site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The shot seems clearly more justified than the Babbitt shot.

That one:

Despite multiple warnings not to proceed,[7] Babbitt attempted to climb through a shattered window beside a barricaded door into the Speaker's Lobby, at which point she was shot in the shoulder[8] by a United States Capitol Police (USCP) officer.

Now, granted, this might be a uncharitable summary, WP is unlikely to be very sympathetic to J6 rioters.

I think that the difference of Babbitt and Good was that it was apparent that the former was in the middle of a breaking and entering mission. She was not climbing through that window because she was panicking and trying to flee, she was clearly looking for trouble.

Sure, it would have been better if a squad of cops in riot gear were in that hallway so they could stop the rioters with less than lethal methods. Or if they had stopped them well outside any federal buildings, for that matter. And if you want to argue that someone intended for that fuckup to happen, I have little to argue against that.

But I thought if anyone would be sympathetic towards a stand your ground approach, it would be Republicans.

I will not argue that Good was innocent. She had likely violated traffic rules with the intent to frustrate ICE's objectives. But from the way she steered her car, as well as her demographic group, it seems very likely that what she was thinking was not "finally a chance to kill one of these Gestapo fucks" but rather "oh my god, they are arresting me, Trump will send me to an El Salvador megaprison, I am about to get disappeared".

Which is delusional when in fact she would have gotten away with a fine and community service, but it is not an intrinsically aggressive delusion -- unlike thinking that you are meant to stop the steal, for example.

I think that the difference of Babbitt and Good was that it was apparent that the former was in the middle of a breaking and entering mission.

I think the maximal charitable case for Babbitt (which is probably about as charitable as plenty of takes for Good, but far more charitable than I'm typically inclined to be) is "unarmed American veteran shot by the State while attempting to petition elected representatives about a political issue", which is AFAIK factually correct (if missing a bunch of context) in ways that really do make the government's J6 response sound pretty tyrannical.

That said, I'm more inclined to "tragic, if predictable, on all accounts" framing in both situations.

She was not climbing through that window because she was panicking and trying to flee, she was clearly looking for trouble.

So was Renee Good - the whole reason why she was there was to block ICE from performing their duties. It's not like she was randomly stopped on the way to a grocery store and it escalated - she specifically went there to engage ICE and impede them. That is very much "looking for trouble" and while it is sadly tolerated way too much in and by itself it is already a crime. Not a deadly threat yet, of course, but definitely looking for trouble is there.

The difference is whether there was an imminent deadly threat. A tiny woman breaking a window and trying to fit through it is hardly one - Byrd could have subdued Babbitt with his right hand tied behind his back (if he weren't a massive coward of course). There's no way ICE officer could have subdued an SUV driving towards him, unless he's Jack Reacher, who as we know is a fictional character.

But I thought if anyone would be sympathetic towards a stand your ground approach, it would be Republicans.

The counterpoint is that there were other armed officers nearby, and the only one who thought Babbit deserved a new hole was a known fuck-up retard who should have been off the force years ago. Guy was actually already famous for the "Capitol police officer left his gun on a urinal" story. He's actually in the news again as of a few days ago because his side gig is a government-subsidized daycare.

L.M.A.O.