site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   4520 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 16, 2026

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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Scott's sort-of obituary for Scott Adams is one of the best things he's written in ages.

It’s the best his writing has been since the pandemic, but that’s because he’s writing on one of his favorite topics which is being mean to himself and his audience. The reason his writing declined elsewhere was that he was and hopefully is mostly happily and so didn’t really care to the same extent. Even a long past their best singer can put on a quality performance of their greatest hits.

He makes a few references to Adams' potentially getting too mentally calcified with age to maintain his contradictory ideals and personas and just lost self-awareness of what parts of the joke he was supposed to be 'in' on, and who was laughing with him vs. at him.

I now do wonder how Scott expects to avoid this particular outcome or if he's accepting it as probably baked in and just wants to make sure he leaves the greatest possible legacy he can, on top of his kids.

Great stuff though. One thing that deflated Adams' image in my mind was when the gorgeous Instagram model he married in 2020 divorced him about two years later. Like, if you're going to advertise as this professional persuasive hypnotist guru... and you can't 'persuade' the young hottie to stick around in your life for more than a couple years, I suggest that your skills are overstated. Indeed, this sure reads like he got hypnotized into a situation by some of the oldest persuasive tools in human history: a woman with an hourglass figure and decent makeup skills.

Think its fair to say that his overall impact has been positive by any utilitarian calculation.

if you're going to advertise as this professional persuasive hypnotist guru

I don't think he ever advertised himself as professional hypnotist. He did advertise himself as trained hypnotist, but that only requires one to pay for a training course and successfully sit through it. And I don't think he ever claimed he uses his training to convince women to sleep with him?

Indeed, this sure reads like he got hypnotized into a situation by some of the oldest persuasive tools in human history: a woman with an hourglass figure and decent makeup skills.

You are saying it like there's anything bad in it. I am a happily married man, but if I weren't, and I were 63, and a hot young lady, which I liked, were willing to live with me, I'd take any time I can get, be it two weeks, two months or two years.

just going to drop into this to note that hypnotism is a real thing with an actual evidence base, at the same time it doesn't really work like people think it does.

Right, but "take what you can get" is not the ethos he was trying to embody, I think.

"Follow all this advice and read my books and you too might be able to marry a hot single mother for a couple years" is not a massive selling point on its own.

I'm being a tad uncharitable, but I just find it interesting how Adams was able to maintain an image of his prowess that seemingly exceeded the reality of his capabilities.

I just have a larger amount of respect for Bill Watterson, who ALSO published a beloved, wildly popular comic strip. But he ended it while he was on top, disappeared from public life, does whatever it is he enjoys doing, and has eschewed any and all attempts to merchandise or monetize his characters (this appears wiser and wiser every year).

This gets towards Scott's other aside about various intellectuals who he seems to think have beclowned themselves in moving beyond the areas that they achieved their original insights and following.

Knowing when to exit before you crumble your own legacy is a talent very, very few exceptional people have achieved. Scott would like to be one of them, I'm sure.

"Follow all this advice and read my books and you too might be able to marry a hot single mother for a couple years" is not a massive selling point on its own.

I don't think he ever used his marriage as a selling point for his books, did he? That said, how many of the 63-year-old geeks who aren't billionaires actually get hot smart model pilot wife, even just for 2 years?

This gets towards Scott's other aside about various intellectuals who he seems to think have beclowned themselves in moving beyond the areas that they achieved their original insights and following.

I actually see no problem in that. Nobody owes anybody to be anybody's role model. If a person X is successful at something, and then they want to try something else, and fail miserably, they don't owe Scott or anything to live their lives in a way that would not diminish former success in Scott's or anybody's eyes. If he didn't want to live his "legacy" for the rest of his life, he has full right not to. He was his own man, and did not let anybody else - neither his "legacy", nor anybody else's needs - define what he's doing next. I find that laudable, even if he did not always succeed and sometimes looked ridiculous. That's the price one pays for trying things. It's not for everybody, but I can find no fault in Adams being one of the men who wanted to do that.

I don't think he ever used his marriage as a selling point for his books, did he?

In the way that any dude having a hot girl on his arm is using her as a 'selling point' just by showing her off, I'd argue.

