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.
- 124
- 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 -
It is 9/11 for the white knights and feminists of /r/tennis as the blonde-haired blue-eyed, Russian-German, (false?) domestic abuse accusation survivor Alexander Zverev wins the French Open to claim his maiden slam in a roller coaster of a five set match: 6-1, 4-6, 6-4, 6-7, 6-1.
The would-be favorite Alcaraz did not play due to injury and the two other contenders, Sinner and unc Djokovic, were upset in the early rounds.
Hasn't he been accused by more than one woman and shown a pattern of violent behavior toward umpires?
Regardless, I'm generally an art-from-artist separator, so I don't have much interest in the details of players on anything not directly tennis related. On that front, I've never seen a player whose playstyle sucks the joy of watching tennis from me quite like Zverev. He is terrible at everything I enjoy watching (mixing spins and angles, intelligent use of slices, net play, variation on serves) and incredible at the most uninteresting elements (pounding the 1st serve, and ground botting). Medvedev is similar in many ways, but his odd ball trajectory and overall weirdness present an interesting challenge for opponents. Sinner doesn't have the most interesting game, but at least his stroke and movement mechanics are unique and beautiful in and of themselves. Zverev really brings nothing to the table when it comes to entertainment. Not since the days of young Nadal running around every backhand to repetitively fling max topspin at the weaker wing of his opponent have I felt so little interest in a player (and Nadal at least at superhuman speed/topspin and got more interesting later on).
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like I’m having a stroke just reading this. Can’t imagine what it sounds like aloud.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link