site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25486 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Court opinion with possible culture-war implications:

  • Morales-Torres and Rivera drive to Almodovar's house in Morales-Torres's truck, and do not return. Worried, Morales-Torres's romantic partner drives by Almodovar's house, sees Almodovar with bloodstains on his shirt and Morales-Torres's truck still in the driveway, and calls 911. Several hours later, Morales-Torres's truck is found elsewhere, on fire and with Morales-Torres's and Rivera's bullet-riddled corpses inside it. Almodovar is charged with two murders.

  • Almodovar claims that he only defended himself from an attempt by Morales-Torres and Rivera to rob him of 20 k$ of drug money, and he had a cousin (who later died while committing a robbery) burn the corpses because he thought no one would believe the self-defense story. But the jury disbelieves the self-defense story and convicts Almodovar on both counts.

  • Almodovar appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find the "specific intent to kill" that a conviction of murder requires. But the appeals panel affirms.

    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we must, we find that the jury rationally concluded Almodovar's account was false. Almodovar's argument relies on the fact that his testimony was mostly unrebutted. Of course, that is largely because Almodovar covered up the crime. That this case involves a claim of self-defense does not detract from the principle that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to meet the Commonwealth's burden, and Almodovar's argument fails to account for the inferences that may be drawn from his testimony that he covered up the crime. It is well-established that efforts to conceal wrongdoing may be considered as circumstantial evidence of guilt. [Citing a 1988 decision of the state supreme court:]

    Evidence of [the defendant]'s disposal of the body supplied important proof relative to whether she acted with malice. Human experience teaches that persons who commit justifiable homicides, without malice, do not ordinarily feel compelled to destroy the victim's body. Rather, it is those who harbor a guilty conscience, believing their acts not to have been justified, who are most likely to conceal evidence of their deeds.

    Thus, even setting aside the implausibility of Almodovar's testimony of how the shootings unfolded, we conclude that his post-shooting actions are more than sufficient circumstantial evidence establishing that the victims were not the aggressors. Indeed, his concealment and destruction made it impossible to test, for example, the firearm destroyed in the fire. Moreover, the pathologist could not fully test the bodies for evidence like gunshot residue or conduct a complete autopsy. Accordingly, the circumstantial evidence readily supports the jury's finding that Almodovar specifically intended to kill both men.

But is the state supreme court's pronouncement of "the wicked flee when no man pursueth" truly applicable in the modern age? According to a recent poll, in 2023 confidence in the police was only 49 percent among whites and a pitiful 31 percent among nonwhites in the US. Those numbers recovered to 54 percent and 44 percent (respectively) in 2024, but even that is a bit lower than one might expect. Should a defendant's distrust of the police be held against him in court?

The court didn’t find him guilty because he didn’t trust the police. They found him guilty because enacting a coverup makes more sense from a guilty party than an innocent one.

This is an incredible non-sequitor. The people that the defendant had to fear weren’t the police, but rather the jury. Bring stats on opinions on a jury of one’s peers if you please, but the police themselves were not a danger to this man. And if you distrust juries, then suggest alternatives. Note that the final alternative is relying on justice through violence itself.

This argument fails on the basis of basic logic and on the basis of simple second-order consequences. I’m not remotely compelled by it, and surprised to see it here. Is this some kind of psyop to make the phenomenon of the underclass distrusting the police seem even less compelling? I see you’ve succeeded in getting people downthread talking about it. Otherwise, I’m just baffled.

The people that the defendant had to fear weren’t the police, but rather the jury.

Trust in juries is 58 percent. But the jury doesn't matter if the police destroy or hide exculpatory evidence, or the prosecutor or the judge doesn't let you present exculpatory arguments. (I'm not suggesting that such fears are reasonable.)

According to other surveys, trust in the state courts is 63 percent, but trust in the judiciary as a whole is 35 percent. So I guess the numbers are all over the place.

These numbers are "skewed" for this question in that they are not directly asking why people dont have faith in the juries or judges or prosecutors or courts in general.

As someone who interacts with the system on a regular basis, the correct answer to "why don't people trust XXX part of the court system" is not because they are or know a convicted felon who is innocent, instead it is because they think criminals are going to go free. Those that think criminals will go free, are, of course, correct. Most cases end up dismissed or plead to minimal conditions because trials are a huge pain to actually put on.

