site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   3297 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 16, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, what are you reading?

I've finished Al-Ghazali's Prophetic Ethics, the rather slim 20th volume of his Revival of the Religious Sciences. Most of it is a recounting of Hadith, and somewhat threadbare, since the previous 9 books had apparently dealt with the issues presented in detail. The best parts are all when Al-Ghazali speaks in his own voice, which happens rarely near the end. I suspect I'll be pouring over this one occasionally neverthless, looking for lessons to be drawn from its structure and focus.

Re-re-re-reading the Sienkiewicz Trilogy. I don't know how he does it, but those books should be the gold standard for epic historical adventure novels.

Also reading Angel Down. And man, this is some cringey tryhard nonsense so far.

Edit: Finished Angel down. And yep, it was cringey tryhard nonsense to the bitter end, at which it also revealed itself to be a vehicle for the usual woke moralizing.

I'm intrigued. Tell me more about this trilogy.

It has also inspired 3 movies.

I'm on vacation, so no keyboard, only the phone. I'll keep it brief, which will fail to do the epic scope of the novels justice.

It's about noble officers in the various mid- and late 17th century wars of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, written by a Pole at a time when there was no independent Poland. It's stylized, and exaggerates both fictional and historical personages to paint a greater-than-life picture of heroic struggle by all sides. Even the nominal villains are always multidimensional, and have comprehensible motivations, even if some flaws in their character drive them to wrongdoing. The heroes are perfectly virtuous in most ways, but also have flaws enough. And notably, they are virtuous in the ways expected of 17th century Polish aristocrats fighting existential wars in the remote borderlands of the Ukraine, i.e., they are arrogant, quarrelsome, cruel, duplicitous, violent and without a shred of conscience so long as their opponents give them the slightest cause. And so are the villains, of course - the lines between the two are very blurry, and the narration is explicit about this, even when it takes sides.

And the books take their time. Narrative arcs breathe, they recur, variations are explored and used to highlight character development or failure to develop, characters are given scene upon scene to exhibit themselves, and there seems to be no need to cater to short attention spans, epic events are given suitable build-up and space to play out. Travelling takes time, and we get plenty of scenes of military life in the wilderness.

I could write more, but I am scared of fatfingering my phone and accidentally obliterating this comment. Feel free to repeat the question next week.

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