site banner
PaperclipPerfector  16d ago (text post)   25442 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The best way to win as a black man against white cops:

Don't make it about race.

Also, being in the legal and moral right certainly helps.

This is the story of Afroman, a rapper most known for the hit single "Because I Got High". Then his house was raided by the sheriff's office of Adams County, Ohio, based off of... almost nothing, as far as I can tell.

They damaged his door, gate, and security cameras. They were looking for narcotics smuggling and kidnapping victims, but instead found a few blunts and unused pipes, and filed no charges. The repairs cost $20k, not a single cent of which was paid by the officers, who also kept $400 of his cash.

So Afroman did what anyone would do if the cops came and unjustifiably kicked down his door and paid nothing for it: He made songs making fun of the raid, complete with his own security camera footage of the cops. This led to the production of such classics like "Will You Help Me Repair My Door", "Why You Disconnecting My Video Camera", and "Lemon Pound Cake" (about the officer who was eyeing a rather delectable slice of lemon pound cake sitting on his countertop). And in a sane world, this would have been the end of it, and the raid and associated songs would have faded into obscurity.

So of course, the Adams County Sheriff's Department decided to do the dumbest thing possible: Sue Afroman.

Somehow, the case went to trial, with the deputies unironically arguing -- with a straight face -- that Afroman's videos seriously defamed their character and reputation, enough to cause $4 million in damages. This led to a hilarious examination where a female officer cries on the stand as "Licc'em Low Lisa" plays. Afroman played his defense straight, pointing out that the entire situation was caused by the cops fucking up and raiding his house for basically no reason, and that he has a First Amendment right to criticize and make fun of the police. Also, he was wearing a badass suit covered entirely in the American flag.

The jury sided with Afroman.

A couple culture war takeaways here. First, I think the biggest factor in his success was not playing the race card at all, even though he easily could have. Instead, he stood behind the freedoms that every American has, and demonstrated that this could have happened to anyone, black or white. Every American has the right to not have their privacy invaded or property damaged, and when that right is violated, they have the right to speak freely and mock those who violated their rights. The race card would have only served as a distraction at best and polarized the jury at worst.

Second, this verdict could have only happened in America, where there is a strong legal tradition of freedom of speech. If it had taken place in a European country like Germany, where calling the government "parasites" gets your house raided, he would have lost. Having a jury trial was also very important in this case, because the judge was almost blatantly biased in favor of the plaintiffs. If this case had taken place in a country like the United Kingdom, which is seriously considering scrapping most jury trials, he also would have lost. Turns out, jury trials are there to protect the people from corrupt judges.

The point is that though Americans may be stereotyped as being irrationally fearful of a tyrannical government, this fear is entirely justified, and this case is a good example of it. Or at least a good example of how small town cops abuse their power, which seems to happen an awful lot in small towns across America.

Second, this verdict could have only happened in America, where there is a strong legal tradition of freedom of speech. If it had taken place in a European country like Germany, where calling the government "parasites" gets your house raided, he would have lost.

What do you actually know about countries based around roman law legal system? I have attorneys in my family and they routinely sue government for this or that overreach or damages or bad tax ruling etc.

Having a jury trial was also very important in this case, because the judge was almost blatantly biased in favor of the plaintiffs.

It can also be very important the other way such as with O.J. Simpson and many other cases.

Turns out, jury trials are there to protect the people from corrupt judges.

Again, judges have quite different powers also in other countries. Plus there is plenty that corrupt judge can do - for instance he could have used JNOV and to overturn jury. Which can in fact be then used as a defense from corrupt or biased jury - e.g. such as when jury full of some tribe makes mockery of justice.

The point is that though Americans may be stereotyped as being irrationally fearful of a tyrannical government, this fear is entirely justified, and this case is a good example of it and this case is a good example of it. Or at least a good example of how small town cops abuse their power, which seems to happen an awful lot in small towns across America.

Yeah, it seems so on paper. But despite that, staggering 99.6% of federal criminal cases end up in conviction, mostly because 97% of people rather plead guilty. In true Kafkaesque manner, the process is the punishment. Once people see what their tyrannical government prepared for them, they rather plead guilty even if innocent. So much freedom.

What do you actually know about countries based around roman law legal system? I have attorneys in my family and they routinely sue government for this or that overreach or damages or bad tax ruling etc.

I know that in most of them, you would easily lose any case that anyone (and especially the government) brings against you for your speech. I never claimed that you couldn't sue the government in other countries. I just said that in most of them, you wouldn't be able to win if they sued you (or charged you) for speech.

It can also be very important the other way such as with O.J. Simpson and many other cases.

The prosecution fucked up in the O.J. Simpson case. I wouldn't expect any jury to return a guilty verdict with how shoddy the police work was.

Again, judges have quite different powers also in other countries.

How many judges have less powers in other countries?

Plus there is plenty that corrupt judge can do - for instance he could have used JNOV and to overturn jury. Which can in fact be then used as a defense from corrupt or biased jury - e.g. such as when jury full of some tribe makes mockery of justice.

JNOV is a bit limited; in a criminal trial it can only be used to overturn a guilty verdict, and even then the prosecution can appeal it. Now this was a civil case, so JNOV can be used in favor of both parties, but it's such an extraordinarily rare step that it would be scrutinized and almost certainly appealed. I also find it less likely for a jury to be corrupt or biased than a judge.

But despite that, staggering 99.6% of federal criminal cases end up in conviction, mostly because 97% of people rather plead guilty. In true Kafkaesque manner, the process is the punishment. Once people see what their tyrannical government prepared for them, they rather plead guilty even if innocent. So much freedom.

Or it's because most of those people have a really bad case and the plea deal is genuinely better than going to trial? Surely you don't think that even a significant portion of people charged with federal cases are innocent. I'm not saying innocent people can't be charged or plead guilty, or that it isn't a problem worth worrying about, but you seem to be exaggerating the scale to which it happens.

I know that in most of them, you would easily lose any case that anyone (and especially the government) brings against you for your speech. I never claimed that you couldn't sue the government in other countries. I just said that in most of them, you wouldn't be able to win if they sued you (or charged you) for speech.

This may be the case, however it is not specific to common vs roman law. You have common law countries like UK or Australia which are significantly easier to misuse. For instance in case of defamation the US has apparently strict standard of proof of malice where burden of proof is on plaintiff. In Australia the burden of proof is on defendant who must prove that what he said was true and they are much more tyrannical when it comes to government officials successfully suing private citizens despite having common law and jury system.

JNOV is a bit limited; in a criminal trial it can only be used to overturn a guilty verdict, and even then the prosecution can appeal it.

You maybe know, that appeal is an institution also in EU, with extra layer of EU courts, especially European Court of Human Rights. The problem of course is if the whole system is corrupt especially in some highly politicized context. So yeah, the appeals are good way to disrupt local incest where police, prosecutor, judge and even attorneys are in kahoots in some scheme of smalltown mafia. However sometimes this mafia system is too powerful and they basically get protection. For some examples in US just look at "learing center" fraud in Minnesota or well known system of let's say Eastern District of Texas, which is hotbed of what is basically patent troll homebase where they freely extort rest of the world probably in exchange to some kickbacks. Jury does not care if they decide on some shit related to distant corporations, they know that if they rule in favor of patent troll they will get money for school or something.

