Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 22
- 3
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 -
Nice.
I still see this is a serious conversation about an unserious scenario. I will update when we see what Trump actually does. Americans broadly don't harbor ill will or want to bully Canada. Does that matter? I think so. Americans don't really care about bullying Iraqis or Cubans. We probably can't escape the geopolitics of it all. Still, there are no irreconcilable differences between the two nations that suggest conflict is inevitable or desirable.
A mutually beneficial, if lopsided, security arrangement is fine and to be expected. Canada is not likely to keep complete sovereignty over all its territory, no. Poland, a nation of proud and jingoistic people, doesn't maintain complete sovereignty either. They invite America to violate their sovereignty with broad smiles and wide open arms. Isn't that the deal? What does a Canada not beholden to America look like? A Chinese satellite?
I don't know what the Pentagon or State Department is thinking in terms of long term strategy. Whether it has any influence on Trump's current rhetoric is another question. Canada's security capabilities and its willingness to maintain those are a real concern. There is a strategic deficit that Canada is well positioned to fill. Canada should be the Arctic guys on this side of the Atlantic. They probably are. Canada doesn't need a 400 ship navy to be a reliable and indispensable ally.
Seems like as the nice guy neighbor Canada should also be well positioned to have competent and useful intelligence agencies. A go-between that can offer to whisper sweet nothings into the super power's ears, thus gaining valuable access it can leverage. Why isn't that a thing? The Brits fill this role already?
I might feel the same way if I were a Canadian. As an American citizen I'd rather see Canada prosper than become a subservient territory. Rising tides and all that. Once the Canadian subreddit started speaking more candidly about immigration I began to have serious concerns. A United States of NAFTA would be kinda cool, but meh.
And, hey, at least you're not Mexico.
More options
Context Copy link