site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   33437 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Likely doing the thing they often do where they stop and harass people for observing them.

There was a longer video I saw that showed a few minutes beforehand. There were dozens of people on foot "observing" the ICE agents, where "observing" is some dishonest libtard euphemism for "screaming insults and hostility like psychotic banshees in a way that absolutely and obviously made the situation more tense, stressful and dangerous for everyone involved."

Only this time, the observer panicked and so did ICE.

Yes. The protestors should all be tried as accessories. In the best case for your take here, they were idiotically engineering the precursors for a tragedy. In the realistic scenario, they were actively hoping for it, plus or minus some dead LEOs.

Surely you don't seriously believe that protestors should be tried as accessories simply for being obnoxious and increasing background stress? If you don't, please don't say it, because it doesn't do favors to the discourse here whether or not it's specifically prohibited. If you do, you need to do better than simply toss out something inflammatory like that. Making the action of 'raising tension' a crime is bananas.

Morally? I think they're absolutely culpable. I find their behavior virulently anti-social and anti-civic, and it ought to be possible to crack down on it in some fashion. Maybe if they'd gotten hit with obstruction or harassment misdemeanors beforehand, we wouldn't be talking about how much blame they deserve for a death.

Personally, I find accosting and murdering innocent people and then calling them domestic terrorists to be anti-social and anti-civic, and it ought to be possible to crack down on it in some fashion. Maybe if law enforcement suffered consequences more often for abusing their power, it would happen less often.

  • -10

Which of the following would you disagree with?

  1. This woman used her vehicle to impede ICE officers.
  2. It is legal for the federal government to enforce immigration and borders.

From my perspective, if both are true, then innocent is not an accurate description of this person.

This woman used her vehicle to impede ICE officers

If people have evidence of this, they should present it. So far, I've seen people assume this out of instinctive deferrence to authority, but I haven't seen it substantiated (and, again, given ICE's history of lying to justify their undisciplined and aggressive behavior, I see no reason to trust them).

It is legal for the federal government to enforce immigration and borders.

This is the slippery slope I mentioned, where "we require certain authority to do our job" becomes "we can do whatever we claim is necessary." ICE has a specific job that doesn't really them to send out masked goons like this.

I find it fairly unlikely ICE agents thought they had a real reason to try and detain her, rather than thinking they were going to put an obnoxious protestor in their place. And why not? There's no way they're going to be held accountable. Just loudly proclaim you bagged a domestic terrorist.

If people have evidence of this, they should present it. So far, I've seen people assume this out of instinctive deferrence to authority, but I haven't seen it substantiated (and, again, given ICE's history of lying to justify their undisciplined and aggressive behavior, I see no reason to trust them).

Did you look?

I saw footage on 2way of an eye witness making this claim. She could be wrong, but it isn't just speculation and defensive reporting by agencies.

Yes, I spent a fair amount of time yesterday evening looking for longer, unedited footage that might clarify the origin of the confrontation.

So far I have hearsay or inference, frequently from people who openly endorse violence against protesters.

frequently from people who openly endorse violence against protesters.

2Way had a brief interview with what appears to be a very distraught neighbor.

Now that you can find somewhat functional mainstream media again we should be using it more, the internet was only the best choice when MSM was dead.

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