Or it's because most of those people have a really bad case and the plea deal is genuinely better than going to trial?

Okay, so US federal government probably employs some CIA precrime unit akin to Minority Report if only one out of 200 prosecuted people is actually innocent. Amazing investigative competence. And now some other bedtime story.

My point is that both systems have pros and cons and they are much more complex. There is not single "EU law" as there is not single common law - see the difference between US or Australia. As people say, shit is complicated.

This may be the case, however it is not specific to common vs roman law. You have common law countries like UK or Australia which are significantly easier to misuse. For instance in case of defamation the US has apparently strict standard of proof of malice where burden of proof is on plaintiff. In Australia the burden of proof is on defendant who must prove that what he said was true and they are much more tyrannical when it comes to government officials successfully suing private citizens despite having common law and jury system.

My point is that both systems have pros and cons and they are much more complex. There is not single "EU law" as there is not single common law - see the difference between US or Australia. As people say, shit is complicated.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I am comparing. I am not comparing common law and Roman law. I am comparing America to the rest of the world. Freedom of speech is uniquely an American right that citizens in other countries don't really have.

I'm not even saying America is better in every single way. I'm just saying that America is better when it comes to being able to criticize whatever, whoever, and whenever you want, especially when that criticism is directed towards the government, and especially when the government has unambiguously wronged you. I'm saying free speech is one thing that America (and only America) got right, and this case is a good example of why.

Okay, so US federal government probably employs some CIA precrime unit akin to Minority Report if only one out of 200 prosecuted people is actually innocent. Amazing investigative competence. And now some other bedtime story.

Do you have any actual reasons to doubt the statistics, or is this just vague non-specific irrefutable hand-wavey skepticism?

You seem to be misunderstanding what I am comparing. I am not comparing common law and Roman law. I am comparing America to the rest of the world.

You were arguing for "jury trials", not that USA is best, but fair enough.

I'm just saying that America is better when it comes to being able to criticize whatever, whoever, and whenever you want,

I'm just saying that America is better when it comes to being able to criticize whatever, whoever, and whenever you want, especially when that criticism is directed towards the government, and especially when the government has unambiguously wronged you.

I think this may be the case, it seems that US system as with many systems with jury are uniquely tribal. Jury can be played emotionally and it of course favors citizen vs government as well as poor guy vs rich guy etc. I am not sure if this is justice, but whatever. However I would not be that sure when it comes to free speech. USA also has one thing going against it, which is very workaholic culture. I am EU guy and I worked with and for US corporations and there seems to be unique blending of corporate and private persona, which is not at all usual in Europe.

I participated on harassment training due to working with US colleagues, and the level of outright threats and requirements on the workforce down to details of what can constitute as harassment was shocking not only to me, but also to my colleagues - including our very own HR. BTW many of those things required could be outright illegal in my jurisdiction, like for instance complete ban on any jokes related to protected characteristics - this would be against Freedom of Speech in Germany. The most shocking thing for me was that manager is obliged to report all potentially illegal things happening - the US law turns every manager into little commie spy telling to HR what kind of jokes about age or gender were told - even between two friends in breakroom, otherwise he may be held liable if they "fail to act". In true US fashion many of the most shocking breaches of rights and freedoms were outsourced to private sector. You have a right to tell a joke, but be prepared to get sued and fired.

I will concede that freedoms in the private sector are lacking, especially due to the "it's a private company, they can do whatever they want" argument. Youtube deplatforms a creator for publishing wrongthink? They're a private platform, they can do whatever they want. Twitter does the same? They're a private platform. Patreon drops them? Private platform. However in this regard, the First Amendment (and in particular Section 230) is vital to the platforms that do choose to host free speech, such as the Kiwi Farms.

If it had taken place in a European country like Germany … he would have lost.

And as a German I say rightfully so.

We have something called Persönlichkeitsrechte, or literally “right of personality”, which encompass the right to personal honor, the right to one's name, or the right to one's own image. There doesn’t seem to be an English wiki article about the concept, only a German and French one, so I link the translation:

https://de-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Pers%C3%B6nlichkeitsrecht_(Deutschland)?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

https://de-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The right to one's own image , or the right of publicity, is a specific aspect of the general right of personality . It states that every person has the fundamental right to decide whether and in what context images of them are published. In the Anglo-American legal system, the right to one's own image is far more liberally defined than in German law.

Afroman should have pixelated the cops faces. The state invaded his home, not individual agents. If a cop would have been ill or on vacation or whatever they would have been replaced by a different officer. Also while I sympathize with Afroman as a victim of the almighty Leviathan there is also a power imbalance between him as a rich celebrity who can direct millions of YouTube views vs an individual police officers.

I suppose the closest English-language equivalent would be the "right to be forgotten" or the broader category of defamation of character.

And as a German I say rightfully so.

Obviously there are pluses and minuses, but I think that on balance I prefer the American approach of having very broad protections for speech. There are a lot of people out there who would LOVE to be able to sue or prosecute me simply for stating true facts about racial differences; sex differences; whether or not the "it's ma'am" guy is a dude; and so on. The American tradition of free speech puts a huge obstacle in their way.

I can't believe that the Germans are still rolling out the "he was just following orders" defense.

Following orders and being a good little cog in the machine are foundational elements of civilization. It's an entirely valid defense for the common soldier or policeman.

The nuremburg trials proved that might makes right, not that there's some set of ethical laws that somehow supersede orders in disciplined, hierarchical organizations within authoritarian states.

If some people are to be believed, apparently nobody is ever supposed to follow any order by anyone ever, even if they have no reason to believe the order is unlawful or even immoral.

Multiple non-German commenters in this thread are replying to me with "just following orders" arguments, including in response to me criticizing acts of murder. It apparently is a position with significant support.

Culture runs deep.

The state invaded his home, not individual agents.

I get your point and entirely reject it.

The US government has at times murdered Americans. Including in the past few decades. By which of course I place personal blame and responsibility on the individuals who pulled the triggers, not on the amorphous and impersonal state.

"The department did [bad thing]." Makes it sound like an out of control building is victimizing Americans. Remember these are individuals with just as much moral agency as you and I. Don't let them hide behind a mask of collective guilt. As though department policy is an evil spirit haunting the land.

I get your point and entirely reject it.

Thats kinda silly. The people executing the search warrant dont know what the PC was. Thats on the detective and the judge.

The search warrant forced them to disconnect his cameras and literally steal the cash out of his wallet? If they merely searched his place, determined he doesn't have a slave dungeon in his non-existent basement and then left than would be one thing. But no, they went further and disconnected his cameras and stole his cash. I now have no sympathy for them and advocated cruel public shaming.

