site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   2419 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 5, 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Representation" should be defined for this comment thread as people of diverse backgrounds being seen as protagonists, deuteragonists, and antagonists in fiction, being elected representatives, and being hired for visible jobs at management/executive levels.

Is Representation a primary goal of the progressive project? Or is it a secondary goal, a virtue signal for societal diversity, since it can be seen as a sign that oppression has ceased, a sign that diverse people should be expected walking around in public, using services, present in labor jobs, and other signs of diverse social integration?

Unsurprisingly, the replies you've gotten are not particularly charitable to the progressive project.

The progressive project is anti-hierarchy and believes in equality of all humans, that no person or demographic should have power over another. The other replies are mostly some variety of assuming that that's a lie and obviously it must be about instituting some replacement hierarchy to the one currently in place.

In that view, Representation is not the primary goal but serves multiple purposes. The primary purpose is merely a proxy for the success of that project: if all demographics are truly equal then their visible Representation should be equal. Although also if you're talking about elected representatives, the power part is pretty direct, not just about visibility. There's also a secondary purpose of visible Representation being a role model / propaganda for showing that better world is possible (or, as Bombadil points out, accurately depicting the existing world).

assuming that that's a lie and obviously it must be about instituting some replacement hierarchy to the one currently in place.

Point of order: regardless of what is intended, it observably does institute a replacement hierarchy.

It does actually do a lot of flattening too though right? Prog reforms have massively increased the power and wellbeing (in a revealed preferences way) of the American and maybe even global underclass and definitely put a damper on the ultra-elite. Between increases in the underclass ability to act freely without fear of arrest, ability to use substances as desired etc, combined with the idea that even billionaires are using the same iPhones and having many comparable experiences, I’m not sure there’s ever been a better time to be on the bottom.

Sure it uplifts some PMCs who run some programs, but they generally have very little power and freedom personally.

Plus the whole destruction of institutions thing has even left fewer ladders to climb, which is great for flattening at a societal level.

I would say progressive reforms are fairly responsible for what's about to happen to the online weirdos, and I can't see the elite being sad about it. Giving true believers on any side a voice is too inconvenient.

But the masses don't really like those guys in real life either, so count that as you will.

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