site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   982 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 7, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

By now that claim about smartphones passively listening in 24/7 for ad targeting is quite old. Any conclusive evidence either for or against?

They are passively monitoring, but not listening.

They have permissions for location, gyro, website activity (facebook pixel) and know who you interact with. That's more than good enough to serve you ads. Hell, they're stronger signals for your interests than your audio.

My cousin works for Verizon and says no. He says that what's going on is that Facebook is just showing you the same ads as your friends, which could happen if they search for something you were talking about and you don't. There's selection bias here, too; nobody accounts for all the times they talked about something and weren't shown an ad for it.

Modern operating systems inform you when the microphone is on. This claim requires that Facebook et al have a backdoor that's never been detected in all these years.

Broad question:

Who is worth rooting for?

I mean, what humans alive right now represent "the best of humanity" without some laundry list of skeletons in their closet.

Someone who has talent, charisma and, critically, an unimpeachable moral character. A 'wholesome' sheen is optional but not necessary.

To compare and contrast, the models (limiting it to celebrities) I have in my head when I think of this are guys like Mr. Rogers, Dolly Parton, Weird Al Yankovic, Steve Irwin, Robin Williams, and maybe Keanu Reeves.

And contrasting examples where they cultivated but didn't live up to the image: Billy Cosby, Ellen DeGeneres, Will Smith, Ashton Kutcher. (I'm not pretending their behaviors are equivalent, mind).

I've talked in the past about how so many 'role models' failed to live up to their hype. Here, though, I'm talking about something even more basic. Not necessarily someone you want to be like but someone who you want to see succeed because the virtue of their goals and their character is so 'pure' that its inherently inspiring.

Someone who makes you think "I want this guy to do well, I want him to win, I want him to overcome every single obstacle he ever encounters" because that person's success would restore your faith in humanity as a whole.

This question partially inspired by all the memes around PewDiePie literally winning at life and nobody can level an actual critique of his character. Yes, we all know about the bridge incident, that's almost the proof positive that he'd stored up such large reserves of goodwill that people implicitly understand he's a heckin' decent human being. Jontron also seems to have his his happy ending. Isaac Arthur is one for me, personally, but for my more narrow interests.

Is there anyone currently coming up through the ranks that seems to represent this semi-heroic archetype?

Would Scott count? I'm sure he needs no introduction in these parts, and if he does, then lurk moar.

He's got a pretty squeaky clean image, and is definitely charismatic (over text), and I think he's made a meaningful impact on the world. This site, at the very least, owes its existence to him. The closest thing to controversial in his life was the drama over his ex's new husband leaking emails where he gave HBD more credence than he had done publicly, and to his credit, he's expressed support. So yeah, I don't know anyone who really has anything bad to say about him, and I think he deserves his success.

I root for Scott, I'm just not sure what projects he's a working on that I can wish him success with.

He did contribute to that "AGI 2027" paper/site which is getting some flack now, but I don't think any less of him.

I think you're looking for role models in entirely the wrong industries. The only reason we scrutinise the character of entertainers like Ellen DeGeneres, PewDiePie or Will Smith is because their job is to be liked and their worth is almost entirely parasocial, and if they fail to appear "wholesome heckin' good human beings", they fail at their job.

But if someone actually significantly contributes to humanity, then them having an unimpeachable moral character is pretty unimportant. If Norman Borlaug cheated on his wife, it wouldn't detract from the fact that he saved over a billion lives from starvation, and if someone who looked to him as inspiration would still go into agricultural science. But if you want to emulate Ellen DeGeneres, well, what's there to be inspired by when the personality is the product? Musicians and actors at least have a separate output, but it's rare that they become celebrities purely on the basis on technical talent.

I personally think it's a societal failure that people look to YouTube streamers as people to emulate as opposed to scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. It feels cheap to call a guy who talks while playing video games in the comfort of his own home a hero, or even a semi-hero, when there's doctors risking life and limb to save lives in literal war zones. And if you want someone to emulate just because they have a good personality, look to people around you that you know personally, not celebrities of whom you know nothing about except their media image and some rumours.

I personally think it's a societal failure that people look to YouTube streamers as people to emulate as opposed to scientists, engineers, doctors, etc.

This is partially why I would ask this question. I don't know of enough good examples of good people doing good things who we should all be rooting for, outside of the easily visible celebrity space.

It seems to be in no small part that people who have 'good character' simply aren't inclined to seek the spotlight.

It is indeed probably humanity's singular greatest weak spot as a species (yet simultaneously, not really our fault) that the factors that confer high status amongst fellow humans is not well-aligned with what creates the largest material gains for said humans. Capitalism is a Kludge that manages to partially solve for hits, in a certain light.

I root against streamers. I think people (myself included) should go outside more and be on screens less. Additionally I think Europeans, from countries other than the UK and the Ireland, who post on platforms like YouTube in English and are doing a grave disservice to their own national cultures and languages.

I am continually praying I wake up one day to hear that Twitch had to shut down as its business model proved unworkable and its popularity collapsed.

There's been a spate of drama in the livestream world for the past few months of relatively popular streamers being utterly horrible people. Car accidents while livestreaming, physical and mental abuse inflicted on vulnerable people, open sexual assault or shoplifting on stream.

This does little to impact their popularity, because the drama is the point.

I would be just fine taking a page out of South Korea's playbook and throw them in jail if they can't behave.

Or a more American solution, shoot the more annoying ones.

Intellectually I really like Nate Hagens and Erald Kolasi on the energy front. I feel like both of them are genuinely trying to find a way that humans can flourish and make it through our current list of challenges.

In sport, I like a lot of what I'm seeing out of Norwegian triathlon (Kristian Blumenfelt, Gustav Iden, etc.) and Nils van Der Pol (speed skating olympic champion and world record holder).

Based on an exchange in the main thread, I've been reminded by how different some of the views I hold on technological progress are from the rest of this forum (and I suppose society in general). I don't think we will ever colonize space (and have started to view people who take space colonization seriously in a negative light), AI will be an expensive nothinburger, and we will spend our lives in an environment of declining energy availability and increasing ecological catastrophe. I'm not full doomer by any means, but I find the vague nature that many on the forum treat the material basis of our reality to be baffling. One of the best and most palatable speakers I find on this topic is Nate Hagens and his Great Simplification podcast. Every week he has a variety of guests on the show that deal with various aspects of our predicament, many of whom strongly disagree with him. I would really recommend that almost everyone here check him out.

