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.
- 236
- 2
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 -
Recently saw Hail Mary and enjoyed it a bunch. Sped through the book and came to the conclusion that, just like The Martian, the film is a far better film than the book is a book (joining the likes of Jurassic Park and The Godfather, also arguably Silence of the Lambs); the author's writing style is very positive and optimistic but also very IAmVerySmart and I Fucking Love Science and generally gave me Reddit vibes.
So, because I apparently love checking in on the progress of cancer like I'm some kind of internet oncologist, I go to Reddit and poke around. The stuff at the top is mainly resentment that the author is "conservative" and a misogynist and did an interview with noted elite misogynist The Critical Drinker. And some grumbling that the author/viewpoint character used "He" pronouns for the hermaphroditic alien and assumed they's mate was female by calling thim "Adrian." (Because Rock Alien=Rocky, so Rock Alien's mate = Adrian). Such oppressive heteronormativity is proof that the author is a bad person. Also something something mediocre white man.
So yeah, reddit gonna reddit. It gave me a chuckle when years ago I would be disappointed and annoyed.
This was an aside, but:
I wouldn't call the Jurassic Park movie much better than the book. They are pretty different (the movie has a much stronger sensawunda and plays like a typical summer blockbuster, while the book is more cynical and reads like a technothriller), but each is good in its own way. My 10th grade English teacher made us read the novel as a compare and contrast to Frankenstein, and I loved it. The little fractals at the start of each chapter were a nice touch, and I still remember Ian Malcolm's excellent introduction:
I'm not the right type of engineer for this, but isn't this statement wrong? It's not as simple as "black is higher emissivity", and it's a combination of solar absorption (black absorbs a lot) and emissivity. IIRC some of the best two options for space (radiation!) applications happen to be white or black.
ETA this reminds me that while the story is fantastic overall, chaos theory does not work that way.
Well if it's shortly before midnight, presumably absorption is minimal. He would be wrong during the day though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link