site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   4104 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 3, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jury system is not that bad in itself, a priori, for exactly the reasons you specify. I am more perplexed by the aftergrowths, such as exclusionary rule, and all ideas in the same concept-space neighborhood, that information presented to the jury should be managed on basis of whether some procedural rules were violated or not. I think it was a gigantic mistake by the US legal minds that unfortunately has spread to other Western countries, too, and can result in great injustices.

Any information that is likely to provide information pertaining on facts should be permitted as evidence. What if the cops or prosecution violated some rules to obtain the evidence they present, or did not utter a magical incantation while arresting a defendant? They should suffer the legal consequences for violations, but as long as the information obtained is good and has provenance that it is good, it should be allowed in. A judicial system loses its soul and becomes a mere court system when it loses a sight that it should identify people who are guilty or innocent of crimes, not to manage its own rules.

The exclusionary rule is good because it is better to prevent abuse than to punish it. More so the more power we give to potential abusers. Cops are given a lot of power, so they should have to make extra sure that they use it correctly.

… to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, such as were permitted under the general warrants issued under authority of the government, by which there had been invasions of the home and privacy of the citizens, and the seizure of their private papers in support of charges, real or imaginary, make against them.

In other words, we really mean it! Don’t take our stuff without asking!

What if the cops or prosecution violated some rules to obtain the evidence they present, or did not utter a magical incantation while arresting a defendant? They should suffer the legal consequences for violations, but as long as the information obtained is good and has provenance that it is good, it should be allowed in.

They will almost never suffer any consequences. That's true, empirically, even when the information is excluded. When the information is not excluded, the incentives are VERY strong for them to violate every rule in order to get convictions. Complaining about the exclusionary rule and suggesting punishments for cops/prosecutors who violate defendant's rights to get a conviction is equivalent to saying defendant's rights don't matter.

You are asserting many things in a short comment, and perhaps all your claims are true in the Anglo / US context. But, you know, I read your message thrice and didn't find any empiracal backing that there is a causal relationship that is not just path dependent happenstance. In Scandinavian system I am familiar with, it appears that cops and prosecutors are far too soft despite that the courts generally are allowed to consider all relevant information, whether it was lawfully or unlawfully obtained.

Despite all the procedural chicanery that you claim is necessary to protect defendants' rights, the US and to lesser extent other English-speaking countries are only ones I have heard about with a problem with parallel construction and asset forfeiture. Perhaps you have an issue of not policing the police and prosecutors sufficiently, and opting for weird procedural hamstringing that gets in the way of getting guilty people to jail is not helping as much as it should.

We have parallel construction BECAUSE we have the exclusionary rule. If you don't have the exclusionary rule you can simply introduce the unlawfully-obtained evidence, the defendant is convicted, then nothing else happens. Asset forfeiture (itself a civil procedure) has nothing to do with any of this.

The other thing that annoys me about crim pro is that it inevitably protects the rights of guilty but not of the innocent. So the police violate your rights but don’t find evidence because you didn’t commit the crime? Sucks to suck. But they do the seem and find evidence you are guilty? Excluded.

In both situations, the police and the department (via vicarious liability) ought to be civilly liable. But evidence ought not be excluded.

Of course, this can create an incentive for police to trample rights viewing any civil suit as a cost of doing business. Perhaps that can be solved via exponentially growing settlements.

I think there's a game theory element to it. Remove the incentive for cops to violate the fourth amendment "just this one time" and take one for the team, or (more likely) pass off a new recruit as the fall guy. I'd be pretty damn upset if my fourth amendment rights were violated and I was consoled with "but don't worry, that guy who did it got fired." Excluding this evidence instead makes such a violation a worthless act.

The issue here is the incentives though, especially with regard to the 4th amendment but also including any other rules. If we assume the police want to convict people they dislike, and violating rules results in a slap on the wrist, then the police are incentivized to violates rules to gather more data. Which is less about protecting the actual criminals and more about violating the rights of the dozen of innocent people they get along the way.

If the police illegally storm and search a dozen homes with no warrant, and one of them has drugs, then that's one additional drug conviction. Even if they've technically broken the law, the prosecutor can choose not to pursue the issue and the police chief can secretly congratulate the violators and they've got their extra conviction. If, instead, that extra drug conviction is completely invalid for the police to benefit themselves or the prosecution by violating rules. The point is not that that one drug offended deserves to go free because the police didn't catch him the right way, the point is that a dozen non-criminals got searched in the meantime and we want to remove any incentive for that to happen. The small injustice of messing with jury evidence is a means to align the incentives and create more justice in general.

The issue here is the incentives though, especially with regard to the 4th amendment but also including any other rules. If we assume the police want to convict people they dislike, and violating rules results in a slap on the wrist, then the police are incentivized to violates rules to gather more data. Which is less about protecting the actual criminals and more about violating the rights of the dozen of innocent people they get along the way.

Well this is implicitly the perplexing part of the solution. Why choose indirect incentive hacks when the direct incentive hacking -- the officer who commits a crime should be personally liable for those crimes, as any other citizen -- would be much more direct incentive?

Contra common but incorrect belief, police in the US do not enjoy immunity from criminal liability. If the cops murder you, that's still murder, etc...

The problem is twofold. First that many civil rights violations aren't actually crimes. If the police search you unlawfully, they're not guilty of any crime, they just acted improperly and any evidence they found would be thrown out. You might be entitled to damages, but probably not. Second is that in the event an officer does commit a crime in the course of their responsibilities, the legal system will generally bend over backwards to excuse them. Police are of the strong opinion that they don't make mistakes or commit crimes, prosecutors are strongly incentivized to be on good terms with the police, and juries will extend officers the extreme benefit of the doubt.

Well this is implicitly the perplexing part of the solution. Why choose indirect incentive hacks when the direct incentive hacking -- the officer who commits a crime should be personally liable for those crimes, as any other citizen -- would be much more direct incentive?

Because it almost never happens. For obvious reasons of incentives.

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