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.

He could have probably jumped out of the way, but it'd be risky if she was trying to hit him. I don't think it's reasonable to expect cops to engage in that kind of self-risk to avoid shooting people, but I think cops should aspire to as a matter of personal virtue.

The car was already moving when decided to walk in front of it, stop and then pull out his gun. His decision to shoot her not only had no chance of actually protecting himself from being run over, it made increased the risk to himself because he could have just kept walking been out of the way. She almost certainly either didn't know he was there when she started driving forward or expected him to keep walking to her left and not suddenly stop in front of her just as she was about to take off.

DHS says she was attacking agents/their vehicles beforehand, idk if true but i'd bet it is; it's vanishingly unlikely this happens without her deliberately engaging against the agents.

This makes it all the more absurd that he decided to stand in front her car to try to stop her from leaving.

Has the just-released cell phone video of the interaction changed your mind about any of this?

It clearly contradicts what you said, e.g. "The car was already moving when decided to walk in front of it, stop and then pull out his gun."

It doesn't contradict that. I really get the impression many of the people in this thread haven't seen all of the videos, particularly the one shot from the other side of the street where you can see the front of the car. It's hard to tell what the car is doing from the cell phone video. But in the other video, it is perfectly clear when the car starts moving.

The one thing the cell phone video changed my mind about was how likely it was that she saw him. I was quite surprised about where she was looking while backing up. I thought it was very odd that she looked up while backing up instead of backwards or at the back-up camera. So I do think it's much more likely she knew he was in front of the car before she started driving forward.

However, she was focused on backing up and was probably glancing up at the rear view mirror, so I can imagine how she might have not really noticed him or if she had, how she could have failed to notice where he stopped walking while she was looking away (I think at the side view mirror).

This does make it more likely that she was trying to hit him, but I still think it wasn't very likely, especially not likely that she was trying to seriously injure him. Someone suggested that she might have been trying to gently tap him, which would certainly have been reckless. That's much more believable.

The doesn't undermine many of the other key facts, such as the fact that he unnecessarily and recklessly placed himself in danger seemingly to give himself an excuse to shoot her should she try to run away. Although it's quite possible he was simply being grossly negligent as to the likelihood she would try to escape.