site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   2440 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 30, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Agreed. I'm just saying I think you're overthinking it in that quoted passage. They're just trying to be nice in public even if the long-term effect is anti-social.

How so? It seems like you're just paraphrasing the same point I made.

I read you as saying that the talented encourage the talentless to enter their field as a gambit to emphasise their own relative superiority.

My theory is that they don’t want to generate bad PR by discouraging their fans and emphasising the gap between them.

If I misunderstood your argument I apologise.

No, that was the point I was making alright. I think the whole thing might come down to a Russell conjugation, or Trivers' theory of self-deception: if a strategy is beneficial to us, we unconsciously come up with reasons why it's also the pro-social thing to do. See also "yasslighting": I don't believe that talented actors are consciously thinking "if I encourage a bunch of talentless hacks to pursue careers in acting, it'll make it easier for me to secure roles", any more than attractive women are consciously thinking "if I encourage my friend to get an unflattering haircut and tell her it really suits her, it'll make me look more attractive by comparison". Of course in their own heads they'll tell themselves a story which casts their behaviour in a more favourable light e.g. "it would devastate Bob to be told he's a terrible actor, so instead I'll just give him some pat platitude about never giving up on your dreams"; "I don't want to hurt Alice's feelings, so I'll tell her her new haircut really suits her". But subconsciously, the practical benefit of these decisions to those who make them is obvious. It surely cannot be an accident that actors so rarely encourage their more talented peers not to give up on their dreams.

It surely cannot be an accident that actors so rarely encourage their more talented peers not to give up on their dreams.

How often do actors meet more talented (but not yet successful) peers and speak to them, specifically (as opposed to a general statement to the wide audience, most of them presumably less talented) about their dreams in public, for you to estimate that?

That one episode of Friends.

Thanks, misunderstanding cleared up. Personally I disagree, I think that once you are seriously giving life advice to anyone except that handsome devil in the mirror, you are broadly out of the part of your career where young people are competing with you directly. I think that what you consider the 'cloaking' motivation is broadly the true motivation.

Yasslighting for e.g. writers certainly happens but it happens in the peer group of young losers + young one-day-maybe-not-losers. I guess maybe your talented 20-somethings are still encouraging their less talented friends but this is more to prevent social awkwardness than anything.

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