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 -
No, I don't think I was being harsh enough on him.
The Anarchonomicon take on air defense I'd expect would be something like citing Herodotus's account of the Xanthians:
And his account of the siege of Babylon by Darius
The best air defense is having the balls to not care about civilian casualties on your own side. "I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed".
To bring this back to critique of Sloppy Goppy, he states that:
That's kind of like saying the Ravens' cornerbacks remained undefeated because they completed the game even though they gave up six touchdowns in the process. Wikipedia tells us:
The real success of the North Vietnamese over US bombing campaigns wasn't based on destroying a relative handful of American aircraft, it was based on the government successfully rallying the population of Vietnam to wage a "People's War in the Air":
Like the Xanthians and Babylonians before them, the Communist Party of Vietnam didn't so much prevent civilian casualties and the destruction of their productive capacity as they despised them, dismissed as not worthy of notice. The nation was capable of enduring privation, food shortages, deaths, and hard labor in order to win. "Nothing is more precious than freedom and independence." So let's question whether strategic bombing of civilian targets is likely to achieve any goals, or merely to inflict suffering that will be ignored by the nationalist psychopaths who seem to be running Ukraine, while allowing the globalist psychopaths than run NATO et al to provide even more destructive weapons to the Ukies.
And that doesn't even get into the question of why focus only on USSR and post-Soviet systems? Why ignore every other missile defense system in existence? Why focus on Russian use of these systems against the Ukrainians' handful of jets, while ignoring the much more apt and important comparison between the inferior Ukrainian forces (with outside support) successfully preventing Russian air dominance from exerting significant impacts on the battlefield? It's just regurgitated Russian talking points memos. I want the angles I haven't heard before.
More options
Context Copy link