site banner
PaperclipPerfector  29d ago (text post)   23734 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 18, 2026

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.

The Cat in the Hat Comes to Court

WSJ Article on cultural and political strife in jury rooms

(Note: I tried to archive(dot)is the link, but it kept failing. If one of you internet wizards could post a non-paywalled link, I'd move to dismiss all charges appreciate it).

The article does the best that journalism can do today; it begins with a pretty fucking cringe anecdote (more on that below), then generalizes, then backs up the generalization with some "stats" on jury surveys. In weaves in the beginning anecdote throughout the piece to keep the reader engaged. It isn't deliberately misleading or negligently undereported, it's just sort of ... meatless.

The TLDR is that the post-COVID cultural / political situation is making it difficult for juries to come to agreements when, ostensibly, the should be or previously were able. The plural of "anecdote" isn't data and, thanks to the many law-pilled Mottizens, it's plain to see how, if one wants to, it's easy to cherry pick cases (and jury conduct, I would presume) that are absolutely wild. Does that mean it's a real trend? Perhaps, perhaps not. Some of the "experts" quoted kind of gesture in that direction, but the article fails to make a definitive case.

Back to the fuckery

The opening of the article details how a grown-ass jury forewoman decided to make halloween costumes for herself and other jurors and then, with the help of a Boomer Karen, hen-pecked everyone into showing up in red/black shirts and then posing for a group photo in the "costumes":

A Florida jury hearing an opioid-related case planned a group costume inspired by a pair of Dr. Seuss characters, Thing One and Thing Two. Juror No. 2, a graphic designer, made each panelist a “Thing” sign that matched that person’s juror number, and the group agreed to wear black or red shirts.

The triggering thing here, with those who have eyes to see, isn't some sort of pearl clutching around the "sanctity of being entrusted as jurors." It is that a cross-generational alliance of the worst kinds of women guilt-forced everyone else to perform a MANDATORY FUN TIME kafabe.

This is the same character as HR-led corporate initiatives like "dress up as your favorite supreme court justice! (Note: all costumes must be Ruth Bader-Ginsberg)" or "Office pajama day!" or, of course, the LGTBQ+ month. No, they don't actually force you to take part (unless, you know, they fucking do) but if you don't the passive-agressive, begging-the-question bullying becomes its own special torment. This is the infamous office space "pieces of flair" absurdity transformed into a political purity test.

When posters like @faceh directly and others (....me) indirectly assert that "women aren't the problem, but the problem is with women" this is what we mean. This is jury duty. These people are strangers to one another. That these two women would find no qualms in trying to enforce their own personal tastes and attitudes onto strangers is exactly the kind of hyper-entitlement, women-are-wonderful thinking that seems to be creating serious issues in societal competency and functioning.

I have to echo another poster - where is the actual indication that the other jurors disliked the idea (yet were bullied into it)?

I'm told jurors are often a) ideologically aligned because they're drawn from the same environment and b) are often selected for their lack of ability to avoid jury duty rather than for their courtroom decorum. All this looks like sufficient explanation for "a bunch of people, including men, went along with wearing color-coordinated shirts".

The article literally quotes another juror who says he was not into it and only went along with it for the photo.

But, the bigger problem is that people consider playing dress-up in the function of jury duty to be permissible.

This isn't an argument about that specific case. I'm using that specific case to argue about the breakdown of contextual professional due to female cultural policing.

This is the same character as HR-led corporate initiatives like "dress up as your favorite supreme court justice! (Note: all costumes must be Ruth Bader-Ginsberg)"

Michael bursts in late, dramatically throwing open the door. He's wearing a full black robe, a terrible fake white mustache/eyebrows combo. He's gone full blackface as Clarence Thomas. He's even carrying a poorly made "originalist" gavel made out of a stapler and some electrical tape.Michael (proudly, to the camera crew): "See? This is how you do diversity! Not everyone has to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Some of us are brave enough to celebrate all the justices. Clarence Thomas, the man, the myth, the conservative icon who overcame adversity. I'm showing solidarity!"

https://archive.ph/dr885

Not surprised they avoided the entire topic of race-based jury nullification, which seems to have become more frequent post-BLM. Out of curiosity I tried digging up some stats on the prevalence of the phenomenon (eg. conviction rate of black defendants if they have a majority/plurality black jury) but everything seems to reference a single study from Florida, which of course claimed that white jurors are the only biased ones.