I just recall a period of time where she was showing up in his posts with semi-regularity in a kind of "Look at what I got fuckers" context. Can only find this one piece of evidence left, though. Wait, here's another.

Nobody owes anybody to be anybody's role model.

Slight disagree, only insofar as someone who actively chooses to convey advice and represent themselves as a person worth emulating... you kind of do owe it to your audience to be very open about failures as well as successes.

Or if you don't care to advertise failure, don't seek the audience.

But that much I will 100% say: he never, ever did grift off his audience. No crypto schemes, no scammy seminars or conferences, no shilling for sketchy brands or gambling sites (that I recall).

(I'm not counting his failed entrepreneurship attempts as scams because part of the reason they failed is he plugged them earnestly.)

What Scott's obituary does seem to acknowledge is that Scott WAS living life on his terms, and there's beauty in that, but he argues he kind of let that get swept away when he got a taste of true 'influence.'

In the way that any dude having a hot girl on his arm is using her as a 'selling point' just by showing her off, I'd argue.

That's a very cynical point of view, but you can not really fault him for your perception. I mean, what, is he supposed to lock his wife up at home so you don't suspect him in "showing off"? I think this is going way too far.

you kind of do owe it to your audience to be very open about failures as well as successes.

I am not sure the guy who literally talks about "failing at almost everything" in a very title of his book is a good target to accuse of hiding his failures.

he kind of let that get swept away when he got a taste of true 'influence.'

I think there's a difference between a person who is willing to share his opinions - and let people be influenced by them, which is kind of the point of sharing them anyway, not? - and a person who must subject his whole life to forming some kind of heroic example for the followers. I don't think it is fair to demand from everybody who shared one's opinion publicly to become full-time role model.

That's a very cynical point of view,

My cynical point of view has an extremely good track record of predictions, sad to say.

I mean, what, is he supposed to lock his wife up at home so you don't suspect him in "showing off"?

Should he have? She ended up leaving him. His extant strategy clearly didn't work.

I don't think it is fair to demand from everybody who shared one's opinion publicly to become full-time role model.

For better or worse, he adopted that approach, near daily streaming and constant commentary on daily events

You could definitely pick WORSE role models, but I think he was happily putting himself out there in that regard.

My cynical point of view has an extremely good track record of predictions, sad to say.

Predictions of what? You can't know what Adams was actually thinking, so what exactly are you predicting and how would you verify this prediction?

For better or worse, he adopted that approach, near daily streaming and constant commentary on daily events

Anyone can do that. I have a blog. I put my opinions there (no, I won't link it here). People read it. If anybody would demand of me to do something to their liking because I owe them for being their role model, I will tell that person to stuff it. And also probably find a responsible adult to run their other life decisions by, because it's clearly not within their competencies.

There are literally millions of people putting shit on the internet all the time. So yes, Adams was one of them. So what?

You are saying it like there's anything bad in it.

I presume Adams had to pay her a significant settlement after the divorce. Perhaps the juice was worth the squeeze, but perhaps it wasn't.

Not for us to decide, for sure.

I now do wonder how Scott expects to avoid this particular outcome or if he's accepting it as probably baked in and just wants to make sure he leaves the greatest possible legacy he can, on top of his kids.

I don't know if you saw everyone on Twitter clowning on Scott's post about how he's lost complete control of his kids. I'm pretty sure Scott already fell into... whatever you call that outcome.

Scott used to write posts about how to positively manage the seething jealousy one feels while one's poly partner is out on a date. He's post-shame on personal topics.

Oh I saw it, I'm just not convinced it was a clear L for him.

There was some back-and-forth (particularly from Jeremy Kauffman) regarding how much actual discipline you can and should impose on your toddlers.

I doubt kids that have his genes will turn into uncontrollable feral monsters.

I doubt kids that have his genes will turn into uncontrollable feral monsters.

As someone who has to constantly push back on my wife's inability to have boundaries with our 6 year old, and all the attendant issues it causes, no amount of "genes" makes up for allowing your child to never be forced to respect boundaries. These are choices, and the wrong ones make your life infinitely worse.

Eh I don't know, his kids are what, 2? 6 and 2 are very different ages.

It got me thinking if I'll be able to. The number of highly respected boomers I loved who have calcified is high. It's difficult to think of those who stayed flexible, and the number can be displayed on a single hand.

