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.
- 75
- 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 -
Reacting to this video explaining the different rationlist communities specifically on the post-rat section, which I'm most affiliated with at the moment.
Post-rationalism basically came out of a lot of more rigorous critiques of rationality and utilitarianism as systems for modeling the world. It essentially concluded that a huge part of the human experience cannot be legibly modeled, at least with our current understanding of the world, and that trying to do so leads to a ton of major failure modes.
For instance, he mentioned the repugnant conclusion earlier in the video, which is one of the major issues in utilitarianism, along with the idea of the utility monster. Those made a lot of people start questioning rationalism, including myself, along with other famous problematic thought experiments like the trolley problem, etc.
But of course, as he does mention, there is also a lot of meditation and drug use, especially psychedelics, in the post-rationalist community, and that definitely plays into people realizing that rationality and legible statistics have major limits when it comes to describing actual reality.
There is also a heavy overlap with the sort of evolutionary or vitalist strain of thought championed by Peterson and earlier Carl Jung, where the idea is that from an evolutionary perspective, religion has a lot of power because even if it is not strictly true in an objective or rational sense, it leads to more fitness and better outcomes. Therefore it is superior, even if under one frame of mind it is not strictly explainable or coherent.
Also he didn't mention us here at the Motte or the CW thread spinoffs at all. Total Motte erasure!!!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link