Out of curiosity I tried digging up some stats on the prevalence of the phenomenon

Didn't someone post/link to something related here a little while ago? I remember it specifically talking about the OJ Simpson trial, but that really doesn't help with a google search.

There is an extreme dearth of studies because (a) everybody knows what they’ll find - there was a major UK study about 20 years ago on juries that found the exact result you’d expect - and (b) even for the right it’s not worth the political fallout.

In the long term, jury trials are not viable in a multiracial society with additional sectarian tensions. Lee Kuan Yew knew this when he decided Singapore wouldn’t have jury trials despite its legal system based on common law. The Indians knew this when they decided to abolish jury trials in India, where the same was true. The Malaysians knew this when they abolished them after years of cases decided along racial lines in 1995, where again the same was and is true. Interestingly Hong Kong still has them, although that’s arguably because the population is relatively homogenous ~90% Cantonese speakers.

I think jury trials will be abolished in the UK before long. The left hates them in rape trials (and tried to abolish them for rape cases in Scotland recently) and the right increasingly dislike them because several juries in left wing British cities nullified verdicts in BLM and eco-warrior related vandalism cases even when the judge essentially instructed the jury to vote guilty. There was also a case where a leftist trade unionist called for slitting the throats of his political enemies and was cleared by a jury last year.

But in the US? I think the system is too ingrained. Maybe there will be attempts to alter jury composition, but I can’t see them being abolished.

The jury system de jure will not change. That would take constitutional amendment levels of effort over decades. Non-starter.

But de facto, I think you could see something like fewer and fewer cases going to trial because either (or both!) the defense and prosecution can see a very clear way in which a jury trial could break down and result either in a mistrial or a significant bias in one direction or another. Sure, if it's the latter, then whoever would benefit from it - defense or prosecution - might want to push for a trail. If jury (mis)conduct gets bad enough, however, that's grounds for a mistrial or appeal. So, there is risk-on-risk baked in.

Thus, more and more plea bargains in criminal proceedings and more and more settlements in the civil world (IANAL, but I believe civil litigation has seen this happen already as the costs of a full civil trial, especially for corporate issues, are simply almost never worth it unless the potential payouts are massive).

So, effectively, it's not a jury trial. It's an informed negotiation back and forth between counsel on both sides. For smarter lawyers who see that AI will, to some extent, reduce the value of their legal paperwork practice, they will double down on cultivating relational capital with colleagues and other actors within the judicial system. A "good lawyer", in the future, will be the same as it ever was -- a guy who knows lots of people down at the courthouse.

I think this is quite likely. Already, most indictments in cities end in plea bargains rather than trials. Prosecutors love winning and hate losing, so you can have a drift of behavior where you get more plea bargains without needing to change any laws on the books anywhere; just a stochastic shift in prosecutorial and defense strategy.

And where prosecutors don't go to trial, whatever "injustice" there is there gets socialized as a cost across society.

Picking where you live is important.

This is the one thing I hate about modern corporate culture. It’s downstream of a similar concept in modern culture— that acting your age is now seen as being stuffy or something. And everyone must join in the mandatory fun of cosplay and coordinating outfits, and acting like you’re 12 years old. Like, if I’m the defense attorney, im looking at stuff like this as grounds for a mistrial. If they’re not taking the process of being on a criminal jury seriously enough to act like adults in the courtroom, how can they possibly be assumed to be paying attention to the case and taking the instructions to not talk about the case seriously if they’re coordinating cosplay outfits?

I would hope the judge immediately postponed the trial for three hours while the jurors went home to change, after castigating them for not taking their responsibility seriously and promsing to hold anyone who violates court rules for professional attire in contempt

showing up in red/black shirts and then posing for a group photo in the "costumes":

The gendered tyranny of… spontaneously organized dress codes? Is that what is being alleged here, that jurors were pressured into wearing one of two colors of shirt?

What am I missing?