What views do you hold that you feel are orthogonal to most people on this forum (or society at large)? Who is the best speaker/writer that you feel like captures your point of view?

If AI will be a nothingburger, then space colonization is probably inevitable, for certain definitions of "inevitable". Natural selection and civilization have this weird back-and-forth, where the scales of problems that need solving to make civilization-scale advances, and the conditions to maintain population growth long-term, often wind up clashing, so advances come in bursts, followed by declines, with the seat of innovation having to move to a new population with each iteration. The current paradigm seems to be in the bust phase of that cycle. So if "we" means "The West", yeah, probably screwed. But we've raised the waterline such that India is landing probes on the Moon, China is exploring Mars, Japan is returning asteroid samples, and Israel and Yemen are having the first space combat on the technicality that their missiles collided above the Carman line.

More likely, I think, is that the utter insanity of the past two centuries will necessarily come to a more stable form, whereever the seat of advancement winds up, and that will take a while. The current space exploration efforts better resemble Julius Caesar failing to invade Britain, then 2000 years later, the Sun never set on the British Empire. It's just that, instead of naked blue Celts in chariots forcing back the greatest army on Earth, it was economics and ideology and gravity ... defeating the greatest airforce on Earth. Someone will overcome fertility collapse, because Natural Selection works that way. Someone, perhaps much later, will take the Moon and NEAs, because if they don't, life ends here, not just civilization. And, had I to guess, they will, as their spiritual ancestors did, have a spectacular boom period that raises the civilization waterline for everyone else, succumb to decadence and unsustainability, nearly crash civilization for a while, only to be replaced another few centuries later with someone who goes even farther.

The fun part is, this works on the scale of centuries and millennia. So if AI doesn't pan out, there's plenty of time to get it right before the Sun, a giant space-rock, or some other cosmic catastrophe gets us RFEd. If AI turns out to be the big game-changer of this iteration of the civilizational musical chairs game, then it's anyone's guess what comes next, because whatever it is, it happens in the next few decades to a century or two.

The current space exploration efforts better resemble Julius Caesar failing to invade Britain

Ok look, he was kissing the ground as he came ashore. He did NOT trip and eat shit on the beach in an inauspicious sign that his hubris was disfavored by the gods. The very fact that that you are insinuating this makes me think that you are a butthurt Gallic shill poster working out of a boiler room in some mud hut in Lugdunum. Opinion disregarded.

IDK, things in Britain might look different now if there were 10k naked blue charioteers running around, so you might have a point...

See this is why I can't take space colonization advocates seriously anymore: you're extrapolating from trends on earth that have no real analogy in space. Colonizing space looks absolutely nothing like either the British Empire or Julius Caesar invading Britain because in both of those scenarios the various groups involved don't have to bring every single thing they need for their survival with them. There's just no real pressing reason to go to space: there's nothing super valuable we could get there that we can't get on earth for much cheaper (filtering sea water is probably cheaper than asteroid mining), if we really needed living space, seasteads or even colonies on Antartica would be far easier to supply and to make self-sufficient, yet we have done neither.

There are just certain things that are physically impossible and/or biologically impossible that will never come to pass. No one "has to" colonize space. We have no evidence of extraterrestrial space colonization (the Fermi paradox isn't a paradox if space colonization isn't biologically possible). You are giving evolution far too much credit. There are some boundaries that have never been crossed here on Earth in 4.2 billion years of life existing, there's no reason to think that life would necessarily be able to make it into space and expand throughout the universe. This is more of a reflection of our Faustian culture rather than of how life actually works. Life can just end with the sun evaporating the oceans on earth, and that's probably what will happen.

Current space exploration efforts are almost entirely the result of the one time fossil fuel burst we had as a civilization. We still haven't returned to the moon since the 70s, and the ISS was built in the early 2000s. We haven't made serious attempts at space colonization, other than a few probes, since Apollo. Yes SpaceX has made great strides in increasing efficiency and decreasing launch costs, but the vast vast majority of those launches are for satellites, not humans because there aren't actually that many reasons to go to space.

Resource extraction for Earth is an utterly terrible reason to colonize space, and I don't know why anyone would take it seriously. You don't colonize the Moon and asteroids for gold; you do it because of how differently things work in space. Because there are things that you can do with satellites and space stations and space factories that you either can't do on Earth, or can do more efficiently in space if the cost of working there came down a couple orders of magnitude. Colonizing other planets is a sideshow for the next million or billion years or so.

But when I'm talking about natural selection, I mean the people who are super pessimistic have a tendency to be evolutionary deadends, as do the people who are overly optimistic and burn through resources too quickly. More than just genes get selected for through attrition. Apollo was unsustainable, and Artimas looks like it's just as unsustainable. But the current iteration of Western Civ is unsustainable.

I also feel I should say something about the comment on fossil fuels, but I'm not sure I'm interpreting it correctly. It sounds like it's implying that, since fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource and we've burned through most of the easily accessible supply, it's all downhill for Earth in general from here? Because we kinda already used all that fossil fuel wealth to develop workarounds, albeit they are harder or more costly. But they are also workarounds that many non-Western nations have invested in the foundational tech and infrastructure for. If you have effective alternative energy sources, you have alternative means of accessing hydrocarbons if needed. Even if it's not for space, someone in the next Renaissance will look at Millennium texts, think that maybe having these things would be nice, and figure out how to concentrate enough energy to pick up where we left off.

Life can just end with the sun evaporating the oceans on earth, and that's probably what will happen.

Jesus Christ as if my "lying in bed at midnight Sunday scariest" weren't bad enough already

Why? You’ll be dead and humans probably won’t exist anymore, or have existed for millions of years

Speaking of Christ, the first job God gives to Man in Genesis is tending Eden. The next job that wasn't a curse was to be fruitful and multiply. So it could be argued that People of the Book are religiously obligated to preserve life until God says otherwise.

Hell, if we want to get extra Unsong brained, Revelation includes a plague wherein the Sun does start to roast the Earth, and after Armageddon a cube city with enough space for everyone and its own power / water / food supply descends from the sky and starts exporting medicine and raining fire on attackers. So that's ... fun?

