site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   5637 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You’re making some pretty dramatic claims there. Proactively provide evidence rather than just asserting that “you must” do something. Why do you think that? How have you ruled out other explanations, models? These are the questions people are going to ask you. Preempting them helps to keep things…civil.

Evidence has been provided for decades. What do you want him to do, post FBI crime statistics for the millionth time? Then enter the heritability debate with the gaslighters again? It's boring. And it's biased that you guard this specific topic with the provide evidence rule much more than other topics.

Yes. Paying the evidence tax is what turns it from an argument into a debate. The more controversial a topic, the more important it is to explain your reasoning.

@sleepyegg added an example. This is an improvement. Now people who disagree have something to address rather than going straight to “nuh-uh.”

It doesn’t even have to be statistics, though. Citing his own experience would have been fine. The important thing is that there is a chain of reasoning which lets people engage without making up a position for him. It’s also why we discourage sarcasm and weakmanning.

  1. What do you want him to do, post FBI crime statistics for the millionth time?

It might be a good idea. It just takes a link (which @sleepyegg actually has in his post, maybe he added it after @netstack's comment). If posters assume familiarity with such things, newcomers might be bewildered and turned off. FBI crime statistics aren't like "the sun rises in the morning", which you can assume everyone other than insane people acknowledges. Vast numbers of people, including many intelligent ones, have absolutely no idea about the FBI crime statistics you are talking about. It's not that they've even been exposed to the information and rejected it. It's that they have absolutely no idea the information exists. It might not be good for the site to turn (even more) into an insular group of users who assume familiarity with controversial and relatively obscure information.

  1. Then enter the heritability debate with the gaslighters again?

Arguing against HBD doesn't make someone a gaslighter.

Arguing against HBD doesn't make someone a gaslighter.

I've come to accept Hanlon's razor as true:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Is HBD denial adequately explained by stupidity? Not basic denial, no. Trailer-park dwellers intuit the crime statistics. They do not intuit many other controversial ideas. I think the fact that HBD is more controversial in academia than it is among normies is suitable reason to reject the razor in this case. The reverse pattern holds for many other taboo topics, so the razor holds for them.

Even the FBI crime statistics, by themselves, aren't enough to support the original claim. The claim was that (paraphrasing a bit) you can have guns, black people, or a society without much violence, pick two. For that to be true, you need more than statistics which show "look, most crimes are committed by black people", because it does not follow from such statistics that most black people are committing crimes. You need evidence to bridge that gap, the crime statistics themselves can't get there.

You don't need to show that most black people are committing crimes. You can alternately show that you can't stop the black people who are committing crimes from doing so, which seems to be empirically correct.

Evidence has been provided for decades. What do you want him to do, post FBI crime statistics for the millionth time?

Yeah, the claim that generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups is very obvious and very well supported.

In my view, the inflammatory claim is the opposite. People who claim that blacks behave more or less the same as every other group are the ones who should be proactively providing evidence. Because, in effect, they are claiming that people who observe and comment on black dysfunction (and its intractability) are either delusional or are liars.

Obviously a society where (1) guns are freely available to adults; and (2) there are a lot of black people, is a society where there will be a lot of shootings.

Yeah, the claim that generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups is very obvious and very well supported.

It most certainly is not. If you want to make that claim, you best bring receipts if you want people to take it seriously (or if you want the mods to not ding you for making inflammatory claims without evidence).

It most certainly is not.

Just so we are clear, are you highly skeptical of the following claims:

(1) In the United States, black people commit crime at rates which are significantly disproportionate;

(2) In the United States, black people become parents out-of-wedlock at rates which are significantly disproportionate;

(3) In the United States, black people save money and accumulate wealth at rates which are significantly under-proportionate;

None of those is the claim you originally made, so I'm not going to get dragged to a debate on any of those points. What you said was "generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups". For that to be true, it would require most black people to behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner (because that is what "generally speaking, (group) behaves" means). To show that a group has higher rates of such behavior does not suffice for proving that most members of the group have that behavior.

None of those is the claim you originally made,

The claim I made was that "generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups"

A reasonable way to evaluate this claim would be to look at crime; out-of-wedlock births; and financial behavior. But let me put the question to you: What sort of evidence would it take to convince you of the claim?

