site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   33623 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.

I am inclined to agree with this characterization, though I think there are still many unknowns. The direction of the wheels is likely the clearest circumstantial indicator of her intent. It's where she wanted to "go." At the time of acceleration, her wheels were in the process of turning right, seemingly to escape the stop. In my view, this was to complete the K-turn motion that she began with her short reverse, and leave the scene. Simultaneously, the officer was crossing in front of the vehicle, to her left. If she wanted to ram the officer, you would expect her to begin turning left at some point to track the officer's movement, but there is no indication of this. Thus, I'm inclined to believe that she had minimal intent to harm, and any harm was accidental or hasty. There's even a moment earlier in the footage where the officer stands right in front of her car, and she opts not to drive into him. Hardly some Democrat wet-dream vigilante crime. She would have to be basically brain dead to try and harm an officer with passengers and a pet in the car, and even the most antisocial irrational people I know would never put their pets in harm's way. I blame the folks egging her on.

Whether or not the shooting was legal or justified based on the officer's perception, that's a different question. But I think this detail in particular exonerates Good from the charge of wanting to injure the officer.

If I wanted to be maximally uncharitable about her motives, I would say, (I do not actually believe this) her wheels are straight at the moment she starts accelerating, but she turns to avoid the officer when she sees his gun and realizes it's a bad idea to try to run him over.

Again I don't actually believe this, but if I probably would if I was motivated to portray her as evil.

Let’s pose a question. If she was on BlueSky and watching a twitter video of the incident of a different leftist driving with everything being the same except the officer doesn’t shoot. In this case the officer is hit and let’s say one of his lefts is mangled and eventually amputated?

My guess is she would think something like “the officer got what he deserved”. If she was on a jury of the driver charged with aggravated assault she probably wouldn’t convict.

While I don’t think tried to kill the officer — I also don’t think she had any concern if she did hurt the officer while evading arrest. In her mind the officer is subhuman and illegitimate so she doesn’t care much about what happens to them.

My gut says this is solidly in the category of didn’t try to kill but had zero concern about the officers safety. In many cases that ends up getting people killed.

I don't think this actually matters; her character doesn't determine whether it was a good shoot, what matters is whether the situation is one in which self defense an officer shooting an individual was permissible.

To be clear, I think it's obviously met here, even if all of the following are granted (and I don't necessarily agree they all were):

  1. The ICE officer was in front of the car deliberately, in an attempt to detain the individual in question.
  2. The woman was attempting to flee from the situation, not hit the officer.

Even given all that, the death of the woman is a tragedy - a tragedy of her own making, but still a tragedy. Baying for the blood of your enemies is something that reflects a poor character, and is corrosive to your soul. Them calling for your blood is a reflection of how horrible they are - don't justify it by being the monster they want.

I think engaging in hypotheticals like this is ultimately unproductive. You have taken a political attitude that Good may have held ("ICE bad") and generalized it to an attitude toward violence ("Therefore ICE agents are not deserving of, or at least need little consideration regarding, safety"). These two claims are, in fact, a grand canyon apart - not simply p therefore q. There is nothing to suggest Good was a longtime agitator or rallied behind violent acts.

I don't disagree that she was reckless, but I don't think we need to engage in broad speculation about why. I don't believe the reason behind that recklessness (or even the recklessness itself) really affects the moral calculus here.

Obviously a person state of mind you can never be 100% sure. But I think my description is a good educated guess. A person who tracks and harasses ICE likely has those views.

Also her wife was name calling ICE moments before so I think it would be a reasonable belief a same-sex couple has similar views (men often have different views than their wives so that would be less likely).

My gut says this is solidly in the category of didn’t try to kill but had zero concern about the officers safety. In many cases that ends up getting people killed.

Also I believe meets the definition of depraved-indifferent murder, in jurisdictions with such a thing. It just feels like that meme, with "I didn't mean to kill him, I just didn't care" and someone responding "That's worse. You know that's worse, right?"

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