... Do I really want to post something this off-the-wall after trying to be serious in the rest of this thread? Especially since Revelation also includes a scene where a trio of Satanic Kaijuu spit demon-frogs from their mouths to start the Battle of Armageddon? ... Why does the Bible have a Gainax ending?

we will spend our lives in an environment of declining energy availability and increasing ecological catastrophe

We've had the answer to this since the discovery of nuclear fission, we just gaslight ourselves into pretending we don't by regulating it off the board and saying "it just isn't profitable 🤷‍♂️"

Amusingly, the West may finally come to its senses on this matter as it's under threat of losing the entire game board to China. Civilisational suicide would be totally cool in a vacuum, but when there's a rival, it looks like you're just coping for losing, rather than virtuously killing yourself, which is totally not cool.

Tangentially, this is why I view fusion as basically irrelevant: if we get fusion, we'll just make that illegal, too.

I'm not sure I believe that regulation is the reason why we don't have fission. US has more fission power by GW than China and so does France. France's electricity mix is actually 70% fission and is dealing with various climate change related problems such as being unable to run the reactors in the summer because the water level is so low in the various inflow rivers to the nuclear power plants can't be used for steam generation. Even with a government that doesn't give a shit about safety regulations (China and the Soviet Union) fission clearly actually isn't that effective of a technology. Fission has actually declined as a share of China's energy mix recently (probably because of build out of solar), so I have a hard time believing it is a wunderkind energy source. @FirmWeird has posted a lot about this in this in the past.

I have, and I have eaten numerous downvotes for it. My point has always been that nuclear energy has too low an EROEI to be a viable answer to the energy needs of a modern industrial society, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence to the contrary. France's nuclear system was only viable because they got their uranium for cents on the franc from Nigeria, and even then it ran out of money and had to be restructured when I was posting about it last. This doesn't necessarily mean that there's no place for nuclear power - having a source of power that isn't reliant on fossil fuels could prove to be particularly useful in a future where fossil fuels are harder to come boy or the Middle East is in a state of war. Similarly, nuclear submarines which don't actually have to make enough money to justify their continued existence but place a huge emphasis on the density of their energy source are another good use for them. If China actually manages to get those molten salt reactors working, that would be fantastic as well. But right now I haven't seen any convincing evidence that nuclear power is a sustainable answer to the depletion of fossil fuels - and a large graveyard of failed attempts.

having a source of power that isn't reliant on fossil fuels could prove to be particularly useful in a future where fossil fuels are harder to come boy or the Middle East is in a state of war

This is the reason why France has the nuclear system it does- it was de Gaulle's baby precisely because the US doesn't have French (or European) interests at heart. France was under [his] military dictatorship at the time, which helped get things moving.

He was right, of course; both in 1973 with the US-caused oil shortage and then in 2022 with the US-caused LNG shortage.

place a huge emphasis on the density of their energy source are another good use for them

It's not so much that as it is completely obviating the need to resupply with fuel. And, especially relevant for submarines, nuclear power functions even with a complete lack of oxygen, so doing that is a no-brainer.

I haven't seen any convincing evidence that nuclear power is a sustainable answer to the depletion of fossil fuels

It's the only alternative that can work anywhere on the Earth's surface on a calm, cold night. Lighting a fire is the classic method to get energy at that time, but "magic hot rock" is fine too.

I once heard stated that the reason it's difficult to get good output from nuclear is because they simply can't run the reaction hot enough- hence the emphasis on exotic coolants (molten salt, etc.)- whereas with LNG the exhaust heat is sufficiently hot that you can heat the steam driving a secondary turbine to the point where it's very, very efficient. Of course, because we want to reserve the right to quench the reactor if it gets too hot for... certain reasons, we'd like a coolant that doesn't make the problem worse if we do that. At least with LNG you can turn the gas off and the reaction will stop.

It's the only alternative that can work anywhere on the Earth's surface on a calm, cold night.

"Work" is the key sticking point here - does it provide enough energy to pay for itself? To pay for the extraction of the raw material from the ground, refinement into usable fuel pellets, transportation to the plant, the construction of the plant, the lives of the people who run it and then on top of that provide usable power for the rest of the society that sustains it? The answer is, at present, "No."

That's the entire basis of my objection - even if you just handwave away the problem of storing dangerous radioactive waste that lasts for millenia and hope it doesn't leak into the rest of the environment, nuclear just can't pay for itself. Every single existing nuclear program I'm aware of is made viable on the basis of government subsidies or exploitation (i.e. the hilarious prices France paid for Nigerian uranium). Every single proposed nuclear program that doesn't have these problems (fusion, molten salt, thorium, etc) is 20 years in the future, and has been 20 years in the future for the past 60 years.

China actually started up a molten salt 'thorium' (eg, starting with uranium, then moving to thorium) reactor last year, with the first full thorium cycle this November. I'm not optimistic about its effectiveness, but that's more because it's a lot more complicated than it needs to be, rather than net energy or net cost problems.

A lot of the various cost problems with nuclear plants reflect political willpower, rather than actual material costs. That's most serious in the United States where we've intentionally made them several times harder to produce at the same time that the control and construction technology has gotten much much better, but most western governments have done something similar. (or just had politicians launch rockets directly at the construction sites.)

There's a revealed preferences sense where, if you can't solve those political problems, you can't produce power at price, and it's not entirely wrong. But it's misleading to treat it as a physics problem.

Then nothing is cost-effective except for fossil fuels and hydroelectricity, ultimately.

But we already knew that; that's why banning their use is such a powerful socioeconomic weapon. Nuclear just happens to be both the closest you get to viability (since the plants from the '70s and '80s seem to be doing just fine; that was back when construction and labor were way cheaper though) and something that's arguably worth funneling research dollars into from a materials science perspective.

even if you just handwave away the problem of storing dangerous radioactive waste that lasts for millennia and hope it doesn't leak into the rest of the environment

This line always frustrates me because this is an isolated demand for rigor. Mine drainage (and it is a rather interesting flex that a modern mining company saw fit to name itself after the most expansive environmental mining disaster zone in human history- that being the Rio Tinto, which is what that's a picture of) will kill future Fred Flintstone far more quickly than anything else will. Fortunately, we discovered radioactivity before we invented the backhoe.

