the strength of the claims ("this is a big deal that explains something fundamental about the world") and the evidence/foundation (abstract armchair reasoning, unfalsifiable)

[directevolve]

That’s not the same issue, though. You’re claiming just plain overconfidence or that you find their arguments unconvincing. But the rhetorical trick we were discussing is oscillating between treating a claim as a joke or as deadly serious depending on the audience.