The opening of the article details how a grown-ass jury forewoman decided to make halloween costumes for herself and other jurors and then, with the help of a Boomer Karen, hen-pecked everyone into showing up in red/black shirts and then posing for a group photo in the "costumes"

Not even trying to beat the meme-gender allegations. At least it's wholesome to see that the female penchant for regarding the world as a playground for being cute and doing cute, fun things isn't gate-kept by age.

I was also paywalled from the article, but perhaps I can remain blissfully ignorant in hoping that a mistrial was declared here. "The Court hereby finds a manifest necessity for a mistrial due to certain members of the jury being fucking retarded."

This is the same character as HR-led corporate initiatives like "dress up as your favorite supreme court justice! (Note: all costumes must be Ruth Bader-Ginsberg)"... No, they don't actually force you to take part (unless, you know, they fucking do) but if you don't the passive-agressive, begging-the-question bullying becomes its own special torment.

Tsk tsk, sounds like someone is lacking in team-player and #Ruthkanda Forever spirit.

That these two women would find no qualms in trying to enforce their own personal tastes and attitudes onto strangers

The natural eventuality of never having been told "no" all your life.

It is that a cross-generational alliance of the worst kinds of women guilt-forced everyone else to perform a MANDATORY FUN TIME kafabe.

Although I've generally liked my coworkers across various jobs/companies—as a soft act of rebellion over the years, I've increasingly abstained from work-related mandatory fun sessions, especially if they occur afterhours.

When I first started working I liked attending these for free food and drinks and to chat-up chicks I might not get to otherwise, but nowadays I'm way too its_all_so_tiresome.jpg'd out. I'm already tied up by a given company for 40+ hours a week, to have to further monkeydance and labor Emotionally for it in what would otherwise be my free time feels like a humiliation ritual. I can buy my own food and drinks and meet my own chicks in my free time.

but perhaps I can remain blissfully ignorant in hoping that a mistrial was declared here. "The Court hereby finds a manifest necessity for a mistrial due to certain members of the jury being fucking retarded."

It was a mistrial due to hung jury.

I wonder how much of this dynamic infects actual jury rulings. How many "unanimous" rulings have happened because one or two Karens made up their minds and then hen-pecked everyone else into agreeing with them using social tactics instead of logic and reason?

I often compare women's social power to men's physical power. Imagine if a couple of burly men had physically intimidated all of the women into dressing in bikinis or slutty cleavage suits. Would people think it was cute and quirky then? Would people believe that it was a fair and impartial jury behind closed doors?

That's how juries are supposed to work.

I wonder how much of this dynamic infects actual jury rulings.

Many of them, and it's understood to be just fine and part of the process. Jacobson v. Henderson, 765 F. 2d 12 (2nd.Cir 1985) on why post-trial juror statements aren't admissible to attack a verdict:

the court observed that although "articulate jurors may intimidate the inarticulate, [and] the aggressive may unduly influence the docile," "scarcely any verdict might remain unassailable, if ... statements [to impeach a jury's verdict] were admissible."

Anderson v. Miller, 346 F. 3d 315 (2nd.Cir 2003) is a fun read on how far such behavior can go and still not result in a reversal:

[JUROR No. 11]: The whole group; I felt threatened by them. One time a guy almost got in a fight. They was always yelling at me. I felt afraid; they wouldn't listen to my evidence, what I said. When I asked things to be listened to they said that they didn't want to listen to it; that it would just be for me. I have a letter right here, where I asked — I was gonna send it in to you to come home yesterday; they told me that I wasn't gonna leave, they weren't gonna allow me to leave and I was afraid.

[Juror 2]: I hope you gonna say guilty today because I'm tired of being here.... Everyone was yelling there opinions, and everytime [two (?) words illegible] mine everyone would scream again I was nervous and stressed out with everybody yelling so I first went along with everybody. But then I felt guilty for doing what I did because that was on my conscience. They pressured me to change my vote because we are not going anywhere. I change my vote because I was afraid and pressured, I'm only 20 yrs old and I've never been on a jury, and they were hollering and calling me names. I couldn't take the pressure I just wanted to get away.

There's a difference between something legal and something being good/moral/commendable/encouragement-worthy. The law can't place restrictions on jury-making procedures barring the most clear cut and unambiguous abuses (like actual violence) without slippery sloping itself into corruption and self-masturbatory feedback loops.