And I get that you have to convince John Q. Public of that, who will never come around in their lifetimes thanks, ironically enough, to radiation exposure (they sat too close to the TV while watching Simpsons reruns). Which is why you basically can't do this until you have a military that will deal with that.

I'm not sure I believe that regulation is the reason why we don't have fission

I'm one degree removed from the industry and I'm sorry, but regulation => cost is the reason why we don't have more fission.

Then why doesn't China have more fission? Hell, since the US is so rich in fossil resources: why didn't RUSSIA ever get more fission?

Over five percent of China's power comes from fission plants, and that's underrating it since they've got very high uptime compared to on-demand plants. As for why it hasn't scale up faster, China's political classes had very obvious mixed feelings about dependence on foreign-produced infrastructure for a long time, which only went harder once . While they've theoretically had 'domestic' production of nuclear plants since the mid-90s, they didn't actually manage serious production of the CNP-600s until 2010-2012... at which point the Fukushima disaster and its political fallout lead them to go back to the drawing board and start the production cycle again.

But they've put >3 GW of fission power online just in the last year. As bad as their political situation is for power construction, it's still beating the west's.

Russia has quite a lot of nuclear power, which is remarkable considering that, as you say, they care minimally about the environment and have abundant access to fossil fuels. Further, it's worth noting that the more civilised European parts of Russia are the parts with the most nuclear power, comprising around 40% of their generation.

If nuclear power is competitive with Russian fossil fuels, that means it's pretty darn cheap!

China doesn't have much nuclear power at present, but they are investing an enormous amount in building plants, and their forecasts are that it will quadruple in proportion of their energy supply over the next 25 years--and that's with the buildout of other energy sources!

Looks like I'm wrong about Russia! They have actually an increasing share of nuclear power as a percentage of total electricity mix and are building a number of new power plants that will be online later this decade!

Quadruple nuclear still puts China at only 20% of electricity from nuclear which is comparable to Russia right now. This does represent a big difference from the US still, but I'm not sure it will be enough. What we need to start seeing is a decline in the total amount of fossil energy in the electricity mix, which we haven't even seen in Russia. I actually don't think we've seen this anywhere except for maybe Germany/UK, but the renewable buildout in those locations has obvious problems of intermittency.

Nuclear is better than I thought though, so I stand corrected.

Yeah.

Unless something is very wrong about my understanding of physics, we have beautiful technological solutions for almost every civilizational problem just sitting there, if only we can solve the coordination problems necessary to use them.

Although I do start to worry that we don't have a sufficient supply of competent people to coordinate around even if we could. The main disconnect from optimistic/utopic Sci-Fi from the past, including Older Star Trek, and the current reality is a ready supply of smart, driven people can work together to solve any pressing issues in front of them.

I do start to worry that we don't have a sufficient supply of competent people

I think this is less of a problem than may at first appear. I think large amounts of human capital is locked up in playing video games. Obviously the median player is basically useless, but there are so many skilled players who don't aspire to much besides playing video games.

I was watching a former world record run of FFVII recently and the guy doing it was the most milquetoast underachiever in life I could imagine. He was talking about how his dream job was to finish community college and get a union job as an electrician. Or take Haelian, a pro Hades player with multiple world firsts in various challenges: before switching to full-time gaming, I think he worked at Walgreens (as a shelf stocker, not a strategist at corporate HQ). As a strong believer in Spearman's hypothesis, I'm confident these people severely underestimate how gifted they are and how successful they could be in mainstream professional work. They're just lowborn, and don't view the professional world as something that's even available to them. And it's not like the cultural class markers even relevant anymore -- this isn't Victorian England, where you have to hold your spoon in the right way or be shunned by civilised society. Musk is off smoking pot on Joe Rogan, and Alex Karp is apparently doing crack before going on interviews. The behavioral standards are not high. If you're competent, you're allowed in.

I guess that depends on how efficient you think "The Sort" has gotten.

My general perception is that if some person (in the West) possesses real noteworthy talent at a marketable ability, they will be identified and absorbed by some talent-hungry institution, AI Lab, Quant Trading Company, Pharma, etc. etc.

Although I could believe the hypothesis that there's a lot of guys with talent but limited discipline/drive who are ascertaining (correctly?) that beyond monetary rewards, the incentives to go out and use your talents are kinda dulled. You're not all that likely to find the love of your life, have kids, have a fulfilling long-term life and avoid burning out by age 40, so hey, smoking weed and playing vidya with the bros is an acceptable substitute.

What do we think would cause the U.S. to try and draw forth from such a 'latent' talent reserve?

I know it sounds gay, but it really is a loss of civilisational vision. There is no Mandate of Heaven that inspires gifted people to actually build cool stuff.

Part of this is that everything is so myopically chart-driven from the top down. It's one of the things I like about the Arabs: was the Burj Khalifa "worth it" in some strictly financial, bean-counter sense? Almost certainly not. It would have been vastly more efficient to build a bunch of concrete boxes and use the space for the same purpose.

But the Arabs do not have such a severe chart-worshipping brainworm infestation. The Burj Khalifa is badass, and badassery justifies itself.

I know it sounds gay, but it really is a loss of civilisational vision. There is no Mandate of Heaven that inspires gifted people to actually build cool stuff.

No, I agree.

The coolest 'monumental' works human have recently achieved are the aforementioned Burj Khalifa, SpaceX's Starship (still in progress) and, no shit, the Las Vegas Sphere.

The Sphere is more ephemeral, of course, but its such a cool thing to exist in its own right.

There is a serious lack of inspiration from things 'larger than the self.' Religious belief has declined, national pride seems on the wane, and I think there are fewer truly inspirational figures around that people would cast aside their lives to follow.

I feel it myself. I've had to inculcate in myself a 'civilizational vision' for radical secular humanism that views conquering the local solar system as my own personal manifest destiny. That's something to do that feels big and important enough to matter.

But I'm an odd duck, I don't think this is a vision that will unite all that many people in its current state.

The coolest 'monumental' works human have recently achieved are the aforementioned Burj Khalifa, SpaceX's Starship (still in progress) and, no shit, the Las Vegas Sphere.

