site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24373 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 22, 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.

Before Bruen, the 2A was primarily considered using "interest balancing" unlike every other constitutional amendment.

The difficulty with 2A is that a straightforward reading is not really compatible with a stable modern society. A crazy man with a flintlock musket can only do so much damage, despite it having been the state of the art weapon system for the bulk of military forces. A crazy man with a flock of explosive drones or a fission bomb can do much more damage, and no country can survive engaging in mutually assured destruction diplomacy with the craziest 1% of their citizens individually. Different people may draw the line in slightly different places for 2A, but very few believe that no line should be drawn at all.

This is not so much different from limitations on the 1A. Should it be allowed to promise people rewards for committing crimes? Should it be allowed to make fraudulent bomb threats or SWAT people? Should a mob boss go free as long as all he did was talk to his underlings? All of these are restrictions on free speech, but they are obvious restrictions which are required to have a functioning state at all.

Well, if it helps, I am not on of those who believe in the right to own McNukes. I believe a reasonable argument could be made that at our founding we the people were generally expected to own and operate man portable rifles and pistols generally. Yes, I know warships were privately owned in the distant past, so one could make that argument and I don't have a truly principled reason to restrict them but I accept they are and don't advocate to own one.

How I believe the 2A should be looked at is what constitutes an "arm" in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Even before the US was a country, repeating rifles did exist even if in a rudimentary form so I would argue AR-15s style performance could be reasonably foreseen by our founders. Now I'd argue automatic weapons should be allowed, but I know that just isn't feasible, so you work with the world you have now - and people being allowed to own sporting rifles and pistols should be pretty uncontroversial for being covered under the 2A. The problem is many federal judges and state governments would immediately strip people of being able to own any arm if they had the chance - and we're fighting for even the basics of keeping the 2A available in many states.

When we look at other amendments for new tech, we look for analogs: the internet is just the printing press, but way better. AR-15s are just better repeating rifles. Drones are allowed to be owned, so are some explosives - so I will not be surprised if we see drone based terror attacks in the US very soon - and I'm not sure what can be done to stop it. The technology exists, isn't difficult to make, can't be easily restricted (compared to controlling Uranium and its enrichment), etc. it is only a matter of time. Some people already tried for the UFC event during flag day but got caught before they were able to do it.

The exceptions for the 1A, especially in regards to political and religious speech are darn near unlimited - and I can cause much more damage to many more people by advocating terrible forms of government (fascism, socialism) than I could as one man with a machine gun; but attenuated causes are harder for us humans to truly take the full weight of.

Should a mob boss go free as long as all he did was talk to his underlings?

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent DA?"

The difficulty with 2A is that a straightforward reading is not really compatible with a stable modern society.

I see this claim thrown around as obviously true on a regular basis but I don't think it really stands up to scrutiny. Something about an armed society being a polite society.

How are you defining "stable" and "modern" in this context? Do New York and California count? Do Texas and Florida not?

Something about an armed society being a polite society.

I don't think that's necessarily so, in the hey-day of duelling what you got was finer and finer gradations of who was a gentleman and who wasn't, so who could be insulted with impunity and who couldn't, and if a social inferior could or could not challenge a social superior, and fights over what we would consider nothing or at least that an apology would be acceptable. An armed society, in those days, was one where the most minor perceived slight demanded blood or else, because being perceived not to defend your status and position meant you could be treated as contemptible and cut out of society.

Two examples from "Nicholas Nickleby", the first being that Nicholas hears his sister being insulted, demands satisfaction, and is refused on grounds of being a nobody. The second is the two men of equal status (or one is slightly higher) quarrel and then it ends in a duel, because now they are both of a position where it's expected:

(1)

He heard his sister’s sufferings derided, and her virtuous conduct jeered at and brutally misconstrued; he heard her name bandied from mouth to mouth, and herself made the subject of coarse and insolent wagers, free speech, and licentious jesting.

…‘Let me have a word with you, sir,’ said Nicholas.

‘With me, sir?’ retorted Sir Mulberry Hawk, eyeing him in disdainful surprise.

‘I said with you,’ replied Nicholas, speaking with great difficulty, for his passion choked him.

‘A mysterious stranger, upon my soul!’ exclaimed Sir Mulberry, raising his wine-glass to his lips, and looking round upon his friends.

‘Will you step apart with me for a few minutes, or do you refuse?’ said Nicholas sternly.

Sir Mulberry merely paused in the act of drinking, and bade him either name his business or leave the table.

