site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   2774 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for July 28, 2023

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just adding your weekly reminder that the Motte remains the brightest and best hope for open discourse on the internet. Be proud and relieved you are a Mottizen - we have made it to the shining City on the Hill, the one place online where truth and free speech are protected.

I'm doing all this grandstanding because I'm flabbergasted that right now Tildes, one of the other 'reddit-alternatives' that claims to stand for open and intellectual discourse, is actively and unapologetically censoring anything to do with the UAP hearings.

Many of the users there are rightly pointing out that it's insane that the moderators would block discussion about a literal Congressional hearing... but this is the doublethink that we Mottizens are up against:

Hypothesizing that aliens might well exist based on the vastness of our universe is not a harmful thing.

Believing in conspiracy theories based on zero credible evidence is incredibly harmful. This hearing centers around a man with absolutely zero evidence claiming that there is an arm (or arms) of the government operating above congressional and presidential oversight. The claim is that we are dealing with a massive, top-level coverup. Does that sound familiar to anyone else? Anyone want to quess which Qrowd is qoing to eat this shit up?

Giving these conspiracy theories a platform on a forum where discussion is purported to be high quality and based on intellectual curiosity is harmful. Have you ever noticed how people who believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in multiple conspiracy theories? Worse, they are even likely to believe all conspiracy theories, even those which are completely contradictory to each other.. This is called conspiracist ideation, or conspiracy theory monism.

Anyone who hasn't been under a rock for the last 8-ish years knows how harmful this can be. They helped elect a president who built our current supreme court. Check out /r/qanoncasualties if you forgot how it harms us on a more individual level. You could also go back further than Q anon and read accounts of witch trials, rapes, genocides, wars, and all manner of horrible things caused by false beliefs in conspiracy. Not to mention the countless deaths caused by vaccine avoidance - something that started long ago, but with which we are still dealing today.

Politicians having a hearing about this conspiracy theory is news, unfortunately. However, the conspiracy theory itself is not the news. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert openly discussed Replacement Theory, should we give that its own thread and discuss its merits?

The only posts we should have regarding this topic, in my semi-humble opinion, are well-written articles absolutely tearing our politicians apart for even humoring this hearing. Perhaps a good debunking article explaining that this whole testimony is based on hearsay and rumor, and explaining that someone's position in government doesn't mean they're immune to conspiratorial thinking.

Again, luckily there is some actual pushback on the site itself. But please, my fellow Mottizens, let this open display of intolerance remind you to keep your guard strong. Keep your eyes focused directly on the goal, and remember that if we let ourselves be distracted by our petty differences, the Motte may well become the same censored cesspool as the rest of the internet.

Be strong my brothers and sisters, and never forget the incredible and unique nature of this Forum that we have built. Don't take the Motte for granted, and be swift and sure when defending it.

Veritas omnia vincet.

Believing in conspiracy theories based on zero credible evidence is incredibly harmful.

Somehow I doubt they'd be saying the same thing about Russiagate, a conspiracy theory based on zero credible evidence. But putting that to one side, this makes discussion pointless:

"My sources are credible, your sources are not credible. Voila, someone debunk this clown. No, the clown doesn't get to talk back."

Somehow I doubt they'd be saying the same thing about Russiagate, a conspiracy theory based on zero credible evidence. But putting that to one side, this makes discussion pointless:

Even the Durham report admits that there was credible evidence for Russiagate (namely that Donald Trump asked* Russia to hack and leak Hilary Clinton's e-mails, that Russia did in fact hack and leak John Podesta's e-mails, and that there was circumstantial evidence that the Trump campaign worked with the GRU and Wikileaks to maximise the political impact of the leaks). The core claim of the Durham report is that there was insufficient evidence that Donald Trump committed a crime** to justify the amount of resources devoted to the investigation.

* I am aware that Trump's supporters on this site say he was obviously joking. The GRU didn't take it as a joke, so I don't.

** Signal-boosting true-but-illegaly-obtained information is of course 1st-amendment protected. This just means that it isn't a crime, not that we can't take it into account when assessing the patriotism, integrity, professionalism, or lack of all of the above, of Donald Trump.

core claim of the Durham report

There was a lot of other stuff in the Durham report! https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-durham-report-released-special-counsel-fbi-trump-russia-investigation/

The special counsel's examination also revealed senior FBI personnel "displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities."

"Neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation," the special counsel found.

Strzok, Durham wrote, "at a minimum had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump," and the investigation was opened "without ever having spoken to the person who provided the information" claiming there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

"The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign," the report states.

Come on, Russiagate is completely and totally dead. That they then put a 'oh we don't find the FBI to have a political bias' on at the end doesn't revive Russiagate, it's just face-saving.

there was circumstantial evidence that the Trump campaign worked with the GRU and Wikileaks to maximise the political impact of the leaks)

Not really.

The core claim of the Durham report is that there was insufficient evidence that Donald Trump committed a crime

Or really any of the people that they started investigating. It's very good that they eventually found some actually bad stuff like tax/bank fraud by people, but that had nothing to do with what they set out to do and what they allowed the public to believe about Trump for years on end. One would hope that they'd do a better job of finding tax/bank fraud without going on a massive fishing expedition on basically zero predication for partisan political purposes.

Aren't you happy we have this place? :)

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