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!
User ID: 2716
Interesting, that is different from what I was imagining. I didn't realise it was on CIA premises either.
Plus it filled in some of the details of "how" which was nice
Woah, I haven't stayed up to date with Ukraine, partly due to the high signal to noise ratio on most of the discourse. But this is great, it facts. It's especially fascinating that the Pentagon could do nothing about.
I think the reason the governments are scared of leaks is that it shows their incompetence and lack of control. That's a threat.
Oh not the climategate ones, just climate science professors (although I assume it's a field wide problem). I shouldn't mention names either way as it would dox my alt account. But I was just doing my honours, and while they seemed to have excellent character and integrity, I didn't have the full picture of the pressure they were under.
Oh... that might be why I couldn't find it. I'll have another look.
I think, even if something is widely suspected, it's still nice to have written evidence and details like the prices. It helps with debates and economics papers if nothing else.
Fascinating, I've studies under some of these professors and this sounds entirely realistic and plausible human psychology.
It's worth noting that the stratigraphic record has many instances of climate change, and you don't need a simulation to put bounds on the type of changes we could possibly see. How likely it is, is another matter of course. (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate)
Wow, that is interesting and I totally missed it. It's nice to see the dynamics of mundane corruption.
I agree there was little reporting on the contents. I remember one spreadsheet that detailed "what they have given me" and "what position I have given them" but I can't for the life of me find it again. However, it showed that you can buy an ambassadorial position for ~$100k
When you see more evidence you should be more sure, right?
But what about when you believe something, and expect it to show up in the leaked documents, then it doesn't show. Shouldn't that surprise you?
Well for example they will spy of foreign oil companies like Petrobas, but they will cooperate with ones from allied countries like Shell. You can see the known facts in those links. And I extrapolate this out to a more general rule, that's speculation on my part.
I'll start with a low effort set of "stylised facts". Feel free to argue
I assume that where there is one company or politician or agency or country doing something, they are probably all doing it.
What are some things you learnt from leaked documents?
These documents are like the ground truth, but there are too many too look through. So I want to pool our knowledge.
For me it's the spies often cooperate with industry, and that they will lie and even hack their oversight committees.