site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   25518 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 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.

It definitely seems a lot less defensible than Good did from the footage - having watched both angles of this shooting, I'm going to say that unless footage comes out of the arrestee drawing/firing a weapon, this was an awful shoot. From the footage, it isn't possible to tell if he drew a weapon; to my eyes, he seems unarmed in both (but to be fair, I also can't see which officer shot him).

The only reason I'm putting this caveat in place at all is due to around ~1:00 in the video; from what I can tell, there is a gunshot, all agents recoil, then two more gunshots and the arrestee drops. If the first gunshot was from the arrestee, that provides an adequate excuse for the officer(s) to shoot him in self defense.

Struggling with the cops while armed is a terrible idea. If I struggled with the cops while armed and was shot (while not agitating for a popular cause with media backing) , I wouldn't expect anyone to give a damn.

The proper thing to do if you are looking to obstruct police officers while exercising your second amendment right is to peacefully and respectfully submit to arrest. Guns make people jumpy, even if they shouldn't be, even if it's a mistake, you're still dead.

If the decedent first shot at LEO, then that isn’t “an adequate excuse” but fully justified.

He didn't, though; his gun is taken from him by the gray-jacketed agent just before the first shot is fired, I believe by the agent roughly center of frame in the light-colored jacket.

I don’t know how you can tell that. Looks like trying to see a fumble in a scrum.

People on X and other forums zoomed in on video from the first side e.g. so you can see the gray-jacketed agent talking the gun. In the second video from the reverse angle you can identify that agent and while you can't see what he's doing, you can match it up with the first video and figure out he's got the dead guy's gun when the agent in the middle draws and fires.

Sorry, yes, agreed.

Good stuff. Honestly hope there is body cam footage. Would help a lot.

"This definitely seems a lot less defensible, besides the part that might make it far more defensible, which I can't tell one way from the other in the video" is certainly a way to form an conclusion.

I mean, given that I was all over the Good thread defending the shoot, I wanted to at least leave my impression of this one. I can't see if there was a weapon on the arrestee, but it doesn't appear so from my viewing. If evidence comes out that shows a weapon, I've pre-committed to changing my mind, but as it is now, I think the ICE officers were wrong.

Maybe a better way of phrasing it would be something like this:

  1. Shooting unarmed people who do not pose an imminent threat is bad.
  2. ICE claims that this person posed an imminent threat.
  3. Video evidence is unclear at best, leaning towards "does not have a weapon". Audio evidence indicates that a shot was fired before the arrestee was shot, but the origin is unclear.
  4. As such, currently my opinion is "ICE fucked up big time".

Given that I attempted to analyze the evidence presented and form an opinion of it based on the videos, I find your statement kind of rude; I tried to clearly indicate what I could definitively tell and what I could not, so people could understand where my opinion came from and understand where I was uncertain, and what would change my mind on it. I suppose next time I should just say "lol ICE obviously evil" and leave it at that.

Video evidence is unclear at best, leaning towards "does not have a weapon". Audio evidence indicates that a shot was fired before the arrestee was shot, but the origin is unclear. As such, currently my opinion is "ICE fucked up big time".

And basing your judgement on unclear video evidence, with potentially contradictory evidence, when you yourself note the gaps, it is what you are receiving a raised eyebrow for.

Given that I attempted to analyze the evidence presented and form an opinion of it based on the videos, I find your statement kind of rude;

And I find ignoring the conclusions of one's own analysis, such as how the cited evidence does not support a conclusion is but carrying on as if it did, also rude. Rude towards the persons who will be accused of murder regardless of what clearer evidence might show, but also rude towards other readers trying to come to conclusions.

Maybe we should form a rude club.

I suppose next time I should just say "lol ICE obviously evil" and leave it at that.

If you want, but that too would be rude.

Well, yes, what else can one do? "Here's my impressions from the video, here's an important question it leaves unanswered, here's the sort of evidence that would change my mind" is perfectly reasonable and I have no idea why you seem determined to describe it so uncharitably. It's more thoughtfulness than you'll see from the vast majority of people on social media.

Well, yes, what else can one do?

Refrain from judgement until you have sufficient information to reach a sound conclusion. If you can identify key variables that would radically change your conclusion, start there.

This is all the more important in an information environment known to be contested by people who want to shape your first impression and conclusions regardless of ultimate accuracy.

"Here's my impressions from the video, here's an important question it leaves unanswered, here's the sort of evidence that would change my mind" is perfectly reasonable and I have no idea why you seem determined to describe it so uncharitably.

Because the 'key evidence' in question isn't evidence to change a mind, but to justify the conclusion one way or another in the first place.

There is a term for making a conclusion before you have the evidence for it, and it is 'assuming the conclusion.' This is a bad practice because it triggers fallacies and psychological biases that lead people to interpret later information in ways that confirm the first judgement..

It's more thoughtfulness than you'll see from the vast majority of people on social media.

That is a bar low enough to trip over.

A few things

a) I didn't draw a conclusion, I posted a better snippet and compared it to the other shooting (Which legally speaking, seems pretty cut and dry like the Kyle Rittenhouse self defense situation).

b) "Don't talk about it until you have sufficient information to reach a conclusion" at best thought-terminating and at worst bad faith. You could indefinitely not talk about anything you choose forever, I'm not going to listen to people who tell me to not to think about and discuss things.

c) New information could come to light 5 or 10 (or 500) years from now, take the recent example we found out of the Chinese officer who refused to march on the Tiananmen protestors in the 1980s. I'll discuss with what current information I have and continue to update it as I get more information.

recent example we found out of the Chinese officer who refused to march on the Tiananmen protestors in the 1980s

Wait what recent examples?

