TracingWoodgrains -- 'Book Review: The Color of Law'
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
Notes -
I believe the three introductory paragraphs contextualize the content well enough. This is a a blog post that is reviewing a book which focuses on a specific kind of perspective on government housing policy.
& 3. I am not equipped to provide analysis that provides value beyond that which is provided by the content contained therein. I could write more. I could explain why it's interesting to me. Doing this might convince mods a sufficient effort threshold was achieved, but it might not be so valuable as a reader.
I have not read the book. I have read a blog post about the book. I could further summarize the blog post and continue to point at interesting things inside it. The post becomes a justification of my interest. Not what I actually find interesting. Which is the content of the post not my reaction to it.
If it's too Bare Link-y, that's fine. Maybe another time.
Yes it's too bare linky
Okay. In the past I swear there's been a few bare link longform blog submissions to the front page. Even if we exclude Scott submissions as some special one-time exception. Maybe they do get got and I see them before the gotting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link