site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   30647 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Repeating some of my positions from the other thread: I agree that the claims that Good was somehow actively malicious, or that her death is anything else than a tragedy that shouldn't have occurred, are disgraceful. However, circumstances being what they were, I do have some sympathy for Ross's position. She wasn't actually trying to run him over, and shooting her wouldn't have helped even if she had, but I am prepared to believe that in the context of a split-second life-or-death decision, he sincerely got both of these things wrong. I don't buy that this was some sort of premeditated, cold-blooded murder-by-loophole. I don't think he's guilty of murder, I'm not even sure his tragic mistake was foreseeable enough to warrant internal sanctions. If there are actions worth taking here, I would think they have more to do with revising training and procedures so this sort of thing is less likely to happen again.

Of course, I would expect a decent person in his situation - a man who shot a mother of three for what, in hindsight, he ought realize were probably spurious reasons - to be, like, torn up about it. Remorseful. To release some kind of statement, say his heart is with the kids and the widow. Which AFAIK he hasn't. And he loses still further sympathy points if it was him who said "fucking bitch", to say the last. But then again… being an asshole about having committed manslaughter doesn't make you a murderer. It would make me less likely to shake his hand and offer my sympathy for the tough hand Fate has dealt him if I should chance to meet him (as I would with, say, a driver who'd accidentally killed a pedestrian through circumstances that mostly weren't his fault); but I don't think that lack of remorse should affect his case at the judicial level. Nor do we know for a fact that he isn't privately grieving and just staying silent for legal/institutional reasons.

To release some kind of statement, say his heart is with the kids and the widow. Which AFAIK he hasn't.

You only release a statement if you want to be eaten alive by leopards.

While ICE training seems to be questionable, I am reasonable sure there's a lawyer, administrator, or chief that strongly informed him "GOOD GOD DON'T SAY ANYTHING TO ANYONE ABOUT ANYTHING!"

And he loses still further sympathy points if it was him who said

slightly fascinated about how much attention this comment has gotten. Surely there's a good descriptor for the way certain insults are perceived as worse than rape or murder.

To release some kind of statement, say his heart is with the kids and the widow.

I would be surprised if more than one in a thousand lawyers wouldn't strongly try to dissuade you from doing this, even if you really wanted to.

General side-note, but it would be nice if we could figure out a way to let people express human decency in a way that doesn't potentially create legal liability

I do wonder if the cop is worried that putting out any statement could be seen as admitting guilt.

The usual advice when you are (or suspect you might be) facing legal proceedings as a defendant, whether on the civil or criminal side—regardless how innocent you think/know you are—is to only talk about it with your lawyer and remain silent otherwise.

If he's worried about that, he would be correct. The smart move is remaining silent.

Driving a car at a cop will result in being shot in any country where the cops have guns. Especially if you’ve already hit one. This woman won a Darwin Award.

That being said, I’m sympathetic to the idea that better policing practices could have saved her life, and the agent in question is almost certainly being advised not to speak to the media. We don’t really know what the result is going to be, but both the ‘ice committing cold blooded murder’ crowd and the admin are behaving irresponsibly in their rhetoric.

I agree that the claims that Good was somehow actively malicious, or that her death is anything else than a tragedy that shouldn't have occurred, are disgraceful.

I don't. She was obviously being malicious. She may (may) not have been deliberately, conciously attempting to murder a LEO, but at the very least she was acting with depraved indifference to the well-being of everyone around her, and having a great time and feeling extremely proud of herself for it.

If she had hit and killed that officer, she and her partner and all of her fellow protestors would likely have thrown a party.

There comes a point where stupidity (or "depraved indifference" for that matter) is functionally indistinguishable from malice.

I don't. She was obviously being malicious

I tend to agree. She was trying to be as obstructive as she could get away with; dancing as close as she could to the line; and she slipped over it.

There's a legal principle that the mental state for the commission of one wrong can substitute for the mental state of another. So if you are robbing a store and you accidentally shoot someone, that's treated as murder. I think the same kind of reasoning applies here to the morality of Good's actions, if not the legality.

There's a legal principle that the mental state for the commission of one wrong can substitute for the mental state of another. So if you are robbing a store and you accidentally shoot someone, that's treated as murder.

