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.
- 323
- 1
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In the plainest terms it's poor sportsmanship. It's purposefully choosing to use means other than skill to force an advantage, and by implication admitting a lack of conviction in one's skills.
On the subject of lack of conviction in football skills I'll mention another tournament match, Scotland's World Cup qualifier against Denmark a couple of months ago. In a close game that went to extra time Scotland went 1 goal up. With scant minutes left to equalise Denmark reacted by throwing everything at Scotland, leaving the Danish goalkeeper off his line as he moved up the pitch to support the attack. The ball broke to Scotland, who quickly moved it to the midfield where one of their team was faced with nobody but the goalie and a golden opportunity to lob the ball over the keeper to go 2 goals up and seal the match. If you've seen the match you're probably thinking "yes, that's what he did!". It is, but on the second opportunity. Scotland had had the exact same opportunity a few minutes before but instead of lobbing the keeper and securing personal glory from his nation this player looked up, then decided to carefully guide the ball to the corner flag where he cynically kicked it out of play and started imploring the referee to check his watch and blow the whistle to end the match. The referee ignored him and then, with seconds left to play and holding a match winning 1 goal advantage, then his teammate successfully lobbed the ball from the halfway line over the hopelessly backpedalling goalie. And the crowd went mental.
If I was the Scottish manager the guy who turned down the ball to favour the clock would have been off the team.
I'm sorry, I simply disagree that it's poor sportsmanship. If you can fake out the keeper - through skill in misleading him, as Panenka did - it's a good play, if you can't, it's a bad play (if anything, a Panenka is usually having too much confidence in one's skill). That's like calling dummying a pass or nutmegging a defender bad sportsmanship.
Agree with you on the Scotland example, though.
With most rules of sportsmanship or unwritten rules, the question is who has escalation dominance on the field. People rarely ask this question well.
True, but escalation dominance in football is basically "will this make the guy mad enough to flatten me on the next tackle." This is why you don't see a lot of the street-football tricks to really style on your opponent - sometimes you see it in peripheral leagues in South America and Africa. Penalty kick stuff is kind of apart from that. I recall one game in the South African league where a player on the dominant team tried doing keepie-uppies and such to get round his defender, and then it got ugly from there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link