site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   11576 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Good. ICE officers have, in my mind, about as much legitimacy as federal officials enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act and it is every red-blooded Americans moral duty to resist them.

It is every red-blooded American's moral duty to resist and repel invaders.

The Fugitive Slave Act was 100% legitimate, and in fact there would be no United States without the federal authority to pass such an act and enforce it.

It's literally right there, Article IV, Section 2:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Without this clause, we don't get a United States, we get whatever else could have come from the Articles of Confederation when the South broke from the North (and likely the West from the North, too).

It's my opinion that if you make concessions to your partners that they require as a basis for partnership, you cannot then renege on those concessions simply because you don't like them.

It's my opinion that if you make concessions to your partners that they require as a basis for partnership, you cannot then renege on those concessions simply because you don't like them.

Yeah, a person I otherwise respect used to have a saying "accept compromise, but keep fighting", and boy I sure have a lot to say about how I hate the very idea of it.

I think it depends on the manifestation.

If you accept the compromise today but in 6 months still want to push the terms more in your favor (and you're complying by the terms of the compromise in the meantime) I don't think it's totally unreasonable.

ICE is even worse than the ATF in terms of how much freedom it destroys, if you hate the ATF you should hate ICE even more.

Whose freedom?

ATF agents' main job is violating the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. ICEs main job is enforcing immigration law, and there's no "open borders" provision to the US Constitution, so no, one does not imply the other.

The only freedom at threat is the freedom to be an illegal immigrant, which is what Americans voted to see persecuted.

Living and working in America is not a universal human right.

This extremely basic concept that a very large majority of American voters agree with was painstakingly sidelined in all major institutions by the elite of both parties during my entire lifetime, to keep the tap of virtually unlimited cheap labor flowing.

Seeing people cry tears of blood at the enforcement of very basic immigration law is hilarious, but also a sad reminder of how far collectively we have strayed into decadence and away from the foundational job of a functional state; providing territorial integrity.

The question of who is a member of a community and who is not is so fundamental, it’s what is known as the “pre-political”; it’s the primer of a common political identity that allows for political action to be taken and sustained without violence from opposing parties.

There are people who decry the crumbling of taboos and polite conventions in politics and point their finger to this person or that person, but this is the very heart of it, and no return to civility is possible without resolving this issue because civility is based on group solidarity and group solidarity cannot survive past a certain threshold of diversity, because past that threshold there simply is no “group” to have solidarity with.

The same argument applies equally well to supporting Prohibition, however I'd wager you see the fight against Prohibition and its reduction in freedom as a good one.

I think there is a significant difference due to which population gets impacted; prohibition impacts citizens, ICE doesn't. Certain rights are determined by whether you are a citizen of the country or not. I don't think it's inconsistent to want less freedom for foreigners than for fellow citizens.

No, I'm disappointed it failed.

Fair enough, points for consistency.

I would have opposed prohibition, and perhaps violated it wantonly. I don’t think I would have tried the stunts we see in reference to ice.

| ...however I'd wager you see the fight against Prohibition and its reduction in freedom as a good one.

Really depends on how we're defining "fight against Prohibition".

If you mean the political efforts to generate support for and pass the 21st Amendment - yeah, totally.

If you mean the efforts of smugglers and criminals to violate the law, sometimes violently - absolutely not, no.

Unfortunately, you don't get the former without the latter. A law that is not being violated will not be repealed.

Probably true empirically but that doesn't mean you should therefore support those breaking the law*. Consider Prohibition smuggling gangs or drug cartels. You could frame them as supplying a product that consenting adults want to use and have a natural right to ingest. That is not untrue. But these laws were put in place using the pre-existing processes within a system that generally (albeit imperfectly) works to promote human flourishing.

We live in large, complex, diverse environments. It is true and unfair that there will likely always be some subset of laws that any given person doesn't agree with at some time. Becoming a civilized person requires acceptance of that fact. It is simply not currently feasible to allow each person to craft their own legal code that conforms to their individual morality. Many people fervently believe that idolatry is immoral - they cannot break into a Hindu temple to destroy statues. Many others believe that it's morally right to punch someone who could be characterized as a Nazi - that is still assault.

So even laws as broadly unpopular as Prohibition (or, hey, immigration) are legitimate to be enforced. Attempts to circumvent them should be policed and anyone using violence or other force against their enforcement is, even if they think the law is bad according to their personal "higher ethics", scum. I support the state coming down on them with significantly higher intensity and organized violence. This is not because helping people take a chemical or cross an imaginary line between countries is depraved, it's because they are chipping away at the machinery that drives organized, peaceful, advanced societies.

