site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   30839 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A woman in Minneapolis has been killed in an altercation with ICE. I don’t really trust any of the narratives being spun up. Here are two three angles:

Angle 1

Angle 2 [Twitter] [youtube]

Angle 3 (Emerged as I was writing this)

This is actually a fairly discussed type of shooting. Law enforcement confronts a person in a vehicle, the LEO positions himself in front of the vehicle, the person in the vehicle drives forward, and the cop shoots the person. Generally, courts have found that this is a legitimate shoot. The idea being that a car can be as deadly a weapon as anything.

Those who are less inclined to give deference to law enforcement argue that fleeing the police shouldn’t be a death sentence, and that usually in these situations the LEO has put himself in front of the vehicle.

I have a long history of discussing shooters in self-defense situations [1] [2] [3] and also one of being anti-LEO. However, I’m softer on the anti-LEO front in the sense that within the paradigm in which we exist, most people think the state should enforce laws, and that the state enforcing laws = violence.

The slippery slope for me: “Fleeing police shouldn’t be a death sentence”

“Resisting arrest shouldn’t be a death sentence”

“If you just resist hard enough, you should be able to get away with it”

People really try to divorce the violence from state action, but the state doesn’t exist without it.

From my viewing of the video, it seems clear that the driver tried to run over the ICE agent first, at which point the agent responded by opening fire. Could have been handled better, but still a justified shooting.

She actually did hit him.

Has that been confirmed or you’re going off the video? It looks like it from the far away angle but I don’t feel certain from that alone.

There's a lot of videos, and in some of them it's pretty clear there's contact.

In one of the videos you can see the officer literally folded over the hood of the car. She hit him.

Oh ok I’ll take a look for it.

Not at all. She was turning to the right. Maybe it's still a justified shooting because the officer couldn't read her mind, but if she wanted to run him over, she could have.

It isn’t clear to me that she didn’t turn right after the officer pulled the gun (ie but for the gun pull, she would’ve ran over the officer)

Stop the video at 14.5 seconds and go frame by frame, look at the position of the left front wheel relative to its mud flap. It made a fluid motion; it never stopped turning to the right. There's no frame where the car's wheel was not turning towards the right.

Yeah, I watched it again, and she clearly intended to turn right from the very beginning. Her wheels started turning at the same time that she started moving forward. That's also the moment the cop pulled out his gun. So I can see how he might have thought she might have been about to drive at him when he decided to pull out his gun. However, by the time he pulled the trigger, she was well into her turn and it should have been clear to him what she was trying to do.

What you can also see if you watch carefully is that, as she was backing up, he started getting ready to take his gun out while standing still. He had a chance to get out of the way, but decided that in the case where she did drive at him, it would be better for him to kill her than to have gotten out of the way and let her escape.

You are asking the LEO to be Paul Atreides. You are assuming he knew the intent you are giving her (ie that she was going to flee). He didn’t know which direction she was going to drive and thus how difficult it would be to dodge.

Here is what he did know:

A crazy woman decided to barricade a road to prevent ICE from operating. She was refusing multiple orders and when another agent was trying to apprehend her, she backed up and then put the car into gear to drive forward.

Is it reasonable in that context to fear she might do something crazy like drive at him? Yes. In fact she did.

Is it crazy for him to be ready to draw his gun to neutralize the target? No.

You are assuming he knew the intent you are giving her (ie that she was going to flee). He didn’t know which direction she was going to drive and thus how difficult it would be to dodge.

I'm not saying he knew. I'm saying that he should have known her intent. If he had any reason to think it would be difficult to ascertain her intent and that that ambiguity would lead him to take her life as a precaution, he should not have stepped in front of the vehicle, and having stepped in front of the vehicle, he should have gotten out of the way at the earliest opportunity when he saw that she was going to start moving the car. What reasonable goal was he hoping to accomplish by standing in front of the car, putting both of their lives at risk?

