site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   1925 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 3, 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.

So, what are you reading?

I'm getting interested in Ellul. Also about halfway through The Handmaid's Tale. Can't say it has really moved me yet one way or the other, but it seems to be moving towards something. It vaguely occurs to me that some of the undertone of resentment might be intended for readers like myself, but I can't quite figure out what precisely it is angry about yet. Hopefully it will be something that I can use.

Just started the Mage Errant series and I've blasted through three books. It's a light, fun read, though a bit too redditor for me to truly love it.

though a bit too redditor for me to truly love it.

That gets worse. There's a point where the very redditor author seems to realize the, let's say, meta-social implications of his worldbuilding and has an on-page freak-out about it.

...okay, now I'm morbidly curious. I'm just not sure if I want to slog through 7 books of reddit to get to it.

Spoilers for Mage Errant. General spoilers, @ThomasdelVasto should avoid mousing over, but for anyone else it's general worldbuilding stuff, not specific plot points. The magic system basically lends itself to an Archmagistocracy, rule by individuals who are personally powerful on the level of armies. It's essentially Great Man theory of history, the magic system. The political landscape is literally just "which archmage, lich, or superpowered monster lives in this area, and thus rules it." The main antagonist faction uses "tricks" to empower semi-disposable troops to fight above their level, but they're also the only thing remotely resembling a democracy that cares about their people on an institutional level. Somewhere around book 5 the author seems to have realized the implications of a small band of Randian Ubermen fighting off the vile forces of egalitarian institutionalism, and frantically retconned the main cast to try to backdate them as the mere product of having good supporting research teams, and you know, basically anyone could have done what they did with the right support network.

Actual plot point spoilers: And then the last book has an awkward villain-swap to a generic "steal the magic of others" raid boss monster that had minimal buildup. This is really glaring because the second to last book involves a detour to another world with a different magic system that is actually based on institutions and infrastructure and large-scale societal organizing, but the author clearly didn't consider any of this stuff when he was writing the first handful of books.

...well. Alright, then. That certainly has a degree of hilarity to it, I will confess.

Thank you for the summery.

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