It's about results; morality ain't got nothing to do with it.

  • Yes - Nazi Germany, the USSR, and many other examples of oppressive governments have and do exist. There is obviously some fuzzy line that varies by individual where a government is sufficiently oppressive that resistance, including violent resistance, is justified. No, there is no objective standard; this is the Politics department, the Physics classroom is down the hall if that's the sort of thing you're looking for. And no, just because that line exists does not mean that the United States government at any level is on the wrong side.

Probably true empirically but that doesn't mean you should therefore support those breaking the law*.

It means I must choose between acceding to every bad law or supporting lawbreaking in some instances. I won't give politicians that blank check.

(and no, I don't accept "We live in a society therefore suck it up and obey", no matter how many words you put behind it).

This is not because helping people take a chemical or cross an imaginary line between countries is depraved, it's because they are chipping away at the machinery that drives organized, peaceful, advanced societies.

Sometimes, I want some of that machinery chipped away, so the organized, peaceful, advanced society can be less regimented.

| (and no, I don't accept "We live in a society therefore suck it up and obey", no matter how many words you put behind it).

And I don't accept that you're a Free Man and that following laws you disagree with means that you're being unjustly put upon and must suck it up and obey. There are many, many avenues for you to try to get a law changed depending on the law. You are not a creature in a state of nature that has been cruelly subjugated and is striking a blow against The Man by doing what you want. Calling contributing to the smooth functioning of society even in areas that you might have some disagreement sucking it up and obeying is the attitude of a child, no matter how many times you shout "freedom".

| Sometimes, I want some of that machinery chipped away, so the organized, peaceful, advanced society can be less regimented.

Totally fair and reasonable to want to live in a different, more anarchic society and it's entirely possible that such a society would be better in some ways. By all means, get out there and advocate for your vision. But your preferences do not get to be arbitrarily imposed on the ~347 million other people in the US.

More comments

I would appreciate an in-depth defense of this claim. I'm a big proponent of following the law as it is, but working to change bad laws. If changing the law requires violating it then I would have to rethink my stance.

  • Speed limit is too low → mayor continues to enforce speed limit → convicted speeders get angry and complain to their municipal councilors → municipal councilors change speed limit

  • Speed limit is too low → mayor stops enforcing speed limit → there are no convicted speeders to get angry → no municipal councilors have any reason to care about the speed limit

What I expect is more like

  • Speed limit is too low -> everyone obeys the speed limit -> it becomes a non-issue, with would-be violators just sucking it up.

…no? Prohibition was totally legitimate, attacking random police officers during prohibition would’ve been very wrong too.

How is this not literal treason? I guess fuck having borders and laws and shit.

Shooting at the National Guard would almost certainly qualify, but that’s not what the city of Chicago is doing.

See Nybbler’s explanation here.

Edit: I thought this was a response to the top-level.

Treason is making war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Despite some attempts at stretching this to call illegal immigrants in general "enemies", that doesn't cover opposing ICE. But it does imply an full open borders position, which is not very popular in the US.

"...moral duty to resist them" can definitely stretch to treason. I don't think the recent attacks on the convoy or facility count (they're regular crime instead), but scale it up by 100x and it would.

It could also mean something as milquetoast as refusing to volunteer information and help, which is completely protected conduct.

Maybe it is but morality does not require "never do a treason." The founding of America was substantially treason against the British crown and they were right to do that.

Seriously, is it just the scary masks or do you actually think it's a crime against humanity to expect anyone to live in Mexico?

Surely part of this is that a certain side of the political aisle seem to believe that America is the land of milk and honey and that every less-developed country is literally Pol Pot's Cambodia.

You seem to imply treason is inherently loathsome. Personally, I see it as one of the crimes against states which are morally different from crimes against men. Morality cannot exist between entities that are so different in power and nature.

Morality cannot exist between entities that are so different in power and nature.

… which of course is why there can be no possible moral objection to wantonly torturing puppies and kittens just for laughs (/s)

We do that, in a sense. We keep them as pets in strange dwellings, feeding them strange food, castrating them and arranging their entire lives around our enjoyment. Were an alien do that to humans we'd probably consider it torture.

I have plenty of complaints about the conduct of ICE but the legitimacy of their official mission seems fine? Even if you think having open borders is a moral imperative the US is clearly not set up to support flipping a switch from 0 to 100% on that without lead time.