For that to be true, it would require most black people to behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner (because that is what "generally speaking, (group) behaves" means)

No, because I said "compared to members of other groups." So for example, if 5% of blacks behave in an antisocial and/or irresponsible manner, while only 2% of other groups do so, my claim would be correct. (And to be clear, I'm not going to get in a debate over what I meant. I know what I meant and that's what I meant. It was reasonably clear, but even if it wasn't, it's clear now.)

Here on this forum it is often stated outright or implied that those problems are strongly intractable, i.e. that there is no sociocultural intervention (cutting race-based leniency, welfare reforms, penitentiary reforms, less glorification of crime in pop media, etc.) that would, if not completely erase the gap between racial groups, at least make them decent enough neighbors. I do not find that immediately obvious or well supported.

I do not find that immediately obvious or well supported.

You've tried for 60 years, isn't it obvious now?

First, it wasn't me or even my country trying it, and second, even if it was, it appears clear that the trying was mostly in one direction. If you go the wrong way in a straight line for 60 years, it doesn't mean the destination does not exist.

What do you think they should do instead?

More comments

"we can't fix this at all"
vs
"everything we've tried to fix this has failed"
vs
"actually, we have a way to fix this, but solutions are being blocked by specific actors for specific reasons".

The difference between these three positions really matters.

All three are true. Everything we've tried has failed, and while we have ideas that may work, they are blocked for reasons.

Right now, the intelligentsia of both sides have decided the answer is gun control, but that is unlikely to work either for many reasons.

It depends on your understanding of the problem, I think.

If the problem is "blacks are statistically distinguishable from whites at a population level due to worse outcomes", probably.

On the other hand, the Mississippi Miracle and similar data points indicate that we do know how to secure significantly better outcomes for black people in a variety of ways, and my tribe at least is actively being prevented from fixing the problem.

Bukele in El Salvador is another example of the difference between the three. El Salvador's murder rate was absolutely intractable, right up until the moment it was promptly tracted. One of my strongest objections to the general thread of HBD discourse is the pretense that nothing can be done, when in fact it is highly probable that we could significantly reduce many of these gaps and then reassess. Maybe if we can't completely erase the gap, all the problems will persist... alternatively, maybe they won't be as bad, and maybe significant improvements in one area will lead to better outcomes being possible in other areas.

More comments

It is not that there is no sociocultural intervention that would reduce the gap. It is that there is no politically acceptable intervention, because all of them will look like they are disproportionately punitive to black people.

That I agree with.

Here on this forum it is often stated outright or implied that those problems are strongly intractable, i.e. that there is no sociocultural intervention (cutting race-based leniency, welfare reforms, penitentiary reforms, less glorification of crime in pop media, etc.) that would, if not completely erase the gap between racial groups, at least make them decent enough neighbors. I do not find that immediately obvious or well supported.

I disagree, but in any event, but the claim -- charitably interpreted -- is that if guns are freely available to adults in the population; and there are a lot of blacks in the population; one can reasonably expect a lot of shootings by black people. My position is that this is so clear and obvious that pro-active evidence is not necessary. I take it you disagree?

It is clear and obvious that if a criminal underclass exists, giving people guns will result in the criminal underclass (whatever their racial composition) committing a lot of shootings. I think pro-active evidence is necessary when you claim or imply (as the discussed post, interpreted with average charitability, is implying) that if black people weren't there, there wouldn't be a criminal underclass that can't be trusted with access to guns.

It is clear and obvious that if a criminal underclass exists, giving people guns will result in the criminal underclass (whatever their racial composition) committing a lot of shootings. I think pro-active evidence is necessary when you claim or imply (as the discussed post, interpreted with average charitability, is implying) that if black people weren't there, there wouldn't be a criminal underclass that can't be trusted with access to guns.

I strongly disagree with your "average charitability" interpretation. The claim made was that "Guns and blacks just don't mix well" This was in the context of a story of a black criminal - Travontis Miller. I don't see any claim that blacks are the only group which doesn't mix well with guns.

Anyway, it sounds like you agree with the charitable interpretation I laid out.

More comments

It is not actually obvious at all to the average intelligent person who might make a good Motte commenter but comes from a sheltered liberal or moderate-conservative background. The vast majority even of intelligent, generally well-informed people have never looked at the relevant statistics, and many of them have also been exposed enough to the "the racist law enforcement system is the reason for such statistics" theory that the bare statistics wouldn't even be enough by themselves.

