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.
- 165
- 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 -
Hahahaha. I can't even be particularly mad, this loops right around into hilarious. When I worry I'm too self-aware for my own good, I can do with a reminder of what its absence looks like.
Aight buddy. I'm sure you've got a proper Big Boy job. I know a handful of Big 4 "consultants". Probably pays the bills well, doesn't it?
I do wonder just how common it would be for an error you've made while under stress to lead to someone dying. Do you have any idea what doctors do? Been to a hospital since you were (presumably) birthed in one?
My man, last time you skimmed this story you got the sex of every crying person in it wrong, then built a thesis about British civilizational decline on top of your own lacking literacy. Now you've skimmed again and built a theory of my employment. I'm starting to see what passes for your workflow: read 30% of the text, hallucinate the blanks, invoice for the full engagement. I wish I could get away with that, I seem to have to work for the money.
In other words: knock it off.
I am sure you have perspective to share. I sample plenty, and I've heard more informed opinions from the floridly psychotic.
It's a first-person anecdote on a forum; of course you are. I presume Deloitte or PWC pays you for such cutting edge insight.
The difference is that my side comes with documents, and yours comes with hot takes about a profession you've never worked in a country you probably don't live in.
With all due respect (guess how much), the last man who guessed at my workplace from his armchair was you, one comment ago, and every checkable claim you made was wrong.
Let me see if bullet points help:
This is a strange way to “agitate with staff.” Apparently I have been so disruptive that nurses, pharmacists, ward administrators, junior doctors and senior doctors keep volunteering to say nice things about me when formally asked, and have said it before, without asking, and my boss's response to my campaign of terror has been to tell his colleagues to make time to assess me.
Perhaps the inevitable reckoning is merely taking the scenic route.
And to spell it out, my male peers, which includes the senior reg, and most of the consultants? They like me too.
The facts, as you understand and present them, are useful, however, they are also incomplete. I have two things for you to consider on the off chance you want to be helped and are just trying to save face here.
Management doesn’t like people that are annoying, demanding, and go around to the other staff badmouthing the bosses. Management also likes and expects to have the final word on things. It’s very annoying when people are explicitly or implicitly telling their boss all the great things they’re doing and ignoring all of the not so great things. It’s transparent and often invites backlash. A stack of good performance reviews are great, but if you’re annoying, it’s not going to get you very far.
You’ve represented yourself and 100% aggrieved and flawless. I haven’t seen any acknowledgment of behavior problems or challenges. You seem to think you’re well above your peer group because “everyone likes me and thinks I’m great. I know this is true because they told me so”. The fact is that unless you have a major problem with someone, you’re pretty much always going to validate a person and say they’re amazing when you are confronted for informal feedback. Particularly when a person is a loose cannon and potentially going to go off the rails at the slightest criticism. For formal feedback, well, I wouldn’t just take someone at their word about what they wrote without verifying it myself. It’s possible they’re being selective in what they tell you.
I find this all so interesting. It’s a great little encapsulation of the modern work environment, institutional decay, and personality issues. Your situation aside, it’s going to be interesting to see how things develop now that hospitals are run by a bunch of women in a sewing circle (in spirit, even if half those women are men). We’re very far removed from the stoic old man doctor with a cigarette or pipe. Maybe things will be fine?
I understand that your day job involves coming into a situation where you had no original stake, or direct involvement, and then assuming an advisory position despite a clearly superficial understanding of the facts of the matter. I ask that you keep it there, I'm not paying you.
On a factual basis: no, I haven't presented myself as perfectly flawless on any day of my life, even I'm convincing women to let me sleep with them. Good grief. I, like a real human being, have made actual errors. And like a responsible trainee doctor, I've disclosed that to my boss. They're not material here, because the one specific issue he raised wasn't my fault.
Have you ever considered the possibility, in theory, that someone might actually be liked and good at their job? Or is that an entirely foreign prospect for you?
Beyond that? I hope your advice finds someone who needs it. If you want the fuller picture, I can ask my boss to sign up on themotte.org. I'm sure he has the time. God knows where I find it.
More options
Context Copy link
I can't speak to the object-level here, but I'll caution for anyone on the state side of seeing-like-a-state that this is also the sort of diagnostic that shows up when the measure is wildly off-target.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link