I get this isn't my nicest view, but civil asset forfeiture is so vile. The incentives so perverse. I say good riddance and hope for more robbers wearing law enforcement uniforms to weep on camera from the targeted shaming.

This wasn't a civil asset forfeiture thing. It was a poorly issued criminal search warrant thing. Every jurisdiction has their own regulations, but disabling cameras might be standard. Seizing all cash in drug/prostitution operations certainly is standard for most jurisdictions.

The officers carrying out the search warrant weren't like NAZIs "just carrying out orders" they were literally executing a search warrant, not only approved by their superiors, but signed by a judge, and in a way that was indistinguishable from the dozens or hundreds of search warrants they had conducted in the past that looked (to them) the exact same. The petty cash tallying problem is a problem. But also they are not the smartest folks.

The real problem is this alleged source and the detective (and his Sergeant/Lieutenant) that believed it. They are the ones that created the situation and then lied to or misrepresented the facts to the judge. And not to let the judge who signed the warrant off the hook. Obviously, they are supposed to swear detectives to their search warrants. If you see something like this, its your judicial duty to bring down your weight on the department and detective. Perhaps through a contempt action, or simply refusing to sign all future warrants.

But they literally stole his money. It was also a civil asset forfeiture thing.

I'd... argue otherwise.

It's especially bad here, where the alleged source was almost certainly a malicious or self-serving motivation behind the lurid claims, but a probable cause affidavit is just that: it's not a claim something must be wrong, but that someone could be wrong. Like a grand jury indictment, the standards for a search warrant are hilariously low, and the people signing it off and executing it have very close to cart blanche. Not everyone being searched will have evidence of a crime, and not everyone being investigated will be guilty, necessarily.

Which makes it a problem when these things are world-upending, without any valid need. There may well be a scenario that requires a six-person team with assault rifles. As with countless other examples such as Malinowski and going all the way back to Ken Ballew, it's very hard to understand what is benefit derived from those tactics here, which look to be optimizing for shock-and-awe at the cost of not just inconvenience to the suspect, but danger to the community and even alleged victims.

That's a criticism that sometimes is delivered with perfect hindsight or expecting clairvoyant police and judges, but I think it applies here even when considering the least convenient world. In an alternate universe where Foreman had been guilty and had dangerous control over kidnapped women, and had been at the residence at the time of the raid, this raid could have easily resulted in the kidnapped women turned into hostages or 'made incapable of testimony' at the first kick at the door.

This is a consideration police do take, before serving even far more strongly evidenced search or arrest warrants.

It's just really easy for them to not, when they're morons. My personal favorite example is the FBI leaking to press the location and time of the search of a suspected mad bomber, presumably not for the purpose of maximizing casualties if he went Molotov, but there's a long and storied set of examples. Some of that's bad-but-at-least-foreseeable motivations -- arrest warrants in particular tend to get served at home despite it being well-known to be dangerous as shit, because SCOTUS hasn't slapped down searches-while-executing-arrest nearly aggressively enough. A lot of it's just how things have always been done.

That's still not reason, alone, to keep doing it that way.

This is where I'm at. Civil libertarian types like to screech about searches gone wrong but the reality is that a whole lot of searches, conducted in exactly the same way, go just fine, and you just don't hear about them because they went just fine.

I think this is misunderstanding the problem. Imagine if someone came along and said that those civil engineer types like to screech about bridges that fall down but the reality is that a whole lot of bridge, with cut corners in the same ways, are standing just fine, you just don't hear about them because they are still standing.

Using a disastrous result to highlight bad incentives, policies, and procedures is the expected part of examining something. If we only ever look at the medians and averages, we are basically ignoring the downsides as they are, by nature, almost entirely going to happen on the fringes in freak circumstances.

Even ignoring that, do we know that all those median searches go just fine? Is there not a loud and vocal movement against the justice system's current methods under the umbrella of "the process is the punishment"? Do people enjoy interacting with the justice system as witness, suspect, or even jurist or is it usually avoided at all costs, as recommended by the very profession that interacts with it the most?

Those individuals were carrying out the will of the elected officials that supervise those departments. As well they generally should (except when those officials ask things that are beyond the pale) we can't have a democracy and also give the individuals that are staffing that agency at the time veto power over everyone else.

I'm not criticizing them for executing the warrant. I am criticizing them for disconnecting his cameras and stealing the cash out of his wallet. That is a moral failure on their part. It is also technically legal so the only recourse against their terrible behavior is to name and shame.

And also things like Lon Horiuchi shooting a dark siloute he saw in his rifle scope and oops, that's a woman holding her baby. I'm not against him or the FBI having a sniper team or obeying orders to get ready to shoot. I am bitterly criticizing them for obeying the illegal order to shoot any adult on sight. He pulled the trigger and shot an unarmed woman. He indeed had a veto against obeying that illegal order. His obedience was a personal moral failing and he deserves shame to be heaped onto him.

This is a "just following orders" debate and I'm staking out the position that following orders to steal and murder is not acceptable. I hope our democracy can survive FBI sniper teams not murdering unarmed people and local cops not literally stealing the cash out of people's wallets.

He indeed had a veto against obeying that illegal order. His obedience was a personal moral failing and he deserves shame to be heaped onto him.

I suspect you are not really willing to bite this bullet.

If you are, then I guess I commend you, but I'm not particularly willing to concede to some future Dem DHS that they can decline to enforce immigration law (and in doing so veto Congress' law) because they believe it's illegal and/or immoral. In a world where large parts of the country deeply disagrees with what is legal & moral, an individual veto is like throwing policy into the wind.

I'd also note that "name and shame" is the weakest possible form of accountability. The strongest is ensuring accountability through the ballot box.

Where you lose me is "these police officers did something wrong, therefore it is justified to make a 15 minute video where you hire a stripper to portray one of them engaging in a bunch of sex acts." It doesn't follow. The officer can have done something wrong without deserving to be defamed.

Of course the correct recourse would be to slap them with a hefty fine and force them to pay back the stolen money, but since the act itself doesn't seem to have been illegal, just immoral, you're limited to either defamation or some level of personal violence. I think a better outcome for all involved is afroman making fun of them on tape, although he would of course have been completely morally justified in breaking into their homes, vandalising their property and stealing back his cash.

There is no legal recourse against them, therefore complaints about recourses actually possible against them amount to wanting them to be immune to all consequences.

There is a political process by which a legislative branch can pass institutional safeguards.

Look at the city of Oakland, they've got so many that they've all but hobbled their police department with them. By choice.

Institutional safeguards only work when the implementing institution wishes to obey them.

More comments

Police officers can and do get charged and convicted of crimes committed on duty, and police departments can and do get sued and pay out for civil rights violations committed by officers. It is outright false that there is "no legal recourse against them." Any issues that you have with whether a specific act by a police officer is a crime or civil rights violation should be taken to your legislature.

