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 think I have read every top level post of the past four weeks, and I don’t recall someone’s key argument being that prostitutes should be called whores.
There is room to explore how language evolves, though, and who decides when an emotionally potent word becomes a slur. Not every potent word is a slur: the words “felon”, “rapist”, and “racist” have high emotional potency today, in that calling someone these things creates a serious negative emotional reaction in the listener. In the case of “rapist” this emotional residue is clearly acceptable, but what about felon? What about those who are blankly labeled “racist” without qualifier for making the most innocuous of mistakes, and who are then categorized with history’s worst people? Functionally speaking, is that any different than a slur? Who is deciding when a word is so strong or unjustly used that it’s a slur?
The word “whore” has had a stable definition for a thousand years, almost identical to the Old English “hore” and similar to the proto-Germanic “horon”. It’s used in the King James Bible. It is used by Shakespeare 59 times. It has long-standing use in English. When did it become a social violation to call a prostitute a whore, and is this justified by virtue of the connotation of her act? If someone has a strongly-held personal belief in the immorality of prostitution, and his own holy book calls those in the profession “whores”, is he justified in using the term? Are we justified in preventing him, any more than preventing him from using the words “sinner” and “damned”?
So it is an interesting question, and it cuts to the root of the potency of language and its control by vague and unspecified powers. I doubt any of us would use the word “whore” outside of private company, and I wouldn’t despite making the rational argument for its use. But… why? It’s not actually an easy thing to puzzle out. “Because of the social connotation” is just begging the question! How are we all accessing the same terms blacklist in our linguistic OS?
"Whore" is a preferred self-descriptor for Maggie McNeill, longtime escort, blogger, and activist. She has an idiosyncratic vocabulary in general. "Amateur" is her term for a woman who exchanges sex for anything other than an explicit sum (e.g. attention, status, love, financial support within marriage). Fascinating lady!
She intends to reclaim "whore." She almost certainly can't succeed.
"Whore" has been rude for a very long time, hence the proliferation of slang and euphemisms. This source says it's been uncomplimentary since at least the 13th century. But it probably became unsayable in the Victorian era and in our time for a reason.
In Nine Nasty Words, John McWhorter describes how profanity in English has followed this general course: blasphemy > bodily functions > identity slurs.
To medieval English speakers, the worst things you could say were all religious curses: "God damn you!" or "God blind me!", "God's blood/wounds/hooks/nails!", etc. Earthly matters like sex and excretion were no big deal. The common kestrel was known as a windfucker, and anybody would give you directions to Gropecunt Lane where the brothel stood. This shifted post-Enlightenment. As sanitation and privacy improved, bodily functions became matters of greater and greater delicacy. To the Victorians, nothing could be less polite than your gross meatbag and the gross stuff it does. By the 1940s, even the word "belly" was a bit vulgar. If we can't even call to mind digestion in polite company, we certainly can't allude to what "whores" do.
Then the late twentieth century! We've conquered so many pathogens, we hardly fear them anymore. Bodies are beautiful, natural things! Parents are encouraged to teach their children the proper names of body parts, and their functions are no reason to blush. These days, George Carlin's "seven words you can't say on television" (all related to excretion, body parts, and sex) are heard more and more freely. As I typed this, I overheard a teenage girl on a TV show call someone a "motherfucker."
We still have taboo words, only now they are all slurs against identity groups. We don't call sex workers "whores" because there is nothing currently ruder in English than insulting someone by category.
Context Copy link
Context Copy link