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!
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I posted this on /r/SSC, but I wanted to repost here because I feel like it's a good summary of my commenting approach:
I also still enjoy themotte. I might, in some ways, be one of the crazed right-wingers that many don't like, but I at least hope I'm not -- when I write to describe my (admittedly right-wing) viewpoints on things, my goal isn't to wage the culture war or to be a dick, it's to ensure that a high-quality version of what I understand to be true is out there, especially in response to criticisms that I feel misrepresent my views. My goal isn't to convince, but to clarify, and indeed to help others and myself come to an understanding regarding where and why we disagree. I think that's the most important goal in discussion of any kind, and I had some very personal and enlightening conversations with philosophy professors in college who helped me come to that understanding of the value of intellectual debate.
One of the best things about culture war thread -- and I admit it was more common when it was on this sub than it is now -- are people steelmanning and going to bat for underrepresented views or views they themselves don't hold. I try to do that as often as I'm able.
There are definitely low-effort sneers and very silly comments full of uncharitable takes and extreme nonsense. I try to ignore those, but sometimes they do suck me in and I end up arguing for 3 hours over whether 6,000,000 +- 1,500,000 people dying in gas chambers and hard labor camps is still a genocide. It is.
However, I will also go on record saying that I do, regrettably or not, enjoy the ideological bent of the site in a way that more left-wing posters may not. I have been rather desperate for a place where, whether there are witches there or not, something close to the best and brightest of the American right are able to discuss their views without getting shouted down. I'm open to left-wing viewpoints (I am a dissident from the right on some issues, like healthcare) and I would rather the motte not be a total echo chamber, but the lean of the place, well, it's given me something I have wanted for a long time. I think (in Jonathan Haidt terms) the American right has something crucial to offer society, which is often drowned out by the nonsense that spews from its more populist talking heads (and I'm talking about some of who you might be thinking of, and some who you might not). So, I'm glad there's somewhere on the internet that at least tries to give right-wingers who can type in complete paragraphs a place to discuss their views with anyone and everyone who is willing to listen.
I would highlight @FiveHourMarathon (I don't recall his reddit username) as a great representative of themotte's ability to attract intelligent right-wingers. We've had some strong disagreements, but I always appreciate his input. There are certainly ways he deviates from the conservative mainstream, but in most ways I think he's representative of who
In that sense, I rather resent the Fox News comparison; I don't think we're dealing with the normie conservatives but with rather smart ones. Even the witches are rather bright, as witchy and as vile as I may find them. While I do find some of their antics offensive, I try not to feed the trolls too much.
I would also add that, ultimately, if we ban Holocaust discussions I don't know if we can avoid the long and nebulous descent into banning other things, too. I have my own hobby-horses that I like to comment on which are unpopular, and I'd like to still be able to offer my opinion on them. I see tolerating the Holocaust discussions, which I think are more boring than anything, as the price to pay for a generally free discussion space.
Additionally, I'd argue that the motte has become less appealing to many because the culture was has heated up.
Several of the comments on the linked post went along the lines of, "well, I used to like commenting on the culture war thread, but now Republicans are Opposing Trans Rights and so I don't want to talk with conservatives." I think this shows, in a way that wasn't true back in 2014 when Scott wrote his CW masterpieces or later on when the CW thread was on SSC, that the right has woken (heh) up to the culture war being a big deal and is now actually trying to wage it. The left, in response, has amped up its culture war waging too, and people are being forced to take sides. "Free debate amongst dissenting people" became right-coded, and hence the motte did too.
I recall, once upon a time, when I felt like no side in the political sphere really represented me, because nobody wanted to go to bat for culture war issues I cared about. Who was talking about feminism's impact on young men or the obfuscation of language in social justice in 2014, other than Scott? So his blog made unlikely allies out of more traditional liberals who disliked some aspects of the social justice movement, and conservatives who felt like there was no one else offering good criticisms of their enemies. ("It's just a few kids on tumblr.")
