site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22hr ago (text post)   3040 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 22, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am a bit surprised by the verdict - mostly because I figured this would be swept under the rug in some sort of deal before it ever went to trial. The fundamental problem here is that a judge asserted her authority well beyond her remit, and the golden rule of power grabs is that you shouldn't make a push unless you're certain that it will work.

Did this judge think she was safe? If so, was it because "everyone does it", or was she so high on #resisting that she was thought there was no world where someone would actually punish her?

I'm surprised because I thought ICE's deportation orders are not the big swinging dicks of arrest warrants, which is why they say stuff like don't answer the door for them if they knock and they can't deport you. If an illegal alien's roommate can refuse to let ICE in and it is not obstruction, then why is what this judge did obstruction?

I think it is distasteful for the judge to interfere in a law enforcement activity to be clear, just not sure how they found her guilty.

They don't have to be the "big swinging dicks" to be covered under the charge. 18 USC 1071 states

Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

The Justice Department helpfully lays out the elements:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1071, the government must establish the following four essential elements: (1) a federal warrant has been issued for the fugitive's arrest; (2) the defendant had knowledge that a warrant had been issued for the fugitive's arrest; (3) the defendant actually harbored or concealed the fugitive; and (4) the defendant intended to prevent the fugitive's discovery or arrest. United States v. Silva, 745 F.2d 840, 848 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1031 (1985). Accord, United States v. Udey, 748 F.2d 1231, 1235-36 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1017 (1985); United States v. Bissonette, 586 F.2d 73, 77 (8th Cir. 1978).

But I think she was convicted on the other charge, 18 USC 1505, which fits rather less well. It fits about as well as the obstruction charges from Sarbanes-Oxley fit the J6 cases; it has one section specifically concerned with obstructing the Antitrust Civil Process Act, and the second is

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Seems to me under the J6 precedent, this should be thrown out. This is not the kind of obstruction 18 USC 1505 was meant for.

Yeah, she thought he would get out of the building and no one would be any the wiser.

Is this a common thing?

IIRC a judge in Massachusetts tried to do similar in Trump's first term, but it looks like that case was settled (not sure if by previous administration) for merely a public reprimand.

Did this judge think she was safe?

Probably yes, at least before she was arrested. Judges are given quite a bit of slack. Even now, she can be pretty confident that (1) she won't get any jail time; (2) the next Democratic administration will pardon her; and (3) she will have a nice soft landing teaching at a law school or working for a Soros-funded NGO.

The feds had supposedly been offering a plea bargain for a while, though the details haven't been made public. If the bargain was just felony-with-no-jail, she had a lot of reason to reject it even if a conviction was likely; if it was a misdemeanor, she was making a pretty high-stakes bet.

Part of her decision-making was probably resistance huffing, but there's also a lot of long-standing norm about treating various protections around judicial office-holders very expansively, both to avoid complex legal situations and with the tacit understanding that prosecutors that didn't would find judges suddenly less charitable to their position. That equilibrium became a lot less stable since Dugan's initial behavior.

I'm not surprised it went to trial, my bet is that it came down to the issue of Dugan continuing to serve as a judge and the two sides could not reach an agreement on that point. If the prosecution's offer was Dugan resigns and pleads to a misdemeanor, she really did not have that much to lose. She is retirement age and the only real impact of the felony conviction will be to force her to step down or get impeached. For a first time non-violent offense, she will almost certainly get no jail time, plus now she will get to do a #resistance martyrdom tour, and quite possibly get a pardon in three years.

She won't be allowed to own firearms though, and my experience (with several friends and family that work as prosecutors and defense attorneys) is that criminal law judges and attorneys have a lot of angry people who would like to kill them.

But those are incompetent people and this woman is obviously blue tribe enough that 'guns' aren't the default answer to personal security questions.

Apparently there have only been 54 recorded homicides of US judges since the 1800s, and that includes homicides that were not work-related. Also I really doubt an elderly liberal lady in Milwaukee owns firearms in the first place, just based on gun ownership demographics.

I would think there would be fewer issues of upset equilibrium (and reduced political deference) in this case since she's a county judge and it's a federal prosecution. I'm certain if it was state or local law enforcement she was screwing with, nothing would have happened.

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