site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   33564 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.

Why is this so complex to people? Would anyone disagree with the following summary?

  1. She appears to have been trying to hinder/block ICE activities.
  2. She appears to have been trying to flee when she was shot, not kill ICE agents
  3. The front of her car contacted the agent that shot her.
  4. His shots were fired at a point where he personally was not in danger.
  5. He could have simply stepped out of the way of the car unharmed, as he eventually did.
  6. Legally the shooting seems defensible if not exactly ironclad given who knows how the politics plays out (see: Chauvin).

Open Questions:

  1. If he could have stepped out of the way of the car without shooting, is he morally (not legally) obligated to?
  2. Is it reasonable to expect him to recognize the danger has passed and to stop shooting in the fraction of a second this transpired and her car turned away?

Overall I don’t see the great significance of this case as it seems arguable either way. Even the most ardent anti-ICE types have to admit she was retarded, rammed him with her car and basically is a classic case of FAFO, not some random uninvolved innocent.

Even the most loyal police-supporter must recognize he could’ve easily avoided shooting her with no harm done and she doesn’t exactly deserve to die, making this in some sense a tragedy.

His shots were fired at a point where he personally was not in danger.

Are you talking about general, objective danger with the benefit of hindsight; or are you talking about what he would have perceived at the time?

Even the most loyal police-supporter must recognize he could’ve easily avoided shooting her with no harm done

This may be true with the benefit of hindsight, but not necessarily given what he knew and saw that first quarter of a second.

In any event, I would be concerned about imposing a duty to retreat on the police. Especially since they are dealing with an adversary which would surely take advantage of any such duty so as to maximally hinder and obstruct the police.

I think it’s important to add the context that this particular agent suffered serious injuries from being run over previously when trying to detain an illegal sex offender. It might explain why he was trigger happy when getting hit by a fucking car.

He actually wasn’t in front of the car until the driver reversed.

It's good police policy not to stand in front of cars but also clearly a crime to actually try to run them over. Same way that saying 'officers should seek cover in a firefight' doesn't equate to 'shooting an officer outside of cover should be less penalized since it's easier'

He wasn't actually in front of the car when it started moving. Further it turns out to be impractical to do the work he does without at some point being in front of a (stationary) vehicle.

If he could have stepped out of the way of the car without shooting, is he morally (not legally) obligated to?

The officer's action is like dropping a gun where a pedestrian might flee, so that if the pedestrian flees, the officer can say "for all I know the pedestrian could have been trying to get the gun" and shoot the pedestrian. It's a form of taking himself hostage so that he can shoot in "self-defense". Morally, he should not take himself hostage in this manner.

Is it reasonable to expect him to recognize the danger has passed and to stop shooting in the fraction of a second this transpired and her car turned away?

I would say it is reasonable to expect him to recognize when the danger has passed, because he was the one who made it difficult to recognize the danger in the first place. He shouldn't make it difficult and then expect anyone to give him slack because it's difficult.

And again, yes this does apply when the protestor is the one deliberately standing in front of the car.

The front of her car contacted the agent that shot her.

Have you ever been hit by a car? Even at parking lot speeds, they hit hard enough to wreck your shit. If you go under the wheels, the driver's intentions don't matter.

Large SUVs are especially dangerous because the high hood means you get knocked to the ground and then run over instead of thrown on top

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