A crazy woman decided to barricade a road to prevent ICE from operating. She was refusing multiple orders and when another agent was trying to apprehend her, she backed up and then put the car into gear to drive forward.

We don't know that she was crazy and she wasn't barricading the road. She blocked one lane on a wide street. You can see a car drive past her in the video.

Regardless, even if this were all true, it doesn't mean she needed to die. He had a responsibility to minimize that risk. Someone being crazy is not an excuse to have them killed. It calls for all the more caution. If he knew she was crazy, that makes all the more irresponsible to stand in front of her vehicle while she was in the driver's seat.

Is it reasonable in that context to fear she might do something crazy like drive at him? Yes. In fact she did.

Yes, and the appropriate response to that is to get out of the way, not to create a situation in which he feels the need to kill someone.

Is it crazy for him to be ready to draw his gun to neutralize the target? No.

Not so long as he doesn't kill her unnecessarily, which he ended up doing. He should be actively avoiding situations where he might need to draw his weapon unless he has to be there. Nothing was accomplished by his standing in front of her car.

Even after he had made the decision to put himself in that dangerous situation, the presumption should have been that she wasn't going to run him over. Of course it was possible. But it was unlikely. If the choice is between certainly killing her and a small possiblity that she injured him (there is no way his life was in danger at that low speed), he needed to take the risk. His series of mistakes leading up to that dangerous situation doesn't give him an excuse to kill her.

No. Look at the direction the front left wheel is facing when she begins to accelerate (apologies, easiest source to find). I'm almost certain the vehicle has power steering and could have been redirected before accelerating.

Having a hearty chuckle that the best video we can find on our humble rationalist forum is Asmongold.

I was a bit slack to be honest. I've seen all the different angles on twitter slowed down.

Yeah, he cut off the video right when the wheel was straight, and then replayed it again and again, stopping at that instant to make his point. Why did he not show the full video in which the wheel completes the turn from left to right? My point still stands, if she wanted to run the officer over, then she could have.

It's a case of Ice saves ICE: had the road not been icy, she 100% would have ran him over.

Nice joke, hard disagree on the facts though. The icy road didn't make her accidentally turn the wheels to the right. The cop was already on the left side of her car. If she wanted to ram him, she wouldn't need to turn right at all, and neither bullet nor ice would have stopped her car from going over him, considering how far it went afterwards.

The only fact here is that she stepped on the gas while the tyres were straight and pointing towards the officer. The lack of traction gave her time to continue turning the wheel. Let's focus on her actions instead of her intentions, unless you can read minds?

If she wanted to ram him, she wouldn't need to turn right at all

She wanted to get away even if it meant bumping (in her mind) a nazi or two. More charitably, her poor driving led to her almost running over an officer (or at least bumping him) and she paid dearly for it. FAFO, as the kids say.

I don't think she intentionally tried to run over the officer. I think in her attempt to avoid being apprehended, she started to drive off while turning the wheel and the officer leaned on the hood to try to change her mind. Her mind was not changed in that split second and the rest is history. It was a dumb move that got her killed.

If you watch the slow motion videos of the vehicle, yeah she did try to run into them. She turned her wheels towards them, then started accelerating.

https://x.com/SarahisCensored/status/2009022817019572408

She only turned after she hit the cop.

She backs-up with the wheels turned to the left, stops, turns the wheels to the right, and then accelerates forward. The officer is in front of the car, so via the intermediate value theorem, there is indeed a point where the wheels are pointed directly at the cop.

This doesn't really mean much, because she keeps turning the wheels, and this is also exactly the technique one would use to execute a two-point turn.

She backs-up with the wheels turned to the left, stops, turns the wheels to the right, and then accelerates forward.

She hadn't completed turning to the right when she accelerated forward. As @Stellula points out, the wheels are straight when she starts going forwards, and the cop pulls the gun and fires immediately.

I disagree. Watch the wheels, which are spinning out on the ice. When she tires to accelerate, she’s pointed right at the cop.

When you turn the wheel and press the accelerator at the same time, the car doesn't go in a straight line.

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