I don’t think you need to care what is and isn’t meta discussion. And no one, including me, can define and classify meta discussion in a precise, consistent, useful, detailed way.
David Deutsch spent years telling me he would answer questions about meta discussion later, but never did. His position was less intelligent than ChatGPT’s:
Me:
Is meta discussion good?
ChatGPT:
It depends on the context. Meta discussion refers to conversations about the conversation itself — for example, discussing how a debate is structured rather than the debate’s content. It can be helpful for:
Clarifying misunderstandings
Improving communication strategies
Enhancing mutual understanding
However, it can also derail the original conversation if overused, leading to:
Losing focus on the main topic
Overcomplicating simple issues
In moderation, meta discussion can improve communication; too much can be distracting.
Me:
Are quote attributions meta discussion?
ChatGPT:
Yes, quote attributions can be considered a form of meta discussion. When you attribute a quote, you’re not engaging with the content of the quote itself — you’re discussing its source or authorship. This shifts the focus from the actual message to the context or credibility of the statement, which is a classic example of meta-level conversation.
Of course, Deutsch never opposed quote attributions despite TCS list having a:
“no meta-discussion” rule
One thing they got right was saying that rule was “unusual”. It’s their weird idiosyncrasy that they used to try to justify biased moderation actions.
I was wondering why you guys were concerned with meta discussion because I opposed the no meta discussion rule early on, I repeatedly had my TCS list posts blocked with the no meta discussion rule as the alleged reason, I argued with Deutsch about it, and he and anti-meta policies have been gone for over a decade.