site banner
PaperclipPerfector  15d ago (text post)   24927 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?

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".

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