I am not the law. I can judge people for being bad and making bad decisions and suggest they are bad people who should be mocked and discouraged from behaving the way they behave. And discourage people from listening to them, because their power is anti-memetic. If obnoxious Karens are actually distorting the law in significant quantities, and people were made aware of this, then people could oppose it by being extra stubborn and stick to their principles when facing obnoxious Karens, with more confidence that their resistance is helping the law and not making them be the bad person the Karen says they are.

I don't think we should make Karen behavior illegal. The law isn't flexible or precise enough to diagnose it and curtail it without horrible overreach. I think we, as people, should call it out and shame it when we find it, across all of society.

I don't think we should make Karen behavior illegal. The law isn't flexible or precise enough to diagnose it and curtail it without horrible overreach. I think we, as people, should call it out and shame it when we find it, across all of society.

Unfortunately Karens, by definition, are the arbiters of shame.

Karens are a particular type of people with particular types of shaming tactics. Trying to shame people does not tautologically cause you to become a Karen. There are countering forces, they're just weaker due to things like having less free time or more libertarian attitudes on behavior and so devote less time and effort to shaming people who actually need it.

How many "unanimous" rulings have happened because one or two Karens made up their minds and then hen-pecked everyone else into agreeing with them using social tactics instead of logic and reason?

Isn't this dynamic just the plot of Twelve Angry Men? It's not strictly bad in the context it's played in, nor is it necessarily gendered.

MathWizard's comment is correct. I first encountered the film in a logic class I took in middle school, as a way to contrast the emotional thinking of most of the jury against the logical, evidence-based thinking of the protagonist who wins more and more jurors over by forcing skeptical analysis of the evidence and witnesses and their statements.

As a complete aside, I've had thoughts at various points over the past decade+ that a modern remake of 12 Angry Men, featuring 12 women on a rape case with a fratty white male defendant would be appropriate. There's a lot of kinks, like how an all-woman jury doesn't make sense like an all-man jury does in the 1950s, and obviously evidence and witnesses to a rape would be quite different from the ones for murder. Maybe in a few years, I'll be able to have Claude generate a script, and in a few more years, have Grok generate a feature-length film of it.

As a complete aside, I've had thoughts at various points over the past decade+ that a modern remake of 12 Angry Men, featuring 12 women

They could then wear CUTE group costumes together and take CUTE photos together without Problematic killjoys like Mr. Puig ruining their FUN! Yayyy!

There's a lot of kinks

Kinks, eh? That’s one way to get people to watch your movie with a cast of twelve women.

A movie called 12 Angry Women would likely cause some online women to be… displeased… even if it’s because the title format was inherited from its predecessor. Whatever it’s called won’t stop Chuds from referring to it as “Hoes Mad (x12),” though.

rape case with a fratty white male defendant

Accuser could be a black stripper/prostitute to tee-up the parallels to Duke Lacrosse. After a difficult Not Guilty verdict, twist would be that the fratty white male was guilty all along, but got off due to him having the 1) privilege of hiring an expensive, amoral defense lawyer and 2) the just, goodhearted ladies of the jury, under the trickery and manipulations of the toxic defense lawyer, not wanting to risk sending an innocent man to prison. Fade to a black screen with factoids such as “one in four college women are raped every year” before rolling the credits.

Starring Meryl Streep, Anne Hatheway, Lupita Nyong’o, Florence Pugh, Rosamund Pike, Jennifer Lawrence, Zoe Saldana, Sandra Oh, Marisa Tomei, Ana de Armas, Sydney Sweeney, and Zendaya as the jurors. Jacob Elordi as the defendant and Robert Downey Junior as his lawyer. Cynthia Eviro as the accuser/victim.

Whatever it’s called won’t stop Chuds from referring to it as “Hoes Mad (x12),” though.

That's the porn parody, at least if this film turns out to be well-received enough to deserve one.

