site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   21528 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.

4
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?

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