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 -
I’ll bet my entire net worth at even odds on your theories. Heavy hopium. And this would be the best investment risks-reward anywhere in financial markets.
I'm not Sloppy Goppy.
sloppy Goppy is a guest poster I host on my substack.
.
My Ukraine theory is that the conflict is becoming increasingly unstable and the escalatory equilibrium could break soon, with both Ukraine and Russia attacking vital infrastructure, which would end with Ukraine as a failed sate, and the entire region destabilized.
Here's the full take
A few thoughts.
Largely agree war more likely to be a stalemate. Ukraine probably takes Kherson but the old 2014 lines will be difficult. Even the real Russian army before they lost most of their equipment couldn’t do that.
Russia can’t cripple Ukraine infrastructure in an afternoon. Don’t have the quantity of missiles. And Ukraine is getting better equipment to shoot down missiles.
You neglected the real risks that Russia turns into a failed state. Probably more likely than Ukraine turning into fiefdoms. They’ve United as a people. Revolution in Russia and breaking apart into different ethnic groups with a stub of Russia around Moscow. Lost war loses respect for the regime and Moscow doesn’t have the troops to keep regions in line.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link