The problem with justifying extrajudicial vengeance against police officers as the means of tackling this issue is that if the behavior by the officers is legal, then only people with the celebrity status to streisand-effect the incident actually have the power to do anything about it. You haven't actually changed the legal situation, all you're doing is socially destroying the few random police officers who happen to do a search warrant on a celebrity with the social power to destroy them. The best possible result of this is that celebrities become effectively exempt from search warrants, but nobody else.

who happen to do a search warrant

If they had merely verified the lack of slave dungeon full of kidnapping victims they would have been fine. But no, they had to steal his money and now are getting smeared as fatsos, cucks and lesbians. Which in any other context I would be against. And I agree it is unfair in the sense that our complaints against them have nothing to do with their wives being unfaithful or licc[ing]'em low.

But no fair legal methods of retaliation exist and they deserve a good shaming. So I'll accept this little crumb of payback and hope somehow we get more in the future. Because I sure know my legislative representatives aren't going to help.

Police officers can and do get charged and convicted of crimes committed on duty, and police departments can and do get sued and pay out for civil rights violations committed by officers.

And sometimes when you flip a coin 100 times, it lands on edge every time.

Any issues that you have with whether a specific act by a police officer is a crime or civil rights violation should be taken to your legislature.

Thank you, Marie Antoinette.

But what they did was beyond the pale. A culture of valuing independent judgment may have prevented such an egregious violation of civil liberties.

I think my standard for beyond the pale is something like "beat the living jesus out of the guy that wasn't resisting", not break a gate and steal a trifling amount of money.

And that attitude among the populace, the police, and the courts is exactly why these sorts of violations keep happening. "Hey, it's just a tiny little home invasion, they didn't even steal that much. What do you expect us to do, hold cops accountable for their actions" is an unacceptable response to police misconduct of this magnitude, in my opinion.

I was the one in favor of accountability through the electoral process. That's how people in a democratic society are meant to hold the government accountable. And that's the thing that protects the largest number of people in the future.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d be more sympathetic to the cops in this case if they hadn’t disabled his security cameras, called him a “sex addict” on record, and violated departmental procedures to (charitably) miscount or (uncharitably) steal $400 from him. All that took place long before he made those videos, and they were all choices that a different set of officers might not have made. Note that Afroman only went after the officers who were involved in those actions, not all of the officers who were involved in the raid.

because the judge was almost blatantly biased in favor of the plaintiffs

Was he blatantly biased? I would expect the judge to prohibit Afroman from releasing music videos about the plaintiffs while the case was ongoing but he declined to?

He was verging on the border of giving free legal counsel to the plaintiffs and didn't even thank the jury when they reached a verdict that he clearly was not expecting or wanting.

...biggest factor in his success was not playing the race card at all

He may have centered the case around corruption and individual liberty, but in the instagram post he said (bolding mine):

here she is ... ADAMS KKKCOUNTY SHERRIF ...

I take that as seriously as I take his song about "Licc'em Low Lisa". That is to say, it reads like a joke to me. When I was young, I used to think inserting three K's randomly into words was the height of comedy. That doesn't mean I was seriously pushing a race-based narrative.

This led to a hilarious examination where a female officer cries on the stand as "Licc'em Low Lisa" plays.

Why are the court exhibits uncropped screencaptures from YouTube? Did the cops think that having Penguinz0 thumbnails about the case in the sidebar would help them?

I'm surprised not to see anyone mention the most memorable episode from this saga I've seen going around X:

One officer was suing because Afroman made a whole song about him saying he was fucking the officer[']s wife. When the officer was asked if Afroman was really fucking his wife, he said "I don't know".

He was kind of stuck there; if he said yes he'd admit into court being a cuck, and if he said no he'd weaken his claim that the songs are to be taken seriously.

If he said yes, then Afroman's statement was truthful which is a complete defense to the claim of defamation.

Technically all he had to do was say "no, not to my knowledge".

Its funny to think he had enough of an inkling of doubt as to the truth and thus didn't want to lie on the stand.

I’ve read that the cop in question has a mixed-race teenage daughter, even though he and his wife have been married for almost 30 years. He also testified that he’s known Afroman’s wife for years, so the families have definitely interacted in the past.

Holy cow.

I thought that this case was ripped straight from a South Park episode before.

After that it moved firmly into The Jerry Springer Show-territory.

The plot gets plottier.

Gotta admit, it would show dedication if in order to ensure he could win a libel case for saying he fucked the cop's wife, he actually fucked the cop's wife.

But would that make it revenge porn?

No. Revenge porn is distributing intimate images or footage of people without their consent. Revenge cucking is a time-honoured ritual for male status jockeying, and legally protected under all applicable laws and statutes.

a female officer cries on the stand as "Licc'em Low Lisa" plays.

18:30 in clip is about when the crying starts. The whole thing is bizarre. They play an Afroman song on YouTube in court. There's a stripper and implied cunnilingus involved. In the actual courtroom, Afroman is wearing an American Flag suit.

This song seems clearly defamatory to me. The video makes it even worse with an actress pretending to be the cop going down on a woman and then acting out having sex with Afroman.

I can only conclude the jury hated cops enough and got caught up enough in the bogusness of the search warrant that they let him slide.

Or... everyone is just media literate enough now to find all of this funny? Rural Ohio juror grandmas watching the three strippers laying on his counter with their legs up, then the video of her actress having sex with him? "Yep, seems like non-defamatory free speech".

I'm pretty sure if I tried flirting with a barista, she shut me down, and I took revenge by hiring an actress that looked like her and then created a music video depicting her as being mega slutty and then myself having hate sex with her and her loving it and blasted it to millions of people I'd be found guilty of defamation. The jury is only okay with this because she was a cop involved in a bogus search of his house and not a barista.

Was it crass? Yes. Disgusting, outrageous? Yes. Did it result in those involve being subject to ridicule and harassment? Seems like it. You can find what Afroman did as offensive as you want, but making fun of people isn't necessarily defamatory. Even in your example, the only scenario under which you'd be found liable for defamation is if the jury concluded that a reasonable person would believe that, based on the video, you had, in fact, had sex with the barista, and that this would damage her reputation. Lying about who you slept with isn't necessarily defamation, even if the lie is told in a more serious context than a rap video. What Afroman did may be intentional infliction of emotional distress, but that wasn't part of the suit.

From your other comment:

But Larry Flint didn't film an actor who looks like Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an out-house in a candid looking video. He just wrote a fake Campari ad in his own known-to-be-transgressive porn magazine claiming it was from Falwell.

You then go on to describe all the elements of the video. Except the argument you're making is exactly the one the court rejected in Falwell. Mr. Falwell argued that the parody in question was so outrageous as to take it out of First Amendment protection, and the court ruled that that isn't a thing. All your argument boils down to is that Afroman's conduct was worse because it was more outrageous than what Hustler did. I don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face how anyone viewing that video could reasonably conclude that Afroman knew about the sexual proclivities of a police officer who was present when his home was raided, and also had video of her licking pussy with him standing in the background. The idea that anyone would be misled by that is absurd.

According to Wikipedia, "Allegations of unchastity" are considered defamatory under common law. That would seem to apply here.

