For my own clarification, is it "consensus-building" idioms and expressions that are outlawed, or actual consensus building?
What do you think the difference is, in a text-only medium? If you say words to the effect of "everyone knows" or "everyone agrees," you're almost certainly literally wrong. But if we let everyone get away with saying things that are literally wrong on grounds that "we know what they meant," this creates a bailey in which people can make very strong claims ("everyone with eyes agrees with me") but, when challenged, can retreat to innocuous claims ("it's just an idiom, besides, even if everyone disagrees about the specifics, they at least agree on the general point, I wasn't saying anything controversial!").
This place is called the Motte because we don't want you playing in the bailey.
So either you understand what I'm saying, and you realize that you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and you're going to do better--or, you're still confused, in which case I would tell you, personally, to avoid "consensus-building" idioms, because you do not use them sufficiently artfully to prevent people from thinking you are actually consensus-building.
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 -
What do you think the difference is, in a text-only medium? If you say words to the effect of "everyone knows" or "everyone agrees," you're almost certainly literally wrong. But if we let everyone get away with saying things that are literally wrong on grounds that "we know what they meant," this creates a bailey in which people can make very strong claims ("everyone with eyes agrees with me") but, when challenged, can retreat to innocuous claims ("it's just an idiom, besides, even if everyone disagrees about the specifics, they at least agree on the general point, I wasn't saying anything controversial!").
This place is called the Motte because we don't want you playing in the bailey.
So either you understand what I'm saying, and you realize that you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and you're going to do better--or, you're still confused, in which case I would tell you, personally, to avoid "consensus-building" idioms, because you do not use them sufficiently artfully to prevent people from thinking you are actually consensus-building.
Reminds me of people who get offended on behalf of a hypothetical person who might theoretically be offended.
"Everyone agrees the Holocaust was bad."
Mod: "Please refrain from consensus building."
This forum is way over moderated. I'm going back to Reddit.
Thanks for letting us know. Stay safe out there!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link