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.
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.
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!
Doubly Afraid of Change
I am actively attempting to deradicalize myself. I dislike puritanism and intolerance. DM me if you want my Discord, Twitter, Reddit, etc.
User ID: 1719
Good argument. Now tell me what to read instead.
The difference is that Hanania can point to specific (anti)racist policy while Kendi just assumes it must exist.
Assuming that this woman is telling the truth, why hasn't she been arrested? It appears that she's confessed to stealing items from stores and reselling them at a lower price to make money.
How she feels about Nazi punching is the litmus test of whether she's actually against censorship. I tend to assume people who are friendly with Vaush are on board with that. Except Charlie Kirk, who's just an idiot.
LOL. I thought Contrapoints and Vaush had deemed her okay and she'd been reformed. Interesting to hear that some won't forgive.
Any e-drama people willing to give me a rundown on the last few years of Shoe0nhead? Last time I checked in, she was collaborating with Vaush and trying to position herself as a BreadTuber. Now I heard she's getting married to a right-winger and not associated with socialism anymore?
We are made of matter. Matter is not created or destroyed. It just changes form. Right now, for a brief moment in time, it has taken on a form that is self-aware. That's you. After you cease to be, where does your matter go? It goes everywhere. And because time is infinite, it will eventually reconnect. Every last atom. Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters, after all.
And if that is inevitable, it is also inevitable that your matter will take on a self-aware form again, eventually.
Reincarnation is real.
I'm sorry. I'll delete my post.
#4 hadn't occurred to me. I'm conflating the extremely online dissident right with anti-Semitism in general. As for b, I was making that assumption because they ostensibly share my goal of wanting to understand anti-Semitism, but they are richer, likely more well-educated, and do this as a job instead of a hobby.
That you see modern anti-Semitism and historical anti-Semitism as the same phenomenon rather than at least two distinct ones indicates that we're looking at the issue very differently. Racism, and tribalism in general, is a part of human nature, but they can be strengthened or weakened by one's environment.
(Just realized that I'm answering these points out of order, but I am multitasking.) I take people at face value in general until I've observed them enough to conclude that they're being deceptive. Maybe I'm being more charitable to the people I'm describing than I should because I relate to them. I share their grievances, but the difference is that I don't hold these grievances against Jews as a group, despite the explicit insistence that I should by the far right and the implicit insistence that i should by the progressive left.
God, I love you. This is why I come here. Thank you for writing this out.
You are correct. Trying to form a mental model that takes these sorts of people at face value drives me mad, because it is so illogical to me, that I'm looking for an alternative that puts less of a workload on my brain and makes them more comprehendible.
I love the quokka post, but Zero HP Lovecraft blocked me on Twitter so I can't see it anymore.
Your critique of my behavior is a strong one. I don't have evidence because I'm spouting conjecture in these instances, some of which is wild (the bullying thing) and some of which I think is reasonable (what we're talking about now). If conjecture is against the rules, then I'll stop out of a desire not to get banned.
You make a good point. But it's almost inconceivable to me that intelligent people would do things that provoke anti-Semitism when the anti-Semites literally say "You are making us anti-Semitic by doing this." Maybe they are as unwilling to believe that anti-Semites tell the truth about their own motivations as I am that the ADL tells the truth about theirs. Maybe their internal monologue is "Don't believe the anti-Semites, for they are using Jewish goyish trickery!"
Look at that, I'm still speaking of the ADL as though it's a single mind and not a bunch of minds working together.
The logic of the anti-Semitic strongman ("we dislike you because you are censorious and hypocritical") is just so much more reasonable to me than that of the ADL activist weakmen ("they dislike us Just Because, and any explanation they give is a lie, Just Because") that I have to assume the latter is aware of the discrepancy on some level. Maybe I'm being insufficiently charitable to the latter, but that is how I perceive them.
As for the point you and others have made about how these people couldn't have cynical motivations without being caught, they could just be using coded language that only they understand, and refuse to let in anyone who says the quiet part out loud. Nobody ever says "get rid of cishet white men" they say "increase diversity". Nobody ever says "be racist", they say "be anti-racist". That sort of thing.
Yes, thank you! I want more things like that.
I don't know why there isn't some mechanism for individual investors to invest in an artistic project like a film or play in exchange for a cut of the net profit equivalent to the proportion of the budget that the investment covered.
In the classic movie (and musical adaptation of) The Producers, this mechanism exists, and random old ladies can partake in it, not just rich people with connections. Today, we have Kickstarter, which offers rewards, but not potential return on investment.
Oh, I stopped believing the Bible to be true when I was 10, but I continued to believe in God because I thought the complexity of life implied a designer. I think that's what they used to call deism.
Thank you so much. I wish I had more to say than that, but you have been a huge help.
It's not that nature is cruel, but rather, that it's nonsensically cruel that's gotten to me. The artifacts that come from evolution truly being random.
I mean, sure, it can exist outside time. But I thought the multiverse was just a trope in fiction, like time travel.
I've been agnostic, rather than atheist, for most of my life. My argument was that life is too complex, especially with how organs work, for there not to be someone planning it. I guess the best word for my beliefs would be deist, but I only learned the term recently.
Anyway, I just read an essay by Yudkowsky and I'm now convinced there is almost certainly no God. This depresses me because I want there to be a God.. which is to say, an unmoved mover at the beginning of time that is sentient. The idea that something at the beginning of time was unaffected by the rules of cause and effect is still plausible to me, but is there any reason left to assume it was sapient? I'd appreciate help with this, because I want to convince myself there may be a God.
I got some very intrigued responses, so my goal was accomplished. It hadn't occurred to me that conventional childhood bullying is still around. But as I just said in another comment: what does it look like now? I was targeted because people thought I was gay, but I realize now that that was just their way of articulating that I was autistic. Using sexuality as an excuse isn't kosher anymore, and I doubt kids are politically aware enough to think of calling each other Nazis or chuds.
That makes sense. I don't even know what kind of bullying kids do these days. I haven't been bullied by classmates in a school environment since.. the 2010-2011 school year, before the Great Awokening.
If kids can't call each other fags or retards anymore, what do they say?
For the first time in my life, I'm starting to think we need childhood bullying. I am continually astonished by the cruelty of other people, often practiced under the pretense of standing up to bullies. It's like these people don't actually know what it's like to be on the other end. If they did, wouldn't they be more sympathetic?
So, what if we need childhood bullying to prevent adulthood bullying? Perhaps people need to learn at a young age how it feels to be a victim so they don't become the victimizer as an adult?
Of course, maybe being mistreated doesn't cause people to sympathize with others who are mistreated. But I've never seen anyone make this argument, at least prescriptively, so I figured I should, so I can see how people would argue against it.
Is the specific version of code-davinci-002 mentioned in this article available to the public yet? Could I pay for access to it?
You're taking the term more literally than I do. I guess I could call these people sheep, then? Maybe lemmings?