We haven't yet stopped building. It's pretty easy to fill out that list a little, even if you look just at the anemic Euros: The Sagrada Familia made impressive progress over the last couple of years, the Millau Viaduct is pretty monumental, and - while harder to just look at, on account of being underground - the the Gotthard Base Tunnel and the Large Hadron Collider are gigantic feats of engineering. I can recommend visiting the latter when they do upgrade next time, even just the detector halls are monuments (and you can only enter them when they shut everything down during construction).

I think most of those will stand all throughout the fall of the West. People will live in their shadows after centuries of decline.

Although I could believe the hypothesis that there's a lot of guys with talent but limited discipline/drive who are ascertaining (correctly?) that beyond monetary rewards, the incentives to go out and use your talents are kinda dulled. You're not all that likely to find the love of your life, have kids, have a fulfilling long-term life and avoid burning out by age 40, so hey, smoking weed and playing vidya with the bros is an acceptable substitute.

Hey, now. I neither smoke weed, nor do I have any bros to play the handful of games I can actually play with. I'm basically stuck playing old Capcom fighters in single-player and learning to despise the announcer in MVC2 with a passion.

I know it's not directly the point but I'm equally baffled by your views as you would be (I suspect) of mine.

AI will be an expensive nothinburger

What makes you say that? AI has already ruined education, flooded the Internet with even more low-effort content from images, text, video to music, and even caused new kinds of psychosis. Oh and it's changed a lot of the nature of software engineering (causing a crisis in the junior dev market), data analysis (NLP is pretty much solved), and general automation of tasks. That's without going into computer vision, speech-to-text, etc. To not see that would require you to be, I don't know, a rural farmer in an African country or something.

But I occasionally see people with the same opinion as you, and we don't actually live in completely different realities. Or do we? Is it just impossible not to be in a bubble and capture only an easily biased sliver of reality? How do you avoid that and stay objective? I can just bluntly say your facts are wrong and mine are right, but I feel like that's missing the point.

I should clarify my view on AI. I don't disagree with any of your points, but I don't think AI will be materially transformative in the way that people seem to think around here. It's all incremental improvement (and destruction). It's not going to solve the energy crisis or help us discover genuine new knowledge.

In the long run it's also not going to last. We are going to run out of cheap energy or AI is going to rot everyone's brains enough that it can't self perpetuate.

So, what are you reading?

I'm still on The Dawn of Everything. Finally getting around to Bax' The Fraud of Feminism, which has been on my list for a while.

I finished Freedom this past week. In short, I think it's one of the best books I've read in a long time.

So few writers can pull off truly distinct characters without dressing them up in a variety of cultures or ethnicities. They had their own beliefs, decision-making process, and appearance to everyone else. In short, they all felt real.

Some of them were actually better than others, which seems like something other novelists are allergic to admitting when writing a book that's about just people. Other books devolve into sloppy morally-ambiguous mess, which was cool when I was 13 and is now totally insufferable.

Franzen apparently wrote it primarily before the culture war amped up, with it being published in 2010. I shudder to think what would have happened if he'd done it any later.

So many little things just stuck out and made me stop to think and savor. The way he writes about 9/11 felt like it captured what both it and Covid meant to me. Midwestern culture that so many people overlook and don't appreciate. The ways that love and lust and beauty influence us.

Any more and I'll spoil it, but I've already recommended it to 3 people and I don't do that as a rule.

One-third of the way through Cryptonomicon. The likelihood of my finishing this book before the end of the year is narrowing.

If you're not enjoying it now, you won't enjoy it later. You should drop it.

Don't get me wrong, I am enjoying it. But my progress on it has been slow because I've been busy and the print is very small.

Still reading the Divine Comedy. I finished Purgatorio and am now into Paradiso. I'm still enjoying it enough to keep going, though it is definitely a slog as a non-enjoyer of poetry. I've also resumed trying to read through Theology of the Body, which is often very difficult to follow (which is very unusual for me), but I hate to let it be said that I didn't finish a book because it was too hard for me.

Are you reading the original Italian or a translation?

A translation. I'm reading this edition, which seems to be pretty decent.

Vault: Unbound Book 8 by Nicoli Gonnella.

Sovietistan. Norwegian journalist visits ex-Soviet Central Asia. A little annoying in some ways (she's a pushy liberal that's shocked by people not giving a fuck about democracy), but it's been really cool to learn about a part of the world that I didn't know anything about before.

Huh, might pick this up as a stocking-stuffer.

It's been a while since I've done one of these- what's a small scale conspiracy theory you're willing to go to bat for?

Now, by 'small scale conspiracy theory' I do not mean grand unified theories of the jewlluminati or lizard people, or major government direction, or whatever. It's small-scale.

Some things I think are likely true-

The 'Marriage penalty' in US welfare law is- or was- an intentional experiment to prove that marriage was outmoded in late-industrial societies. It fits the zeitgeist of the time and we know there were other reckless experiments going on in first world countries(like German pedophiles). It was not based on the assumption that single mothers need the help more.

Coyote predation on small children is far more common in the USA than commonly acknowledged(note that a huge increase over a trivial base is still trivial), and those toddlers who just disappear and everyone assumes the parents killed them but they're never charged because nobody ever finds the body were mostly snatched by coyotes. Wildlife departments and law enforcement agencies prefer to cover this up to discourage reprisals by poisoning, which has substantial knock on effects. The only confirmed coyote kill of a child(there is also a case of a hippie musician who wandered near a den, but this probably wasn't a predatory attack) was interrupted during the attack rendering it undeniable.

Conventional health wisdom overstates effect sizes because it originated in attempts to explain the rise of chronic disease in the mid twentieth century. In reality, these diseases became common because people lived long enough to get them(largely due to reduced disease burden), with effects from rising waistlines, sedentary lifestyles, etc.

Depending on how you define "conspiracy theory"… two come to mind:

  1. That Carolyn Bryant Donham was telling the truth about what happened to her, and that Timothy Tyson is lying when he claims she secretly, off the record, recanted to him.

  2. That the jury in Fulton County convicted the right guy for the murder of Mary Phagan.

It's been a while since I've done one of these- what's a small scale conspiracy theory you're willing to go to bat for?

Now, by 'small scale conspiracy theory' I do not mean grand unified theories of the jewlluminati or lizard people, or major government direction, or whatever. It's small-scale.

