site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   2509 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 6, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Has anyone tracked down the origin of the odd phrases that liberal news outlets and institutions like to use? I'm thinking of terms like "racial reckoning," "Christian Nationalism," "the Big Lie," and "national conversation about race;" they're stilted and people don't seem to use them IRL but are nevertheless quite common on places like the front page of Reddit. "Christian Nationalism" in particular looked especially astroturfed, it was all over the news last summer with no apparent trigger and then disappeared as quickly as it had appeared. (Google Trends can confirm this.)

I suspect the spread of catchphrases like this are coordinated through something like JournoList or a foundation. If anyone has information about this I'd be interested to read it.

I get the whiff of neurolinguistic programming from this. Calling Trump’s electoral fraud claims “the big lie” covers up for the variety of Big Lies the media proliferated: the pee tape, the dossier, the Russian connection. These were lies so flagrant and absurd, who would ever think to make up such a lie? This is the way the term was used by Hitler, and is not actually applicable to Trump’s electoral claims (in which it’s a reasonable thing to lie about). The idea is that the phrase acts as a linguistic revision in the viewer’s mind.

“Racial reckoning” is similar: it’s not about actually reckoning who owes what — there’s no calculation, no doing the math. The phrase is used to prevent the viewer’s mind from actually thinking about reckoning on race (tax input/output, productivity, who is owed what). So they say “racial reckoning”, then the media quickly points this phrase at emotional stories. This prevents the viewer from considering the actual avenue of thought regarding making a judgment on race.

The national conversation on race is similar. There is no such conversation, and they don’t want one. They don’t want you as a white person actually conversing nationally about your race. So they say “national conversation”, then they use this cue to point to what’s actually the passive listening to whatever these handpicked coastal pundits are saying. Again, the strategy is just to prevent you from considering what the phrase means divorced from what the pundits associate it with repetitively in their monologues.

So I don’t know, I’d look at the ADL and SPLC

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