site banner
PaperclipPerfector  25d ago (text post)   32460 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.

The phone recording from the cop who shot, as well as the original footage, does suggest that she at least grazed him.

It doesn't. The point where he made contact with the vehicle is not on camera. You hear something. We already knew that the hand holding the phone likely made contact with the car. Eye witnesses report him leaning over the hood with his outstretched arms. The phone recording tells you nothing about what happened to the rest of his body at that point.

With that fairly rapid acceleration when pedestrians are that close to the car, that is very dangerous driving for sure, regardless of whether she hit him hard, grazed him, or barely missed him.

Dangerous, yes. But there is a massive gulf between driving dangerously and needing to be killed.

As a driver she is in all circumstances obligated to drive safely and not come this close to hitting people with her car, and not accelerate this fast near pedestrians.

That's not in dispute. What matters is whether the shooter was reasonable in his belief that he was subject to imminent severe bodily harm. She can drive dangerously and still not provide him with a justification for killing her.

It doesn't matter if she assumed that he had moved far enough to the side, misjudged her turning circle, pressed the go pedal too hard because she was agitated, was high on drugs, etc. Once you put someone's life in danger, they are allowed to act like their life is in danger.

It does matter because her state of mind should have informed his beliefs of the risks. If you see someone make eye contact with you and accelerate towards you, you are reasonable in believing he is trying to hit you. If you see that he doesn't see you, you are not. You can act like your life is in danger, but you cannot assume that the person is trying to hit you in order to justify killing them.

He could see that she could see where he was after she started driving forward. His assessment of the risk had to take her likely state of mind into account. If he knew that she knew he was there and still started driving in his direction, that would increase the likelihood that she was trying to hit him. If he knew that she had not known where he was when she started driving, then he could not rule out the most likely possibility that she started in his direction because she didn't know he was there.

This would have been impossible to see from the perspective of the cop in front of the car, given how close he was. He would only have been able to see the hood of the car.

I'm not convinced of that. Normally, when you're standing in front of a car, you can see its wheels, at least if you're standing far enough away, which I think he was.

He could potentially have seen the wheels pointed to the left earlier, when he was still to the side of the car, and then taken that into consideration when he saw the car moving towards him, but whether that is actually true requires knowledge of what the cop was thinking.

It is actually relevant what he should have been thinking.

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