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.
- 82
- 4
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 -
This assumes that the entire interaction is sexual in nature. He didn't say he's hitting on her, he was just trying to talk to her.
Now maybe she is attractive enough, used to being hit on, and stuck up enough that she just naturally assumes any attempt to talk to her by a male is a prelude to sexual overtures, and given her behavior that seems reasonably likely. But it's definitely not obvious or universal enough to just assume it is definitely the one definitive answer. People usually don't need explicit rewards incentivizing them to play nice in a conversation unless they are unusually antisocial.
Every interaction between the sexes is inherently sexual as in involving sexual dynamics. (Keep in mind that almost all credible evolutionary theories behind the development of every complex, non-erotic trait we have, from intelligence to comedy, tend to involve a significant portion of if not mostly boiling down to mating advantage. There is nothing in the behavior of an evolution-derived creature that is wholly untouched by reproductive fitness concerns.)
If you mean "sexual" as in "of an erotic character", I never assumed that it was explicitly at all. (The simps in her life certainly aren't having only explicitly erotic interactions with her, quite likely the opposite/none.) Without any insult implied, frankly the men bold enough to immediately make an interaction with an unfamiliar female explicitly erotic (even just by lightly hitting on her) don't tend to ask for socialization advice on themotte.org.
The younger generation seems to blatantly contradict this to me. They may be "antisocial", but the degree to which they are is no longer unusual.
I'm genuinely curious about the ages of individuals (particularly girls) most people replying to this acting like her behavior is bizarre and uncommon tend to interact with nowadays. In my experience "phone zombie" syndrome, especially among younger people, is quite common, quite normal, and rarely even considered poor etiquette by them (if they even care, which in my experience many don't, and if they do they usually just justify it with some reference to "anxiety" or something similar).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link