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.
- 124
- 1
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
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- 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.
Notes -
So I watched The Exorcist a few nights ago, because it's Halloween. I remember my mom talking about how much it scared her as a little girl, and how when she was a teenager living in Vienna, VA, it wasn't uncommon to go see the steps in Georgetown where they filmed for a scare. Despite it just being a movie, people swore they felt evil. You know, according to teenagers in the 70's.
It got me thinking how different that movie must have hit in 1973 than it does today. I mean now, being a parent, and a parent of a child who's spent some time jumping through hoops to get things diagnosed, many of the medical scenes hit super hard. But the whole concept of demon possession, or even demons being real probably hit harder in '73. Supposedly 87% of the nation was Christian then, versus 65% now. I hazard to guess the quality of Christian back then was different as well. I know my mother would talk about her Southern Baptist upbringing, and the nightmares she'd have about demons and ending up in hell.
I wonder if it was like The Blair Witch Project. For like the first week it came out, people thought it was real. I certainly remember thinking it was, until the actors appeared on Letterman. It leaned hard into that leading up to the release. I'm sure in 73 people knew the Exorcist wasn't real, but maybe they felt like it could be real? In a way we simply fail to appreciate today.
It was advertised as “based on a true story,” and it really was, insofar as a 1949 exorcism helped inspired the novel that the movie was based on. I imagine viewers at that time may have been less skeptical of “based on a true story” claims than they are today, not realizing just how tenuous most of those connections are.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link