While the specifics vary by jurisdiction, US law typically breaks Murder/Homicide into four levels or "degrees"

  • First Degree Homicide: Intentional and premeditated infliction of injury leading to the death of another, IE the killer knew what they were doing and they purposefully set out to do it.
  • Second Degree Homicide: Infliction of injury leading to the death of another that is not premeditated but committed in the process of some other criminal activity. EG a bank robber may not have set out with the intention of killing anyone, but if they get into a gunfight or car chase with the police and someone dies as a result, they are going to be on the hook for it.
  • Third Degree Homicide: Infliction of injury leading to the death of another that was not premeditated nor committed in association any other crime. EG the old "Crime of passion" cliche. (Note: Some jurisdictions flip the 2nd and 3rd degrees)
  • Fourth Degree Homicide/Manslaughter: Unintentional infliction of injury leading to the death of another.

What you're describing is basically the second degree. Does it apply in the specific case of Renee Good? I don't know, it seems like a bit of an edge case given the circumstances. However, I do feel like someone would have to be coming form a position of significant privilege and entitlement to not recognize "I might get shot by the cops" as a possible (perhaps even likely) outcome of trying to forcibly evade or resist arrest.

What you're describing is basically the second degree.

Actually what I am describing is known as "felony-murder."

Does it apply in the specific case of Renee Good? I don't know, it seems like a bit of an edge case given the circumstances.

It doesn't really matter because Renee Good is not being charged with any crime. My only point is that by analogy, and from a moral perspective, the malice inherent in one wrong act can suffice to show that a related wrong act was malicious.

And he loses still further sympathy points if it was him who said "fucking bitch"

This cannot be a serious talking point. This is downright mild profanity compared to what I'd spew if I were hit by a car. Again.

It's kind of inline with some of the zeitgeist of the day.

https://archive.is/JQyEC#selection-561.0-565.189

Defense attorney Daniel Small said the most relevant evidence was recorded later, when security officers heard the wounded man shouting the racist slur and captured it on their body cameras as he described the incident.

"The most relevant evidence" is that after a man was stabbed, he called the stabber a bad word.

It's always hilarious to me when the political faction that justifies so many of their positions and behavior with the word "empathy" cannot imagine why, for example, someone might have unkind words to say about the person who just put them in a life-threatening situation.

And he loses still further sympathy points if it was him who said "fucking bitch", to say the last.

It's been a few days since I watched any of the numerous angles of the altercation, but my recollection is that whichever person said "fucking bitch" said it mere seconds after shots were fired. If indeed it was Ross who said it, I think it's entirely possible he didn't know Good was dead at the time of speaking.

Fair point. Still not a great thing to say about someone you may have just shot in the head on instinct, but admittedly more excusable on sheer adrenaline grounds.

Why do we care about the words? What was he supposed to say in the split second while his adrenaline was pumping after almost being run over “My heart goes out to her friends and family”?

If the shooting was warranted then any nasty words were warranted. If the shooting was unwarranted that is enough grounds to criticize him on, the words are irrelevant. This strikes me exactly as accusing him of murder, arson and jaywalking.

I mean again, I'm not saying the words, in any context, would warrant any kind of punishment. I'm only speaking of personal sympathy and judgment here. But to that very subjective extent, I don't think "if the shooting was warranted then any nasty words were warranted" follows. Taking a human life is a grave thing, even when it becomes necessary, and respect for the dead is an important part of civilized humanity. If you've just killed somebody, and the threat is passed, then you should ideally be somber, even contemplative; you should take time to make the gravity of what you have done sink in deep, even - indeed, especially - if you are confident that your actions were just. Insulting your victim beyond the grave like an action-movie thug is just not decent. I don't think insulting someone you've just killed is ever warranted, however justified the killing.

(Whether it is forgivable is a very different question, and again, to the extent that Ross(?) may have blurted it out because he was still in shock from her seemingly trying to kill him, it's an understandable emotional reaction much more than it is a moral lapse.)

  • -11

Taking a human life is a grave thing, even when it becomes necessary, and respect for the dead is an important part of civilized humanity. If you've just killed somebody, and the threat is passed, then you should ideally be somber, even contemplative; you should take time to make the gravity of what you have done sink in deep, even - indeed, especially - if you are confident that your actions were just.