Now, though, the mainstream right has adopted lots of CW aspects into its platform, especially in Florida. The culture war isn't just a discussion about what's going on on Tumblr or what's going on on college campuses; it's a real war, being fought by actual politicians, now. So blue tribers are retreating to their enclaves, and red tribers to theirs, while the grey folks (I love you, boo kiss) are rather being forced to pick a side. Scott Alexander, for all his criticisms of the left's approach to the culture war, is a polyamorous atheist living in the Bay Area; of course his allegiance is to the blue tribe, even if by their standards he's a heretic.
A few more liberal folks like Haidt are holding their ground in favor of free discussion with the opposition, but increasingly I feel like I myself have become more partisan, more ideological, less inclined to compromise than I was in, say, 2018, in part because I feel like my opposition has gotten more extreme, but also because I increasingly feel my own side is invested with Glorious Purpose. I'm not saying that's definitely true or anything, that's just how it feels. I think the same has probably happened to a lot of more left-wing people.
I grow increasingly confident about my claim that insofar as the color tribes exist, the gray tribe surely doesn't. It's just "blue tribe", expect, basically, super duper blue every which way. Not just urban, but chiefly concentrated in the citiest cities available. Not just secular but - as a rule - atheist/agnostic expect with a surprising interest in Eastern religions. Not just living in a post-Sexual-Revolution culture, but one big polyamorous cuddle pile. And so on.
The thing is, precisely, that the "gray tribe" is so super blue it actually alienates them from "regular" blue tribers, making them the folks that your regular middle class liberals can point to and laugh: "Whoa, look at those weirdoes!" Lots of commentary like that when people have discussed the FTX scandal, for instance. It's this alienation that frees them from the comfy social sphere that underlays the blue tribe attachment to general blue politics, taken as what all smart and moral people obviously believe as a matter of course, and leads them to potentially explore other political ideologies and avenues. (Of course, that's not the only necessary factor, there's plenty of weirdoes who largely stick with some version of more conventional blue politics.)
The grey tribe is definitly more red-accomodating than the wider blue tribe. I am a Christian, and rationalist-adjacent spaces are pretty much the only space where I sometimes feel like fencing against atheists and doing a very mild form of proselytising, in other blue tribe circles that would be pearls before swine. (Matthew 7:6)
take a look at the subredditoverlaps for SSC.
Yes, samharris and redscarepod have strong blue tribe identity at x63.78 and x17.64 respectively. But there is also truechristian (right wing christian sub) at x10.67, jordanpeterson at x8.58 and catholicism at x6.52. For not explicity Christian red tribe associated subs there are lockdownscepticism at x10.42 and goldandblack at x7.20. Also stuff like menslib at x11.54 and moderatepolitics at x8.54. Neoliberal at x10.00. Classical right wing reactionaries are underreprestented, but there seem to be quite a few conservative Christians, classical liberals, neoliberals and centrists around next to the blue tribers in the grey tribe (although neoliberals are probably blue tribe, hard to tell since left wingers hate them so much).
The barpershop pole theory of political tribalism?
That or it's the status totem pole rearing up again, super blues may not be afraid of having red assiciation rub off on them, while nominally blues are. Super high class can adopt low class dress and manners with less risk of being seen as low class, in many ways someone just rising out of the low class can't.
If you ever click through the profiles of the most obnoxiously progressive and ideologically rigid Redditors, you'll often find they are "lumpen-intelligentsia" of a sort--mostly people from small, irrelevant cities (nothing wrong with this!) who seem to be trying to emulate big-city liberals who read the New York Times. Actual big-city progressives don't seem to spend nearly as much time trying to prove their blue tribe bona fides on Reddit, they're busy in graduate school or at a climbing gym.
Context Copy link
Context Copy link
Context Copy link
Context Copy link
Context Copy link
Context Copy link