Maybe the lesson is to line yourself up before 50, to make the glide onto the landing strip as graceful as possible.

The number of highly respected boomers I loved who have calcified is high.

It's not even boomers. I'm seeing people in their mid 40s that are gaining the befuddled NPC look that I usually associate with boomers. Take note incels, that's the real wall, and the men are in danger of smashing into it too.

As middle age is encroaching upon my never-escaped-the-90s flesh, this scares me so very much. I already have lots of stupid brain malfunction moments, with increasing frequency. Not sure if age, medical side-effect, chronic health condition, or lifestyle-related ... but the next time I try to use my work badge to unlock my house, and my house key to pay for lunch, I can only really hope it's not in the same day, at this point. I know that's not precisely what you're talking about, but it's closely enough related that I am reminded of one by the other.

Your working memory might be full of befuddling gunk under the surface. Start meditating every day.

Oh, you're just getting started on the fun, sonny. You've got so much to look forward to! Before you know it, your nose will run for no reason when you're eating, your grip will fail you every once in a while, you'll get sore so much more quickly when exerting yourself physically, your muscles and bones will creak and pop in new and freaky ways... it just keeps getting more interesting! Yes, you'll keep mixing things up, probably ever-more frequently, but it's when you stop noticing the mix-up that shit's getting real...

Yeah I'm seeing at least as much of this in the millenials I know -- at this point I think @beej67 is onto something with the egregores and feel compelled to treat some form of unconventional zombie apocalypse as a real possibility. There are pod-people all over the place.

My man, the oldest millennials are mid 40s.

I am aware -- the ones I know well are quite a lot younger though, being the [early] kids of my GenX friends.

One guy who just turned 30 is kind of pressuring me to start a compound and supply weapons in case Trump invades [somewhere pretty near to the butthole of] Canada -- it's strikingly similar to the Facebook-addled Boomers in my life, except he's actually got a lot to live for (decent job, good girlfriend, etc) and no excuse around senility.

The brainrot is real. I don't know how much of it is phones, short form content, people not reading anymore, microplastics clogging up our brains, metabolic dysfunction from shitty diets, or what.

I will say, reading more, eating better, exercising regularly and fasting has helped my mental clarity enormously.

I will say, reading more, eating better, exercising regularly and fasting has helped my mental clarity enormously.

IME, same. Doing any of these intentionally under normal conditions is really difficult. Luckily, AI makes researching options easier... something about what I said feels contradictory in context.

Maybe the lesson is to line yourself up before 50, to make the glide onto the landing strip as graceful as possible.

I think that's all you can do under current tech constraints.

lol now I'm wondering whether kids in the future will be dealing with a 120-year-old Bryan Johnson who can't accept future social rules b/c he's 'stuck' in the 2030s mentally, despite having the body of a 30-year-old.

For my case, I'm just trying to create habits now that seem to correlate with decent neuroplasticity later. Martial arts and hard exercise, learning languages, good quality sleep, and playing with kids and friends all seem to help.

If Bryan isn't a drooling senile mess at 120, then he's probably benefited from some kind of drug that rejuvenates the brain and restores neuroplasticity too. Taking LSD or shrooms helps with that today, even if it's not going to cure dementia.

This was a wonderful read, thank you for linking. This part had me feeling REAL called out:

The variety of self-hating nerd are too many to number. There are the nerds who go into psychology to prove that EQ is a real thing and IQ merely its pale pathetic shadow. There are the nerds who become super-woke and talk about how reason and objectivity are forms of white supremacy culture. There are the nerds who obsess over “embodiment” and “somatic therapy” and accuse everyone else of “living in their heads”. There are the nerds who deflect by becoming really into neurodiversity - “the interesting thing about my brain isn’t that I’m ‘smart’ or ‘rational’, it’s that I’m ADHDtistic, which is actually a weakness . . . but also secretly a strength!” There are the nerds who flirt with fascism because it idolizes men of action, and the nerds who convert to Christianity because it idolizes men of faith. There are the nerds who get really into Seeing Like A State, and how being into rationality and metrics and numbers is soooooo High Modernist, but as a Kegan Level Five Avatar they are far beyond such petty concerns. There are the nerds who redefine “nerd” as “person who likes Marvel movies” - having successfully gerrymandered themselves outside the category, they can go back to their impeccably-accurate statisticsblogging on educational outcomes, or their deep dives into anthropology and medieval mysticism, all while casting about them imprecations that of course nerds are loathsome scum who deserve to be bullied.