Or... everyone is just media literate enough now to find all of this funny? Rural Ohio juror grandmas watching the three strippers laying on his counter with their legs up, then the video of her actress having sex with him? "Yep, seems like non-defamatory free speech".

They don't have to find it funny, lots of insults aren't funny or entertaining. They just have to find it not defamatory. Like one important question is would people who watched actually believe this was a serious accusation as opposed to making fun of her as an insult, like just calling someone a slut or a whore as many angry people do to women?

FIRE at least believes Afroman was within his rights here and they aren't motivated by cop hating.

They don't have to find it funny, lots of insults aren't funny or entertaining. They just have to find it not defamatory. Like one important question is would people who watched actually believe this was a serious accusation as opposed to making fun of her as an insult, like just calling someone a slut or a whore as many angry people do to women?

Funny is not the operative part. They just have to get what he's trying to do. But it's more than just words though. There's 14 minutes of video of him trying to sexually humiliate her. My argument is further articulated here: https://www.themotte.org/post/3618/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/423167?context=8#context

Separately from that, what about this from my OP?

I'm pretty sure if I tried flirting with a barista, she shut me down, and I took revenge by hiring an actress that looked like her and then created a music video depicting her as being mega slutty and then myself having hate sex with her and her loving it and blasted it to millions of people I'd be found guilty of defamation. The jury is only okay with this because she was a cop involved in a bogus search of his house and not a barista.

I'm positive I'd be found liable if I did this to a barista. But because it's a cop you could squint and argue maybe she's subject to more scrutiny but... how? She's a public official that executed a search warrant on his home, okay. Talk about how retarded she looked in his house. Talk about how crooked she is for being part of a search warrant that was bogus. Talk about her record as a cop. What does 14 minutes of soft core shot in amateur porn style video about what a raging whore she is have to do with any of that?

There's 14 minutes of video of him trying to sexually humiliate her.

The amount of time or "sexual humiliation" doesn't necessarily matter that much. Again, people throw out words like slut and whore casually as insults already. "You're a fucking whore slut who'd sleep with anyone" said for an hour over and over again as an insult would still likely not cross the bar from insulting a person to defamation. In fact we can look at another case of diss raps where the accusations was even worse with Kendrick vs Drake, pedophile and sex rings, and the defamation case fell through there too.

One big question is would reasonable people actually take this as serious allegations? Just like Kendrick v Drake, music is an art and the average listener does not listen to diss tracks expecting thoughtful well researched factual news. Putting a claim in a diss track vs presenting it as serious fact can make a significant difference in a defamation case, because the context it exists in takes away from how serious a reasonable person would take the claim. People generally understand songs are not meant as expressions of truthful information.

Separately from that, what about this from my OP? I'm positive I'd be found liable if I did this to a barista.

It depends on the exact circumstances of how you do it, but most likely not. Defamation cases succeeding in the US are not that common, it's a very high bar. It's especially high when criticizing authority figures, so there is a possibility that it might apply to the barista but not to say, a cop or the town's mayor. But even without that, I would not be surprised at all to find a defamation case from the barista fall through in similar circumstances as again, the medium of music, especially diss tracks, is not generally taken by the average person as intended factual information to begin with.

One casual check we could do is to ask if anyone in her life actually believed she was secretly a lesbian going around licking pussies thanks to the song? Not in a "did they tease her about the song" way, but in an actual belief way. Doesn't seem like there is if she didn't present any.

people throw out words like slut and whore casually as insults already.

I think there's a difference of degree between calling someone a whore, and using your celebrity status to widely circulate a 15 minute video in which you hire a stripper to portray that person as a whore.

In fact we can look at another case of diss raps where the accusations was even worse with Kendrick vs Drake, pedophile and sex rings, and the defamation case fell through there too.

Another difference here is that a lot of these diss-tracks type things are between people of similar level of celebrity. People who have sought fame have fewer protections against the sorts of gossip that come with being a public figure. A random police officer who is not a public figure, and never sought fame, should be treated as such.

The difference is that the cop, acting in their official capacity as an agent of the state, performed what appears to be a bunch of unjust and legally actionable violations of his civil rights. Afroman is offering criticism to specifc agents of the state for their specific actions that in his eyes, warrant such criticism.

A barista doing her job for Starbucks is in both a socially and leglly different position. It has been long established in case law that defamation of public figures or state actors has a much higher bar than private figures.

Afroman is offering criticism to specifc agents of the state for their specific actions that in his eyes, warrant such criticism.

I think for the label "criticism" to apply, your speech should actually be directed at the actual act or behavior that you take issue with. Hiring a stripper to make a video where you portray your target as sexually promiscuous is not criticism of any specific act or behavior.

Lol what? He is absolutely offering very specific criticism of specific actions. Specific cops raided his place based on an anonymous tip, caused $20k in damage that they did not compensate him for, and so, understandably pissed, he made a bunch of music videos using security footage of the incident and yes, ascribing certain negative aspects to the cops who raided his home in the context of thst criticism. Textbook free speech, and happily the jury agreed.

The idea that you can't insult agents of the state for doing their jobs poorly is how you get dictatorships.

Lol what? He is absolutely offering very specific criticism of specific actions.

Exactly how is a 14 minute video of a stripper performing a bunch of simulated sex acts a specific criticism of any specific act?

Okay, so, if you get pulled over by a female cop and written a ticket for a broken tail light and you feel this was unjust you get to hire an actress to play her and act out a 14 minute long amateur porn style sexual humiliation music video about her? Because she's an agent of the state and subject to more criticism? Including this kind of criticism?

It's true, in some of the videos he is indeed criticizing or mocking the officers in their official capacity. Like the fat officer in his house seemingly tempted by the lemon pound cake. Or for seizing $400 cash. But in Licc'em Lisa video he's just portraying her as a whore going around town licking clit and ultimately getting seduced and fucked by Afroman.

I reiterate that it feels the jury was so annoyed by the officers doing a bogus search and bringing claims over justified criticism that they just overlooked this really gross one that came later.

Defamation implies a credible assertion that people take the claim at face value, uncritically. This is a diss track; there is no such credible presumption.

In trying to game out the Deputies' plan here, I can only assume they just thought they'd found a target with potentially deep pockets and who would just settle with them for a high six figures or something.

But they found a guy disgreeable enough to stick it out and who was a very sympathetic figure in the whole thing. And as noted, didn't burn goodwill by trying to turn it into a racial animosity moment. Which would have been a believable narrative here.

"Corrupt Cops against the First Amendment and the American Spirit" is a VASTLY more appealing framing than "racist white cops vs. downtrodden black rapper."

And showing up for the trial in American flag suit and sunglasses combo (with a perfectly coiffed afro on top) is a serious masterstroke.

I'm actually somewhat surprised the Judge let that fly, but then, the First Amendment ALSO protects the right to wear such things in court.

And the thing is, the cops in question actually had the makings of a valid case. Afroman made very specific, defamatory claims using the clear real names and likenesses of the parties he targetted. He did so intending, very specifically, to cause them reputational harm. If they were true claims, then he's very much in the clear. But surely some of those claims were just blatantly false. That's how rap beefs work, you make certain claims and boasts that are exaggerated or false but provocative to diminish the opponent's status.

