site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8874 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 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.

No: I asked you for a specific example of the reverse, wherein a brown victim is handcuffed while the white aggressor is left alone.

It barely happens in any racial direction!

Almost every bit of violence is done by people who knew each other beforehand. Therefore, almost every case where this stupid assumption gets made is done in cases where people knew each other beforehand.

But also nice changing your words

I don't know why you brought up domestic abuse calls, as that doesn't seem remotely relevant to my request

As you said

If you can show me that, or even something vaguely analogous, I will consider the possibility that there are no real CW aspects to this awful case.

You don't think that one of the most common forms of violence regularly having this exact issue is even "vaguely analogous"? I would say it's not even vaguely! It's one of the most common forms of violence!

That has literally nothing to do with this case. I don't know why you're bringing it up. It's completely irrelevant. We're not talking about police arresting both parties out of an excess of caution. We're talking about the police arresting one person, and it being the wrong one.

Yes, cops do that pretty often. Which is why the smarter departments and officers take a dual arrest approach, cause they don't want to make that common mistake. There are still plenty of stupid or lazy or uncaring cops who just assume calm = good.

Dude, apparently it didn't get through when FtttG said it, so let me try (using his exact words):

We're not talking about police arresting both parties out of an excess of caution. We're talking about the police arresting one person, and it being the wrong one.

It's not "vaguely analogous", and he explained exactly why. The words in people's comments are there to explain things to you; they're not just for decoration.

It barely happens in any racial direction!

So, you can't cite an example of the thing I requested? You mean (contrary to what you earlier claimed) this case is unique?

You don't think that one of the most common forms of violence regularly having this exact issue is even "vaguely analogous"?

When I said "vaguely analogous" I was referring to the white aggressor/brown victim component of my request. I would have accepted, for example, an instance in which a white aggressor non-lethally assaulted a brown victim, and the police arrested the brown victim while leaving the white aggressor alone. But it seems you can't even produce one of those.

Yes, cops do that pretty often.

If it's the case that cops arrest the wrong party pretty often, show me one. Show me a case where the cops arrested the wrong person, and that person was non-white while their aggressor was white. Otherwise I don't even know what we're doing here.

So, you can't cite an example of the thing I requested? You mean (contrary to what you earlier claimed) this case is unique?

The specifics of "random guy attacks another random guy" is pretty rare in general yeah, including across racial boundaries. Most violence is done by people who knew each other beforehand.

The phenomenon of "cops assume calm person who spoke to them first is innocent" is not so rare. That's extremely common and happens across the board. Mostly to "they knew each other beforehand cases" but that's because those are the large large majority of violent crime!

If you want specifically race, sure https://atlantablackstar.com/2023/01/28/colorado-police-arrest-black-woman-after-74-year-old-white-man-objected-to-how-she-parked-at-store-and-scuffled-with-her/

That too of course is rare though, because most violence is done by people who knew each other beforehand. And therefore cases of police arresting the wrong victim in stranger on stranger violence in any racial direction are inherently rare, while the overall phenomenon of police making mistakes is not.

Okay – so if it's not so rare, it shouldn't be difficult for you to find an example which is at least broadly comparable to this one, but with reversed racial dynamics. It doesn't have to be an altercation between two strangers: surely it shouldn't be difficult for you to find an instance in which two male friends of different races (or even two female) got into a fight, the non-white one was clearly more severely injured, but the police arrested him rather than the visibly less injured white party. There must be tens of thousands of hours of publicly available bodycam footage out there, and I'm confident that woke people would be screaming the house down about racial profiling if an event like this had transpired. But despite claiming that Henry Nowak's case isn't especially unique, you can't come up with even one example with the racial dynamics reversed. How strange.

Sure I'll go check a chatbot for another example than the one I gave and doublecheck to make sure it's not hallucinating.

It gave me (with edits to cut out fat).

Florida — Markeis McGlockton shooting (2018, USA)

Legal outcome:

Drejka was initially not arrested at the scene. Later charged and convicted of manslaughter after public pressure.

Why it fits your request partially: It’s a self-defense claim used by a white aggressor against a Black victim, showing how police initially accepted the shooter’s framing of events.

Double check and yep it seems to be real.

Why it fits your request partially: It’s a self-defense claim used by a white aggressor against a Black victim, showing how police initially accepted the shooter’s framing of events.

Here is a video recording of the McGlockton shooting. It clearly shows that McGlockton is the aggressor. If you disagree, I would be quite interested in hearing your argument as to why.

Okay, so a case in which

  • a black man starts an altercation with a white man (captured on CCTV)
  • which escalated to the white man shooting the black man
  • the white man patiently waited for the police to arrive, was cooperative when they did so, and admitted what he'd done
  • the police immediately took the white man to the station for questioning when they arrived on the scene
  • the police did not put the black victim in handcuffs when they arrived on the scene, but instead had paramedics rush him to the hospital

... what exactly do you think this case is meant to illustrate regarding the non-uniqueness of the Nowak case?

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