Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 157
- 2
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 respect the film for actually allowing Derek the space to articulate his arguments behind his opinions. I recently linked to a dumb rap-metal song released six months into Trump's first term which is essentially three minutes of "punching Nazis is good, actually". The bridge features the line "what makes you think you're the superior race?", which the vocalist clearly intended as an armour-piercing question which would instantly silence any alt-right types listening. It's sobering to be reminded by American History X that there are plenty of far-right people who would not be flummoxed by this question at all, and who would actually be able to present very detailed and persuasive arguments as to why they endorse white supremacy.
That aspect of the film and Edward Norton's exceptional performance aside, I don't really rate this movie. Making a convincing movie about neo-Nazi or far-right extremists seems to be remarkably difficult to do - Romper Stomper with Russell Crowe is even worse; Green Room was very entertaining, but only nominally about this theme (if the skinheads had been Mafia members and the band had stumbled in on a Mob murder, the plot of the movie would have been identical). The only such movie I remember being really convinced by was This is England. The naturalistic, largely improvised performances, verité-esque cinematography and unobtrusive score sold the experience far more effectively than American History X, in my view. Like American History X, it does offer its far-right characters a chance to express why they arrived at their opinions, but this usually comes in the form of impassioned ranting rather than Derek's sober, articulate (hence chilling) expressions of his worldview. I've heard The Believer with Ryan Gosling is very good, I must check it out.
I recently stumbled across this video essay talking about American History X's behind-the-scenes drama, concerning how director Tony Kaye's original cut of the film was rejected, and Edward Norton stepped in to handle the recut when Kaye proved extremely uncooperative (to the point of suing the producers and starting a knife fight with them in the press). Even though the video essay essentially takes Kaye's side and says Hollywood mistreated him, I came away from it with the distinct impression that Kaye is a colossally pretentious narcissist who is extremely difficult to work with. If he'd been willing to compromise and play the game a bit, he might have eventually been granted an auteur license which would ride him to glory at the Oscars. Instead he torpedoed his career right out the gate, and unsurprisingly hasn't helmed a major Hollywood production since.
There's a clip in the video when Edward Furlong is doing a promotional interview for the movie and the journalist asks him about the behind the scenes controversy. He says something to the effect of "Yeah, it's a pity that the producers weren't happy with Tony's cut of the movie. Maybe one day they'll release the director's cut on DVD or something, that'd be cool." As more than one YouTube comment points out, it's pretty embarrassing when a 21-year-old former child star with a drug problem comes off as more reasonable and emotionally mature than a 46-year-old director.
More options
Context Copy link