Unless this is bait, in which case can you please not or at least choose better bait?

the conduct of ICE but the legitimacy of their official mission seems fine?

I really thought this was the whole point of this thread / argument but everyone really loves to conflate the two

I mean, I think that's the motte and bailey.

I think a majority of leftists believe that their official mission is illegitimate, and borders in general are basically unethical, but outright saying that is still a bit outside the Overton window of mainstream political discourse (insofar as you still care about trying to convince conservatives and "centrists" and put on good optics for them).

I don’t think that’s what mainstream dems think, especially in places like Chicago which are dominated by the black political machine. I think some of them are confused about the asylum seeker thing but most of them believe that being on US soil entitles a person to rights and that illegal immigration just isn’t such an important problem to violate those rights.

I think a majority of leftists believe that their official mission is illegitimate, and borders in general are basically unethical

Does anyone on this site think this? I meant like this argument in this thread.

I think a majority of leftists believe that their official mission is illegitimate, and borders in general are basically unethical

Does anyone on this site think this? I meant like this argument in this thread.

Yes, in this very thread:

Good. ICE officers have, in my mind, about as much legitimacy as federal officials enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act and it is every red-blooded Americans moral duty to resist them.

Isn’t that just MLK-ism? The whole “unjust laws” bit, how it doesn’t challenge the legal legitimacy but rather the moral legitimacy, and despite the time worn temptation is to conflate the two they are not the same. I’d want to see more elaboration of this point than jump to that assumption. Unless you have an actual issue with MLK-ism?

What was illegitimate about the Fugitive Slave Act other than the flagrant and duplicitous disregard for the law by free states?

It was morally abhorrent to enslave people and to return them into slavery. Legitimacy does not consist in "whatever the state says is legitimate."

Iis morally abhorrent to cross border without permission and to overstay a visa. To impose yourself in a place you don't belong and doesn't want you.

If we are talking about well-behaved gainfully-employed illegals in blue cities like Chicago (which is where the ICE raids causing the fuss are focused), then nobody is imposing. The illegals are in a place where their landlords, bosses, butchers, bakers etc. as well as a super-majority of the community are perfectly comfortable to have them there. The people who don't want them are the people (almost entirely from outside said blue cities) who voted for Trump.

Now as a matter of positive law, this particular group of intermeddling non-Chicagoans and the federal government they elected do in fact have the legal right to send goons into Chicago to round up and remove the illegals. But that only affects the morality of the immigrants' behaviour if you think there is a moral obligation to obey permissibly-dumb-but-not-evil laws in a democracy. I do, but my impression is that most Motteposters subscribe to the libertarian view that there there is no such obligation. Even if breaking laws is immoral, peacefully breaking immigration laws is immoral on the level of filesharing or handling salmon suspiciously*, not on the level of victimful crimes like burglary, so "abhorrent" seems excessive.

* "Handling a salmon in suspicious circumstances" is, somewhat notoriously, a crime in the UK. The purpose of the law is to make it easier to prosecute blatantly guilty poachers like this guy without needing to litigate the provenance of a specific salmon.

peacefully breaking immigration laws is immoral on the level of filesharing or handling salmon suspiciously

This is, of course, the load-bearing item of contention. To me, and to many, peacefully breaking immigration laws is some combination of trespass, home invasion and squatting. If I come to your house, and I eat your food and I tell you I'm never leaving, and the police back me up, it's not really your house any more. If 100 people like me do they same, it's definitely not your house any more. You are vestigial. Maybe there are photos of your family on the dresser - what do those people mean to me and mine? My children's photos will look much better there. Your furniture is ugly and doesn't represent my culture - let's throw it out, sell it, burn it for warmth.* It doesn't matter how peaceful illegal immigrants are, or if they do odd jobs around 'your' (for now) house. Demographic change is demographic change.

That's ignoring the face that lots of illegal immigrants actually turn out to be neither nice, peaceful or helpful, of course. But is it any wonder that voters react badly to breaking immigration law, or helping others break immigration law, when seen from this perspective?

*You might feel that this is catastrophising, or at least very pessimistic. I think that anyone pro-immigration must feel that way, but post-woke I can't agree. The outbreak of statue-vandalism, proposed name changes to get rid of all the old English names on parks and streets (most of which didn't get pushed through because there was no yet enough support), the direct import of specifically American racial grievances post-Floyd, the constant drumbeat of 'X is no longer appropriate for Modern (Multicultural) Britain' moved me heavily on these issues.

