site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  17d ago (text post)   26879 thread views

U.S. Election (Day?) 2024 Megathread

With apologies to our many friends and posters outside the United States... it's time for another one of these! Culture war thread rules apply, and you are permitted to openly advocate for or against an issue or candidate on the ballot (if you clearly identify which ballot, and can do so without knocking down any strawmen along the way). "Small-scale" questions and answers are also permitted if you refrain from shitposting or being otherwise insulting to others here. Please keep the spirit of the law--this is a discussion forum!--carefully in mind.

If you're a U.S. citizen with voting rights, your polling place can reportedly be located here.

If you're still researching issues, Ballotpedia is usually reasonably helpful.

Any other reasonably neutral election resources you'd like me to add to this notification, I'm happy to add.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

just as the Roman system acted as an insane pressure cooker for military talent until they could outcompete the elites

What do you mean by that? Military service was a required stage of the cursus honorum, you couldn't be a Roman senator if you hadn't served in the military. And you couldn't be appointed a propraetor or a proconsul if you weren't a senator, and thus a member of the elites.

I mean that on paper, the Roman system was designed to select for any number of positive attributes, but what it really ended up selecting for is military genius, to a point where they became the real heart of the Roman world, and the republican institutions were like some awkward growth inessential to its subsistence in later years. And to the extent the senate tries to justify its continued existence in the face of obsolescence by staking claims on the military, it faces immense pressure not only from the generals, but from the populares who feel the senate's authority is far out of proportion to their real importance.

Which period of the Roman history do you have in mind?

Late Republic

Then I disagree that the republican system was designed to select for that. I think its biggest issue was that it was simply unsuited to managing an empire. Proconsularship was a band-aid that ruined the concept of "one consul - one term". If you could spend a year managing a province as a consul and then another year as a proconsul, then extending the term for a third year started to sound plausible. This made a proconsular appointment much more attractive than a regular consularship.

Why do you disagree that they selected for it? The link is undeniable. Especially because consular appointments are annual, and it's very hard to judge the wider decisions or impact of a consul on that time scale, and conquest is one of the lone things that's obviously an immense positive, just like rhetoric, except proconsular appointments shatter that dynamic and form an even greater imbalance of power. If we're not selecting for great orators or great generals, then what are we selecting for?

Power-hungry politicians. A simply great general would have been content with triumphs and adoration. Someone like Pompey or Caesar viewed conquest as a stepping stone towards their main goal: political domination.

Right, but if the main road to political domination is military genius, the selection pressure falls on tactical brilliance.

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