Last week the US Senate unanimously passed the Armenian Protection Act blocking military assistance from Azerbaijan. It will now need to go through the fractuous House, which can hopefully at least agree on giving less funding.
The UN International Court of Justice has also now ruled that Azerbaijan must allow ethnic Armenians to return to Nagorno-Karabakh. This leaves things in a kind of weird place. Azerbaijan didn’t actually kick ethnic Armenians out, they self-evacuated because of credible fears of violence. Just because they’re allowed back will they feel safe?
Azerbaijan’s foreign ministry said in a statement that it “is committed to upholding the human rights of the Armenian residents of Karabakh on an equal basis with other citizens of Azerbaijan”.
But many ethnic Armenians who fled have expressed doubts that they will be safe if they return to the enclave, if they are allowed back at all, under the rule of what they see as a hostile power.
No new word on the details of the ongoing negotiations between the two countries, except Armenian PM Pashinyan saying that two countries “are speaking ‘different diplomatic languages’ even though they were able to agree on the basic principles for a peace treaty.”
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Azerbaijan
Last week the US Senate unanimously passed the Armenian Protection Act blocking military assistance from Azerbaijan. It will now need to go through the fractuous House, which can hopefully at least agree on giving less funding.
The UN International Court of Justice has also now ruled that Azerbaijan must allow ethnic Armenians to return to Nagorno-Karabakh. This leaves things in a kind of weird place. Azerbaijan didn’t actually kick ethnic Armenians out, they self-evacuated because of credible fears of violence. Just because they’re allowed back will they feel safe?
No new word on the details of the ongoing negotiations between the two countries, except Armenian PM Pashinyan saying that two countries “are speaking ‘different diplomatic languages’ even though they were able to agree on the basic principles for a peace treaty.”
More options
Context Copy link