An hour or day later? Sure, though it's a grace she would have been very unlikely to offer back if she'd killed him instead.

Two seconds after she just put him in a life-or-death situation and hit him with her car, after a prolonged period of her acting like a fucking bitch Karen? When he very likely doesn't even know if she's dead or hurt?

You're being absurd.

though it's a grace she would have been very unlikely to offer back if she'd killed him instead.

Maybe. But if law enforcement are going to be lawfully empowered to kill people when necessary, in a way that ordinary people are not - and they know that this is part of their job when they sign up - then I am going to hold them to higher standards in how they conduct themselves on such occasions than a random felon.

When he very likely doesn't even know if she's dead or hurt?

But IMO that makes it worse. He doesn't know if she's dead, but he certainly knows he tried to kill her. His first priority "should" have been to in fact check if he'd actually killed her, or if perhaps she was injured in such a way that calling for urgent medical attention would be of some use, etc. Likewise, the idea that he said it partly because she'd been acting obnoxious before is not exculpatory in the least.

The entire argument for the killing being justified is that it was an attempt at self-preservation in the face of her presenting a sudden, unexpected, immediate threat to life in a way he could not have foreseen, and had only his instincts to fall back on. For interpersonal irritation at her earlier behavior to still have been a factor on his mind post-gunshot is mildly concerning for that narrative; it raises once again the possibility that he did in fact shoot her at least partly because he was mad at her. Which I don't believe is actually true, but it certainly doesn't help his case - that is, if you believe the sympathetic self-defense version of why he shot her then "obviously, if you expect him to shoot her, you expect him to curse her out as well" doesn't add up, because we're then talking about aaaaah-car-coming-at-me as the rationale for the shooting, not Mrs-Good-is-annoying-and-I'm-mad-at-her.

Basically I would like to think that if I was in the situation "someone is irritating me > suddenly out of nowhere they seem to attack me > I reflexively fight back > now I blink and they're dead", the kind of profanity that'd come to my lips would be more along the lines of "oh shit" than "what an obnoxious fuck". That Ross's mind-state trended more towards the latter tilts me ever-so-faintly in the direction of suspecting that he does not regard the act of killing with all the gravity it warrants. That's all.

Again, all it alters is my respect for Ross as a person, which isn't really here or there to anything, in the grand scheme of things. I'm not claiming anything more than "it makes him feel like a noticeably less likable person to me", and I don't see how that's absurd.

the kind of profanity that'd come to my lips would be more along the lines of "oh shit" than "what an obnoxious fuck".

That's a you thing. For myself, my initial reaction would probably be something like "You stupid asshole! (Why did you make me do that!?)"

But that's a reaction to your scenario, which skips the "attacker hits me with their car" step, in which case my language would likely be quite a bit worse.

A few minutes later, after I've left the scene and calmed down? Sure. Introspection, maybe grace. Two seconds after being hit by a car and shooting at someone in self defense? I'm more:

"Piece of shit pigfucking retard motherfucker asshole scumbag Karen bitch motherfucking shitstain waste of cum - holy shit, am I ok? Whew, I guess I'm not crippled. Where's the- Oh, fuck, did she die?"

If you hit somebody with a car, they get to reflexively curse at you. Sorry not sorry, those are the rules.

I contend the bullets were a lot more offensive than the words.

My concern is not offensiveness; my concern is excusability on the basis of survival instincts kicking in. Shooting at the threat as a split-second reaction to a belief that you are in sudden, life-threatening jeopardy is not necessarily a poor reflection on someone's character. Insulting someone you have just killed, who is no longer a threat to you and about whom, if you have any kind of conscience, you should be starting to wonder whether or not your knee-jerk survival instincts were justified - that is a more intellectual process, and as such, one that can be more readily judged. (Though less so the closer to the event, and thus, the more spontaneous/unreasoned, it was.)

  • -12

Cursing somebody you believe yourself to have killed in self defense seconds after the act seems incredibly normal.

I didn't say it was abnormal, just rather less than saintly.

Is anyone asking for sanctity? Is that even a thing being discussed?

I was joking. Sorry. Yes I agree with you.

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