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.
- 204
- 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 -
What are your predictions for the odyssey ? Will it bomb, will it flourish, will it be meh? What it has going on for it are Nolan, star studded cast, one of the greatest adventure tales ever told. On the other hand for every Dark Knight in his career, Nolan has produced a Dark Knight Rises and all of his movies are one hour longer than needed. The casting has definitely some strange and odd choices. And whether there is appetite for mythical destruction in the public after massive woke coded fantasy and other flops in the last few years remains to be seen.
Personally I will probably skip it, unless invited by some extremely hot chick. After so much culture warring - I just can't get excited for the big Hollywood productions anymore.
I saw a clip someone uploaded and oh boy. Nolan just went straight for the liberal political discourse. It was Penelope and Odysseus in bed at night with baby Telemachus beside them, and she was trying to persuade him not to go to the war, and he came back with the geo-political strategic reasons why the establishment were pursuing this war and it was unavoidable (Agamemnon was using Helen's abduction as his excuse to break Troy's trading monopoly, he would not give up on that, so Odysseus had no way to say no).
Well doesn't that just scream ancient Greek epic of martial honour and warrior values to you, modern audience citizen? How can you not love and applaud this movie?
And of course it was as dark as the inside of a badger, but that's only because us proles don't appreciate subtle modern cinematography.
I really wish he had gone the Shakespeare adaptation route and set this in 1950s USA or 1890s British Empire or some damn thing. That would be a fresh take and he could then insert his Colonialist Politics For Beginners lectures without them seeming as much out of place.
EDIT: I'm not saying Nolan is wrong about that, in fact it's part of the historical interpretation take on the siege of Troy (and very well-established by now, so he's not doing anything novel for those who have read even a little on this), and of course Odysseus as a canny political operator himself would have been well aware of all that in the background motivation. But it's so jarringly modern to come out with it like that while in the trappings of ancient Greece that it breaks immersion and makes you go 'this is Matt Damon and Anne Hathaway' and not 'this is Odysseus and Penelope'. Odysseus and the other suitors swore the oath, back in the day, to go to the help of her husband. That's what is dragging him into this expedition: he is honour-bound by his oath (ironically, suggested by him as a solution to Helen's father) to join Menelaus and be under the authority of Agamemnon as leader. Helen's abduction by Paris (whether or not she went willingly) is an insult to the honour and reputation of Menelaus personally and to Sparta politically, and since Paris is the son of the Trojan king, Troy has to answer for it. It's all a tangle of obligation and status and upholding the warrior caste standards, as well as manoeuvring for political advantage. Reducing it down to "breaking trade monopoly" is tin-eared.
Odysseus doesn't want to go. How will he get out of it? Is being an oath-breaker better or worse in this case? If Odysseus is prepared to break solemn promises, how can you ever trust him? If he breaks this promise, what about promises to spare enemies or make peace? Is this war justified? Even if it isn't, can he break the oath?
I don't know if Nolan explores all this, or just has three hours of Damon mumbling and grumbling while squinting at the horizon.
Funny thing is that the movie can't commit to being modern. Spoilers, obviously.
Instead of the "modern" view of the Bronze Age collapse (i.e. complicated confluence of material factors like drought, loss of tin supply, etc. - people are still debating) it's a straightforwardly moralist tale (humans break gods' law and suffer) except that the morals are themselves very modern. We hear nothing of Troy suffering for Paris' violation of sacred law.
Instead the entire Bronze Age ends because Odysseus didn't apply "do unto others" to his grand ploy in the middle of a war. The rules-based international order sustained by xenia collapses because it cannot bear the betrayal.
There's a sort of divine hiddenness that's also a bit strange given how the movie preserves other supernatural elements.
This leads to the most ironic coda in this whole thing: Emily Wilson, who became the scapegoat for this movie's deliberately modern dialogue and themes online, criticized it for being too modern
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link