site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   30632 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.

We probably could still use that Minneapolis mega thread, after all.

Addressing only some of your points:

The top down approach to this issue from the administration has been deranged IMO and pure conflict theorist.

I think there should be a credible investigation of the officer to get all of the facts out, even though I think it was justifiable self defense, so far. That probably isn't happening. That's bad.

Separately, I haven't seen many people here argue that the driver was specifically trying to kill him. The dominant belief is that she was recklessly driving away but didn't have good control, she clipped him, and some combination of the two ton vehicle coming right at him and the contact reasonably scared him into shooting her.

If you look at the third video from the officer's POV, it is indeed scary. It very much looks like the same setup of body cam video from 2019: guy in a vehicle, stopped, same distance, floors it and runs over the officer. Takes a second at most. The officer dies from the fatal crushing injuries. You can find both videos in last week's thread if you are inclined.

I freaked out a bit myself just watching the first person video of Good floor her car at him. I would have shot her too.

The bundle of biases I've collected in my life up to now cause me to react that way. To me it seems reasonable.

For fuck's sake, someone (possibly Ross) called her a "fucking bitch" not two seconds after she was shot, which cuts the other way.

That "fucking bitch" only sounds bad if you're not capable of empathizing with the state of mind of someone who opened fire because he thought she was trying to run him over.

what is "deranged" about it specifically? Is conflict theorist deranged by default? It seems to me be a straightforward application of consequences:

  • Tribally back the officer => Narrative is less likely to create popular pressure to see conviction etc.
  • Anything else => agent gets Derek Chauvin'd.

Ironically, I will say, like argument for Ross's self-defense, the mere fact that a reasonable administration thinks this could work might as well be enough for us to NOT call this "deranged."

Well, it's ordered if the plan is to win the war.

It's deranged if the goal is to seek truth, which is what the public is owed.

Maybe the Minnesota AG can indict the wife on murder charges so that they can subpoena all of the evidence, because I don't see any other way a real investigation will happen.

Also, did the wrong thing happen to Chauvin? I don't believe he really intended to kill GF but he really should have known how dangerous that move was. He previously put someone in the hospital for doing it.

Could you link the videos? I tried finding them, but couldn't. In general, is there an easy way to search for all post that include links?

I've seen the officer POV video before and also found it quite scary, and tbh have a hard time emphasizing with people pretending he had no right to be scared, that it was trivial to just sidestep (how should he even know beforehand into which direction?), etc.

But I haven't seen the 2019 video, and can't find it on google either.

Although one thing to keep in mind is that the video (unless you're talking the 2019 one?) is not a body cam video, which might lead to some unhelpful priors. It was filmed from a cell phone in his left hand. So for example, the perspective is inherently off - you might think that the video is shot from the center of his body, but it's actually forward and to the left of his torso a distance that normally wouldn't be super meaningful but with this perspective actually skews things quite a bit. (Also, it appears to be icy, so the normal physics are slightly affected)

is there an easy way to search for all post that include links?

Yup, the search engine goes over the "source code" of the posts, not the rendered text, so you can just search for "https://"

Thanks, wasn't aware of this.

I think one of the big problems is people have information about what happened afterwards but are attributing that to the actions before hand.

A more full treatment of the 2019 officer body cam is here. It's inside of a news segment but no less disturbing. There's the part where a car drives up to her and stops and then a second part later where it drives into her.

CW: This is a first person video of female law enforcement officer being hit by a car. You hear her scream and groan. She dies from this. Hearing it makes it 10x worse to me, for whatever reason.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7lG1NDhBTsQ?si=Ajz-RRWaTtueHekf

Similar incidents have happened in France also.

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