This is, of course, the load-bearing item of contention. To me, and to many, peacefully breaking immigration laws is some combination of trespass, home invasion and squatting. If I come to your house, and I eat your food and I tell you I'm never leaving, and the police back me up, it's not really your house any more.

If you are a Republican voter in Alabama, I don't see how Chicago is "your house" in any morally relevant way. If you are a Reform UK voter in Lower Snoring, I insist that my house in London is not "your house" in any morally relevant way, and politely suggest that you show some gratitude to the people whose taxes fund your lifestyle rather than insinuating that our friends, neighbours, colleagues and servants are somehow "eating your food". That it is your country is legally relevant, but the only moral claim that gives rise to is the one that upholding the law is generally good. My claim that illegal immigration is morally trivial is restricted to the situations where the community the immigrants are moving to does not, in fact, object to their presence.

That's ignoring the face that lots of illegal immigrants actually turn out to be neither nice, peaceful or helpful, of course. But is it any wonder that voters react badly to breaking immigration law, or helping others break immigration law, when seen from this perspective?

Yes - there is supermajority support essentially everywhere for curtailing abuse of the humanitarian and family-based routes to immigrate to first-world countries, based on the accurate belief that the people who get in that way are, on average, bad neighbours. We should do so. But public opinion on this point is downstream of immigrant behaviour - people who have experience of well-behaved immigrants don't want to kick them out.

the direct import of specifically American racial grievances post-Floyd

I remember the pictures of the pro-Floyd march in London. I haven't seen a London crowd that close to all-white since before Blair opened the immigration floodgates, and I doubt I will ever see another one. I think it was whiter than the recent Tommy Robinson rally. Wokism isn't being pushed by immigrants or their descendants - unless you count the Milibands.

If you are a Republican voter in Alabama, I don't see how Chicago is "your house" in any morally relevant way. If you are a Reform UK voter in Lower Snoring, I insist that my house in London is not "your house" in any morally relevant way

For the obvious reasons:

  1. There is free movement within borders. Open borders for one part of the country means open borders for all.
  2. There is continuity of government within borders. Imported voters in London can and do vote on what people in the oh-so-condescendingly-named Lower Snoring are allowed to do, think and say. They also exert cultural control through more indirect means (quangos, pressure groups and so on).

Are you proposing allowing individual US states / UK counties to have their own legally-enforced borders and government?

Yes - there is supermajority support essentially everywhere for curtailing abuse of the humanitarian and family-based routes to immigrate to first-world countries, based on the accurate belief that the people who get in that way are, on average, bad neighbours. We should do so.

And yet, it doesn't happen. Curious!

A lot of the failure comes from the fact that European countries could not really fathom a guest worker program with NO route to permanent residency. There was a need for guest workers, but we should just have used the Kafala system. No family members. No route to citizenship. Mandatory return home for a 6 month period every 5 years.

A lot of the failure comes from the fact that European countries could not really fathom a guest worker program with NO route to permanent residency.

I'm pretty sure they existed within my lifetime.

More comments

If you are a Republican voter in Alabama, I don't see how Chicago is "your house" in any morally relevant way.

CDL holders issued in California killing people in Florida says otherwise.

Look, I'd love for there to be a larger argument for States Rights(for my own safety's sake, if nothing else), but it's clear by this point that it's been well done and buried, and we have to live with the consequences.

If you are a Republican voter in Alabama, I don't see how Chicago is "your house" in any morally relevant way. If you are a Reform UK voter in Lower Snoring, I insist that my house in London is not "your house" in any morally relevant way,

Okay, whose house is it then?

Open borders proponents always say "well, it isn't yours, so you have no right to exclude anyone". It's someone's. Who does have the right to exclude? It may be an individual, it may be a government, but that right didn't just go away because you don't personally own the country. Where did it go and who has it right now?

Okay, whose house is it then?

My house is my house. Your house is your house. The nation isn't a family, and the national territory isn't a house. Avoid Mummy Party and Daddy Party frames where possible. If the Mummy Party was a real mother, it would be a divorced wine mum with four different mental health diagnoses. If the Daddy Party was a real father it would be a deadbeat dad with a DV restraining order.

Who does have the right to exclude?

Sovereign states have the legal right to exclude people - that isn't in doubt here. The question I was arguing with @Lizardspawn is whether this is a matter of ethics, such that illegal immigration is a malum in se crime and possibly even, per Lizardspawn, an "abhorrent" one, or whether it is a matter of politics such that illegal immigration is a malum prohibitum crime.