Take something as simple as a misdemeanor DUI case where you are the victim who's care was hit by a drunk driver. On day 1, you get hit. On day 30(ish) you go to court and there is a continuance. You file your civil claims. The defendant's team doesn't cooperate based on vague assertions of 5th amendment stuff in the civil case. Plus he's prolly got no money anyways. On day 60(ish) you again go to criminal court. Nothing happens again. People tell you to stop coming until trial. Then, all the sudden 22 months later you get a letter in the mail telling you to go to court at 9 AM on a wednesday for trial. If you are astounding, you come. The defense weasels out of the trial and gets a new date. Now you have lost 3 days of work and the case is still going. Repeat until you or the police officer doesnt show up and the case is dismissed.

Now you have heard a summary of the average DUI victim's experience with criminal courts.

But is the state supreme court's pronouncement of "the wicked flee when no man pursueth" truly applicable in the modern age? According to a recent poll, in 2023 confidence in the police was only 49 percent among whites and a pitiful 31 percent among nonwhites in the US. Those numbers recovered to 54 percent and 44 percent (respectively) in 2024, but even that is a bit lower than one might expect. Should a defendant's distrust of the police be held against him in court?

Are you just asking those questions out of some rhetorical obligation to start a conversation? Well what the hell else should they do? Courts of justice and the police are simply required for the rule of law of function; you can't let people opt out of it - no matter for what reason - without bringing the entire edifice crashing down. If people don't trust any of these institutions, then to be sure that is a problem, but the "solution" of of letting people obstruct procedures is obviously not going to help.

If I was on the jury I would not buy his story either.

Also this is a small tidbit I pulled from the internet.

The Lancaster County Coroner’s Office identified the individuals to be Rivera and Morales-Torres and determined the cause of death to be gunshot wounds to the body and the manner to be homicide. Both victims were shot in the back.

That is one hell of a self defense.

Should a defendant's distrust of the police be held against him in court?

It certainly should be presented to the court as a matter of fact.

There are a very small number of exceptional situations in which factually true things cannot be said in court -- for example, a prosecutor cannot comment on the defendant's refusal to testify in his own defense. Those exceptions are few and far between, and they prove that the rule applies in all other cases.

In the Anglosphere jury system, there is quite a broad set of true things that can't be said - you can't argue that the defendant is the kind of guy who would commit this crime, including by telling the jury his previous criminal history.

In the US there is another broad set of true things which can't be said, namely true things that the police learned by violating the 4th amendment.

including by telling the jury his previous criminal history.

So it's an absolutely trash legal system huh?

More specifically, the prosecution is forbidden from introducing the defendant's criminal history if that history is more prejudicial than probative.

  • The fact that the defendant has been convicted of robbery twice in the past has no bearing on whether he committed this specific robbery, and will only prejudice the jury against the defendant.

  • The fact that (1) in two past robberies of which he was convicted the defendant stubbed out his cigarette on the victim's cheek, and (2) the perpetrator in this case did the same thing, may be highly relevant in determining whether the defendant is the perpetrator in this case.

I don’t think “the defendant burned the bodies” would ever fall in those narrow categories.

Agreed. There exist true things that can't be said in a criminal trial, but this isn't one of them.

Right, and I think the OP is trying to shoehorn "the defendant didn't trust the police/state" into that set, as some kind of faux-historical analog of "things that can't be held against you in court".

But is the state supreme court's pronouncement of "the wicked flee when no man pursueth" truly applicable in the modern age? According to a recent poll, in 2023 confidence in the police was only 49 percent among whites and a pitiful 31 percent among nonwhites in the US. Those numbers recovered to 54 percent and 44 percent (respectively) in 2024, but even that is a bit lower than one might expect. Should a defendant's distrust of the police be held against him in court?

I would say this is a jury question that appellate courts have little legitimacy in evaluating their judgements. The jury tests their own plausibility of the two cases, and specifically in this case heard from the defendant. If they found him less credible than the other witnesses who laid out the prosecutions case, then that should be undisturbed, just as he would argue if they had bought his self defense claim and acquitted him of all charges.

The primary purpose of laws is to create incentive structures to influence people's behavior. While putting murderers in prison is a worthwhile task if you expect them to murder again, they ideal scenario is that nobody murders at all due to the fear of punishment. The best threat is one which never needs to be tested because everyone is so sure that it would be if they transgressed.

This applies to destruction of evidence as well. If you establish a precedent that destroying evidence creates reasonable doubt, people will destroy evidence. If you don't want that then you need to punish it consistently. By treating destruction of evidence as if it were the strongest thing that the evidence could possibly be (absolute proof of guilt) you create a scenario in which nobody has an incentive to destroy evidence because it can never improve their situation.

