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 -
While I was not necessarily implying that you were literally making people fill forms, sending questions back and forth is loosely similar, considering that that is not how people usually communicate.
Consider how people go to a therapist for talk therapy, not 'answering questions' therapy, which could potentially be a more effective way of systematically diagnosing and treating mental illness.
The ideal conversation for me is that they tell me something sincere, that matters to them, that strikes my interest and for which I can find an interesting aspect to ask about. Then they can fill in some details, and perhaps I have some kind of related experience I can bring up that could be of interest to them. If they don't respond in a way that indicate that they have interest in what I'm bringing up, then we can stay silent, or go back to the previous topic with a different angle, or try something else.
Reading some of your questions, I don't really know where the conversation possibly could go from there.
Are we trying to find out if I have some kind of touch sensitivity? Unless you're a genetics researcher looking for people with a specific phenotypic trait to sample, I don't get what's the point of this question.
Why did you dislike the people you attempted friendship with?
You clearly have a social side considering your communications here, but you have standards I don't understand and you're not satisfied with what you're getting.
That particular question actually was asked by the other party (Pseudo-Friend Six), not by me. (I'm referring back to the original spreadsheet in saying this, as I did not copy from the spreadsheet to the Pastebin text file the identity of who asked each question. Remember that approximately half of the questions in that text file were asked by each party.)
It's been more than a decade since all my pseudo-friendships were terminated, so it's hard to remember specifics. But in general: In the long term, there always end up being far more reasons to dislike (or at least distrust) a person than to like him.
Example reasons to dislike a person:
Is religious
Uses "they" as a singular pronoun for a person of unknown gender
Uses line breaks rather than paragraphs for no good reason, on a platform that differentiates between them (e. g., Markdown or raw HTML, not email or BBcode)
Places a hyphen between a number and its associated noun for no good reason (e. g., "after 10-years of imprisonment" rather than "after 10 years of imprisonment"; note that "a 10-year term of imprisonment" is fine)
Has authoritarian political views
And of course anybody who disagrees with you at all, even on something as minor as favorite food or preferred HVAC temperature, must be distrusted at least a little.
I find it amusing that you'd have such criteria when 2 or 3 of your other criteria sound like something a grammar-nazi would care about. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I suppose you can find some grammar-appreciative people to be friends with, perhaps in the editing or copy proofing world?
I used to be more mindful of language rules myself.
Now there are language mistakes that I like. How my daughter says 'bloopy' instead of 'bluey' and calls her brother by the second half of his name. How endearing! Perhaps if you care to not be so hung up on what most people consider trivial language mistakes, taking up a foreign language would help?
When you are the one desperately trying to express yourself in a foreign language, begging native speakers not to immediately switch to English or ignore you, perhaps you will feel more inclined to be magnanimous toward others' mistakes?
What's the problem with that? We all hold some beliefs we can't justify from the ground up. I've never seen Antarctica, I have to believe that it exists if anybody talks about it.
Distrusted in what sense?
Do I trust that they will keep the AC at the exact 'right' temperature when I'm not around and they have control of the thermostat? Perhaps not, but why 'dislike' them for that?
I think it's important to respect that other people's preferences might be as arbitrary/determined as mine, and I shouldn't dislike them for that. Unless we're talking about extreme levels of causing discomfort to others.
People who make things worse for everybody else:
Those who deny the validity of scientific investigation (including supply and demand)
Those who don't bother to avoid ambiguity (i. e., foisting onto others the burden of reconstructing their intended meaning) in communication
For Alfred to assume that his random classmate/coworker/whatever Beatrice agrees with him on everything is charitable, but naive. Inevitably, if Alfred interacts with Beatrice, he will learn that she disagrees with him on minor topics—perhaps a few, perhaps a zillion.
If Beatrice disagrees with Alfred on a zillion minor topics, those minor disagreements are not in themselves sufficient cause for Alfred to dislike Beatrice. However, those minor disagreements do indicate an underlying difference between Alfred and Beatrice, and should lead Alfred to assume that Beatrice probably disagrees with Alfred on a zillion major topics as well—i. e., to distrust Beatrice. Even if those major topics are not known to Alfred, it is well-advised for him to assume that, if he bothers to learn more about Beatrice, then he eventually will come to learn her opinions on those major topics, and to dislike her. Familiarity breeds contempt.
Well there's all kind of scientific investigation. Is scientific investigation the highest course of action no matter what? Should we be scientifically investigating something right now instead of having a conversation?
There's a trade-off between avoiding ambiguity and time. Users of this website are obsessed with avoiding ambiguity but it makes every discussion longer to read / longer to respond to.
The implication being that if you get to know somebody you will inevitably end up disliking them. While I don't think that is necessarily true, if you do believe that to be true, why do you want to speedrun that inevitability by throwing lists of questions at them?
You should enjoy not knowing them that well for as long as you can.
Also if you stopped constantly inquiring about various topics you would be less likely to form an opinion that would lead you to dislike somebody over it. ie touch grass
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link