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.
- 150
- 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 -
No one person can possibly satisfy all of your needs at once. What you prioritize in platonic friends should not necessaily be the same as what you prioritize in romantic partners. If you find someone like that, great, but most successful relationships are not built on that kind of intellectual foundation. Your girlfriend will never be able to replace your drinking buddies (and vice versa) and you wouldn't want her to try.
If it's really important to you, by all means, hold out for Mrs. Right. Just know that it's a hell of a lot easier if you compartmentalize a little and accept that different sorts of relationships fill different sorts of gaps. Maybe deprioritize intellectual compatibility just a tad and scratch that itch by setting time aside to hang out with the boys.
There's also something to be said for not inserting potential points of conflict into a relationship of you don't have to. There are already so many vectors for disagreement and hurt feelings. I like to play a little rough with my intellectual sparring, and that's a lot lower stakes (and more fun) with male friends than it is with a girlfriend. Romantic relationships involve a lot of compromise and swallowing of pride, and that's not really something I'm looking for with a political or philosophical argument. Are you willing to lose the argument and apologize when a political debate gets heated? I'm not confident of my ability to do that in the heat of the moment, and so prefer to keep those debates to a lower stakes forum.
More options
Context Copy link