I disagree that those things originate from “reaction formation” against not being the smartest person. They are more easily explained by the general fact that humans get passionate about things they like and have a habit of exaggerating its importance. Somewhere out there is a surfer or painter or deadhead who never cared for intelligence yet believes his chosen hobby is the balm of mankind. That’s just what everyone does. If they have no intellectual pursuit, then this comes out in their consumer purchases or luxury experiences, as another way to obtain a sense of self-importance. This quote isn’t exactly fitting but as Pascal notes,

Vanity is so anchored in the heart of man that a soldier, a soldier's servant, a cook, and a porter brags and wishes to have his admirers. Even philosophers wish for them. Those who write against it want to have the glory of having written well; and those who read it desire the glory of having read it. I who write this have perhaps this desire, and perhaps those who will read it…

As for those believing “nerds are loathsome scum who deserve to be bullied”, I’ve never actually seen this directed against anyone but those who like Marvel and Funkopops. Usually niche interest enjoyers have respect for other niche interest enjoyers. Scott’s implicit assumption appears to be that everyone who does not worship strict empirical rational inquiry is coping with not being the best at rationalism, which is quite the convenient line for someone who is the very face of rationalism. But EQ and embodiment are probably interesting things to get passionate about. If you don’t believe in EQ, you’ll have to explain why the smartest students in the world party on the weekend to rap music made by artists with a low IQ. This is my favorite example demonstrating EQ, becaus there are a lot of high IQ people who wish they could be rappers, but no one parties to their music on the weekends.

The bit just before that, man.

Every nerd who was the smartest kid in their high school goes to an appropriately-ranked college and realizes they’re nothing special. But also, once they go into some specific field they find that intellect, as versatile as it is, can only take them so far. And for someone who was told their whole childhood that they were going to cure cancer (alas, a real quote from my elementary school teacher), it’s a tough pill to swallow.

Reaction formation, where you replace a unbearable feeling with its exact opposite, is one of the all time great Freudian defense mechanisms. You may remember it from such classics as “rape victims fall in love with their rapist” or “secretly gay people become really homophobic”. So some percent of washed-up gifted kids compensate by really, really hating nerdiness, rationality, and the intellect.

Literally my course from high school valedictorian, to 85th percentile college student, to barely-above-average law student.

Then I kind of came back around by embracing the 'suck' and interrogating myself honestly about my 'shortcomings' and inflated self-expectations and calibrating my goals to what would be truly achievable (funny enough Slate Star Codex was a major influence in that period!).

Also, this line is an insanely deft cut to the jugular, holy cow.

Adams was willing to sacrifice everything for the right to say “It’s Okay To Be White”. I can’t help wondering what his life would have been like if he’d been equally willing to assert the okayness of the rest of his identity.

This sort of thing has always fascinated me as someone who always liked extremely nerdy things, but never really understood nerd culture.

There is some kind of subculture, especially in the United States, that is into a lot of the same things I'm into, but which seems to revolve around this massive wound (or dare I say trauma) that I just cannot relate to. There's some complex of experiences that includes being interested in dorky things, being smart, being academically successful, being bullied, simultaneously feeling contempt for and yet feeling intensely envious of jocks, etc., etc., that's wrapped up in being a 'nerd'. I have some of those things (I've played D&D, I built my own PC, I was academically successful, I'm smart, etc.) but not others (I was never bullied, I never felt particularly jealous of kids who were good at sports, etc.), and so my relation to American nerd culture is a combination of understanding what they're interested in, and also feeling like they're bizarre aliens.

I think this essay about Scott Adams is in the "bizarre aliens" category. It's close enough that I can tell that it's aiming sort of towards people like me, but then it flies straight past me, impales someone else, and I realise it was never aimed at me at all.

I grappled with my self-identification as a 'nerd' for a while before mostly just leaving it behind a while back.

