site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   31419 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.

Even under the most charitable assumptions for the police, there was at most a small chance she was trying to run him over. I don't think it's unreasonable to say the police cannot always kill someone just because they think the person might be trying to kill them. I also think the police have a duty to avoid unnecessarily creating situations where they don't know whether someone is about to kill them if they're going to respond to that uncertainty by killing someone.

  • -13

Even under the most charitable assumptions for the police, there was at most a small chance she was trying to run him over.

She literally hit him with her car. It's on video. You can just watch it. There's three different angles in the top post. He's folded over on the hood. I never cease to be amazed at the willingness of people to refuse to believe their own eyes.

Now, I will grant that with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that she was probably a) distracted by the officer at her window, and thus unaware of the officer in front of her car, and b) she was likely attempting to flee rather than actually kill anybody

But this is hindsight. This is information we can gather by looking at the video from the comfort of our phones and laptops and replaying the footage until it makes sense.

A person can be reasonable in believing something, even if that thing is not true, if the information available in that moment led them to believe that thing. It is not a felony to not be omniscient.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say the police cannot always kill someone just because they think the person might be trying to kill them.

What are you trying to say with the word "might"? It's already not legal for anyone, including police officers, anywhere in the US, to use lethal force if you suspect your life is in danger, with low probability. It is settled case law that the use of lethal force requires that a person should reasonably believe, with the information available to them, that their life is in danger. This is a higher standard than "might," and it is definitely met when you are a police officer and a criminal suspect hits you with their car.

I also think the police have a duty to avoid unnecessarily creating situations

The person who was shot drove herself over 500 miles from Missouri to Minneapolis, used her car to barricade a street against federal law enforcement (a federal crime), and tried to escape when they tried to arrest her, striking one of them.

Which of these decisions were the cops responsible for? How did the cops "create" this situation? I would be amazed if any law enforcement officer had told her to do any of these things!

What on earth are you talking about here?

She literally hit him with her car. It's on video. You can just watch it. There's three different angles in the top post. He's folded over on the hood. I never cease to be amazed at the willingness of people to refuse to believe their own eyes.

In none of the videos do I see the officer folder over the hood, or even significantly struck.

Oh dear. You should schedule a trip to the optometrist right away.

Look I don’t know what to say. By now I’ve seen a dozen slow-motion versions of these clips. He was not materially struck.

So are you saying that if you were in the same circumstances, standing on a slippery road while a car accelerates toward you, driven by someone who is hostile toward you, you would have absolutely no fear for your safety? None at all?

I very much doubt this.

My reaction to that fear would be to get out of the way, not to stand my ground and commit homicide.

I mean, that's a fine thing to say from the comfort of your keyboard and the benefit of hindsight

But the fact is that you are legally entitled to respond to an assault with a deadly weapon with lethal force. You can woulda-coulda-shoulda all you want, but if you agree that he had good reason to fear for his life, then this is a legal act of self defense.

I am not allowed to respond to assault with a deadly weapon with lethal force if I can avoid the danger without doing so.

but if you agree that he had good reason to fear for his life, then this is a legal act of self defense.

I don't agree that he had good reason to fear for his life, nor do I think that if had, that it would justify self-defence. If I program a drone to hover above my head and blow me up any time someone walks down the street in front of my house, that doesn't give me the right to sit in front of my house, gunning down anyone who approaches in order to stay alive.

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