…‘Your name and address?’ said Nicholas, turning paler as his passion kindled.

‘I shall give you neither,’ replied Sir Mulberry.

…Sir Mulberry looked at him contemptuously, and, addressing his companions, said— ‘Let the fellow talk, I have nothing serious to say to boys of his station; and his pretty sister shall save him a broken head, if he talks till midnight.’

…‘Will you make yourself known to me?’ asked Nicholas in a suppressed voice.

‘No,’ replied the other fiercely, and confirming the refusal with an oath. ‘No.’

…‘You are a villain,’ said Nicholas.

‘You are an errand-boy for aught I know,’ said Sir Mulberry Hawk.

‘I am the son of a country gentleman,’ returned Nicholas, ‘your equal in birth and education, and your superior I trust in everything besides. I tell you again, Miss Nickleby is my sister. Will you or will you not answer for your unmanly and brutal conduct?’

‘To a proper champion—yes. To you—no,’ returned Sir Mulberry, taking the reins in his hand. ‘Stand out of the way, dog. William, let go her head.’

…‘Ye-es,’ said the other, turning full upon him. ‘If you had told him who you were; if you had given him your card, and found out, afterwards, that his station or character prevented your fighting him, it would have been bad enough then; upon my soul it would have been bad enough then.’

(2)

Meanwhile, the two seconds, as they may be called now, after a long conference, each with his principal, met together in another room. Both utterly heartless, both men upon town, both thoroughly initiated in its worst vices, both deeply in debt, both fallen from some higher estate, both addicted to every depravity for which society can find some genteel name and plead its most depraving conventionalities as an excuse, they were naturally gentlemen of most unblemished honour themselves, and of great nicety concerning the honour of other people.

These two gentlemen were unusually cheerful just now; for the affair was pretty certain to make some noise, and could scarcely fail to enhance their reputations.

‘This is an awkward affair, Adams,’ said Mr. Westwood, drawing himself up.

‘Very,’ returned the captain; ‘a blow has been struck, and there is but one course, of course.’

‘No apology, I suppose?’ said Mr. Westwood.

‘Not a syllable, sir, from my man, if we talk till doomsday,’ returned the captain. ‘The original cause of dispute, I understand, was some girl or other, to whom your principal applied certain terms, which Lord Frederick, defending the girl, repelled. But this led to a long recrimination upon a great many sore subjects, charges, and counter-charges. Sir Mulberry was sarcastic; Lord Frederick was excited, and struck him in the heat of provocation, and under circumstances of great aggravation. That blow, unless there is a full retraction on the part of Sir Mulberry, Lord Frederick is ready to justify.’

‘There is no more to be said,’ returned the other, ‘but to settle the hour and the place of meeting. It’s a responsibility; but there is a strong feeling to have it over. Do you object to say at sunrise?’

‘Sharp work,’ replied the captain, referring to his watch; ‘however, as this seems to have been a long time breeding, and negotiation is only a waste of words, no.’

‘Something may possibly be said, out of doors, after what passed in the other room, which renders it desirable that we should be off without delay, and quite clear of town,’ said Mr. Westwood. ‘What do you say to one of the meadows opposite Twickenham, by the river-side?’

The captain saw no objection.

...After a pause, and a brief conference between the seconds, they, at length, turned to the right, and taking a track across a little meadow, passed Ham House and came into some fields beyond. In one of these, they stopped. The ground was measured, some usual forms gone through, the two principals were placed front to front at the distance agreed upon, and Sir Mulberry turned his face towards his young adversary for the first time. He was very pale, his eyes were bloodshot, his dress disordered, and his hair dishevelled. For the face, it expressed nothing but violent and evil passions. He shaded his eyes with his hand; grazed at his opponent, steadfastly, for a few moments; and, then taking the weapon which was tendered to him, bent his eyes upon that, and looked up no more until the word was given, when he instantly fired. The two shots were fired, as nearly as possible, at the same instant. In that instant, the young lord turned his head sharply round, fixed upon his adversary a ghastly stare, and without a groan or stagger, fell down dead.

‘He’s gone!’ cried Westwood, who, with the other second, had run up to the body, and fallen on one knee beside it.

‘His blood on his own head,’ said Sir Mulberry. ‘He brought this upon himself, and forced it upon me.’

‘Captain Adams,’ cried Westwood, hastily, ‘I call you to witness that this was fairly done. Hawk, we have not a moment to lose. We must leave this place immediately, push for Brighton, and cross to France with all speed. This has been a bad business, and may be worse, if we delay a moment. Adams, consult your own safety, and don’t remain here; the living before the dead; goodbye!’

