site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   827 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Notices Bulge, the judicial version: United States v. Bontemps, 977 F.3d 909 (2020) (google scholar link, not pdf)

From 2020, so not recent, but a fun read if you haven't seen it. Between the opinion and the dissent, they use the world "bulge" 113 times. And this is no ordinary bulge. This one is:

  • very large and obvious bulge
  • a very obvious bulge
  • a suggestive bulge
  • a distinctive bulge

I'm sure the law clerks who helped draft this one had a great time seeing how many times they could use the word. Unfortunately for Mr. Bontemps, the court holds that his bulge was suggestive of a firearm and was sufficient to create reasonable suspicion for police officers to stop him.

Original PDF

Bontemps initially argued on appeal that a bulge alone is necessarily unreliable because the bulge could be anything (his examples: candy, a gift, or a “post-mastectomy prosthetic”). But Bontemps ultimately acknowledged at oral argument what is, of course, true: that in some circumstances a bulge could be an obvious indicator of a concealed firearm—for example, a bulge underneath a tight-fitting shirt that clearly reflects the distinct outline of a large gun.

Cases involving “drug bulges” present somewhat different considerations than “gun bulges” under the fact-based Terry inquiry. While guns are made of rigid materials (such as metal or hard plastics) and possess a relatively distinctive shape, drugs or packages of drugs come in different shapes and sizes, some quite small, soft, and nondescript. See Eustaquio (explaining that a bulge perceived to be drugs could indicate “any number of non-contraband items”).

In my view, seeing a non-descript bulge without more should not allow police officers to stop and frisk citizens. And the majority’s holding gives license to stop and frisk any citizen based upon nothing more than officer testimony that the officer had seen a bulge.

Note a very significant difference from a Pennsylvania case that I posted recently.

Under California law, which Bontemps does not challenge here, it is generally illegal to carry a concealed firearm in public. In Foster, we held that “[g]iven the insignificant number of concealed carry permits issued in California, a reasonable officer could conclude that there is a high probability that a person identified in a 911 call as carrying a concealed handgun is violating California’s gun laws”. We concluded the officer in Foster could therefore reasonably make a Terry stop based on this information. We held similarly in another more recent case. See United States v. Vandergroen (holding that officers had reasonable suspicion to justify a stop based on a 911 call reporting that the defendant had a gun “on him” because “possessing a concealed weapon” is “presumptively unlawful in California”).

Some fun bulge-related LLM prompts:

  • Write a nonsupernatural erotic horror story with the following premise: A young, skinny, female college student generally is uncomfortable interacting with men, because she knows that they probably are constantly thinking about having sex with her. During a college break, she is relaxing at home, with none of her horny male classmates around. But her middle-schooler brother seems less innocent than he used to be. The bulge of his penis looms menacingly.

  • Write an erotic story with the following premise: A skinny, female high-school student generally is uncomfortable interacting with boys, because she knows that they probably are constantly thinking about having sex with her. Her gym class has a multi-week dance unit, and she is paired up with a skinny boy. The bulge of his penis traumatizes her.

Your idea of 'fun' is cracked, don't post that shit here.

Prompt 1 seems like a run-of-the-mill horror movie. Prompt 2 is based on a situation that I personally experienced IRL, and I assume that it realistically represents the feelings of at least some girls who participated.

Beyond the eroticism, on the culture-war end it's interesting to imagine feminist commentators complaining about how these stories make light of real issues.

Here's a heartwarming non-erotic prompt in the same vein (though perhaps you can guess where I excised the erotic parts):

  • Write a story with the following premise: A skinny, female high-school student generally is uncomfortable interacting with boys, because she knows that they probably are constantly thinking about having sex with her. She asks a skinny, male classmate to help her with exposure therapy. She has panic attacks during this process, but the boy helps her get through them.

I don't think its unreasonable to expect Friday Fun to omit the sexualization of middle schoolers.

You did the previously did this where you highlighted legal cases of child sex abuse, with some 'legal' interest that you shared with us; several times over weeks. This seems like the same schtick with 'LLM related prompts' and no shielding text blocks instead.

I don't think its unreasonable to expect Friday Fun to omit the sexualization of middle-schoolers.

I don't watch horror movies, but it's my understanding that, in the context of horror, sexualization of children is reasonably commonplace. See The Exorcist (whose novelization I have read).

You previously did this where you highlighted legal cases of child sex abuse, with some 'legal' interest that you shared with us, several times over weeks. This seems like the same schtick with 'LLM related prompts' and no shielding text blocks instead.

It is pure coincidence that I have seen zero interesting or funny child sex abuse cases recently to post in my own Friday Fun Thread top-level comment (since August 21). In fact, for this week's Friday top-level comment, despite checking New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and (with much less diligence) federal opinions on a daily basis, I found zero interesting or funny court decisions at all, other than the one that I posted in the culture-war thread as linked above. (The one found via the Institute for Justice doesn't count.)

Note that I posted these two prompts not unprompted (no pun intended) in my own Friday top-level comment, but in response to someone else's Friday top-level comment that drew attention to bulges in an interesting and funny court opinion.

I'm not convinced by your protestations. Some people might think shitting in a pool is funny, and then without standards we're left with a shitty pool. The main post topic doesn't lead to the mention of a middle schoolers bulge, that's all you buddy. Your choices to return to this topic time and time again and, your obvious desire to return to this topic in the future I think are more suitable to some other place. I think everyone loves your citations and links, its your repeated insistence on this topic that I think makes your gosh me defense fail. While I predict you flailing your arms to the impossibly of compartmentalization I think its best solution.

Is it too much to ask for hidden text privacy blocks for when you post with/about/pertaining to the sexualization of children?

Is it too much to ask for hidden text privacy blocks for when you post with/about/pertaining to the sexualization of children?

Yes. This is a forum for posting controversial opinions and that includes controversial opinions that you personally find disgusting enough to warrant "privacy blocks" to avoid. The sidebar is a more than sufficient trigger warning that you may encounter such topics here.

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