It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit, just a stupid one.

I don't know how large the reputational harms could have been in money terms. Its just not a good look to get on the stand and play some goofy-looking music video by a dude whose house you did in fact raid, and pretend you're the one with the emotional trauma from this situation.

It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit, just a stupid one.

Indeed; I can easily see how that suit could win on its own merit. But the cops did a severe injustice to Afroman and in trying to get justice for a much less severe retaliation they gave a jury the power to make things right.

Yeah. I think the best reading of this whole thing is effectively jury nullification, not because they think defamation laws are unjust inherently, but because in the broader context of this case they think finding Afroman guilty would be doubling down on the injustice he's already suffered. I expect someone who made comparable videos of specific people who hadn't wronged them this way would have been found guilty, despite the law not making this exception.

Pretty much.

Afroman could have waived the Jury and had a judge decide it, but either he or his attorneys realized that if the situation as a whole was put in front of a jury, it'd play very sympathetically.

Rappers seem like a very bad target for this sort of extortion . Their audience absolutely does not care about them mocking cops (one might even say it's expected), so they suffer no reputational damage from refusing to settle. You might actually make them more money.

Also, Afroman doesn't seem that rich.

Also, Afroman doesn't seem that rich.

I vaguely remember him having a commercial that ran on late-night 2000s TV, hawking his CD with a really low budget ad. It ran alongside that guy in the crazy suit ranting about how to get free money from the government. So yeah, I'm not surprised that he's not super rich... actually I'm kind of impressed that it actually launched a successful career for him, in the days before youtube or spotify.

From the CCTV videos, he has a decent amount of assets to seize to satisfy a judgment.

Agreed on the lack of reputational damage if he refused settlement, though. And he was obviously savvy enough to see that he could raise his profile if he played this one to the hilt.

It wasn't frivolous, in the sense that I understand why the judge agreed to let a jury hear the case, but it was always going to be a high bar to clear. As you say:

Afroman made very specific, defamatory claims using the clear real names and likenesses of the parties he targetted. He did so intending, very specifically, to cause them reputational harm. If they were true claims, then he's very much in the clear. But surely some of those claims were just blatantly false.

True, but these claims were made in the context of, as you put it, a goofy music video. The real question was whether a normal person listening to the lyrics would treat them as statements of fact. Officer Lisa may have to deal with ridicule about her supposed love for cunnilingus, but I doubt anyone making those jokes seriously believes that she licked every pussy in town. It's the Falwell case all over again. It didn't help when the defense called family members of the officers to the stand and asked them if they took similar claims made in other rap songs seriously.

I think you're mostly right there, but there is a reason that most forms of media that talk about real events will do that whole "Any similarity to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental" disclaimer.

Had Afroman come to me before making his videos and described what he wanted to do, I would have advised him to hedge his risks. "Don't make a song about any particular cop/person, but you can make a song about corrupt cops in general" of "hire body doubles and make strong allusions to who you're talking about, but never stick their actual name or image in the song or video."

Shows what I know.

What he did is just a couple steps below this parody Grinch Song, calling them out with such precision and making it clear he's hoping people believe it. Or at least to make it a popular rumor.

Justified? I think so, he chose targets who had already done him harm, and was quite proportionate in response.

Officer Lisa may have to deal with ridicule about her supposed love for cunnilingus, but I doubt anyone making those jokes seriously believes that she licked every pussy in town.

But Larry Flint didn't film an actor who looks like Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an out-house in a candid looking video. He just wrote a fake Campari ad in his own known-to-be-transgressive porn magazine claiming it was from Falwell.

Does the fact that it's video matter? I think so. Afroman repeatedly flips between footage of the real officer and an actress that looks like her. He puts himself into the scene and apologizes to her, and then shows himself and the officer (the actress) having sex and also going down on other actresses. The sex videos are all done in amateur style, further implying they're candid footage. Though the video has farcical elements, he's also clearly trying to confuse the fact that it's parody[1]

NSFW: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7wWQxSV8CK8?si=zzuL3IqUoaJGOIys&t=700s

Are we sure everyone picks up the satire?

Me, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for this. I could see some people coming away believing this. Are they reasonable people? I don't know, reasonable person is doing a lot of work I guess. To me it seems like you have to be fairly media literate to navigate this all.

Keep in mind there are people who believe grainy amateur "homemade" sex videos are really amateur sex videos of the couple alone in an unscripted intimate moment and can't quite understand that there's a third person moving the camera around to film them. I would like to believe this population is tiny but I'm not so optimistic.

  1. Which, you know, makes it more outrageous and hilarious but also might sucker more people.

Note that a "reasonable person" in the eyes of the law is very much not the "average person." It assumes a level of responsibility, caution, and education that is far from universal.

  • The repairs cost $20k, not a single cent of which was paid by the officers, who also kept $400 of his cash

Good ol civil asset forfeiture, allowing cops to just steal from innocent people without any evidence for decades.

Cops will steal your money, they'll steal your RV, they'll steal the computers at your computer shop, they'll steal the funds for your medical clinic, they'll steal a teen's phone and sell it at one of those kiosks, they'll steal your horses even.

Fulton County, Georgia, seized seven horses from Brandon "Brannu" Fulton in 2017 after he was charged with animal cruelty. (The identical last name here is an unfortunate coincidence for the sake of clarity, but we will persevere.) Those charges were later dropped. But the government still declined to return the animals to Fulton—long ago dubbed Atlanta's Urban Cowboy after his affinity for riding into town on horseback—nor would it compensate him for their value. One of those horses, he said, is worth $35,000.

Law enforcement are thieves, because of course they are when you not only allow the theft but incentivize it by allowing them or the departments to keep the shit they take. Luckily many of those cases do eventually get ruled against, but "eventually you might get your money that was stolen back after paying a lot to fight in court" is a bit of a cold comfort. And that's not even guaranteed.

It wasn't civil asset forfeiture. It was an evidentiary seizure pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant.

I have a lot of nostalgia for my parents' politics, but in retrospect their love of civil asset forfeiture, clearly sold to them through conservative outlets as part of the war on drugs package, was a weird and embarrassing outlier. They were generally quite fond of constitutional and liberal principles, but it's like they didn't notice or didn't care in this case that the legal mechanism they were celebrating was a blatant endrun around them. They just thought it was based that wealth was flowing directly and freely from organized crime to law enforcement.

Based Afroman. He should file a civil suit for them to compensate him for the damage to his property.

Qualified immunity -- if there wasn't specific precedent saying the cops couldn't damage specifically his property in exactly the way it was damaged on the date and time it was damaged, the cops are immune.

But can't he sue the city itself?

Sovereign immunity! Even if they waive it, he sues (in their own courts), and he wins, it's likely the city simply won't pay him; there's no way to collect.

Cities generally do not get sovereign immunity, because cities are creatures of statute lacking sovereign authority.

Qualified immunity will prevent any recovery anyway, but sovereign immunity shouldn't apply here.