I like nerdy things, and was unapologetic about this. But to identify as a 'nerd' meant making certain things a facet of my identity. Which made me uncomfortable because I was really just into these things because... I found them fun, challenging, and weird in a pleasant way. Tabletop gaming is an amazing social activity, and I don't find most sports to be compelling enough to follow, so not a surprise where I gravitated.

Like, okay, I'm into outer space, rockets and scifi, I am really into computers, I think the 'internet' as a technology is cool, and I like gadgets. I feel an affinity for hacker culture and I play video games as a hobby...

But I also don't feel a need to dump copious amounts of disposable income into proving my credentials and keeping up with 'fads'. Don't really treat it as a lifestyle that requires certain commitments to fit in and buying lots of CONSOOMER goods as a prerequisite.

Hmmm. Maybe that right there is the factor. I dislike the culture the instant it becomes a pure status competition, and the status climbing becomes the point more than the factors that made it an attractive, enjoyable collection of shared interests.

Something something Geeks MOPS Sociopaths.

Yes, the conclusion that I've come to is basically just to like what I like, and to not make what I like an identity. It's like the difference between playing video games (which I do) and being a gamer (which I do not consider myself). I play tabletop role-playing games, and I enjoy them, and that's enough. The closest I come to 'identifying' as a nerd now is that sometimes, in a social context, I'll say that I have some nerdy hobbies with a self-deprecating laugh.

But I'm not the things I enjoy. Nor should anyone be. And I find there's something very liberating in just deciding that you don't care what the things you like say about you, and just settling for liking the things that bring you joy.

I can’t help wondering what his life would have been like if he’d been equally willing to assert the okayness of the rest of his identity.

I wonder what is the rest? "It's OK to be male" probably would get him cancelled as fast, and the label of misogynist is arguably even worse than "racist" - the latter gets you hated, but the former gets you despised. "It's OK to be a nerd"? But what does it mean? Some nerds are billionaires ruling the world now. Others are a caricature in a popular TV show. Others made a deep dive into various stuff Scott enumerated so eloquently. Which one is it OK to be?

But i think Adams never doubted that it's OK to be Scott Adams. His whole life, and his whole public persona, is a testament to that.

"Its okay to be a mediocre businessman."

"Its okay to be childless."

"Its okay to have a singular crowning achievement that defines your success."

Its specifically the non-spectacular aspects of himself that he seemed to want to avoid acknowledging.

I think he wrote quite a lot of his business failures. What he was probably not ok with is for his success as a cartoonist defining him for the rest of his life, but I don't think it's a bad thing. I think on the contrary, looking for being something more is what made him interesting. Yes, he failed a lot, but so what? I think him keeping at it means that's what defined his identity more than anything, and him not accepting "stick to drawing comics, monkey brain" is actually much more part of his real identity, as he saw it.

What he was probably not ok with is for his success as a cartoonist defining him for the rest of his life

Hence why I find myself with quite a bit more respect for Bill Watterson.

Go out on top, then do things you want to do without the eye of the public following you everywhere.

I guess I disagree. I mean it's a fine choice, but the other choice - choosing to do different things, even if they might be not as successful as things you've done before, and being OK with that, even in public - is fine too.

Every nerd who was the smartest kid in their high school goes to an appropriately-ranked college and realizes they’re nothing special. But also, once they go into some specific field they find that intellect, as versatile as it is, can only take them so far. And for someone who was told their whole childhood that they were going to cure cancer (alas, a real quote from my elementary school teacher), it’s a tough pill to swallow.

Man, I am so profoundly lucky I had two teachers that I think changed my life.

The first was my middle school social studies teacher. In the mid 1990's she had finished her service in the Navy or Army, I can't remember, and become a teacher. She was black pilled as fuck about the future of the country and constantly told us we weren't going to have it as easy as our boomer parents. For whatever reason it made a deep impression on me and I adjusted my expectations accordingly.

The second was my high school calculus teacher. I slept through his class and consistently got top scores. He wrote me a whole ass page long note on the back of one of my tests, because I was never awake in class for him to talk to. It was all about how he'd seen kids like me before, who were never properly challenged and developed poor study habits. That if I didn't reform my ways, I'd either flunk out of college or flounder professionally. Coming from any other teacher, I probably would have blown off the advice. But he always had my back, and generally had an attitude of "If he gets A's, he can sleep through class if he wants" with me. His message of support, but concern, resonated deeper than 12 years of just having teachers yell at me to get my shit together.

