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.
- 99
- 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 -
How so?
I guess I'm modeling the average local government as...basically functional. Not much low-hanging fruit. It does paperwork, keeps the trees off the power lines, maybe hosts a festival a couple times a year. I don't feel like changing one or two of the names at the top would change much of that normal operation. The calculus is different if you've got a Sheriff of Nottingham situation, sure. But otherwise, what does that slight improvement look like?
I'm reminded of the corporate policy updates at my company. Every couple weeks, we'll get a mass email announcing that Policy Number Such-and-Such has been revised, and now if you submit a requirements compliance matrix, it has to have a row showing percent completion. Or if you make a purchase order, the form now has a field for which fiscal year we're in. Someone, somewhere, cares about this, and in theory expects an efficiency gain from the change. Would an outside shareholder care?
I know local government isn't and shouldn't be a business, but that's how I see influencing local politics. Getting one functionary elected rather than another isn't going to change the character of the government. It's more likely to generate a couple policy revisions, plus a bunch of "business as usual."
Oh, and political donations are possibly really ineffective. That doesn't really encourage me either.
So I didn’t realize that for you local government meant Seattle, which might be too big for you to have any meaningful influence. Although I will note that in general, every municipality has a mix of competent and incompetent politicians. At this level they really aren’t functionaries to nearly the same degree that any other politician you will encounter at the state or national level and having slightly better/less corrupt/smarter leadership really can improve quality of life for lots of people.
I think it’s also sort of ridiculous to assume that the city is competently run, you wouldn’t have any way of knowing unless you had worked for the city or had some political involvement. Corruption in municipal governments is absurdly common and only the most outrageous cases (such as this https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-payscandal-arrests/mayor-officials-arrested-in-california-pay-scandal-idUSTRE68K40N20100922 ) ever result in prosecutions. This is historically how the us has worked (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall as the most famous example in the us)
Finally I said you should get involved. This involves donating money but volunteering is probably more important. The benefit of a donation is that it will make you specifically known to the politician you are supporting.
Ah.
I'm Texan, though @jeroboam is some variety of Washington resident.
I don't doubt that local governments have corruption. My favorite example is the Battle of Athens.
Running for office (or at least consulting, if you work in something more technical) is probably an effective way to increase efficiency. I would think it is more expensive, though. $20,000 is a few weeks' compensation; what's the minimum time you'd need to spend to secure any real influence? Say, over a small team. Spending a whole career in politics might be further than OP is willing to go.
Hell, I don't think I have the interpersonal skills to coordinate more than a few people. But that's why I avoid management like the plague.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link