site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   2156 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 26, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You can’t compete with the Minds. This is a fact of the setting, rather than a societal choice or a zero-sum game, so it doesn’t move the needle into dystopia.

I disagree and proclaim the opposite. If I write a dystopia about an oppressive one-party state, but then add a lot of statements into the story that in this world it has been scientifically been proven that this is the logical endpoint of any and all societies, does this suddenly make it not a dystopia? If anything it would make it even more dystopian since there's no getting out.

It's the same with the Minds. Humans factually being glorified pets is horrifying, and moreso if the Minds are truly unbeatable. It being a societal choice would make it less dystopian, since that means there's hope yet for humans.

How do you know we’re not already glorified pets in some societal experiment and/or universe simulation?

I think your first point is stronger. The author asserts “the Minds are correct” but can’t prove it’s coherent with reality and general humanity. If I define Society A as “a utopia where humans are in constant agony”, is it a utopia? It’s self-contradictory.

How do you know we’re not already glorified pets in some societal experiment and/or universe simulation?

Strictly speaking I don't, but in the same way as I don't know whether there is a invisible teapot floating somewhere in space. I've never considered arguments along these lines particularly convincing; No matter how omnicient and omnipotent a being might be inside it's perceivable universe, you can always claim that it's all just an elaborate fake orchestrated from beyond. The possibility should be kept in the back of one's mind, but unless there is particular evidence in its favour, I'm fine with just dismissing it.

If I write a dystopia about an oppressive one-party state, but then add a lot of statements into the story that in this world it has been scientifically been proven that this is the logical endpoint of any and all societies, does this suddenly make it not a dystopia?

It's a dystopia because of the "oppressive" downside, Culture Minds are not oppressive, just superior.

That may be another avenue of argument, but netstack's claim that I was contesting was that inevitability does (not) overrule a dystopia.

To your point, I might prefer to have a gracious owner as opposed to a hostile one, but not being a pet in the first place takes precedence.

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