This is a story about how culture moves without laws: a leader mainstreams contempt toward an identity group, and the enforcement arm operates inside that permission structure. I’m not arguing a repost “caused” a shooting. I’m arguing that within the same 24-hour news cycle, we watched dehumanizing talk up top and dehumanizing contempt on the ground, on video.

The Incident

In Minneapolis, an ICE agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renée Nicole Good during a confrontation captured on multiple videos. Within hours, DHS leadership was already calling it “domestic terrorism” and insisting the agent fired “defensive” shots.

Then the information war hit its cleanest form: the shooter’s own phone footage began circulating.

If you want a case study in modern narrative control, it’s this: release POV, pre-label the victim as the threat, and dare the public to argue with the frame before investigators even finish syncing angles, audio, and timing.

And here’s the detail that matters more than people want to admit: at the end of that clip, a male voice can be heard saying “fucking bitch” immediately after the shots and crash.

That line doesn’t “prove intent.” But it does punch a hole in the story that this is purely disciplined fear and professionalism. It’s contempt leaking through the official script.

The Context

Now zoom out one click.

Hours before the incident, Trump’s Truth Social account boosted a clip captioned (verbatim): “Literal YT Women — The Most Damaging Creatures on Earth!!!”

That’s not a policy argument. It’s a demographic outgroup described as “creatures.” And when that kind of language gets status-backed, it becomes a permission structure: who can be mocked, blamed, and treated as fair game.

I already had the exact fight I expected on Stacker News: someone tried to tell me “YT” means YouTube women (because Google). I’ll say it plainly: I’m Black, and I’ve seen “yt” used for years as shorthand for “white”.

But here’s the part that makes the “YouTube” dodge irrelevant: even if you insist it meant YouTube, the second half still stands — “most damaging creatures.” Either way, it’s not persuasion; it’s dehumanizing identity talk.

And here’s the betrayal layer that makes it spread: “liberal white women” aren’t framed as citizens with bad ideas. They’re framed as traitors. The subgroup that “should have known better” but “switched sides.” That framing doesn’t invite debate; it invites collective contempt.

What I’m Not Claiming

To be crystal clear about what I’m not claiming:

I’m not saying a repost “caused” a shooting. I’m not claiming we can read an agent’s soul from a clip. Early footage is rarely enough to settle the legal question by itself.

What I Am Saying

I am saying this: when the top of the system normalizes contempt and the bureaucracy rushes a verdict, you don’t get truth. You get authorization. The debate shifts from “what happened?” to “who counts?” And that’s how you move a culture without passing a law.

The Challenge

So here’s my challenge question: What’s the minimum standard of message discipline you’d demand from any leader before you’d say, “No, don’t mainstream that”?