Be in forum full of wordcel super geniuses with great reading comprehension. Thread asks for small scale conspiracies.

Look at comments. See 9/11, Covid, all of modern architecture cited as "small scale."

Update priors on Oklahoma University student writing an essay that bad.

Anyway to answer the OP:

-- Musk never intended to buy Twitter, he wanted to buy enough stock to force the company to give him a board seat so he could advocate for the company to change some policies. Unfortunately, when he bought that stock, the SEC started investigating the way he did it, and the company informed him of all the things he wouldn't be allowed to say if he was on Twitter's board unless he wanted to face a shareholder lawsuit. The only way out was through, so he upped the stakes and put in an offer to buy the company, figuring that it would fall apart one way or another before being consummated and in the process he could shed the lawsuits. Unfortunately, right about then every social media stock dropped 20-30%, and the company officers had to hang onto his offer because it would maximize shareholder value, and so he was ultimately forced to purchase the company. This explains a lot about the shambolic way Twitter has been managed with DAU dropping by about 50% since the purchase.

-- The NBA orchestrated the Luka Doncic trade in exchange for fixing the draft lottery to get Flagg to the Mavs. The Buss family wanted to sell the Lakers, but their buyer balked at buying the team when its current incarnation consisted of the aging remnants of the 2020 championship team with no clear way forward. The NBA wanted to see the sale happen. So they convince the Mavs to trade Luka to the Lakers. Now LA has a young, good looking, marketable, MVP candidate for the next ten years. The team is sold for $10bn and in the process the value of every other NBA franchise goes up by, what, ten figures? We're talking about ~$30bn in value created! In turn, the Mavs win the NBA draft lottery despite 1/50 odds, and get Cooper Flagg, who if he turns out to be as good as Tyrese Maxey is the most marketable NBA player since Lebron. Luka for Anthony Davis and change is a terrible trade, Luka for Anthony Davis and Cooper Flagg might be decent business. The NBA also doesn't mind fixing the lottery to make sure Flagg goes to the Mavs, because they want to see him on a franchise that has historically been well run and has the ability to put pieces around Flagg immediately and get him into the playoffs, they don't want to see their Great White Hope first overall going to perpetual fuck ups like the Hornets, Wizards, or Sixers.

-- Opposite party politicians get along better than we think they do, same party politicians get along worse than we think they do.

-- I cannot provide details for professional reasons, but major consumer corporations have Indiana Jones style warehouses full of better mousetraps that they have determined it would not be profitable to market, but don't want to let anyone else license to compete with their existing products. I don't think the cure for cancer is in there, but it wouldn't surprise me if a better pill bottle and a better paperclip were.

-- Right wing twitter recently melted down when location was shown for accounts, and it turned out that 70% of users with a name like DefendTheWest turned out to be from India and Nigeria. I suspect that if we could do a similar reveal, it would turn out that a huge percentage of prominent identitarian authors on the left would turn out to be white ghostwriters with a black face attached. Tiffany Haddish's memoirs, for example, were ghostwritten by Tucker Max. We'll never find out, but I suspect that a lot of people aren't who we think they are.

The NBA orchestrated the Luka Doncic trade in exchange for fixing the draft lottery to get Flagg to the Mavs.

Interesting in the context of the preexisting small scale conspiracy theory that the giant casino company which owns the mavs deliberately traded him to reduce the team’s fortunes, because they think a losing team gives them more political influence.

Right wing twitter recently melted down when location was shown for accounts, and it turned out that 70% of users with a name like DefendTheWest turned out to be from India and Nigeria.

Also revealed a giant percentage of man hating feminists were from South Asia and sub Saharan Africa.

The trade was so bad it spawned instant conspiracy theories, but the payoffs only became apparent over time.

And I didn't even realize there were man hating feminist accounts from South Korea! What do they post? I'm surprised they even lied about it.

Coyotes are pretty well-hated and oft-culled because of their attacks on pets and livestock, though, and there's also the 'dingos ate ma baby' option of simple incompetence. That said, if you really want to go nuts on coyote conspiracies, the degree that coyote populations have exploded and the individual coyotes themselves have gotten much smarter in <10 generations is a real fun question.

For fun conspiracies I actually believe:

  • Piggate wasn't real. For all it Took Down A National Government, Cameron was already a political dead man walking before the drop, and it was just a really convenient way to force him out without actually engaging with the political controversies that had undermined his party. The same behavior is totally consistent with an already-unpopular prime minister getting smeared by a schmuck he'd pissed off badly enough, and then found that none of his 'friends' were willing to pay the political capital to back him up.
  • There was a coverup one direction or the other for the Bloomberg Supermicro thing: either a lot of people who could prove it were told not to do so at the risk of destabilizing international relationships, or a lot of people who could disprove it were told not to do so lest they destabilize US financial markets (and get blackballed). I'm not very confident on this one, but it's just such a weird goddamn story.
  • A number of serious industrial or transportation sector accidents were really Reinvented Suicide As A Group Activity, but various incident analysis groups have instead used them for purposes ranging from getting unrelated political goals to deflecting from local political or social problems to just shaking down foreign businesses for cash. There's been a handful of these situations where jurisdiction friction has lead to them getting 'caught' -- aviation is particularly prone to it, with SilkAir 185, EgyptAir 990, and the recent Air India 171 -- but I think they're far more common than anyone wants to admit or even mention publicly, especially since there's a risk that publicizing them could incentivize further or larger attacks of the same kind. Basically, most large countries have a bunch of CEAF 5735 in a thousand different fields. The SL-1 incident is the safest one to mention, but there's some electrical and chemical processing examples from the tens to hundreds of deaths.
  • A lot of 'advocacy organizations' related to industry regulations are wholly-owned government groups, and are explicitly-but-nonpublicly threatening to bring the weight of those government orgs to bear if targeted companies don't agree. Yeah, boring, almost too obvious to be worth mentioning for the obvious cases, between Ofcom and NCOSE existing, and X Twitter's recent fine in the UK. But there's a lot of these orgs running at <100 person levels regulating through smoke-filled backroom deals; a lot of what's 'weird' about the modern era is just the ability of those orgs to impact companies with large impacts but not the large scales of pre-internet companies.

group activity

Is that…Trek?

advocacy organizations

Not exactly unusual—didn’t Scott write about ADA enforcement in these terms? The main limiting factor is the difficulty of bringing a case. Technology has to have reduced that cost, so a given org can target smaller companies.