It is not actually obvious at all to the average intelligent person who might make a good Motte commenter but comes from a sheltered liberal or moderate-conservative background. The vast majority even of intelligent, generally well-informed people have never looked at the relevant statistics, and many of them have also been exposed enough to the "the racist law enforcement system is the reason for such statistics" theory that the bare statistics wouldn't even be enough by themselves.

For such a person, what evidence could be provided to substantiate the claim that "generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups"

I imagine the same evidence that convinced you would be a good place to start.

I imagine the same evidence that convinced you would be a good place to start.

Well, that would be (1) general, informal observations; and (2) publicly available statistics.

Apparently, this hypothetical intelligent person does not accept publicly available statistics. And it doesn't seem likely that an anonymous interpret poster's summary of his general informal observations will carry much weight.

Yes. We had a 20 year campaign to deny the truth. So a lot of people have never been exposed to it. And it’s honestly clustered in upper middle class people since they often live in a highly filtered environments and wouldn’t see results on the ground. Even athletes are extremely filtered for intelligence. Antonio Brown is the exception that proves the rule. You need to be highly disciplined and usually more intelligent to make it to the nfl

What do you want him to do, post FBI crime statistics for the millionth time? Then enter the heritability debate with the gaslighters again? It's boring.

One of the things I always respected about the Motte was the effortposters who were willing to research and put in the work on controversial questions. I find responses like yours extremely disappointing and out of place for what this community used to be.

At the very least, you could link to a past discussion on the Motte or somewhere else that you think did a good job rigorously interrogating the evidence and policy choices, while arriving in the neighborhood of /u/sleepyegg's assertions, so that those of us who are interested in high effort discussions and a free search for truth can have something to sink our teeth into.

One of the things I always respected about the Motte was the effortposters who were willing to research and put in the work on controversial questions. I find responses like yours extremely disappointing and out of place for what this community used to be.

It „used to be that way” and is not that way now, because the Motte did not reward effort posting enough. In my mind the reward for effort posting should be no more „evidence please” for the same dry topic; just go browse the AAQCs or some canonical blog posts, maybe from some of those effort posters who you chased away. If the mod feels the need to chime in, maybe they should chime in with links to some of those instead of demanding another poster do it. There's no point to having a debate if you can never make any progress.

Also, on the HBD race debate specifically, the controversy is much older than the Motte, and the same thing happens elsewhere with it. I'm convinced it was all sorted out by 1995 or earlier. It's not a particular failure of the Motte to fail to make progress on this topic. If anything, the Motte is better than most places when it comes to it. But what is more interesting to me than rehashing it again is looking at the meta question of, is one side operating in bad faith? I think so, probably. Which deflates my motivation to engage in the object-level debate with high effort.

If the mod feels the need to chime in, maybe they should chime in with links to some of those instead of demanding another poster do it.

We will demand posters follow the rules.

Alternatively, DM me to discuss rates since apparently you are dissatisfied with the level of effort being made by volunteers.

Maybe you haven't been exposed to any decent anti-HBD arguments. Personally, I think there probably is a genetic component to racial differences in criminality. However, I think that pro-HBD people often overstate their case.

@2rafa's recent post about Irish Travelers is interesting when it comes to the explanatory power of HBD.

There are also many examples in history of savage, unintellectual people later becoming great intellectuals without, perhaps, the genetic stock changing much. If one used a time machine to observe the founding Indo-European-speaking stock circa 2000 BC, one would probably find it hard to imagine that 1500 years later they would have descendants like Thucydides and Euclid. If one observed the Germanic people around 0 AD, one would find it hard to imagine that their descendants would include many of the world's foremost scientists and mathematicians.

There are also many examples in history of savage, unintellectual people later becoming great intellectuals without, perhaps, the genetic stock changing much.

You should look up some medieval descriptions of Vikings for fun reading on this. Or German writings about Swedes from around 1630 for that matter. That same genetic stock rather famously produced Alfred Nobel.

If one observed the Germanic people around 0 AD, one would find it hard to imagine that their descendants would include many of the world's foremost scientists and mathematicians.

1500+ years later. Which is about 75 generations. At just +0.01 SD per generation, that can add up to 0.75 SDs in that time. Which is 11.25 IQ points. Which is a rise from a mean of 88.75 to 100. This can be produced by having an average r=0.02 correlation between fertility and IQ during that time by the way. We're experiencing 5x that selection pressure in the opposite direction right now.

Any HBDer would readily agree melatonin level does not cause low IQ. With the right selection pressure with a certain amount of time African Americans would begin dominating science and engineering.

