site banner
PaperclipPerfector  16hr ago (text post)   529 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 31, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In your experience what percentage of "[more/better] communication" as a diagnosis or remedy in a social context is an effective or appropriate one? I think it's uncommon these days.

  • Perceived or real problem occurs
  • Something Must Be Done
  • That something, it is decided by problem seers, problem makers, or decision makers must be more communication. If we communicated more we'd be able to avoid perceived or real problems such as this.

One common example of this phenomena goes something like above. If you're still not picking up what I'm laying down consider the following:

  • The powers that be fuck up, or an individual does, and the people below them are impacted and/or angry. An unstated social negotiation occurs where the people either realize there was a failure in communication, or they are manipulated into accepting more communication as a fix from the powers that be.

"Bob, next time we will communicate fuck ups changes to you in advance which will prevent these types of future fuck ups problems that impact you."*

  • Game developer/Coca-Cola releases unpopular patch/drink, gamers/consumers riot, demands are put forth, reversals are made, and the developer/Coca-Cola issues a press release agreeing that more communication should have been done.

More Communication the platitude, tool, and HR seminar is a lie. In contexts where More Communication is a social lubricant, language to demand conciliatory notions or more respect from the powers that be, why can't we just ask for that? Who decided we should wrap "communication" into such things? Stakes vary between context, but the mechanics of communication are important. Most people are shit at communicating, and even those who hold an unusually innovative communication super power are still shit at communicating with someone competent. We shouldn't be muddying that precise failure up with population level memes.

"Shut the hell up, Bob. We can circle back to this fuck up problem until the cows come home, but are you really going to disagree with moving forward with More Communication?"

Napoleon didn't deploy the More Communication meme after the Battle of Aspern-Essling, did he? Maybe he did. Even so, I maintain that More Communication is too overloaded and watered down. A meme that can mean an apology is in order, the radio failed and no one sent a runner, management sucks, or no one is going to be holding the bag for the latest fuck up-- this must be a warcrime against autists. Whoever made the Communications B.A. what it is has a lot to answer for at the Hague.

"More Communication" is sometimes code for something one level deeper.

  • The product has to match the end-user's use cases.
  • The project has to use land in a non-disruptive way
  • The limitations have to be understood and planned around (by those impacted, not the creators)

But it can also be used as an object-level good:

  • Evidence of consent has to be gathered
  • Blame has to be shifted
  • People have to be pacified

There's a huge gap between more communication as a means of creating/spreading knowledge and more communication as an end in itself. The phrase "More Communication" is almost always code for the latter in my experience.

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