Because there is this really toxic part of nerd culture, where the motto is "Work smarter, not harder". But then they melt down in seething rage when someone works smart and hard and utterly mogs them on their own turf.

It was all about how he'd seen kids like me before, who were never properly challenged and developed poor study habits. That if I didn't reform my ways, I'd either flunk out of college or flounder professionally.

I could have used one of those. Mostly for the wakeup call of "everything is intuitive and easy for your now because the training wheels are on, and your intelligence is covering for your shortcomings in discipline and work ethic."

Law School was the clear inflection point there. Turns out you CAN pass tests by pulling all-nighters to cram the entirety of the coursework the day before the Exam. But when you're graded against people with more consistent habits and effective strategies, you can only hope to keep pace by sheer desperate improvisation.

I didn't really learn the right lesson, though.

This period:

came back around by embracing the 'suck' and interrogating myself honestly about my 'shortcomings' and inflated self-expectations and worked on calibrating my goals to what would be truly achievable

Was when I finally got on the right track.

"Work smarter, not harder". But then they melt down in seething rage when someone works smart and hard and utterly mogs them on their own turf.

lol. "I'm not lazy, I'm just more productive with the time I DO use for work."

"Ookay, well I'm approximately as productive as you with my time, and I spend more of it working... what now?"

That said, the extreme other end of that mentality is the "Sigma Male Grindset" approach where effort is all that matters, whether that effort is spent on something useful and important? Who cares! Getting paid is the only metric that registers.

Thankfully I now have a boss who tolerates my quirks well enough as long as I close enough files to keep the cash flowing.

Tagging @WhiningCoil since this is an appropriate response to his comment as well.

This is what I call "Smartest Motherfucker in the Room" syndrome. I think law school does this to a lot of smart people because they spend three years arguing edge cases with professors who do nothing but theorize in edge cases and when they get into the field they realize that edge cases are rare and that most cases are fairly routine. Compounding this is that most of the work is looking through documents and doing a lot of writing. I think the drive is that these people are constantly looking for opportunities to prove to the bosses how smart they are, while the bosses are looking for people to, you know, get the work done. They constantly bitch about how tedious the work is and are always planning an exit strategy, thinking that if only they worked for a firm with better management or a in different practice area that was more exciting they'd be happier. I give them that name because they seem to forget that they were hired to do actual work, not to be the smartest motherfucker in the room.

On the other end of the spectrum are the people who don't necessarily hate their jobs, and maybe even like their jobs, but have them down to such a routine that they don't want to do anything to rock the boat. These people tend to be reluctant to ask the bosses for advice or bring up their ideas to them. They are significantly less annoying and last a lot longer than the smartest motherfuckers in the room, but they tend to get pissed when they are passed over for promotions by people whom they perceive as lower on the totem pole, usually by virtue of how long they've been with the company.

They're basically two sides of the same coin: The gifted kid who gets As without studying on the one hand, and the overachiever whose grade is a one to one reflection of the work put into it on the other. The gifted kid balks when he finds out that homework is a big part of the grade, not based on its quality but on the fact that it was done, and the overachiever balks when he finds out that 8 hours of consistent studying might not result in an A. The most successful attorneys I know are the ones who embrace the drudgery, not because it's a necessary evil but because it's part of the job, and nonetheless aren't afraid to be the smartest motherfucker in the room if the situation presents itself.

The best part of my job is that I have significant autonomy to select the clients I accept. And if one of them has an "interesting" legal problem to solve and they are willing to pay for the work, I can take on those jobs to keep things fresh.

Thats how I became probably a top 10 expert in a very particular area of Florida construction law.

The drudgery pays the bills, the occasional novel matter keeps me from bashing my head in.

Embrace the suck. Then you'll have more power to achieve success on your own terms.

Yeah, I felt very attacked by that passage.

IMHO it's not one of the best things he's written in recent years (I'd put Vibecession: Much More Than You Wanted To Know and Prison And Crime: Much More Than You Wanted To Know above it, for the research), but it is his best writing in recent years.

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