Trump’s talking points sound like they’re aimed at <85 IQ people who don’t know crap about the world
Make it <105 IQ and we’re just talking about the electorate.
A very small number of people actually know what goes on in international affairs. If we’re lucky we might get a book a decade after the thing happens, written by someone who has an interest in making themselves look good. Or a declassified documents dump, but those seem out of fashion lately.
I’m curious exactly what Kamala’s role was in speaking to Zelenskyy prior to the invasion. My guess is that Trump was right, they weren’t interested in negotiating to avoid a war, Kamala was there to tell Zelenskyy to not give an inch, America had his back, and if Russia invades he’ll secure his legacy as the Ukrainian president that defeated Russia.
My guess is that Trump was right, they weren’t interested in negotiating to avoid a war, Kamala was there to tell Zelenskyy to not give an inch, America had his back, and if Russia invades he’ll secure his legacy as the Ukrainian president that defeated Russia.
The US government certainly did not believe that Ukraine could viably hold back a Russian invasion, that’s why they closed the embassy and pulled out all personnel, and why they resisted sending large amounts of additional weaponry until after they’d repulsed the siege of Kiev.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t lie to Zelensky, but I honestly question if even he thought they’d be able to defend against an invasion; he disappeared for a few days early on (speaking from unidentified locations etc) and before that seemed to doubt whether the Russians would actually invade.
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Make it <105 IQ and we’re just talking about the electorate.
A very small number of people actually know what goes on in international affairs. If we’re lucky we might get a book a decade after the thing happens, written by someone who has an interest in making themselves look good. Or a declassified documents dump, but those seem out of fashion lately.
I’m curious exactly what Kamala’s role was in speaking to Zelenskyy prior to the invasion. My guess is that Trump was right, they weren’t interested in negotiating to avoid a war, Kamala was there to tell Zelenskyy to not give an inch, America had his back, and if Russia invades he’ll secure his legacy as the Ukrainian president that defeated Russia.
The US government certainly did not believe that Ukraine could viably hold back a Russian invasion, that’s why they closed the embassy and pulled out all personnel, and why they resisted sending large amounts of additional weaponry until after they’d repulsed the siege of Kiev.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t lie to Zelensky, but I honestly question if even he thought they’d be able to defend against an invasion; he disappeared for a few days early on (speaking from unidentified locations etc) and before that seemed to doubt whether the Russians would actually invade.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link