site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5hr ago (text post)   99 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for December 5, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Court opinion:

  • In February 2020, a police officer responds to a medical emergency at a nursing home, and remains in the same room as a coughing person for thirty minutes. "Within days of responding to this medical call, petitioner began experiencing symptoms, including severe migraines, vertigo, lightheadedness, and chest pains, resulting in sick leave from work. Over the ensuing months, he tried several times to return to work, to no avail as his debilitating symptoms persisted. He was eventually diagnosed with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, otherwise known as 'long COVID', and his department agreed he could no longer perform his duties as a police officer." In June 2020, the officer files for "accidental disability" retirement, with payout equal to two-thirds of salary. Both his expert doctor and the state retirement board's expert doctor agree that the officer's disability is the direct result of a coronavirus infection contracted in the February 2020 incident.

  • In March 2023, the board rejects the application and instead grants "ordinary disability" retirement, with payout equal to only two-fifths of salary (a reduction of 60 percent). The board points out that the officer provided zero evidence of ever actually testing positive for the coronavirus, so he has failed to prove to the required preponderance-of-evidence standard that the February 2020 incident caused his disability. On administrative appeal, in September 2024 the board's administrative pseudo-judge recommends that the board grant accidental-disability retirement, but in November the board rejects the recommendation and once again grants only ordinary-disability retirement.

  • On judicial appeal, in December 2025 the appeals panel reverses. No coronavirus testing was available in February 2020. In the absence of that hard evidence, the board's rejection of the officer's "overwhelming" circumstantial evidence, with no rebutting evidence of its own, was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.

Court opinion regarding the persistent, obstinate failure of a tire shop to stop storing 1500 tires in an unsafe manner

A Township law enforcement officer certified that "Harry's Tires, LLC, is a New Jersey corporation engaged primarily in the sale of 'affordable used tires' for cash". He asserted that "[t]he official business address [of] Harry's Tires, LLC, is 24 Hilltop Ave.,… but it also stores used tire inventory and scrap tires at 1016 N[orth] Black Horse Pike". The officer certified that drone footage showed "approximately 1,000 scrap tires lying on the ground at the N[orth] Black Horse Pike location and approximately 500 at the Hilltop Ave[.] location", demonstrating the hazardous conditions. He further certified that, in November 2021, "the Township Fire Department responded to a fire at" defendants' North Black Horse Pike location because a single tire had caught fire and "spread to some scrap lumber and a tree branch before it was extinguished". The officer attached a police report stating that "stacks of several hundred new and old tires" enclosed the fire area, "making it a difficult area to access". On the date of the fire, Harry could not be reached, despite several attempts.

The Township's emergency management coordinator certified that "[a] fire from any of the Harry's Tires sites would pose a major environmental and logistical nightmare for emergency responders". He explained the "site locations for defendant Harry's Tires in the Township are in close proximity" to both State highways, the Big Timber Creek tributary, and "heavily-populated residential areas". "Both of the Harry's Tires sites contain hundreds of easily-combustible tires haphazardly strewn around the property, making it a death trap for anyone attempting to exit the buildings on the sites in the event of a fire, as well as causing very serious hazards for emergency responders." Based on his years of experience, he opined that "[t]he illegal storage of hundreds of tires on the sites will undoubtedly cause a catastrophe".

Blah blah blah, default judgment, permanent injunction. A whopping 16 months later, the owner moves to vacate the default judgment, claiming that he didn't respond earlier because he was "destitute, in a state of depression, and involved in other kinds of abusive behavior". The trial judge rejects his arguments, and the appeals panel affirms.

A multigenerational household, assuming 25 years per generation and three children per couple:

  • Great-great-grandparents, age 100–124*: 2 people → 1 couple

  • Great-grandparents, age 75–99: 3 people → 2 couples**

  • Grandparents, age 50–74: 6 people → 3 couples

  • Parents, age 25–49: 9 people → 5 couples

  • Children, age 0–24: 15 people

  • Result: Eleven 2-occupant bedrooms and five 3-occupant bedrooms; a 16-bedroom, 37-occupant mansion

*US life expectancy:

Standard deviations from the meanAge at death (a)
−30
−227
−160
+080
+191
+298
+3103

This probably is a gross misinterpretation of the linked table, as I haven't taken any statistics classes in about fifteen years. The point is that centenarians are rare, and it is not unreasonable to think that centenarian-helmed six-generation households are too rare to need accommodation. (This goes double for places like the US, where the generation time is closer to 30 years than to 25 years.) If you choose to stick with a five-generation household, you will require six 2-occupant bedrooms and three 3-occupant bedrooms, or a 9-bedroom, 21-occupant mansion.

**I conservatively assume that, of each generation's children, ⌊half⌋ leave the household, while ⌈half⌉ stay inside it and bring in spouses from outside. But feel free to insert an incest (or polyamory or polygamy) joke here.

This is fun, right?

https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1996664263327338525

Tim Walz says people are driving by his house calling him ‘retarded.’

Actual quote

People driving by my house and using the 'R-Word' in front of people

He would never have been a persuasive veep.

On the one hand, he's a serial fabulist and so this story is hard to believe.

On the other hand, I want to believe it so badly because it's hilarious.

This is the best timeline.

I'm reading Cryptonomicon and came across this line:

Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be — or to be indistinguishable from — self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.

Uhh — something you guys want to tell me?

This was always a bit of an older community (by internet standards) but looking back at its founding it was directionally accurate even here. Look at the amount of posts from people early in their career, and they've been here for some 10 years. You were at fairly good odds of talking to a teenager.

Furthermore I'd argue that the claims of the self-righteous immature person with infinite free time is even more true for the median college attendee than the median highschooler.

Makes all the stories posters tell about their five-year-old kids a lot grimmer, doesn't it?

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