My understanding is that pre-civil rights America this was actually beginning to slowly occur before the 1960s did what it did to everything; fucking ruined it.

I mean look at the Scottish enlightenment. They went from knifing each other in mud huts to being the most intellectually developed nation on the world in like four generations.

Yes. Would you like to start a eugenics program in Africa? Where can I sign up?

Also, on the HBD race debate specifically, the controversy is much older than the Motte, and the same thing happens elsewhere with it. I'm convinced it was all sorted out by 1995 or earlier.

Look, I'm fully open to the idea that I'm totally wrong-headed on these topics, and I always try to keep the idea that I might be biased and believing what I want to believe in view as a possibility. But I genuinely think there are a lot of questions that a lot of HBD people I've interacted with seem ill-equipped to deal with.

For example, if I grant for the sake of argument that the average 85 IQ of African Americans is mostly genetic, and even the part that is environmental is mostly infeasible to change with ordinary interventions, I still have not heard a convincing argument in favor of segregation, which I have seen more than one HBDer advocate for.

Like, I'm fully aware of the "13% of the population commits 50% of the murders" argument, but surely if we were just genuinely tough on crime and caught the bad eggs, there would be no reason for segregation, since the vast majority of African Americans are not murderers? Like, if you just look at averages and standard deviations, then the smartest non-outlier African American in the United States has an IQ of 145. I don't understand why we need a system that segregates that IQ 145 person away from everyone else, just because 1% of his same race cohort are murderers or whatever.

I kind of just don't see why the Steven Pinker-style of HBD-aware liberalism isn't still possible, even if HBD turns out to be 100% true? Do you really assert that we've known since 1995 that such a system was and is impossible with any realistic social arrangement?

Segregation has some issues because very clearly you have some Africans perhaps even well over 50% that do not cause any issues and are perfectly fine mixing with the rest of society.

The best evidence for segregation is America spends an insane amount of money to do segregation without doing segregation. This is essentially all housing regulations in America. Minimum lot sizes, building restrictions, etc that are all designed to make sure poorer people can not get into your neighborhood. It’s car culture. If you look at relatively homogenous populations - pre-19th century Europe, Tokyo, Buenos Aires they all build a lot of dense urban housing. All the cities built after the Great Migration in America are essentially suburbs connected to each other. With local coordination to keep low income folks out of their communities. Sure you can disagree with this argument. You can say it’s just the car and people like backyards. That I guess is viable. Tokyo largely developed posts-car and is dense.

Completely changing how people live (cities to restricted suburbs) is a huge amount of gdp and utility. It’s big enough to justify explicit segregation.

You can honestly just change any argument wokes made for racism caused bad things and instead attribute it to lower class black people bad behavior and then add up all the mitigating costs the rest of the society does to avoid mixing.

I think it’s fairly obvious the US spends trillions per year to achieve segregation without explicit doing segregation. Private schools would barely exists if segregation was legal.

They don't want poor white people in those neighborhoods either, you know. Far less than they want wealthy blacks.

I don’t think they care much about poor whites. Tokyo and Buenos Aires are fine intermingling and it’s nice having plumbers etc around.

Tradesmen often report feeling unwelcome in UMC neighborhoods- and they're not even particularly poor.

More comments

For example, if I grant for the sake of argument that the average 85 IQ of African Americans is mostly genetic, and even the part that is environmental is mostly infeasible to change with ordinary interventions, I still have not heard a convincing argument in favor of segregation, which I have seen more than one HBDer advocate for.

Sleepyegg didn't argue for Jim Crow, and you pled for him to include basic race-differences fact links in his post.

For example, if I grant for the sake of argument that the average 85 IQ of African Americans is mostly genetic, and even the part that is environmental is mostly infeasible to change with ordinary interventions, I still have not heard a convincing argument in favor of segregation, which I have seen more than one HBDer advocate for.

We can't have this discussion properly when you aren't actually willing to grant the basic race facts. You don't just grant for the sake of the argument here; you must grant for the sake of reality. Then we can talk about policy. The way it works, though, is that when we try to establish the facts, we get shouted down. So there is no point and there can be no discussion. The facts remain the facts, and the fact remains that the facts remain denied.

Like, I'm fully aware of the "13% of the population commits 50% of the murders" argument, but surely if we were just genuinely tough on crime and caught the bad eggs, there would be no reason for segregation, since the vast majority of African Americans are not murderers?