Another aside: there's a clip of Ken Jennings on Jeopardy that goes viral every once in a while, where he gets a "question" wrong, for the "answer" of something like "this word for a gardening tool can also refer to a sexually promiscuous person," and he gets it wrong for saying "what is a hoe?" Of course, the correct "question" was "what is a rake?" This confuses a lot of people right now, especially young people, who believe that both should be correct (and/or don't even know that "rake" would be correct). Back when that episode of Jeopardy was being recorded, the proper spelling of the slang term for "whore" was actually "ho," but it was almost immediately after that that "hoe" also became a correct spelling due to social media blowing up and people typing such words out much more often than before and naturally going for "hoe" as a familiar word (and possibly spellcheck). I'm just reminded of this anytime I see the term "hoe" these days, not referring to the gardening tool.

The plot of Twelve angry men is almost entirely logic-based and not emotion based. They spend the entire movie logically dismantling, or at least calling into doubt, every piece of the prosecution's case. Jury members are supposed to attempt to convince the others of their view in order to establish a unanimous verdict, but this convincing should be based on the logic of the case. A battle guided by the beauty of our weapons. Charismatic and socially manipulative people are disproportionately convincing relative to the truthiness of their words. So are people who threaten others with their fists. In general, but doubly so in a jury, these tactics should be discouraged so that people will be persuaded by arguments proportional to their truthiness instead of the charisma of person speaking with random opinions.

Isn't this dynamic just the plot of Twelve Angry Men? It's not strictly bad in the context it's played in, nor is it necessarily gendered.

Yes, and it’s why that movie is dumb. The final recalcitrant juror is induced to change his mind not by the others successfully convincing him, but by the others socially ostracising and refusing to talk to him. Tell me your movie was written by a woman without telling me it was written by a woman…

(*Disclaimer: Twelve Angry Men was written not by a woman but by a communist nu-male)

The final recalcitrant juror is induced to change his mind not by the others successfully convincing him, but by the others socially ostracising and refusing to talk to him.

You are misremembering.

The racist juror is turned by social ostracism, but is not the last to be convinced. (Although I think you could make the case that he realized how ridiculous and unreasonable he was being as the evidence for the defendant's innocence was building up, and his strong priors for guilt based on the defendant's race prevented him from proper Bayesian updates until the ostracism.)

The final juror is convinced when he realizes he emotionally needed the defendant to be guilty, because he reminded him too much of his son or something.

Huh? Doesn't the movie start with one dissenting "not guilty" and spend the next 90 or so minutes convincing everyone with arguments?

It does but the final thing is shaming the last guy for doing a hecking racism. From a legal POV the movie is absolute shlock.

The final guy wasn't shamed for racism. That was a different, old man. And the shaming and ostracism was in support of logic and evidence, because his rationale for finding the defendant guilty was just racism, in the face of the logic and evidence that they had gone over the movie up to that point. I also don't recall anyone shaming him for his guilty vote, in order to change it; it was his terrible logic they were shaming him for, since the defendant's race couldn't possibly have anything to do with his guilt.

The actual last guy had some personal trauma from his son disavowing him, and the defendant was on trial for the murder of his father. His sticking with the guilty vote due to this, too, was irrational, because his personal history couldn't possibly have anything to do with the unrelated defendant's guilt.

The final recalcitrant juror is induced to change his mind not by the others successfully convincing him, but by the others socially ostracising and refusing to talk to him.

This is just reality. Argument rarely convinces anyone, unless you count the argument from authority and argument from force.

I feel like there's a Russell Conjugation to be had here: "I stand by my convictions in the name of justice, you are irritatingly stubborn, he is a bullying Karen subverting the justice process."

Although I will add that 12 Angry Men did indeed involve logic and reason as well as stubbornness and emotion, but I'd imagine very few people think of their own behavior or a verdict they agree with as ever not being logical.

See also: the UK trying to eliminate juries ("in cases where a convicted defendant would be imprisoned for up to three years").

I'm generally in favor of the jury. It's "the worst system except for all others that have been tried": other than a few high-profile cases (like OJ Simpson), it seems most juries reach reasonable conclusions. A jury is harder to corrupt than a judge, since it's 12 people who are supposed to be ordinary citizens. They tend more lenient (and if the defendant is clearly innocent and the jury convicts them anyways, the judge can and will vacate their ruling), but I'm generally against convicting someone unless they're clearly guilty. Less efficiency isn't a big issue, because most trials are avoided via plea bargain or dropped prosecution.

