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.
- 112
- 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 -
You're welcome. How do you decide when it's acceptable for your personal style to deviate from normal formatting conventions? I remember deciding at a fairly young age that many punctuation rules around quotation marks were indefensible, but especially the rule about placing the period inside closing quote.
To be fair, the quotation-mark rigmarole is slightly more complicated than it seems at first glance. Unraveling it may be more trouble than it's worth, when the customary format is so ingrained into depictions of speech in literature.
"The Temple is ancient, Kai Lian," the Grandmaster lectured. "Things remain much as they were during the Wei Dynasty."
"The Temple is ancient, Kai Lian", the Grandmaster lectured. "Things remain much as they were during the Wei Dynasty."
The Temple is ancient, Kai Lian, the Grandmaster lectured. Things remain much as they were during the Wei Dynasty.
"The Temple is ancient, Kai Lian [the Grandmaster lectured]. Things remain much as they were during the Wei Dynasty."
Of these options, I am inclined to think that the fourth one is the least bad, but I still hesitate to actually implement it.
Anyway, regarding non-speech-related quotation marks: I don't recall whether I started paying attention to quotation-mark rigmarole before or after seeing a few online comments about "programmer quotation". But, once I did start paying attention to the issue, it was obvious to me that the standard format was execrably ambiguous. (It wasn't until years after coming to this conclusion that I started noticing the insane number of square brackets that judges are forced to use because they insist on keeping the standard format.)
It's all about avoiding ambiguity and confusion.
While I have noticed the difference between "professionally edited" and "professionally-edited", I haven't paid much attention to it. I think I've seen situations where the adverb is sandwiched between two adjectives, or between a verb and an adjective, and not preceded by a comma, so omitting the hyphen would lead to ambiguity regarding which word the adverb is intended to modify, but I cannot recall a specific example off the top of my head.
I occasionally make explicit differentiation between "you (singular)" and "you (plural)", in situations where the number is not totally obvious.
I have a habit of saying "year 2026" instead of "2026". Is it really necessary? Probably not.
While I was working as a civil engineer, people would get annoyed at me for differentiating between "I-295", "US 130", "NJ 42", and "CR 514" even though my employer's official style guide prescribed "Route 295", "Route 130", "Route 42", and "Route 514". To be fair to them, it is at least arguable that the differentiation is unnecessary in my state, because there are no duplicated highway numbers there (though I'm pretty sure there is at least one state in the US that does have such overlapping highway numbers). But IMO it is useful to know what kind of road you're talking about without having to look it up.
Et cetera.
I am now curious why you favor the fourth form over the second.
Think about what they look like when you delete the narration and consider only what's inside the quotation marks. In option 2, the Grandmaster's speech is missing a period, while in option 4 the period is retained.
Ah, I see the problem. Thanks.
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