Ha! Sounds like a real-life case of rap album confessions! No real evidence but... isn't it safe to assume that the guy who made "because I got high" was probably in posession of narcotics?

Turns out, jury trials are there to protect the people from corrupt judges.

And to add a wildly unpredictable element. Usually biased towards charismatic, famous people.

isn't it safe to assume that the guy who made "because I got high" was probably in posession of narcotics?

He actually jokes about that in one of the songs he made. At one point the song goes "Why does the warrant say narcotics and - ok, I know about the narcotics (laugh) but why the kidnapping?".

isn't it safe to assume that the guy who made "because I got high" was probably in posession of narcotics?

He references that in "Will You Help Me Repair My Door":

The warrant said "Narcotics and kidnapping"/ The warrant said "Narcotics and kidnapping"/ Are you kidding? I make my money, rapping/ Why does the warrant say "Narcotics?" (Well, I know narcotics)/ But why kidnapping?

isn't it safe to assume that the guy who made "because I got high" was probably in posession of narcotics?

To assume that he smokes weed? Of course, though it's legal in Ohio. To assume that he smuggled drugs? That requires more evidence. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much of an investigation into why the Adams County Sheriff's Office so erroneously believed that he smuggled drugs or kidnapped people. The warrant even said he has a basement dungeon (the house doesn't have a basement at all).

What I don't get is: what is the purpose of having a judge sign the warrant if you do not name and shame judges for signing a bad warrant? If a warrant bears a judge's signature, then the buck stopped with them, and in the default case they deserve blame for it.

Of course, they could pass the blame by pointing out that given the evidence in the warrant application, it seemed justified. But then they need to throw someone else under the bus. "Actually, we had a witness who had made a sworn statement about kidnapping victims in a basement dungeon, and he was just found guilty of perjury and got a year of prison for that" would in fact absolve the other actors of most blame. Bonus points if they go after a cop for making a false sworn statement.

But if they say "Oopsy daisy, sometimes a warrant I sign is just bad, shit happens, nobody is really to blame for that" then you might as well replace them with a rock saying 'the warrant is probably fine'.

I mean, there are probably oops cases -- if a guy is caught on camera with a blood-dripping roll of carpet, that might justify a warrant for suspicion of murder, and if it later turns out that he merely buried his dog killed in a traffic accident then you say oops and move on. But in that case it would be easy enough to point out that of the last ten cases of blood-dripping carpet rolls, eight turned out to be homicides, and that it is better to raid one innocent than to let four murderers go free.

Of course, they could pass the blame by pointing out that given the evidence in the warrant application, it seemed justified

A pervasive problem of bureaucratic institutions (public or private) is that they disperse and attenuate responsibility such that almost everyone can claim to have acted reasonably given the information and responsibilities they had.

I don't know about county judges, but I know that FISA courts approve of 99% of wiretapping warrants. So 1% shy of your rock.

a rock saying 'the warrant is probably fine'.

This is more or less the actual process. Even on the very rare occasions that a warrant is successfully attacked after the fact, nothing happens to the judge.

there hasn't been much of an investigation into why the Adams County Sheriff's Office so erroneously believed that he smuggled drugs or kidnapped people

That is what is fascinating. They got the wrong address and the real drug-smuggling kidnapper rap star was someone else? An anonymous tip? Did Afroman have a bad breakup or is in a beef with another rap star? The mind boggles.

To assume that he smokes weed? Of course, though it's legal in Ohio.

Only since 2023. His song came out in 2000, so he's had a long career of signing songs about how he breaks felony drug laws. edit: also still illegal at the federal level, and a felony if he had more than 3 ounces, sold it to anyone, or moved it across state lines.

I'm pretty sure he's confessed to selling drugs in multiple songs from my familiarity with his canon.

Don’t other countries have rules that actually ban police raiding your house at 2am for no reason?

Wasn't there an article going around recently about German police knocking on doors at 5AM for online meme posts that fell a bit short of the letter of German criminal law?

Yes, and the articles detailed how they did that to lots of people. Including people who merely said government officials are parasites and one man who said a particular politician is a dick. And then German officials interviewed by 60 Minutes explained that yes they do this and it is a good thing.

Not that it makes it any better, but it seems like his house was raided during daylight hours. And other countries still do house raids.

I think the problem here was a judge rubber-stamping the warrant and not scrutinizing the evidence closely. (Some news sources have said it was an informant. Who was this informant, exactly, and how did they find out that Afroman allegedly trafficked narcotics and kidnapping victims?) However, to my knowledge, other countries don't have rules for investigating when the justice system harms the people in a case like this, and e.g. cleaning house on judges who rubber-stamp warrants.

Can we cite this as an example if the Streisand Effect too?

However if this were an earlier time when false allegations of homosexuality was considered defamation per se, might 'Licc'em Low Lisa' have been defamatory?

The intersection between a fruitless and perhaps poorly considered search and alleged lesbianism and tendency towards cunnulingus is not apparent to me.

However if this were an earlier time when false allegations of homosexuality was considered defamation per se, might 'Licc'em Low Lisa' have been defamatory?

I haven't listened to the song, but I would guess that yes, in an earlier time, implying that someone is a homosexual would be considered defamatory.

The trend in the United States is towards free speech, which I basically agree with but obviously this is not without costs.

The intersection between a fruitless and perhaps poorly considered search and alleged lesbianism and tendency towards cunnulingus is not apparent to me.

Afroman is not seriously alleging that "Licc'em Low Lisa" does, in fact, licc 'em low. He is making a joke. This is the same guy who sings comedic songs about smoking weed.

This one doesn't land as well as "Lemon Pound Cake" or "Will You Help Me Repair My Door." In those tracks, the nexus between police conduct during the raid and his ridicule is apparent and obvious.

Afroman is not seriously alleging that Lisa does, in fact, licc 'em low. He's making a joke.

Only two of five verses even reference the raid or her work as a sheriff. The rest is built entirely on her appearance and his assumptions about her sexuality. When you strip away the production and the comedic framing, the song is basically: "A female deputy was involved in raiding my house, she has a deep voice, therefore she must be secretly a man / secretly gay", then an entire track of sexual ridicule built on that premise.

The spoken deposition section actually makes it worse. You can hear Lisa Phillips describing real emotional harm, being harassed at work, being called slurs in public, having to leave shifts because of it, having to defend that she doesn't have a penis. Afroman's apology in that same section is telling: "I didn't know you was a biological lady", revealing the whole thing was rooted in assumptions about her gender and body based on her voice.

There's no allegation of actual misconduct by her specifically. The grievance is about the raid itself, and the "revenge" he chose was to target the most visibly gender-nonconforming officer on the scene.

His other tracks attempt to humorously allege actual deficiencies in police conduct. This one doesn't critique policing or say anything meaningful about the raid. It punches entirely at someone's appearance and perceived sexuality.

It punches entirely at someone's appearance and perceived sexuality.

In other words: it's a hip-hop diss track.

In other words: it's a hip-hop diss track.