I dislike this class of law for other reasons, but I think we’re seeing a difference in degree, not in kind.

Is that…Trek?

Nextwave (cw: sound, mild profanity)! Only Warren Ellis comic I can unconditionally recommend. Very short series, sadly.

Not exactly unusual—didn’t Scott write about ADA enforcement in these terms? The main limiting factor is the difficulty of bringing a case. Technology has to have reduced that cost, so a given org can target smaller companies.

I think so, but I can't find it now. The ADA (and the Texas abortion pill thing) are laws or at least regulations on the books, even if they're probably getting stretched to their breaking points. A lot of this stuff isn't a strict rule, or even necessarily written down anywhere, so much as it's just Understood at ultimately one-on-one scales. Sometimes that's unavoidable: in aviation, I think you could get five opinions from three DERs if you bring up flutter analysis. But it ends up in a world where a lot of things are theoretically allowed, and you can even find people doing them quite publicly, but also prohibited.

Old news, but I just ran across it when it went viral again recently and the Bloomberg story reminds me of it:

"How many similar devices with hidden functionalities might be lurking in your home, just waiting to be discovered?"

Exploitable systems are so much easier to create than secure systems that it's hard to attribute even actual proven exploitability to malice! Aside from the software issues in that discussion, consider the hardware. Fifty years ago, if something you brought into your business had a tiny secret microphone, that would have been proof-positive that someone with major intelligence chops was trying to bug you. Today, it just means that the fastest way to create a special-purpose electronic device is to just grab some general-purpose computer board and flash it with your own special-purpose software, and of course your general-purpose-computer designer threw in a 3.5-cent-each MEMS microphone because why not?

That said, if you really want to go nuts on coyote conspiracies, the degree that coyote populations have exploded and the individual coyotes themselves have gotten much smarter in <10 generations is a real fun question.

Shoot, baby. I'm pro coyote, because A) I think they're neat, B) My school team was the Coyotes, C) my wife's grandmother used "Coyote" as a racial slur to refer to me.

This is interesting, as I was never under the impression that Cameron stood down as a result of Piggate. He nailed his colours to the mast on where he stood on the Euroscepticism issue and put it to a referendum to settle the matter definitively, gambling that most Brits broadly shared his view. The gamble didn't pay off, and that was that.

Yeah, that's probably a more honest engagement with the events. I've just seen a lot of people say it was a big important deal that tells us about falling modern standards, so it really bugs me that it's just such a mess.

Funnily enough you just reminded me that I dressed up as Cameron for Halloween '15, with a papier-machê pig's head attached to my waist. Annoyingly, several people at the party I went to thought I was dressing up as "the guy from Black Mirror", which I hadn't even seen at the time.

... I'm almost afraid to ask, but did you have the pig's head facing in, or out?

In. There was also a papier-machê member protruding from my fly going into the pig's mouth.

That's an impressive amount of effort for a Halloween costume, and some remarkably unobservant partygoers.

Yep - Piggate was eminently survivable, and did more damage to the people pushing it than it did to Hameron. It was hilarious, but everyone including Corbyn knew that it was nothing more than that. The source was an unsourced allegation in a book by a bitter donor who hadn't received the peerage he thought he'd bought and paid for.

Brexit, on the other hand, was total political self-destruction.

I still think that Justin Trudeau might be a Castro. There was an attempted debunking, but i read a debunking of that debunking and, well, how hard would it be to get a little Trudeau DNA and a little Castro DNA? A rich person could surely do it.

I am sort of fully in on the "certain things get invented to ruin bad SEO". Like this recent "Dubai Chocolate" fad. Surely it was started to detract from certain nasty scatological rumors about high end treatment of escorts in Dubai. This is along the same lines as Disney creating the movie Frozen to take cryogenic search results away if you looked up famous old Walt rumors, aka googling Disney Frozen no longer takes you to snopes.

I'm not conspiracy minded but the Trudeau thing is irresistible to me. I hope it gets confirmed or refuted in my lifetime.

100% agree on Trudeau, he looks nothing like his ostensible father.

I believe that the ugliness forced on us everywhere we turn (architecture, modern "art", etc.) is deliberately done in an attempt to break us, using the method C.S. Lewis wrote about in That Hideous Strength. The extreme version in the Cheka Vallmajor cannot yet be fully replicated in public, but already we have seats that we can't sit on, public spaces that intentionally play unappealing music to get people to move along, and the various other elements of "hostile architecture" made by people who hate us and try to break us. (As always, the sensible solution — imprison/institutionalize/rehouse the people that make "hostile architecture" "necessary" — remains steadfastly untried.)

That…doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Spiky benches are chosen for deterrence, and deterrence is at odds with reeducation. Conversely, if you imprisoned every homeless person, it would do approximately nothing to the demand for ugly art.

That the department of defense shot down the plane over PA on 9/11and faked the calls and the heroic story of the passengers crashing the plane to boost national morale.

Similar to your coyote theory, I have a deep belief that there is a self-sustaining mountain lion population in the Appalachian mountain range. I know too many people who are generally trustworthy who claim to have seen them, and I'm pretty sure I've seen tracks myself deep in West Virginia. I've also seen something in Northern PA once, but I can't discount that it might have simply been the biggest bobcat I've seen in my life. The light was terrible.

The more conspiratorially-minded members of my family suggest that the reason they aren't acknowledged is because it would play merry hell on local industry due to the endangered species act. I've also heard tales that they were intentionally introduced to keep the deer population in check.

Second this one, I'm of the mind that it's true myself, though I think that simple bureaucratic inertia plus public safety concerns, when taken together, is more than enough to explain the conventional wisdom.

  1. Smoking is genuinely really bad for you, but was used as scapegoat for cancers caused by numerous industrial chemicals. Cancer rates have not reduced as much as they should have given the massive decline in smoking.

  2. President Garfield’s assassination was part of a conspiracy to ram through significant changes to the structure of the federal government that allowed for the formation of an entrenched deep state

  3. Due to widespread corruption in the New York construction industry in the 1970s, the twin towers were not nearly as fire-resistant in reality as they were on paper.

