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.
- 70
- 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 -
As in, the one about "lack of redeeming value", or just the one about "I know it when I see it"?
Essentially, I'm asking whether you're declaring this to be the kiddy pool (I was kinda under the impression it wasn't, given the 18+ tag exists), or just forbidding random horny drops. ('Cause, y'know, people's sexual preferences do get questioned occasionally in CW-relevant contexts.)
In the moderator discussion on this, I leaned toward "I know it when I see it" but probably "lack of redeeming value" is not a bad question to bear in mind, either. Netstack actually got input from several mods on this and, as usual, there was not total agreement on how to handle things, but there was relatively broad accord.
I guess this depends on what you mean by "kiddy pool"--but I as far as I know we did not implement the 18+ tag, it's just part of the codebase we inherited. Rather, the examples you cite are fine, discussions about e.g. the appropriate age of consent fall squarely within the ambit of the foundation. Actually, in moderator discussion @netstack made another point that isn't in the modpost, that there is a something akin to the "use/reference" distinction here, maybe we can call it the "discussion/exhibition" distinction. We don't ban users for referencing racial slurs, but we will certainly ban users for using them, i.e. for calling one another names (though a lot of unnecessary "referencing" would quickly become obnoxious). Likewise it is permissible to discuss adult topics, certainly. Sex and sexuality are big culture war items! But (say) posting your AI-generated erotica seems more like exhibitionism. It's not the sort of engagement the foundation exists to facilitate.
And really, I wouldn't worry too much about it. As far as I can recall, ToaKraka is literally the only (non-spambot) user who has been a problem in this regard. There is one user (many accounts) who runs afoul of the single-issue posting rule on age-of-consent discussion but it's ToaKraka--who seems to for the most part be a good and even valuable poster--who has been testing boundaries in the Friday Fun thread for a while. People should understand that of course a thread on Culture War is going to sometimes contain discussions of sex and sexuality, including sexual violence, because those are extremely common CW issues. But the Friday Fun thread explicitly forbids those.
I was not actively involved in the discussion the last time this came up, and I think there was some confusion because people were arguing about whether e.g. topics of sexual violence belonged in a "fun" thread, even tangentially, and it became a whole de gustibus non est disputandum thing. But this is actually beside the point. What I want to avoid here is either the substance or appearance of banning topics because some people find them (for want of a better word here...) "triggering." We aren't explicitly kicking this out of the Fun Thread because it's creepy or disturbing or of questionable legality in some jurisdictions. We're kicking it out of the Fun Thread because it's CW.
(But also, yeah, even in the CW thread, a random horny drop would get removed. Perhaps surprisingly, so far I don't think it has ever been tried, modulo again the occasional spambot.)
I've posted links before to horny chats as well. I try to keep them inline, clearly labeled, and the charged content behind the click, but if the rule is a blanket ban, it's something I'll need to avoid as well.
While horny prompts are the only or majority of things I've tried to prompt an AI to write (contrast ARK fanfiction), the specific nexus of politically charged topics, known censorship, and the situation where everyone knows the typical media is poor quality but not what qualities it needs to excel in, has made it a useful barometer.
Well, two of those are CW thread, so, meaningfully different in that regard (as well as being closer to discussion than to exhibition).
The Friday Fun one you specifically leave everything behind a link, which is itself accompanied by unambiguous content warnings... this looks more like discussion than exhibition, to me.
"Hard cases make bad law" should probably be kept carefully in mind, here. This is an edge case of limited precedential value, with a user who seems to be gradually escalating along an increasingly problematic axis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, as mentioned, I dropped the 18+ tag on one of those posts because, um, it would be considered fairly irresponsible to recommend VNs containing tentacle rape to little kids (sure, I'll go to the wall on sex mostly just going over kids' heads, but that's still graphic violence). By "the kiddy pool" I meant "all posts have to be appropriate for kids to see" - particularly when using standards of "appropriate" that are not mine but rather those of actual Anglospheric media-rating boards - and as mentioned I was strongly under the impression that theMotte was not meant to be that (for a variety of reasons including the 18+ tag existing, the general subject matter and rules not really being compatible with your normal 13-year-old's posting style, and my stereotypically-Australian frequency of vulgar language meeting with neither a word filter nor yelling).
No, that's definitely not the standard here.
Honestly, the precise legal status of the Motte raises interesting questions, perhaps especially in connection with Australia, since as far as I know we don't have any age-gating, not even nominally. Is this a "social media" website? Fortunately, I am not in a position to be responsible for any of that, as I am just a moderator--and fortunately for us all, Zorba seems to me unusually brave for a website owner/operator. Almost certainly, we continue to exist in part by dint of just not being a very big website. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that we are already banned in some geographic locations, or if not, that we would be banned, if only anyone there were to notice us.
Familiar story; the yandere fandom has had a lot of sites cancelled, neutered or outright cyberattacked when they got noticed, including the one I modded for a few years.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Either way this appears to be a declaration of RIP TheMotte.
Welcome to the Motte, an actively dying community since 2019!
No, not dying. Merely evolving into something new, which inevitably involves changes some people view as a loss. It is impossible to please everyone.
True, but I don't think anything is changing in this instance. We're just clarifying a question of permissible practice on a somewhat novel edge case.
I think you misunderstood both my comments here. The change I was referring to was the cumulative change since 2019, of which this particular clarification is just a minor part. The "RIP TheMotte" was a tongue-in-cheek way of pointing out this "clarification" resolves an ambiguity in a direction that makes the forum less personally appealing. Not because it is a major change, but because it is indicative of the direction the wind is blowing. Which to be clear I'm not complaining about--as I said, you can't please everyone.
IIRC this situation involves a multi month long pattern of content posting involving sexual assault and child abuse...in the fun thread.
I don't think thats an unfair mod clarification. It's not like ick stuff is being banned from the CW thread.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link