This is just another version of the inane argument, "there are negative aspects of X; therefore, overall, X is bad." That conclusion does not follow unless one also discusses the positive aspects of X, and makes an argument that the negative aspects outweigh the positive. For example, yes, if I "[r]ead no newspapers [and] [w]atch no television news[,]" I will be "entirely unaware of a problem that . . . is best ignored." But, I will also be entirely unaware of problems that are best not ignored.
This was in response to Richard's generalization, too, abut the media being honest even though there are many instances of it being dishonest . Maybe making generalizations is bad.
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 -
This is just another version of the inane argument, "there are negative aspects of X; therefore, overall, X is bad." That conclusion does not follow unless one also discusses the positive aspects of X, and makes an argument that the negative aspects outweigh the positive. For example, yes, if I "[r]ead no newspapers [and] [w]atch no television news[,]" I will be "entirely unaware of a problem that . . . is best ignored." But, I will also be entirely unaware of problems that are best not ignored.
This was in response to Richard's generalization, too, abut the media being honest even though there are many instances of it being dishonest . Maybe making generalizations is bad.
I am not talking about making a generalization. I am talking about very, very, very selective use of evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link