  4. Bill Gates and other big tech entrepreneurs are simply front guys for the CIA, which actually founded their companies.

  5. DARPA and intelligence agencies have had access to AI since the late 1980s or early 1990s. The public internet was created to allow for the formation of massive training data sets for more advanced models.

  6. Tactical nuclear weapons have been used in various conflicts, and the various nations with detection capability have decided not to publicize this.

  7. The woke mania and economic decline of the United States is an intentional Boys from Brazil style attempt to recreate the social and economic conditions of Weimar Germany in order to provoke a future fascist backlash.

  8. The Apollo program was scotched because of a sharp increase in solar weather activity starting in early 1973 that made it too dangerous. In particular there was a large solar flare about two weeks after the Apollo 17 mission that scientists calculated would have killed the crew had it happened during the mission. This I actually have some confirmation for. That’s why you could go to the moon in a tin can in 1968 but now Elon Musk and NASA are now constantly talking about how there has to be multiple-foot thick shielding for any manned mission outside low earth orbit.

Do you have specific conflicts in mind, in which nukes were deployed?

I have seen videos of bombings that the Saudi Air Force conducted in Yemen and that the IAF did in Lebanon with explosions that seem to be far, far beyond the size of anything that they have the capability to carry on the planes they have (to my knowledge neither have heavy bombers). Also there was a Ukrainian attack on a Russian facility in I believe Toretsk where it looks like the damage is consistent with around a 15 kiloton explosion. Also the documented fact that a hydrogen bomb went off in the middle of the Indian Ocean in 1979 and supposedly no one can figure out who did that (I’m guessing the US and USSR both knew and just didn’t say).

Point 3. is a new one for me but makes a lot of sense.

My 9/11 conspiracy theories are: a) there was a systemic coverup of evidence that the government had heard and (understandably) brushed off warnings ahead of time, and evidence that the emergency response procedures did not function adequately and could have mitigated the impact of 9/11 after the first impact. b) immediately after the event, there was a fairly rushed and slipshod propaganda response to both tie al-Qaeda unquestionably to the attacks with public evidence (i.e. without revealing any sensitive intelligence) and to make them look bad that involved faking some stuff (e.g. the famous strip club Koran).

I also suspect AQ might have remained an unreliable but still associated CIA proxy even as they started escalating attacks against US forces and installations overseas. So I think there may have been some covering up of the fact that CIA personnel were communicating with and possibly providing aid to AQ potentially right up until the attack. They might have even been rooked into unwittingly providing some material aid for the attack itself. This could also explain some of the intelligence failure, since CIA might have been convinced that AQ were mostly-controllable good boys (even if they occasionally got rowdy) and not likely to do something that drastic against the mainland US.

Unlike a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I’m not particularly wedded to a single theory and I have contemplated a lot of different narratives.

On point 6, I've never been able to shake the suspicion that Aum Shinrikyo conducted a nuclear test in Australia back in the day.

I haven’t heard of this, can you elaborate?

Back in the early 90s, Aum shinrikyo bought a remote sheep farm in Australia. Not long after, a "seismic event" was recorded in the area, with a few truckers in the area reporting a massive explosion and fireball.

The official explanation was an earthquake. The official explanation ignored that Aum was interested in building a nuke at the time, seemed to be actively mining uranium, and might have actually had the capacity to do so, having recruited some nuclear engineers.

Good lord. Maybe that’s how they got caught, that would be detected by satellite. How long was this before the subway attack?

About two years

I don't personally consider the following to be a conspiracy theory, but quite a few people do:

I'm pretty sure that COVID-19 was created (modified) in the lab and (accidentally) leaked.

And the cover-up was done not only by the commies in typical style in China, but also by the professional community who don't want their gravy train to stop.

Edit: another: I suspect that the heavy focus in school on the "oppression of women" throughout history is there to establish a subtle but impactful sexism in favor of women ("the oppressed" who should be lifted up, despite current generations not being victims) and against men (collective punishment of young boys who did not take part in past crimes). There's also the issue of how one-sided the portrayal is. You don't get explanations of how a lack of modern technology made it sensible to divide labor along gender lines, or how misandry has probably also always existed.

There are a lot of things that make me believe the same. The first is that biolabs, and Chinese biolabs in particular, have a pretty bad track record when it comes to keeping the viruses inside the cordon. If it's happened before, why should be we be surprised that it happened again. I think the Bayesians here use the term "priors" on that topic.

The other thing that nags me about it was the general expert framing of the situation in general. It went something like this:

Person 1: I think this came from a lab.

Experts: a bioweapon? Why would you suggest that this was a bioweapon? There's no way the Chinese would have released a bioweapon on their own people. Only a madman would even consider creating a highly contagious bioweapon in the first place. Shame on you for suggesting it's a bioweapon, you foil-hatted lunatic.

And here I am wondering where the bioweapon topic even came up.

I'm old enough to recall the videos we got coming out of China back when Covid was just reving up. People spontaneously dropping in the streets, apartments being welded shut with tenants inside, the works.

My personal conspiracy theory is that Covid was bio-engineered in a lab, and when they realized it had gotten out, they didn't know which variant had escaped - and that there were much, much nastier variants than the one we got.

Hence China's initial reaction looking like something out of a zombie movie.

Has anyone here managed to get any fiction published lately? I've had a dry spell that's approaching three years now, and I'm wondering if my writing quality has taken a nose dive, or if I'm simply working the system wrong in the year of our Lord 2025.

If you've had luck, what's your current strategy?

I got a publishing offer like two years ago from Podium, but wasn't interested in finishing the story so I didn't accept it. But the amount of unsolicited interest I've gotten over the last year is definitely down, seems like the market's a bit glutted and there's less interest in pushing new stuff out atm.

I'm in the same boat as you, I've received nine rejections from literary agents in the last three weeks. I've no idea where I'm falling down, if it's the quality of the writing or if the query letter isn't grabbing their attention.

If you'd like some feedback on your query letter, feel free to DM me.

Up until a couple of years ago, I relied entirely on open submissions and had around a 1:3 hit rate. That completely nosedived in 2021, and by 2023 I was dead in the water.

Given that I'm not working with agents, I'm assuming that my query letter is not the problem.

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