I also think civil cases against corporations should only need a certain ratio of jurors, because a wrongful conviction is less severe. Criminal cases should be nearly or totally unanimous.

My understanding is that the judge is very powerful in the courtroom: if jurors are bickering or not acting serious, the judge can sanction or replace them, or order a retrial with an entirely new jury. For example, here the judge should've ordered "no costumes".

EDIT after actually reading the article:

In summary, the focused (costume incident) case is about hospitals suing opioid pharmacies. Two jurors wanted to acquit the pharmacies based on the law, the remaining six wanted to convict presumably based on morals. The verdict needed to be unanimous, but apparently the case can be retried (because the parties plan to do so).

Personally, I really wouldn't care either way how this case resolved. In a criminal case that requires unanimity, if jurors are deadlocked between law and feelings, the defendant can only be acquitted, which I generally support whether law or feeling are on their side. A civil case sometimes (in some jurisdictions) doesn't require unanimity.

I think the main issues here are jurors harassing others, violating court rules (using AI), and complaining about other jurors making them feel unsafe. The judge can and should handle these; it seems like they mostly did, and some jurors are just upset that the case didn't end how they wanted.

It's also not just the juries either that decide your fate. If you're clearly innocent you have the prosecutors who probably aren't going to charge you to begin with (most don't want to risk ruining their record and triage stronger cases), the grand jury (which while normally considered easy to get past, we've seen that success rates fall dramatically with explicit weaponization), then the jury and judge, and then the whole appeals process.

And even if that all goes wrong, you can appeal to the president/governor. And even if that goes wrong, you might still be able to appeal to public opinion and put enough pressure on the rest of the system that they drop your case.

If you can't win despite all that, it's probably because you're either truly guilty or because you got insanely unlucky and are practically indistinguishable from truly guilty.

I somewhat agree. But do governors routinely pardon normal cases that fail to get into the news cycle usually because there is a scissor statement involved?

Political cases which I would consider Chauvin the gold standard literally have different results depending on what state it occurs in. In Texas I would say with 80% probability he would not have been charged. Likely another 80% if he was charged he would win at trial. And probably a 100% chance the go vet or would pardon him. Obviously different results in Minnesota.

I believe I have much different views on the system of guilt/innocent 20 years ago than I would today. It very much depends on where you are charged.

OK- Texas, while politically conservative, is on the moderate or centrist end on race issues. Chauvin would have been charged here, would have been convicted, and the governor would not have overturned the conviction. Abbott wants to keep the black political machine as demobilized as possible and crucifying a single cop is more than worth it to him(this is probably why the Texas GOP changed the primary voting rules to suppress turnout in Jasmine Crockett's strongest county even though it meant Talarico would win).

There's this 'Russia effect' where because we're big and take vocal conservative stances on a few issues people tend to point to us as based ethnonationalist cryptofascist radical ideologues. We aren't. The Texas government is not going to protect a cop with that many previous use of force complaints in the face of the niggers rioting, even if the elites put it that way in private.

A GOP governor who didn’t pardon him IMO would likely get primaried. It would be worth it to me. Abbott pardoned a far more guilty guy in Daniel Perry. History seems to strongly point towards a pardon.

…You think Chauvin is popular among the GOP base?

Anything that is a scissor statement between parties becomes popular with the other party.

I love Chauvin. He’s the innocent guy the left hung because of their cultish ideology.

Chauvin is mostly seen as a bad cop who killed a person by normie republicans. This isn’t a scissor statement; approval of Derek chauvin is at columbine fanclub level lows.

More comments

I somewhat agree. But do governors routinely pardon normal cases that fail to get into the news cycle

Yeah, it's not too often but lots of pardons can happen this way. You don't have to get into the news cycle, you can literally file an application with the governors office/state clemency board/etc.

Now it might take a few years, they don't really prioritize that often (in part because most applications are bullshit and they are truly guilty and don't have a good case!) but it happens.

because there is a scissor statement involved?

Wouldn't controversy increase the chance of a news cycle?

Political cases which I would consider Chauvin the gold standard literally have different results depending on what state it occurs in. In Texas I would say with 80% probability he would not have been charged. Likely another 80% if he was charged he would win at trial. And probably a 100% chance the go vet or would pardon him. Obviously different results in Minnesota.

