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.
- 69
- 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 -
Imagine you're in a wrong bank at a wrong time, and you get taken as a hostage while a heist crew tries to escape with the cash / bearer bonds / gold bars. One by one they are taken out by the police or by in-fighting, until the last one perishes in a car wreck that leaves you alone with a goodie duffel bag in a crashed vehicle. What is the best course of action to keep the stolen valuables to yourself?
Reminds me of this story, starts at 42:54. Bank heist in a small town, everyone in Indiana turns into Batman and joins in to stop the criminals. It would make a great movie.
There is a part where the thieves' car breaks down and they pay a bystander for their car with the stolen money. Question is, does he get to keep the money afterwards? We do not know.
What do you mean we don't know? Isn't that a clear cut case of Nemo dat quod non habet?
We don't know because it wasn't written in the article and it happened over a hundred years ago. But his car was bought from him at gunpoint and then wrecked later, and I don't think they had great insurance plans back then. He might have been allowed to keep the money out of pity..
The legal principle is some 1700 years old at least..
The car owners grievance is clearly with the thieves not the bank. Whether they gave him money for the car or not doesn't matter. Imagine they had just robbed him, would he then be entitled to some of the banks money because the robbers wrecked his car?
I think you have to listen to the story to get it. Everyone took the law into their own hands. Yes, legally he shouldn't get the money. But ethically, I don't think anyone took it back from him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link