site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13042 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 14, 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.

Remember this comment I made about Philadelphia prosecutor (district attorney) Larry Krasner back in June? The situation has escalated.

  • A person is charged with a 2007 murder. In 2009 he is convicted, and in 2010 he is sentenced to life in prison. In 2015, his state habeas petition is rejected.

  • Also in 2015, he files a federal habeas petition. The Philadelphia prosecutor's office resists the petition in 2017, but in 2018 Krasner is elected as prosecutor, and in 2019 the prosecutor's office stops resisting. However, the federal proceedings are stayed until the defendant's second state habeas petition has finished being digested by the state judicial system.

  • In 2022, the federal proceedings finally start up again. Krasner's office concedes that the defendant's trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to a detective's hearsay statement (that a non-testifying witness told the detective that the defendant was the shooter). Since the proceeding no longer is adversarial, the judge invites the state prosecutor (attorney general) to intervene as amicus curiae.

  • In 2026, Krasner's office moves to withdraw its concession because the document contains "material misstatements". The judge investigates. I'm not sure that I'm summarizing the sequence of events correctly, but I think it's something like this:

    • (1) Matthew Stiegler, chief of the office's Conviction Integrity Unit (so presumably a direct subordinate of Krasner), looks at the case with the aid of the Innocence Project and the Defender Association of Philadelphia, and decides that it should be conceded.

    • (2) He intentionally assigns the job of "writing" the concession—in reality, just copying-and-pasting whatever Innocence Project and Defender Association say, and not bothering to talk with the relevant witnesses—to inexperienced assistant prosecutor Jaclyn Mason.

    • (3) After reading the concession document, the judge doesn't just swallow it, but instead demands a hearing to get sworn testimony from the relevant witnesses. This prompts a "panic" in the prosecutor's office.

    • (4) Four assistant prosecutors go over the concession document again and find many "misstatements" (lies) in it. The four recognize that this is all Stiegler's/Krasner's fault, but Mason misinterprets them as assigning the blame to her, and submits her resignation to Krasner.

    • (5) Krasner's chief of staff Jennifer Lin directs Mason to stop working immediately rather than staying until the end of the month, in order to make her resignation seem inculpatory to the judge.

    • (6) Judge-written heading: "Stiegler Schemes to Blame Mason". However, the four assistant prosecutors refuse to do this, and insist that this misconduct be referred to the state prosecutor. Krasner wants to "protect the office".

    • (7) The four assistant prosecutors finally submit to the judge a document stating that Krasner, along with the entire prosecutor's office, has a conflict of interest and should be disqualified from participating in the case.

  • The judge doesn't like this rigmarole one bit.

The credible evidence is tantamount to a prima facie showing of conduct that may constitute false statements, false declarations made under oath, perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy.

I have thus reluctantly concluded that Philadelphia's highest law enforcement official and one of his top assistants may have violated the law. In these circumstances, with the issuance of this Memorandum, I refer the DAO, Mr. Krasner, and Stiegler to this District's United States Attorney's Office for investigation and other appropriate action.

It appears that in attempting to impede the Court's hearing and inquiry into the DAO’s conduct in Johnson, Mr. Krasner, aided by Stiegler, put the Law Division supervisors in an impossible situation that might jeopardize them professionally and may have violated the law. Mr. Krasner and Stiegler have thus created a basis for their disqualification from Johnson and their referral to the Department of Justice.

(The judge was appointed by a Republican president, and was himself a Philadelphia assistant prosecutor in the 1977–1979 and 1981–1983 periods.)

I understand his counsel may have been ineffective and there's been some subsequent drama in the DAO.

What's the likelihood Johnson is guilty? Any other suspects in the Smith murder?

his counsel may have been ineffective

Quote from the judge's opinion, summarizing the prosecutors' testimony:

On May 13, the Four and Mason met to prepare for the hearing I had ordered, dividing various responsibilities. Ernst reviewed the record and analyzed all eleven of Johnson's Section 2254 claims in a memorandum she sent to Mason and the other supervisors. Ernst concluded that most of the claims were “flat-out losers”, but that the ineffectiveness claim might be plausible. Ernst subsequently determined, however, that the ineffectiveness claim “was not a winning claim”, and that the Concession Brief included “very significant errors”. Wildberger also concluded that the errors were significant, and that the DAO had a duty to correct them.

So even prosecutors motivated to get the defendant's conviction overturned don't think that his lawyer was ineffective.

What's the likelihood Johnson is guilty? Any other suspects in the Smith murder?

I have no idea. See somebody else's comment for some more information.

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