With these words, he seized Sir Mulberry by the arm, and hurried him away. Captain Adams—only pausing to convince himself, beyond all question, of the fatal result—sped off in the same direction, to concert measures with his servant for removing the body, and securing his own safety likewise.

So died Lord Frederick Verisopht, by the hand which he had loaded with gifts, and clasped a thousand times; by the act of him, but for whom, and others like him, he might have lived a happy man, and died with children’s faces round his bed.

So then outlaw dueling, not being armed.

It has been outlawed, it was at the time (see the survivors of the duel fleeing to France so they wouldn't be prosecuted in Britain) but duelling arises out of being armed. The idea of the "polite society", after all, is that impoliteness gets you a gun in your face and your face shot off, and everyone around you tolerates or even applauds that because 'talk shit, get hit'. Hence duelling.

If you have guns, people will use them. I'm not opposed to guns for defence or shooting guns for sport, but the idea that "if everyone walks around with a gun, we'll have a much better-behaved and less criminal society" is not correct. Are ghetto neighbourhoods islands of tranquillity due to every fifteen year old walking around tooled up?

duelling arises out of being armed

Formal duelling in the US is basically extinct, despite all the guns. Anything else you might call "duelling" only arises out of being armed if you exclude unarmed mutual combat, in which case your argument is just a tautology.

I don't think @quiet_NaN is saying that widespread gun ownership or widespread concealed carry of handguns is incompatible with a modern society - he is saying that the text of the 2nd amendment doesn't distinguish between "citizen grade weapons" like AR15s and "military grade weapons" like F35s, VX gas grenades, and nukes, and therefore taking it literally and seriously would allow nuclear-armed Branch Davidians and suchlike, and that that is not compatible with a modern society. I agree - I think that a government that is actually meaningfully restricted in its actions by fear of small groups of armed citizens is a failed state, and would perform like one.

See for example this subthread where pro-2nd amendment Motteposters argued that it protected a private right to own siege artillery and warships at the time of the founding.

At some point there is going to be litigation over whether the 2nd amendment permits private ownership of killer drones. The legal arguments will be about as edifying as the litigation over full-auto and scary-looking semi-auto rifles, but the results will matter.

he is saying that the text of the 2nd amendment doesn't distinguish between "citizen grade weapons" like AR15s and "military grade weapons" like F35s, VX gas grenades, and nukes, and therefore taking it literally and seriously would allow nuclear-armed Branch Davidians and suchlike, and that that is not compatible with a modern society.

I'm not entirely convinced the distinction is necessary. Anyone who is has the resources and know-how required to procure and operate an F-35 or Nuclear Weapon is going to be a lot more than just some "fringe whacko" in a compound somewhere. We're talking Bond villains not Branch Davidians, and you don't send cops to arrest a Bond villain, you send SOCOM to "extract" them.

Side notice: Maduro is hardly a Bond villain.

First off, 2A does not only guarantee the right to bear guns, but also the right to buy or sell guns (I know, with certain restrictions). If an anti-gun government passed legislation which outlawed all commercial manufacturing of handguns and all sale of firearm parts, the SCOTUS would be very likely to say that this would have the end effect of making it implausible for civilians to own firearms.

So for the purpose of the thought experiment, we do not need to assume that the weapon will be lovingly hand-crafted by some deranged group in some compound any more than mass shooters printing their own handguns.

Nukes and F-35s are only really affordable for the billionaire class, though I suspect that plutonium for bombs could likely be bred rather cheaply if there was sufficient demand for it, perhaps a few millions per nuke?

But you do not need that level of firepower to cause a state to fail. Elderly MiGs are probably in the price range of anyone who can scrape together a few millions. If they were protected by 2A (so you are free to take your MiG with full weapon systems when crossing the US), this would challenge the present US air defense concept, which I assume is based around the fact that hostile jets will not generally appear out of nowhere over the skies of Kansas and attack random towns. Likewise, if the law allowed you to buy 18-wheelers full of chemical explosives for your 2A needs, that would tremendously increase the amount of damage any given mass murderer could do. Radiological weapons would be another low-hanging fruit, if it became legal for citizens to own dirty bombs as an area-denial weapon (e.g. for use in cold wars against their local HOA), we have enough spend nuclear fuel worldwide to give every American 30TBq or so, which would certainly be enough to kill a few people by accident -- or dozens with malice (to say nothing of crashing the local property market).

