The Real and Final Enlightenment
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
Notes -
The mod team talked this over and, in short, we're not gonna approve this post.
I think the main thing is that the rules require you to "speak plainly," and this doesn't appear to reach that level. Even then, maybe what's unclear to us can seem clear to others, but there is also a thread of consensus-building here, an absence of epistemic humility--between the second-person stuff and the vaguely cause-recruiting tone of the closing bits...
Well, even then we don't necessarily want to punish people for being passionate or even feeling certain of something, within certain rhetorical bounds, but the self-promotion (especially the "subscribe" button) kinda topped it all off as just not quite what we're looking for here, sorry. If you want to point people to your substack, you've got to clear something of a reputational and/or informational hurdle first.
Well, I used to shill my substack with no issue back on /r/themotte. I went by AntiDyatlov, and previously mooseburger42 over there. We have spoken before, though sadly mostly when I was in a psychotic or semi-psychotic state.
As to speak plainly, I don't know, people understood me in /r/sorceryofthespectacle and /r/RationalPsychonaut. But yeah, maybe The Motte is not really in the target demo for this, it's just that I always viewed the main page of this place as a free for all.
Though I think there is definitely something to be said about rationalists, about how there is no fire to their equations. But that is not this article, even if it is related.
When I do come up with a version of this article but for rationalists, think you will let it through?
I have no idea what that would even look like, so it's hard to pre-commit to anything. But if you write a post that follows the rules, and maybe doesn't come off quite so much as a pitch for subscribers, that would certainly improve your chances.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link