Hip hop diss tracks generally target people who have deliberately sought fame and should reasonably be expected to tolerate having diss tracks written about them. Writing a diss track about your beef with another rapper who occupies the same social position of celebrity as you is different than doing it to a random police officer who has never sought fame and has no celebrity social power.

Counter-example: Eminem's entire career. He wrote songs attacking his mum, his ex-wife and a boy who picked on him in primary school, none of whom ever attempted or aspired to be famous. He's widely considered one of the best rappers of all time.

Not really. Common threads across that genre is that the ridicule connects to something real. Artistic credibility, business betrayals, hypocrisy, actual conduct. The punchlines land because they're built on a foundation the audience recognizes as legitimate.

Even in a genre where personal attacks are an art form, the best diss tracks target what someone did, not just what they look like. Afroman knows how to do that, his other raid tracks prove it. He just didn't do it here.

Not really. Common threads across that genre is that the ridicule connects to something real

The biggest recent beef (that reached the Super Bowl) had entirely unsubstantiated accusations of paedophilia and domestic abuse. And that was just the worst stuff

I used to watch pure battle rap (which has diverged into its own sport as opposed to a proving ground for new rappers). Yes, the most memorable and devastating moments involve something true. Especially if it's unknown.

But lying is also acceptable if it's funny and well-crafted.

It's a genre I was never deep into and haven't kept abreast of but I'd expect more.

AI I think does better with the medium.

Joseph Edgar Foreman, let me tell your story right, Raymond Elementary, 1986, a little boy with spite, Not middle school like you been telling every interview since then, Elementary, Joseph — you were targeting little girls back when. Carrie and Charmaine — yeah, you went at two of them, not one, "Hairy Carrie, Harry Leg Charmaine" — ain't you a lot of fun. Called on Bloods and Crips and Cholos: "Gather round while I rap About the hair on Carrie's lips" — that's your origin, that's your map.

"Clown these bitches so bad to the point they don't even want to be here" — Your words, Joseph, not mine — that was your goal, let me be clear, Then you told a journalist decades later with a grin: "She was paralyzed" — and you were proud of what you did to them. "I'ma talk so much trash to the point just to shut me up she'll pay me cash" — That's not a punchline, that's extortion from a child harassing for the bag. You didn't write a diss track, you wrote a weapon for the playground, And forty years later, you're still swinging at the same damn ground.

"A skunk has its spray," you told them, proud of what you are, "If you mess with me I rap about your ass" — that's not a bar, That's a confession that your music's just a weapon for the weak, You don't punch up, you don't critique — you find a flaw and let it leak. Forty years from Carrie's lip to Lisa's voice, the formula's the same: Find a woman, find a feature, exaggerate it, weaponize the shame.

Nas built "Ether" brick by brick, every line a case in court, Jay-Z's credibility, his art, his business — Nas indicted every sort, That record changed the language — "ethered" means you're done, Not because he clowned Jay's hairline, but because the substance won. Cube wrote "No Vaseline" and tore apart a whole machine, Contracts, management, and money — surgical, precise, and mean, Didn't mention what Jerry Heller looked like, didn't need to go that low, The facts were devastating enough to land every single blow. Kendrick buried Drake with "Not Like Us" and let the culture speak, Built a movement out of bars so sharp they cut you for a week. That's what diss tracks are, Joseph — receipts set to a beat, Not some Juggalo-circuit act recycling jokes from the cheap seat.

"Because I Got High" — a Napster leak that Howard Stern made hot, Grammy nominee, you ain't win, and after that? That's all you got. One-hit wonder status, your own Wikipedia says it plain, Debut album was a "flop," the follow-ups all did the same. Two hundred thousand net worth after twenty-five years in the game, Gathering of the Juggalos is where they're booking you by name. Dropped out of Palmdale High, declared yourself a Christian too, Then preached a sermon on YouTube about how God will see you through — Same mouth that wrote five verses fantasizing on a woman's sex, Same hands that punched a woman in Biloxi in the neck. "Involuntary reaction" — that's what your people said, She walked up from behind you and you put her on her back instead.

"Crazy Rap" had "she whipped out a dick that was bigger than mine" — That was 2001, Joseph, and you're still on that same line, Raymond Elementary to Adams County, woman-with-a-penis bit, Lisa Phillips is just Carrie with a badge — you haven't grown from it. Same kid in the same Wranglers with the same hole in the seat, Payless Pro Wings on his feet thinking cruelty is a feat.

Now let's talk about the raid — they came for kidnapping and drugs, Found nothing but some roach clips and some fan-made pipes and mugs, Busted up your door, your gate, your cameras — twenty grand in damage done, Four hundred dollars missing from the cash when they were done. You had a real case, Joseph. Property destruction, theft, A fruitless warrant, zero charges — you had substance, you had heft. "Repair My Door" pointed at the damage — fine, a start, "Lemon Pound Cake" was a parody — cute, but not exactly art, But then you saw Lieutenant Phillips and you heard her voice pitch low, And threw away the protest angle 'cause a woman's voice was low.

Two verses out of five even mention what the sheriffs did, The rest is "eating pussy like pizza" — what are you, a kid? The intersection between a fruitless search and alleged lesbianism Is not apparent to anyone with more than a playground sense of criticism.

And now the deposition tape — you left it in the song yourself, Lisa on the stand describing what your music did to her mental health, Can't go to Walmart, can't go to work without them yelling out your hook, Had to leave her shifts in tears while your track played in every nook. Your apology's on wax: "I didn't know you was a biological lady" — That's not remorse, that's just confirming every assumption that was shady. You targeted her because she didn't look the way you think a woman should, Same thing you did to Carrie at Raymond Elementary in the neighborhood.

You want to run for president? You can't even run a verse, Can't connect your punchline to the premise — that's a gift and it's a curse, Nas would've ethered every deputy by name with their misconduct on display, Cube would've bankrupted the department and had bars left for the day, Kendrick would've made them question every badge they ever wore, You just made a woman cry and called it settling a score.

You said it best yourself — "A skunk has its spray" — Yeah, Joseph, we can smell you from a mile away. Still that same ashy kid from Raymond Elementary with the Pro Wings on, Forty years of punching down and calling it a song.

  • -12

Afroman is funny but I don't know that anyone thinks of him as a top battle rapper.

On the hip hop side it's inseparable from the song being used (which is why one of the recent Drake-Kendrick songs became vastly more popular than the rest even if it wasn't the best).

On the pure battle rap side it's just inseparable from crowd work and performance - and writing for that particular person. Since battle rappers have an incentive to spend time in the ring (unlike rappers, for whom it becomes a potential danger once they're famous enough to not have something to gain) their styles become much more distinct and you have an incentive to attack them.

This joke about an opponent's style can only land in a public performance, and only if you know your audience.

You also get points for off the cuff freestyles, which obviously don't work online.

Like any roasting session, you need to be saying it in the kid's face in front of the other students on the playground to get the full effect.

But attempting to recreate it via AI is pretty on-brand for TheMotte.

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