Maduro is hardly a Bond villain.

In License to Kill the primary antagonist/villian is a cartel boss who has installed himself as the effective dictator of a Caribbean island with the assistance of a foreign communist regime seeking to destabilize the region. Maduro is literally a bond villian.

If they were protected by 2A this would challenge the present US air defense concept

Were you aware that before he became NASA administrator Jared Issacman was best known in gunnie circles for registering a fully armed and operational Mig-29 with the ATF as a Destructive Device? There are a lot of old warbirds in private hands out there and a non zero number of them are still "fully functional" if you cattch my meaning, yet society persists.

"BEHOLD the power of my FULLY ARMED and OPERATIONAL Fulcrum!"

Were you aware that before he became NASA administrator Jared Issacman was best known in gunnie circles for registering a fully armed and operational Mig-29 with the ATF as a Destructive Device?

I've managed to confirm the Mig-29 (assuming that was a typo in his name), but not "fully armed". Could you provide a source for this?

The Branch davidians could easily have had sarin and the like(and indeed, Aum Shinrikyo had chemical weapons, biological weapons, and might have had nukes).

If access to chemical weapons is incompatible with a stable modern society, AND Aum Shinrikyo had chemical weapons, the only possible conclusion is that Japan is a not a stable modern society.

Would you endorse that statement?

At some point there is going to be litigation over whether the 2nd amendment permits private ownership of killer drones. The legal arguments will be about as edifying as the litigation over full-auto and scary-looking semi-auto rifles, but the results will matter.

Speaking as something close to a 2A absolutist, this can be mitigated the same way the US can regulate psi-emitters and other forms of bio-engineered insectoid war-horrors - by the FCC.

The FCC is as subject to the Second Amendment as any other part of government.

I think the idea is that since psi-emitters and insectoid war-horrors are fictional, they are regulated by the FCC as fictional media.

Oh, I thought we were talking about actual spectrum (and some theoretical psi spectrum). Killer drones are real, ask any Russian soldier in Ukraine.

The joke is that they'd transmit along the radio spectrum, and thus be subject to FCC regulation.

First Amending the Constitution we have a process for if an old part of the constitution is that far out of touch with modern society.

A crazy man is NOT what you are afraid of with causing mass casualties. I am thinking about by crazy you mean the street panhandling man with schizophrenia. He’s going to commit enough small crimes to institutionalize him first. By crazy you actually mean high agency but hates people like Osama Bin Laden who can accumulate arms and not commit other crimes. That may not change your argument but it’s still not a crazy person.

Your last paragraphs are not just speech. Paying someone to commit crimes is an act of paying people. They all lead directly to actions that are criminal. There is something going on that is more than just speech but directing physical actions thru speech.

So if you can't prove that an exchange of money has taken place (or it did not yet take place at all), then no amount of evidence implicates a man who said "I will pay you to make X disappear" in the following murder of X?

I would say that a fission bomb, or any weapon of mass destruction, is not a weapon you can "bear". (But you still have a point about drones.)

Also, people were allowed to own cannons back then and they could probably do more damage with one than with a musket.

...you can still own a cannon of the type used back then (at least under federal law).

Not only cannon, but privately owned warships were an entire thing.

So if we really want to argue that we should return to the founders' intent, no automatic guns, but Amazon can mount weaponry on its delivery vehicles?

They had 22 shot .46 caliber rifles before the Constitution was written. Not full auto, but as semiautomatic as they could make it.

...You understand that "automatic guns" are already unregulatable, correct? As in, it is no longer possible in any practical sense to regulate the ownership of automatic weapons in the United States of America. You can purchase a legal, full-auto AR-15 from Palmetto State Armory for a reasonable sum. Several companies are producing belt-fed light machine guns for the unregulated civilian market. Criminals have been mass-importing high quality auto-sears and full-auto lockwork from China by the container-load for years now. The government is incapable of keeping full-auto weaponry out of the hands of anyone who wants it, and is almost entirely incapable of prosecuting even those who gain such weaponry illegally, or even simply those who commit crimes with such weaponry. They are at the point of prosecuting a small fraction of carefully selected cases in a vain attempt to maintain keyfabe that meaningful prohibitions still exist.

You can purchase a legal, full-auto AR-15 from Palmetto State Armory for a reasonable sum.

Do you mean true select-fire, or some kind of workaround? I certainly missed this happening.

