site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   24525 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.

New footage of ICE shooter

Forgive another high-level post but the body cam (or cell phone?) footage of the cop who shot has been released by AlphaNews and this may significantly change perceptions of what happened (to those willing to have perceptions changed):

https://x.com/alphanews/status/2009679932289626385?s=46

To my eyes it appears that:

  • The ICE agent is clearly hit by her car and goes down

  • The ICE agent was not standing in front of her car but walking from one side to another

  • The driver’s wife is not passively observing but actively shouting at the agents (this should undermine the idea that the driver and her wife were somehow neutral people accidentally caught up in everything)

  • Perhaps most importantly, but maybe most open to interpretation, it appears to me that the driver looks directly at the ICE agent before driving forward. From this bodycam angle, her face is clearly shown looking directly ahead where the officer is seconds before she moves her car forward.

I suppose a lot of new interpretations are possible, but to me this video footage clearly debunks several going interpretations I have seen proposed. At the very least, maybe reasonable people can agree that the cop did not shoot the driver in cold blood from the side window.

I would also not be surprised to see the idea spread that this new video is AI.

Edit: per corrections from others below, this is not bodycam but cell phone footage (my mistake as it’s clearly even labeled as such) and this explains why it tumbles at the end of the video. Thanks!

It’s a bit confusing, so he is holding the phone in one hand and shoots with the other?

Regardless this completely debunks a few of the more shameful leftist lies I’ve seen.

  1. She was obviously not just lost on the way home from dropping off her kid, she was there to obstruct.
  2. There were no conflicting or confusing orders and she wasn’t scared. There was one clear order “get out of the car” before she drives off.
  3. She wasn’t panicked or scared, she seems cocky.
  4. She could clearly see the agent in fromt of her car when she drives into him.
  5. He was not deliberately using his body to block her car, just circling it.

IMO this basically exonerates him 100%

I don't see how the video clarifies why she was there. We see her wife out of the car, yelling at the officers. We don't know why. Then we see her drive away, ignoring their commands to get out of the car. She could have been there for a legitimate reason and then gotten into some kind of argument with them. We would need to see video or get eye witness testimony from before the videos started to know.

She could clearly see the agent in fromt of her car when she drives into him.

When she drove towards him (into him seems presumptuous). That was never seriously in dispute. The question is still whether she knew he was standing there when she started. The vehicle starts moving with the wheels turned towards him. That was used to argue that she intentionally drove towards him. But then the wheels quickly turn to the right. It's hard to tell how exactly that turn intersected with the ICE agent. We don't know how much contact was made.

She likely saw him as he starting walking across the vehicle, but he stops while she looking down. She may have assumed he kept walking. She also may not have actually noticed him with the first glance.

He was not deliberately using his body to block her car, just circling it.

No, I think that's conclusively disproven by the other videos. He clearly stops walking and turns and faces her right as she finishes backing up.

You said it. It pays to hold off on strong comments when you know damn well that more reliable evidence is coming down the pike.

I can still believe she might have thought she was about to get black bagged and disappeared because of all the rhetoric about these guys, but we're clearly not dealing with a passive bystander.

All that taunting and indignant commentary shows she was revelling in being a main character in the drama for a minute or two (no, that doesn't justify shooting her).

Really unclear what her goal would have been in the moment, she didn't even let the spouse get back in the car, was she going to leave her behind???

EDIT: WAIT WAIT THE other lady is literally shouting "Drive baby, drive drive!" what the hell.

Anyway, at least I know who to feel bad for in this scenario: the poor stressed out dog in the backseat.

IMO this basically exonerates him 100%

My initial opinion on legality doesn't change, I did believe he was justified in the shooting even if it was ill-advised... but this would probably be enough for a Judge to toss any criminal case.

From the other videos we can see was filming with a phone using his left hand, he pulls the gun out from the right side of his body with his right hand.

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