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.
- 125
- 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 -
Japan is a larger nation, with more economic opportunity, and it industrialized at a time when industrialization wasn't quite so automated- the percentage of the population that process enriched was larger.
South Korea is small, has one major city, and it industrialized at a time when automation was already a relatively solved problem- the percentage of the population that process enriched was smaller.
Both nations, as well as all Western ones (importantly, the US is the least affected), are overpopulated to varying degrees relative to their level of economic opportunity- that's why TFR is below 2 there. It's not "the young aren't doing their duty", it's that the positions that the young would grow into no longer exist and their very existence has been, for a variety of reasons, simply priced out of the market (you can also see this effect in gender relations, where women instinctively expect men to make more than them- which means that the carrying capacity of society is not equal, and furthermore that men are in surplus).
When populations shrink, capital pays more for labor- that's why, historically, massive economic booms occur after significant die-offs. What you're seeing is a slower, gentler version of that process.
The North Koreans are not capable of winning a war on South Korea and still remaining North Korea through domestic production alone- if they had enough domestic production to sustain a war they would have industrialized to the point the socioeconomic forces that hold the country together would be destroyed- too many people getting rich for the Kim regime to be able to delete.
China could do it, of course- just dump more materiel onto the NK army than they're able to carry- but then, apart from no longer being a base from which the United States could attack the Chinese mainland, what grand benefit would they get from reducing the country to rubble? Certainly not a trading partner, that's for sure, since NK has no industry and their people are poorer than China's own in the first place. It's not like Ukraine where the Russians can somewhat credibly claim they're making the territory safe for ethnic Russians; Koreans aren't Han Chinese and the two hate each other on that basis alone.
If so, why there are large immigration streams and even many goverments subsidizing that immigration?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link