The basic argument for why illegal immigration (assuming otherwise well-behaved, gainfully employed immigrants) is malum prohibitum rather than malum in se is:

  • In the absence of immigration laws, immigration for the purpose of working in a foreign country is not immoral.
  • Illegal immigration and illegal work are, in and of themselves, victimless crimes and victimless crimes are generally malum prohibitum.
  • The actual criminal acts involved in illegal immigration and illegal work are generally morally unproblematic acts (crossing a morally arbitrary line on the map, mutually beneficial commercial transactions) carried out without the correct paperwork - that is the paradigmatic example of malum prohibitum.

So now existing in Mexico is equivalent to slavery? Are we going to liberate Mexico and rescue them all, then? Can we put them where you live?

No, more precisely, having no access to the benefits of US welfare state is equivalent to slavery.

Wut

Federal officials enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act were returning people to slavery. ICE agents are returning people to Mexico. If you're going to have such a precious little time making the comparison, it would help if the two were comparable in some way.

They are comparable in that the state's actions are equivalent in their lack of moral legitimacy. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

No, that's not clear at all.

"Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.".

It's unfortunate that it seems like you have chosen to flame out, but taking your argument at face value - are you arguing for something to the effect of "A (enforcing the FSA) is immoral, and B (preventing federal agents from enforcing it) was an appropriate reaction to it; therefore if C (enforcing immigration restrictions) is immoral, then B is likewise an appropriate reaction to it"? In that case, setting A=9/11, B=the commando raid on Osama's compound, C=illegal immigration, under the reasonable assumption that the majority of US citizens agree that A and C are immoral and B was an appropriate reaction to A, are you arguing for commando raids to kill all illegal immigrants (and/or even those involved in planning their immigration)?

It's unfortunate that it seems like you have chosen to flame out

What does this mean? Is disagreeing with the motte hive-mind "flaming out"? I thought that was the point of this website.

More comments

They are comparable in that the state's actions are equivalent in their lack of moral legitimacy. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

Yeah except you completely left out the part where you explain why they're, you know, comparable. You just walked out on stage and said "Slavery. There, now that I have moral legitimacy, I don't like ICE."

Equating "I don't like X" and "X is unethical" seems like a skill issue on your part. There are plenty of things I don't like that are not unethical for people to do.

More comments

And why are those actions morally illegitimate? What is the source of moral illegitimacy in those two cases?

They are out of accordance with ethical principles, of course. Do you think returning fugitive slaves was the right thing to do?

More comments

...and your stated reason slave officers were immoral is because they were doing their jobs, and their jobs are bad. Drawing the parallel that you believe ICE officers are immoral because they are doing their jobs, and their jobs are bad is the most obvious reading IMO.

I can't see how you could miss that. In fact, I can't see what else it could possibly be, so I'll ask directly: What is the connection between ICE officers and Fugitive Slave Act enforcers, that it's appropriate to compare their moral legitimacy?

They are both doing things that are immoral. I thought I was pretty clear?

More comments

Is it morally abhorrent for Mexicans to live in Mexico instead of becoming illegal aliens? Do you believe that every illegal alien has a right to your personal property in the same way that slaves have a right to their freedom? Do you believe that the law saying that have property and rights and not stripping them away from you to give them to illegal aliens is also illegitimate?

You are comparing two wildly different things; if your only response to this being pointed out is blank confusion, you should perhaps consider the properties of slaves and illegal aliens in more detail.

I do not think all actions of the state which lack moral legitimacy are factually equivalent. Hope this clarifies things!

You are aggressively ignoring every poster asking you to clarify why enforcing immigration law is equivalent to enforcing laws on slavery. This is just trolling.

Do they lack moral legitimacy because you don't believe borders should exist? Should the hypothetical Slave Catchers have instead of returning the escaped slaves to slavery, elected to take them back to Africa or to Mexico, wouldn't that have been less immoral than if they returned them to bondage?

Cool. Now imprint this feeling in your mind, so that you can recall it in detail when the shoe is on the other foot.

I think it is every red-blooded American's moral duty to do a lot of things you probably would not approve of. moral clarity is a rush but it does not keep the peace.

Is it the peace that is the absence of tension or the peace that is the presence of justice?

Neither. It is the peace where "they" get away with it for another day, for whatever definition of "they" we each prefer.

“For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.”
-G.K. Chesterton

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