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 -
Yes and no.
No as in it's unfair to have a society that is so image-obsessed when eugenics to level the genetic playing field in regards to attractiveness (among other interventions) is hardly common or accessible. (Also no as in the natural hierarchy of beauty is often exploited solely in a manipulative way by malevolent forces, for example to paralyze men with addictions to pornography. And society also does its best to make everyone fat, which almost always results in a reduction in attractiveness.)
Yes in that we have a society that is delegates insufficient resources toward socialized beautification (particularly of females, who naturally demand beautification as that is a major part of the few apparent benefits that they can generally offer society as far as I perceive) for the benefit of all (but particularly masculine authority and power).
In an ideal world Caroline Ellison would have had any mockery-worthy aesthetic flaws (and I think she does possess a kind of "cute ugly" that isn't really much of a saving grace but at least has the possibility of being salvaged) corrected at no expense to her (or wouldn't have been born with them in the first place). The only small price (which is hardly a price in my calculation as I do believe that it almost certainly would have made her happier/resulted in a better life outcome for her anyway) would be her eternal submission to masculine authority, in particular the masculine authority of her specific masculine steward/owner, who would naturally make use of her beauty to enhance his own personal life satisfaction. Win/win.
The ideal society would beautify the entire volk, not use the beauty of some of its members to abuse others. (Of course some would inevitably still be more exceptionally beautiful than others for a variety of reasons, and this uniqueness and excellence would be celebrated in appropriate fashion (and not suppressed in some left-wing Harrison Bergeron-esque fashion), as this only serves the dignity of society overall and thus benefits everyone, but the median person would be beautiful enough, or at least not ugly, to not feel threatened by this.)
More options
Context Copy link