That means someone has to die before we act, and we also have to be tough on crime, which is ugly and anti-liberty.

I kind of just don't see why the Steven Pinker-style of HBD-aware liberalism isn't still possible, even if HBD turns out to be 100% true? Do you really assert that we've known since 1995 that such a system was and is impossible with any realistic social arrangement?

No, we have known that the facts about race differences are as sleepyegg stated. We also know race blind liberalism is possible, since the United States lives under it (and to some extent Europe). Do you like the system?

Also, I personally don't argue for Jim Crow and don't know any serious HBD people who do. I would prefer a holistic class based system where race differences are accepted, and races assort into classes in proportions which accord to their talents. Blacks would not be bared from the nobility, but would probably only be a small percent of it, and that is expected based on their racial averages. This is anything but a normal HBD belief, though. It's more like Moldbug multiplied by HBD; most HBD people are slightly racist liberals who just want to be a little more tough on crime and restrict immigration. I would like a society which is run by and for its nobility, which competes against contemporary peasant states by attracting a lower class willing to accept explicit subordination based on superior economics. Its values would be truth, beauty, human flourishing, and biologically improving the human species.

We also know race blind liberalism is possible, since the United States lives under it (and to some extent Europe). Do you like the system?

I mean, isn't the complaint that it isn't actually race-blind? Either because we're too lenient on black defendants, or because of affirmative action and DEI?

My preference as a heterodox libertarian would be for a race blind system that actually punished people where appropriate. If that means a higher percentage of black people end up in prison, so be it. So yes, I like the theoretical idea of race-blind liberalism, more or less.

We can't have this discussion properly when you aren't actually willing to grant the basic race facts. You don't just grant for the sake of the argument here; you must grant for the sake of reality. Then we can talk about policy. The way it works, though, is that when we try to establish the facts, we get shouted down. So there is no point and there can be no discussion. The facts remain the facts, and the fact remains that the facts remain denied.

I don't think I've ever shouted anyone down for anything here on the Motte.

Don't get me wrong. I've been working my way through books recommended here and elsewhere. But it is slow going, and I'm not yet fully on board with HBD in its most common form here.

My biggest hang up has always remained that I just don't think that establishing the facts of HBD should have much effect on public policy besides immigration. We have the people inside of the country that we have. We can do some amount of voluntary eugenics under a libertarian/liberal regime, but even changing my view to agree with the common HBD consensus wouldn't really change anything about how I think society should be organized. I had already priced in that some people are naturally going to be more violent, or stupid, and I still think we should treat them as individuals and let them rise or fall on the basis of their own merits.

We have the people inside of the country that we have.

Yes, you do. United States demographics are in a fail-state currently. It's sink or swim. Swimming might be what Trump campaigned on. But ultimately I think there's too many millstones around the neck of the great United States to stay swimming. Trump is failing. He will be replaced by Newsome.

We can do some amount of voluntary eugenics under a libertarian/liberal regime

You don't have a libertarian regime, you have a carceral surveillance state designed to exalt the proletariat of the world at gun point. From a justice point of view, I bet I could find 10 sentences handed out today alone that are more unjust than a hundred sterilizations of a hundred criminals each with rap sheets a mile long and a dozen baby-mommas.

wouldn't really change anything about how I think society should be organized. I had already priced in that some people are naturally going to be more violent, or stupid, and I still think we should treat them as individuals and let them rise or fall on the basis of their own merits.

I agree with you, I just think we need a state that values beauty, truth, and human improvement over equality, safety, and comfortable lies. And this implies an aristocracy and a massive social reorganization.

My preference as a heterodox libertarian would be for a race blind system that actually punished people where appropriate. If that means a higher percentage of black people end up in prison, so be it. So yes, I like the theoretical idea of race-blind liberalism, more or less.

This is my preference as well as a leftist liberal. One major problem is that anyone who has this opinion of "so be it" is deemed to be ideologically indistinguishable from Nathan Bedford Forrest by mainstream liberals who disproportionately influence public conversation about this, if not actual public policy. I haven't been able to figure out a way to fix this.

Mandate low-income subsidized rental housing preferentially for blacks who are reintegrating to society after prison parole in all leftist liberal communities. When there is white liberal flight from the area, keep expanding the program to the new areas they are escaping to. Fund the program with local property taxes. Call it an expansion of Section 8 housing vouchers.

Either we will have very rehabilitated black parolees, or we will have a change in liberal opinion on race blind systems.

More comments

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