site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12hr ago (text post)   418 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for October 2, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Item 1 of 4

The Institute for Justice calls attention to a side-splitting case: If you steal the identity of a dead baby, and successfully maintain the identity theft for thirty years, then do you gain legal ownership of the stolen identity through adverse possession? The appeals panel says no.

As he did at trial, Primrose insists on appeal that he is not culpable for making false statements or identity theft because he had actually become Bobby Fort. Primrose concedes that “there is no criminal case which purports to authorize a defendant [to] legally assum[e] the identity of another just through the passage of time”. But he nonetheless urges us, as a matter of “fairness”, to recognize “an exception authorizing one to assume another identity when one has lived most of his adult life under that name”.

Primrose articulates his theory as an extension of the property-law concept of adverse possession, which allows one to obtain title to real property through extended open and hostile possession. We appreciate Primrose’s candor in admitting that this is “a concept yet unrecognized in criminal law as it relates to assumed identities”. But we decline his invitation to develop the new law that he advocates.

There is no basis in law or reason for us to conclude that one may adversely possess the identity of another person. The Supreme Court has held that “[a]n individual’s identity is more than just his name or Social Security number”. A person’s identity is a part of, not separate from, his personhood. And no matter how long one uses another person’s name, he simply does not become the other person.

The identities that Primrose and his wife assumed belonged to infants who were not long for this world. That the infants’ lives were short does not erase their existence or their importance. And no matter what Primrose and his wife did with the infants’ identities, those identities still belonged to the infants who were born on the dates and received the names that were recorded in their birth certificates. It is not at all clear that the infants, their parents, or family were not “harmed” by Primrose’s actions. And Primrose’s contention that he is the one “who had done the work” to establish an identity under the Bobby Edward Fort name by living a life under that name for 30 years is beside the point.

Item 2 of 4

Culture-war-adjacent, but very funny: /mlp/ learns about EU shipping regulations (EPR—Extended Producer Responsibility)

Anon: I want to get "anonfilly" MLP plushies mass-produced on the cheap, and sell them to other anons
Other anons: Yes, I want to buy these plushies
EU government: Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?

Tentative happy ending

Item 3 of 4

@cjet79 says: To find a romantic partner, "you need to go somewhere where you can be in the top ten percent of men in the room". Two thoughts occur to me:

Item 4 of 4

People whine about how hating split infinitives is unnecessary Romaboo hypercorrection: "I try to not kill" → "tento non necare" → "I try not to kill". But it occurs to me that I have never seen anybody hate (or whine about others' hating) split auxiliary verbs: "I have never killed" → "numquam necavi" → "I never have killed".

Should split auxiliary verbs be judged on a case-by-case basis?

  • Obviously, in the previous sentence attempting to reunite "should" and "be judged" is totally impossible without dealing fatal damage, since the separation is loadbearing in English.

  • In "I now have killed", can "now" be considered to apply only to "have", rather than to "killed" or to "have killed"? Does asking this question even make any sense at all?

The dreaded Romaboos can be expected to care in some cases but not in others. "I have now killed" → "num necavi" → "I now have killed", but "I have now been killed" → "sum num necatus".

Re 1:

Morrison was given the same sentence on Thursday, when she continued to insist that she would never use the Morrison name and would have “100% recidivism” if she was forced to.

“I would rather remain in prison for the rest of my life than use that identity,” she said….

Primrose and Morrison had both motioned for name changes prior to sentencing, which were denied by U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi, who nonetheless acknowledged that the couple still consider Fort and Montague to be their “true” names.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Muehleck pushed for a maximum sentence for Primrose and Morrison — 16 months for the conspiracy charges and passport fraud, and 24 months for aggravated identity theft, pointing out that the pair have continued to make false statements about their identities, even during the hearings.

While discussing the pre-sentencing report, Primrose told the court, “I am Bobby Edward Fort, I will not be signing anything that says Walter Glenn Primrose.”

Source

That seems like an extraordinary commitment to the bit. I can’t help but wonder if the couple had some sort of traumatic experience prior to adopting their new identities. Their insistence on continuing to use the old names doesn’t make sense to me otherwise.

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