What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I largely agree.
Points of disagreement: vitalism isn't repellent.
War is who we are, who we have always been. War is to men what motherhood is to women. You may not like it, you certainly wouldn't enjoy war..but nevertheless your brain would keep telling you 'this is it'.
I don't like violent lunatics, but there's undeniable glory in defeating such.
Vitalism of that type depicted in Homer is v completely obsolete.
Modern war requires entirely different philosophical/moral approaches.
And war is now way too expensive to be anything but a last resort.
The vast majority of soldiers who are able to speak on the issue have said that war is hell. The vast majority of mothers have said the opposite about motherhood.
I think this is partly because modern warfare is a lot less like a fistfight and a lot more like crawling through the landscape for weeks knowing you might die any second. It's also because the anti-war soldiers are very strongly signal-boosted. Everyone has Sassoon and that gas poem shoved down their throat at school, nobody gives you Storm of Steel or George MacDonald Fraser.
A high-ranking officer once told me privately that you have to keep a close lid on soldiers because young men very much enjoy killing things and blowing stuff up and you can lose control of them very easily.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link