I'm not sure "my imaginary probabilities" is a good source for this sort of topic.

I 100% mean if their is a scissor statement it’s more likely to get pardoned if your in the correct state.

Do you seriously disagree that the results of Chauvins guilt/innocent would not be different in Texas or other red state (same evidence/same event/etc). I 100% think he’s completely innocent. Even if say it occurred in Austin and he got convicted Gov Abbot would have had a ton of pressure to pardon him.

You're in the minority view even among just republicans there.

Also consider that it's not just state charges, but also federal charges he was found guilty for. He went through two different juries and appeals processes (including the US supreme court with its 6-3 conservative majority denying the appeal), so your confidence that there's no basically no chance of him even being charged yet alone convicted in a red state seems inaccurate.

45% of Republicans find him innocent. Which means he absolutely would be innocent in Texas. And it’s likely a much higher rate of not guilty in Republicans who watched the entire 30 minute police interaction who know he did things like saying he couldn’t breathe BEFORE any force was applied or who read the entire medical report and know he had a potentially fatal does of fentanyl in his system. It’s probably close to 95% or even 100% of Republicans who find him innocent.

Like your own study completely supports my position. The 45% of GOP who find him innocent are likely the far more online and active Republicans. The exact people that would heavily pressure a Republican governor to pardon him.

45% of Republicans find him innocent. Which means he absolutely would be innocent in Texas.

I don't know if there's a term for this sort of fallacy but I see it if often in discussions about blue states vs red states. Basically all states are purple states it's just the degree to which they are purple will differ a little.

In 2024, Texas was 56:42 Trump v Harris.

Minnesota was 47:51 Trump v Harris.

There is not that extreme of a demographic difference when you're selecting twelve jurors basically at random from the population who all have to agree on the guilt.

If you pull twelve balls out of a 47:51 red/blue ball bag, the most likely result is still 6 red and 6 blue balls, with a slight edge towards 7 blue 5 red

This is especially true when you consider that a significant amount of eligible voters also don't show up to vote to begin with! So the actual jury makeup is probably more like 4 red balls, 4 blue balls, and 4 normie balls who are just bored retirees or something. So the only difference between the states really is a slight likelihood nudge towards 3 red, 5 blue, 4 normie balls vs 5 red, 3 blue, 4 normie balls.

Unless the defense side is incredibly incompetent and doesn't use preemptory challenges properly, the makeup of a jury isn't going to just be Democrat sided or just Republican sided people. It's going to be a mix of different idealogies and beliefs, with a healthy bunch of normies and independents who all come to an agreement.

Republicans did judge Derek Chauvin. There were Republicans in both the state and federal jury. They looked at all the evidence in deep detail, listened to expert testimony presented by both sides, listened to the defense's best arguments, and found him guilty.

The 45% of GOP who find him innocent are likely the far more online and active Republicans. The exact people that would heavily pressure a Republican governor to pardon him.

Pardons do not imply any bit of legal innocence. Contrary to internet myth they also don't apply any acceptance of legal guilt, but he would still have been found guilty even if he later was pardoned.

More comments

45% of Republicans find him innocent. Which means he absolutely would be innocent in Texas. And it’s likely a much higher rate of not guilty in Republicans who watched the entire 30 minute police interaction who know he did things like saying he couldn’t breathe BEFORE any force was applied or who read the entire medical report and know he had a potentially fatal does of fentanyl in his system. It’s probably close to 95% or even 100% of Republicans who find him innocent.

Exactly. If the framing of the media presentation was adjusted the base facts in the perception of the public likely change. 55% of Republicans agreed with the ruling after an exhaustive full-court press from the entire media system to portray Chauvin as a murderer.

A huge amount of that is the framing of the case and how it was argued. If it happens in another state it's likely covered quite differently in the media and different evidence is admitted

A huge amount of that is the framing of the case and how it was argued. If it happens in another state it's likely covered quite differently in the media

Now whether or not the mechanisms to address media bias in jurors are effective can be worth a discussion, but there are plenty of mechanisms for this. Jurors are straight up not allowed to even read the news for instance. I'm sure some might anyway, but there's only so much you can prevent before going full authoritarian on the jury.

