site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   17475 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.

Well, fleeing shouldn't be a death sentence. But attempting to strike an officer with your car can be. (agent, officer, whatever). Sure, her intent was to flee, and striking the officer was simply a side effect to which she was completely indifferent. In Minnesota, if the officer died, it would have been considered depraved-heart murder, the second degree felony of which Derek Chauvin was convicted.

As for the officer, what happened? While he was getting his gun out, the car accelerated, he panicked, tried to get out of the way, was clipped by the car, and awkwardly shot his assailant through the driver-side window. There was less than a second between the assailant stepping on the gas and the shot being fired. Why did he shoot through the window? The car unexpected turned away, which is why he didn't become a pancake.

I don't think shooting was "the right move," in that by the time the shot was actually fired the danger had already passed. But that's a skill issue - the decision to shoot initially was 100% justified, as is backed by countless cases.

A leftist attempted to end the officer's life, or at least acted in a way that was completely indifferent to it, and because of that she died. Now most other leftists are trying to end his life a different way. We're not going to stand for it this time, or Monday Morning QB in ultra-slow motion the actions an officer took when a leftist protester was trying to murder him.

While we cannot see inside someone's brain from a video, the explanation above is perfectly rational, consistent with the evidence, and clearly the most likely explanation (compared the delulu fantasy that the officer for no reason decided he wanted to kill someone). Many will pretend not to understand, or pretend that it is implausible, hence making discourse impossible. I am not going to argue with them. Instead, we are simply going to call on the Trump administration and red states to protect this officer from Minnesota's deranged courts. We will not let people who openly brag about wanting to kill ICE agents lie about what happened today. This time, we are holding the line.

Speak for yourself. You have been warned about this before.

Three day ban to cool off.

This rule is consistently the most confusing one to me. Everything sulla says comes with the implicit qualifier “so thinks sulla.” Why is using “we” so offensive, obviously sulla is referring to those that agree with him. He never said anything like “All of the motte agrees leftists are retarded.”

Leaving that qualifier implicit is like a cat puffing itself up. It’s a threat display. “So thinks Sulla…and some other people. How many? Guess. :3”

Rhetorically convenient. Not conducive to discussion.

Although I agree with the moderated post, I also agree with @netstack that The Motte isn't the place for this sort of chest thumping and grandstanding. Take it to X.

Leftist mod abusing the rules proving the posters point. Ironic.

  • -16

Well then you'll love this. You have one of the longest mod records here. You are one of those users whose list of warnings and tembans (with zero AAQCs) requires the scroll button. You have been told specifically to knock it off with the ankle-biting "Waaaah! The mods are leftist and biased!" whining.

Basically, everything I told you before.

Because it's been a while, and because we generally dislike banning people for attacking mods or criticizing moderation (even when they really, really deserve it) I am not permabanning you. But you can take a month off, and if you don't come back, I doubt you will be missed.

For everyone else:

Here's yet another tedious exchange we have all the time on the Motte:

Culture Warring Poster: "I HATE MY ENEMIES! BOO MY ENEMIES! MY ENEMIES SUCK! CAN WE KILL MY ENEMIES?"

Mod: "Don't talk like that. This is not what the Motte is for."

Tiresome Anklebiter: "But I agree with him! His/my enemies do suck! Obviously the mod sympathizes with my enemies!"

If you haven't internalized the idea that we discuss the culture war (and the multifarious ways in which your enemies suck) but this isn't a place for rallyng the troops or consensus building, let alone talking about how much you want to curb-stomp your enemies, then you are being intentionally obtuse.

Fwiw, IMO @sulla's post would have been okay until the last paragraph.

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