Generally have to deal with the paperwork for an FFL-SOT to (legally) buy the actual automatic component. It's in a kinda messy legal area, but more because of the legal overhead and warrantless searches from the FFL side than anything with the SOT.

You can by forced-reset triggers without any paperwork (other than any other gun purchase), but how close they match 'real' full automatic is in the eye of the beholder, and the feds are kinda schizophrenic about them. Some states also separately prohibit FRTs/

Generally have to deal with the paperwork for an FFL-SOT to (legally) buy the actual automatic component. It's in a kinda messy legal area, but more because of the legal overhead and warrantless searches from the FFL side than anything with the SOT.

My understanding, perhaps out of date, was that legal manufacture of new select-fire firearms was still banned by the 1986 act.

FCfromSSC was talking about FRTs, which don't fall under the strict definition of machine guns.

((uh, arguably. I am not a lawyer, no guarantees that the ATF won't shoot you and your little dog too anyway.))

But the FOPA1986 specifically prohibited the transfer or possession of machine guns unless authorized by a state or federal agency, unless they were lawfully possessed before that period (the ATF further regulated this to require a tax stamp). Combined with the other exceptions and regulations, this basically made new manufacture or transfer illegal for normal people.

Except transfer or possession that the ATF authorizes are excluded, because they're a federal agency authorizing FFLs. And while the ATF has a lot of discretion for giving out FFLs, once they've done that, the SOT that authorizes transfer or manufacture of NFA weapons is just normal tax documentation, and the ATF has no authority to reject it. You just can't sell any NFA weapons to anyone that isn't in the same category. It's really stupid, and it's the sort of thing where you're giving the federal government your home address and fingerprints, but it's... pretty much just straight-up legal.

My understanding, perhaps out of date, was that legal manufacture of new select-fire firearms was still banned by the 1986 act.

"Full-Auto" as a legal term means multiple shots fired with a single pull of the trigger. Forced-Reset Triggers force the trigger fully-forward again during the firing cycle, which is then immediately pulled again by the trigger finger in a distinct mechanical action. Legally, they are semi-auto, just semi-auto at 600-800 RPM. Semi-auto's legal viability has never depended on how fast the trigger is being pulled previously, and indeed many shooters have demonstrated the ability to fire semi-auto firearms and even revolvers at speeds equivalent to machine guns with no legal repercussion. Likewise, mechanical aids such as crank-fire have also been legally-permitted methods for generating rapid fire for roughly as long as we've had gun laws. FRTs merely make this easier to do. They are "select fire" in the sense that they have a selector switch with safe/semi/rapid fire settings. They are not "select fire" in the sense that they do not have a legally-recognized "full auto" setting, only a setting that allows the shooter to fire legally-semi-auto at a consistent rate of hundreds of rounds a minute with no significant effort.

Or print/mill the parts yourself, that works too and requires no interaction with the legal system.

At least as long as the tools are available. States are falling all over themselves to ban 3D printers that don't call home and ask mommy if they're making a gun part; New York's law covers CNC milling machines and such as well. You could go full John Browning and do it all by hand, but there's fairly few of us who will have his skill.

More comments

My understanding is that they're selling AR15 rifles with factory-installed and -tuned FRTs. Setting aside the legal arcana, it is not clear to me what the difference between these and "true select fire" is in any practical sense. I'd imagine they shoot a little rougher?

On the criminal side, my understanding is that it's just straight-up Chinese-manufactured auto-sears and auto-lockwork, no workaround at all.

fixed the link in the previous post. Here's a link to discussion of the new generation of belt-feds: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZDFtgEVkaQY&t=3s

My understanding is that they're selling AR15 rifles with factory-installed and -tuned FRTs. Setting aside the legal arcana, it is not clear to me what the difference between these and "true select fire" is in any practical sense. I'd imagine they shoot a little rougher?

I am obviously ignorant since I'm not up to date on FRTs. I will look into.

On the criminal side, my understanding is that it's just straight-up Chinese-manufactured auto-sears and auto-lockwork, no workaround at all.

Yes, this is accurate. I'm in a rural place in a flyover state and I've had clients busted with auto-sears (and not charged federally for it).

As always Technicals remain the most superior war fighting weapon.

Can we get the Chicken Tax struck down on 2nd Amendment grounds?

As long as my truck has a machine gun on top I see this as an absolute win. Although I imagine I would shortly thereafter be arrested after an incident on the interstate.

You'll have to explain how the founders didn't intend to allow automatic weapons, first. Of course they thought normal people should be able to buy and carry normal weaponry.

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