site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   2491 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 15, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There are many libertarians that oppose The War On Drugs, in part, based on that police sometimes abuses it and plants fake evidence on people they don't like. This is understandable. A fair fraction of these also supports ban on child porn. But CP is easier to plant and more difficult to defend. Why they support it?

Because it’s worse.

Drug legalization only requires “your body, your choice.” Under the common understanding of consent, CP legalization requires taking that choice away from someone else.

Evidence planting is a distant second.

Evidence planting is a distant second.

ah, that part was actually useful

Drug legalization only requires “your body, your choice.”

Not always--see second-hand smoke.

Under the common understanding of consent, CP legalization requires taking that choice away from someone else.

Depends on how the CP was created. Drawn CP doesn't for instance.

Under the common understanding of consent, CP legalization requires taking that choice away from someone else.

what about drawn porn and adult people distributing recordings of oneself when they were young? The former is almost universally banned, the latter is universally banned. What about people long dead?

Why even worry about it? Just don't do any of it.

I'm a nerd that if why I am here to start with. As for utility, I think I'd been better if I spent same time working as a cab driver.

Libertarians are notorious for not supporting the ban on CP. Or the age of consent restriction.

I can't say I've ever met any libertarians who were against age of consent. The entire philosophy is based around respecting what consenting adults do. They're fine with restricting what children do.

The entire philosophy is based around respecting what consenting adults do. They're fine with restricting what children do.

  1. Define all X as not-human with some scientific-sounding justification ("brain not developed till 25", "they're closer to gorillas", etc.)
  2. Claim anyone who disagrees with that definition is in opposition to the Science, and are obviously just in favor of X freedom because they want to have sex with [more generally, exploit] the women in X
  3. Rinse and repeat for Y, Z, etc. until you've reinvented traditional morality wholesale (more popularly known as "intersectionality")

No, I can't imagine why any freedom-minded person would have any problems with that. From a liberal standpoint, the problem with this strategy in an illiberal milieu is that you can't really take it on directly, and liberals being mistake theorists (and their tendency to be sexual mistake theorists doesn't help that) generally fail to understand that.

Thus, they tend to get baited into attacking (2), when the actual answer is to either go after (1) [which isn't scalable and is still vulnerable to "why do you care so much about hoaxes?", where people who can attack (1) can still be somewhat-credibly accused of having the same motivations as the people who just attack (2) do], or seek/implement/maintain social conditions such that yeschad.jpg is a valid response to (2)- this is being able to respond "all of them" to "how many children have to die before people who have (and will do) nothing wrong will give up their freedom to X" criticisms of [insert civil right here].

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


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats