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.

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.

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