site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   2610 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 29, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If (as I think is most likely) the “Republican trifecta” accomplishes nothing of note in the next four years, DOGE fails even harder than the Grace Commission, and Trump’s second term proves as ineffectual against “the swamp” as his first, how do you suppose Republican voters would react come 2028?

It would be sad but I think most will vote R again because what’s the alternative?

Things not getting actively worse is still a pretty big win in the post-2000 era.

It would be sad but I think most will vote R again because what’s the alternative?

Violence. Grabbing your buddies and your guns, forming a RWDS and shooting every Blue Triber you find.

Would it work? Almost certainly not, but its odds of success, however small, are still better than those of "voting harder" — which are effectively zero.

  • -22

This kind of cell-based violence would be phenomenally stupid, so we can rule it out. ANTIFA might do it if Trump racks up major victories. But the path to total red victory is not individual level violence, it’s inter-institutional warfare that devolves into kinetics.

it’s inter-institutional warfare that devolves into kinetics.

With what institutions?

the path to total red victory is not individual level violence

I see little evidence that there's any path to red victory, and as for "individual level," that's why the "organize into groups" part was there.

With what institutions?

Law enforcement, the military(generals are empty suits- field grade officers decide what happens in a crisis, and those are still pretty red), state governments, etc.

I see little evidence that there's any path to red victory, and as for "individual level," that's why the "organize into groups" part was there.

I know, you’re an unemployed mentally ill doomer with SAD acting up this time of year.

When Greg Abbott told the feds he rules the border now, he got away with it, and the border patrol refused to contest this- even while heavily outnumbering him. The Malheur occupiers and the truckers got what they wanted.

Reds win regularly. Those victories do not look like random terrorist attacks.

I know, you’re an unemployed mentally ill doomer with SAD acting up this time of year.

Even if this is true, this is an unnecessary ad hominem.

On the contrary- it’s an entirely necessary ad hominem. The post I was replying to is based on a doom loop fantasia driven by his frequently-posted about lack of productive activity and depression.

That's kind of like claiming you are calling a fat person a lazy, obese pig because you are concerned about their health and want them to lose weight for their own good. I suppose it's possible someone might believe this, but if you are really trying to break him out of his "doom loop" there are kinder and more polite ways to do it.

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


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats