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.
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’s everyone reading? (Sorry guy who usually makes this one)
I’m 1/3rd through a reread of The Player of Games by Iain M Banks.
I’ve been rereading a lot of Banks this year since I’ve finished most of the sci fi author i think I would like. Before this, I went to reread Use of Weapons and quickly realized I had not in fact read it before! I had always put off reading it for some reason but I ended up really liking it
One of my favorite qualities of banks is that everything is so low stakes, but memorable and satisfying all the same. The plot is at best, a neat device. But there are so many memorable and creative vignettes in his books that it makes him one of my favorites
Speaking of The Culture series, I’m saving the Consider Phelbas reread for last. It was my first culture book and quite contrary to public opinion, one of my favorites. Perhaps because the MC is so disgusted with the Culture. Ever since I read that, I can’t help but notice even in the later book the undercurrent of critique of the Culture. It’s puzzling to me because Banks wrote an essay where he swears up and down that he earnestly believes The Culture is the best possible outcome for humanity and his preferred societal structure. Even after reading that, I can’t help but believe he’s still just yanking everyone’s chain.
Also, I find it very odd how many smart people I know don’t reread good books or rewatch good films or tv shows. Anything that is good or enjoyable the first time around is often just as good or better when revisited. Particularly if what you think of as good includes some decently complex theme or subtext that’s impossible to fully appreciate without knowing where the characters or story is going.
Finished reading Bagration 1944: The Great Soviet Offensive by Prit Buttar. I've read through most of his Eastern Front histories now because they feature lots of primary sources. Knew most of the subject matter already but an interesting element that this book brought which many others do not was an expanded emphasis on partisan infighting, especially the conflict between Polish, Jewish, and Soviet (and Soviet-aligned) groups and how the various governments interacted with them. Buttar is also generally much more skeptical about received wisdom and is quick to point out possible inconsistencies/misleading elements in testimony.
Started reading Suttree by Cormac McCarthy. I don't know exactly where this one falls in his authorial timeline but the prose is noticeably more purple in this one than in others I've read of him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link