site banner
PaperclipPerfector  21hr ago (text post)   2892 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.

It's not a glamorous beat, but another CW news follow-up.

Last week Judge Hannah Dugan of Milwaukee County Circuit Court was found guilty of felony obstruction by a jury. This was the judge who assisted an immigrant's attempt to evade arrest by ICE. The Wisconsin Examiner published what looks like excellent coverage of the trial and verdict.

Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, Mexican national, was arrested in March of 2025. Milwaukee ICE cross-referenced his fingerprints where they found a match with a previous 2013 deportation by US Border Patrol. Milwaukee ICE conjured up an administrative warrant and gathered a smorgasbord of FBI, CBP, and other federal agents. They planned to apprehend Flores-Ruiz after his appearance. At the courthouse, with the agents presence known, Judge Dugan and a Judge Cervera approached the agents in the hallway. At the end of this interaction, Judge Cervera left with the agents to go to the chief judge's office. According to the agents and Judge Cervera's testimony that was where they were told to go to hash out the legitimacy of their presence, warrant, and the planned apprehension. According to Dugan's defense, that conversation never occurred, though from the reporting alone I do not know what they offered as an alternative except that Dugan did not personally review the warrant.

Judge Dugan returned to her courtroom where she rearranged the docket to move Flores-Ruiz's case to the top. She told him and his attorney their next hearing could be held via Zoom then she "led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney, Mercedes de la Rosa, to a non-public door to exit" the courtroom. Instead of making an escape, Flores-Ruiz and his attorney stumbled into the public hallway which eventually led to his arrest-- an agent had remained behind with eyes on that exit. It's interesting his attorney did not prevent this navigation error despite having knowledge of building. According to the Examiner she was portrayed as a "naive" stooge by the prosecutors. This suggests to me she sensed a measure of impropriety, if not outright criminal potential as this was ongoing. Judge Cervera, who accompanied the agents in the halls, testified at trial and did not run cover for Dugan.

Jurors were played mute security camera video and asked to decide whether they believe Cervera that Dugan told the agents three times that they needed a judicial warrant, something that didn’t appear to happen in the video. “Judge Cervera is wrong,” said Luczak. “I don’t know if she’s lying, but I could think of some reasons why.” Cervera, the attorney argued, was trying to save herself by throwing Dugan under the bus.

It's safe to assume the water cooler talks have become more awkward in Milwaukee County. Other judges and lawyers testified for the defense. Even a former mayor came out to testify as a character witness.

[Judge] Gramling-Perez reviewed emails on the stand that said “the historic protocols are now shifting quickly,” and explaining that although state and local law enforcement have conducted arrests around the court in the past, those activities were always guided by clear policies or practices which were respected by law enforcement... Prosecutors repeatedly attempted to get Gramling-Perez to say that ICE arrests were allowed in public hallways, per the “key takeaways” that she outlined in her email to Dugan and other judges. Gramling-Perez, however, didn’t budge. When prosecutors showed her images of documents they claimed were part of her presentation, she said she’d never seen them before...

That last sentence doesn't sound great, does it? The merry mix-up argument says policy was confused and the law unclear, but for questions of intent this recording couldn't have helped:

to "buttress their argument prosecutors played courtroom audio that captured Dugan talking with court reporter Joan Butz and saying “down the stairs” as well as Dugan saying, “I’ll do it…I’ll take the heat,” and Butz responding, “I’d rather get in trouble.”

The jury's verdict -- guilty on obstruction but not guilty on misdemeanor concealment -- is arguable. Dugan's lead attorney "told reporters that he was disappointed with the ruling and didn’t understand how the jury could have reached a split verdict since the elements of both charges were virtually the same." A compromise verdict does make sense in the jury sense-making sense. Most average joes aren't going to relish sending a judge to prison especially when the former mayor comes out to vouch for her.

During testimony earlier this week, federal agents told jurors they notified court personnel of their plans to arrest Flores-Ruiz. The agents also said they told court personnel they planned to carry out the arrest in the courthouse hallway once Flores-Ruiz’s hearing had concluded. Prosecutors showed jurors an email that Ashley sent to his colleagues on April 4, about two weeks before the incident that led to Dugan’s legal troubles. That email came after two other ICE arrests at the courthouse earlier that spring. In the email, Ashley said he was gathering more information, but suggested that ICE arrests could likely be prohibited within private courtrooms.

I have doubts that Dugan will end up serving a real sentence in prison. She's a 66 year old judge who the mayor testified for. I suspect they'll work something out even without consideration of an appeal. Who did she risk her freedom for?

Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was scheduled to appear for domestic violence and battery charges. Those charges come from a complaint by an unnamed roommate who texted Flores-Ruiz about loud music in their shared apartment. Flores-Ruiz confronted the roommate about this text and began pummeling him. This victim was punched in the face at least "30 times." The roommate's girlfriend made an attempt to intervene which resulted in a second pummeling. All pummeled out the assailant turned his attention back to the male roommate and began choking him. A third individual, a cousin of the girlfriend, appeared on the scene, avoided a pummeling of his own, and ended the altercation.

Flores-Ruiz reportedly uttered something in the realm of this isn't over before the couple went to the hospital to receive treatment. They filed a report which led to the Mexican national's arrest and now, also, his deportation. I believe these two were present in the Dugan's courtroom on the day in question.

Anyone surprised by the verdict? Not surprised? Is this a signal received for #resistance in the justice system? A clear line drawn on what the public and feds will tolerate. Or, is the lesson a more practical? More quiet, sophisticated acts are required to protect democracy with celebration for a new martyr on the right side of history. ICE agents lingering outside courtrooms does step on a predictable boundary. If the autonomy of a judge's courtroom justifiably extends into the hallways, then where should it end?

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