I’m pretty sure it was well known that there were high ranking members of the military who were disapproving of the crackdown, from a letter co-signed by multiple generals to Xu Qinxian refusing to march into Beijing, or Xu Feng, or He Yanran etc.

b) "Don't talk about it until you have sufficient information to reach a conclusion" at best thought-terminating and at worst bad faith. You could indefinitely not talk about anything you choose forever, I'm not going to listen to people who tell me to not to think about and discuss things.

Fortunately I am not telling you to not think about or discuss things.

Your paraphrase is this-

"Don't talk about it until you have sufficient information to reach a conclusion"

And my position is this-

Refrain from judgement until you have sufficient information to reach a sound conclusion.

Do you recognize that the the later is not only not the former, but is itself a justification to talk and seek information to reach a sound conclusion?

c) New information could come to light 5 or 10 (or 500) years from now, take the recent example we found out of the Chinese officer who refused to march on the Tiananmen protestors in the 1980s. I'll discuss with what current information I have and continue to update it as I get more information.

Discussion was not what was being discouraged.

Those seem like valid observations to me.

Let's see Paul Allen's conclusion.

You can literally see the agent draw his gun and shoot the guy in the back. I'm not sure what part of this you think is defensible.

Edit: @ minute 1:00 you can see the agent in the middle reach and pull his gun from his holster. The victim appears to be kneeling resisting arrest with multiple agents holding him down. At minute 1:01 that agent points his gun at the victim, and then it is blocked from view by another agent, milliseconds later you hear shots. The victim is still on his knees, it looks like one hand is supporting himself on the ground. His other hand is by his side.

I'm not sure what part of this you think is defensible.

The question isn't my thought, but Zephyr's thought- which notes major gaps in the evidence ('it isn't possible to tell if he drew a weapon,' the 1:00 mark which is compatible with a defensible shoot) that undercuts its value as evidence to form an opinion off of.

Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?

I have a really hard time with considering shooting a man being restrained, kneeling, in the back regardless of evidence of having a gun or not, to be a good, defensive shoot. I expect competence from Agents of the State, and this is not it. I think much like a felony murder, an agent of the state acting in such a way that is negligent, and leads to the death of someone should be charged with manslaughter.

I have a really hard time with considering shooting a man being restrained, kneeling, in the back regardless of evidence of having a gun or not, to be a good, defensive shoot.

Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?

I expect competence from Agents of the State, and this is not it.

Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?

I think much like a felony murder, an agent of the state acting in such a way that is negligent, and leads to the death of someone should be charged with manslaughter.

Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?

Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?

Are you non-tribal, non-partisan enough to judge the actions of your in-group as they affect the out-group> Do you consistently fall to one side of each scissor event?

Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?

Are you competent enough to speak on any of this, let alone judge my competence?

Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?

Are you anymore competent in engaging in discussion around ideas than you are in waging the cultural war?

Are you non-tribal, non-partisan enough to judge the actions of your in-group as they affect the out-group?

Sure.

Do you consistently fall to one side of each scissor event?

Nope.

Are you competent enough to speak on any of this, let alone judge my competence?

Aye.

Are you anymore competent in engaging in discussion around ideas than you are in waging the cultural war?

Indeed.

Now, that's four answers for you, and so I do believe you still owe four answers in turn. However, I'll settle for the first one you avoided. If you need more time, I'll refrain from any more responses so you don't feel a need to hurry and deflect. Take your time.

Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?

Isn't this where Bayes comes in?

However, I'll settle for the first one you avoided.

I'm not avoiding, you launched in to a low effort attack on me rather than a discussion of my ideas. I can answer yours with the same level of effort you put into answering mine.

Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?

They were considered.

Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?

Aye.

Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?

Sure.

Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?

I believe speaking plainly is a rule on this site, stop trying to lead me into the alley, I'm just not interested.

More comments

If the decedent shot first, then shooting him in the back is very reasonable since there were agents in all directions. Lethal force need not be solely for protection of yourself but also for others.

Here are some stills

/images/17692879616745007.webp

/images/1769287962086671.webp

You can’t see the decedent’s arms or hands so you can’t tell what the decedent was doing.

It doesn’t mean the LEO had a justification but it also doesn’t mean they didn’t. It does mean that based on the current evidence it is indeterminate and we ought to wait for more evidence to emerge.

I am always willing to accept the "Lets wait and see" approach.

I hope there is body cam footage. Should be instructive.

The fact that we need to hope for body cam footage, is the really cursed part of this. I hope its not a cell phone with one hand again, that did not make the agents look competent.

I'm sure why this is relevant it's almost a non-sequitor, look at that video and tell me who had a gun drawn. I cannot see the victim with the gun but i can see the ice agent draw his and then fire the first shot.

I mean the fact that the other ICE agents didn't seem to react with shock and 'dude what the fuck did you do' indicates that some justification was present for the shooting- we have plenty of evidence that they interpret use of force rules more broadly than the cops in general, and very little that they operate random death squads.

There's enough cofounders to that approach that I'm not sure its relevant: tribal solidarity, brother's in arms, espirit de corp, adrenaline, bad training, good training, irritation at protestors, rage at the out group, and seeing themselves as under assault. They evidently interpret the use of force more broadly than cops, and don't appear to think of themselves as stormtroopers or deaths squads. But they also seem to have very little regard for civilians lives, very little regard for minimizing casualties or deescalating situations (as much as they reasonably can), and apparently very little training.

The normies see shit like this and they freak, a competent ICE operation in Minnesota could have politically paid dividends, now its going to be a lead weight.

It also seems like they all back off for a split second when a shot rings out, then two more shots are fired.

So there is some evidence to suggest self defense but the video is unclear and we should wait until better evidence.

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