This is not some new problem that only occured with the Chauvin case. The possible effects of media on a jury, and how to mitigate it, have been discussed for centuries in common law systems.

and different evidence is admitted

Media bias would not change that one single bit.

the UK trying to eliminate juries

More details

The real question is why some 70 year old is working for the government - these boomers need to move on!

When Juror No. 5 showed up in a navy blazer, Laurey Trailer, who later became forewoman, got annoyed. The juror, Gerson Puig, begrudgingly put on his “Thing 5” sign—then took it off right after the picture. “I left it where it belonged, in the jury room,” said Puig, 54 years old, a self-employed restaurant consultant.

“I knew at that moment we would have a problem,” said Trailer, 70, an inspector for the Federal Aviation Administration.

This is why I don't fly.

I mean, it's silly but hard to get worked up over. Women are always trying to bully men into emasculating themselves, if you've reached adulthood without the ability to resist that.......I got nothin for you. This is kindergarten stuff.

If anyone is confused or autistic, try a warm smile and the word "no". It's the most beautiful word in the language. Let it roll off your tongue. Let it flow through you. "No". Do not explain. Do not apologize. Do not elaborate. Never adorn your "no" with anything further. Say it cheerfully, as if someone offered you a drink you don't like. "No". You aren't in school anymore. You are an adult, a free person. Tell them no. Choose, and communicate.

Don't whine that you didn't have the intestinal fortitude to resist the social pressure of a middle-aged woman. And certainly don't whine that culture and the government didn't tell you it was ok to resist the social pressure of a middle-aged woman. You don't need them, you've got me. Tell them no. It really is just that easy!

edit: By hilarious happenstance, I'm on jury duty this week, haven't been picked yet. We'll see how it goes, but I guaranfuckentee I won't be in a costume by the end.

Or, you know, have some fun.

I’ve worked in retail my entire career, sometimes it’s fun to have a swim weekend and wear a bathing suit.

Sometimes it’s fun to wear a pink lay (pink is my favorite color).

It’s not about what you’re doing, it’s about how you carry yourself doing it.

If you don’t want to do it, don’t.

But if you don’t know if you want to do it, try it. Don’t be so negative (not you of course, the random make belief person we’re talking to here) - everyone knows retail is purgatory, it’s just ok to be goofy.

I’ve noticed men are literally afraid to do these things rather than not wanting to do them.

Tho I agree with what you’re saying, there’s just something off and jarring about it as well.

I do hate the whiny ‘ they made me do it ‘ - it is the worst possible make trait.

1: We're talking about juries here, not retail

2: No, your outfit isn't "fun".

3: Men are afraid to do what? Wear pink? My knee supports for BJJ are pink, cancer thing for one of our people. Choking a sweaty dude in spandex, now that's fun.

"'No.' is a complete sentence."

Consider for a moment that Jury's aren't random samplings. And these juries were probably specifically selected for being push overs and afraid to be "mean". Best way to get an acquittal is to put people on the jury utterly incapable of dealing out even just punishment if it hurts a feeling.

Consider for a moment that Jury's aren't random samplings.

They aren't completely random but they are essentially random off voter lists/licensed drivers/etc. Like yes there's some homeless guy without a car or other form of state ID that will never get called, but they're few and far between.

Both sides have a limited number of peremptory challenges to remove jurors they see as more subtly problematic. If they're too biased (in a way not reflective of the general population) then it's either just because of pure chance or because one side fucked up.

After two weeks of getting passed over, you may be right. Can you believe these scrubs don't want the venerable JTarrou to judge their cases? I bet they're intimidated by my intellect!

If anyone is confused or autistic, try a warm smile and the word "no".

Nancy had it right: just say no. I hate MANDATORY FUN ("MANDATORY FUN could be here," he thought) and I simply say no to it. Once there is a sufficient number of women in an office, they will start coming up with mandatory fun, but their social pressure is helpless against a solid "no." They'll pout and stamp their little feet and then they'll get over it (or they won't; I don't care).

The jury story is especially amusing. A total stranger trying to apply that kind of social pressure? It would start with a polite no but rapidly escalate to a firm "go fuck yourself." I deal with far worse people than her on a daily basis trying to bully me--she doesn't stand a chance.

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