It only matters a little whether the destruction of evidence is literally proof of guilt, it mostly matters that treating it that way is good legal policy. And if adhered to consistently then both guilty and innocent people can take that into account and behave accordingly.

This is a reasonable take, but it seems to me that if this is the rationale then it would be fairer to just criminalize destruction of evidence in itself, as a separate charge, and put a harsh punishment on that, without claiming that it impacts the verdict in the murder case itself.

This was the standard in Iceland. If you killed someone and paid the weregild, no feud would occur. But if you tried to hide your killing, then you became outlaw.

The standard of old law in Iceland had little to do with incentive structures. It was an honor based system. People will feud. Legal recourse was there to end feuds in a way that maintained both parties honor. If you killed someone without a representable cause the law had no leverage to assert over the representatives of the victim, they could kill the would be murderer if they had the means. You would be much more likely to see legal pressure put on both parties after the revenge had occurred so that the feud could end. And that's not counting for family relations and politics that would play a big part in the process.

Honor based systems are still based on incentives. Sometimes unconsciously via cultural evolution, but it's not like "honor" just get defined randomly. A family backing down and losing honor is essentially signalling "you can kill us without consequence". Maintaining honor, either by getting paid or by getting revenge, signals "if you kill us it won't be worth it." It creates incentives in others not to kill you and your people because the costs to them will outweigh the benefits.

At that point it's all incentives and the term becomes meaningless in describing peoples motives. Since by the same token you can say that an honor system incentivizes revenge killings or that a modern Scandinavian system incentivizes crime by being too lax with punishments whilst also doing the opposite. It collapses reality into a system based thinking that makes no sense and has no predictive power since it takes no account of what people are thinking or doing on their own terms.

Should a defendant's distrust of the police be held against him in court?

Yes, absolutely. Even if you distrust the police, there is no way to have a stable society where criminals can destroy evidence of a crime (or a suspected crime) with little to no repercussions. My wife and I watch bodycam videos all the time, and I'd say about 70%+ of the time when a suspect flees (on foot or in a car putting other people's lives in danger) the cop will ask why they ran and the answer is "I was scared" or "I don't trust cops" or something to that effect. Law enforcement cannot function, or needs far more officers using far more physical force to function, if people are not required to obey their lawful orders. Being scared is no excuse.

Also the fear of cops killing you or seriously harming you are unreasonable fears not backed by reality. Only about 10 to 20 unarmed black men are killed by cops each year in the US (and being unarmed doesn't necessarily mean it was an unjustified killing, though conversely the fact a suspect was armed doesn't inherently mean the killing is justified).

My wife and I watch bodycam videos all the time

Any particular reason for this?

It is part of my job on a regular basis, although I am not chickenoverlord. His percentages seem a bit charitable for me. "I was scared" is sometimes, much more often it is "I was scared of getting caught."

It is part of my job on a regular basis

Same, but that means I'm getting paid for it. Watching them in my free time would be a different thing, although watching curated bits of the highlights (or lowlights, really) would be more interesting than watching the nth hour of bored cop doing something unremarkable.

I watch them and court appearances and parole hearings on YouTube.

It's... educational.

About the 3:30 mark

"Since you keep identifying "me" as "you" would it be fair to say I'm not 5'9""

Not ChickenOverlord, but people with profoundly poor executive function are funny to watch fail at civilization. Since Cops is off the air, I think, body cam footage makes a pretty good replacement. And unlike Cops, they occasionally turn into well deserved snuff films. About as close as you can get to a modern day public execution, which we sorely need.

Since Cops is off the air, I think, body cam footage makes a pretty good replacement

The modern replacement is On Patrol: Live (which was known as Live PD until it was canceled and later rebooted in the wake of the Summer of 2020), and it's about a 40/60 mix of non-live curated bodycam video and "live"-broadcast ride-along cameramen. With a small delay in case on-camera death happens and so that the producers can pick the most interesting feed out of the handful of police they're filming.

I don't know how to feel about how entertaining it is and what that says about me, but it can be very entertaining.

I used to watch Live PD religiously until they canceled it (my mother cried on hearing the news). I was always a bit afraid to watch the reboot, I assume they had to have made it more palatable to the BLM crowd (more black women commentators? Less showing the dregs of society at their worst? More police helping old ladies cross the street?). Is it noticeably worse than it used to be or pretty much the same?

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