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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I just wrapped up a deep dive into Taylor Lorenz’s Wikipedia page, and what I found feels like a live case study in the kind of media bias and institutional trust issues we often unpack here. Taylor Lorenz is once again making waves for her controversial praise for Luigi Mangione. She first expressed “joy” over the murder in a December 2024 Piers Morgan interview, saying it tied to her belief in the “sanctity of life” amid healthcare frustrations, though she later backtracked to “not empathy.” Then, she doubled down on CNN, calling Mangione “handsome,” “smart,” and—most shockingly—“morally good,” framing him as a revolutionary figure that women admire. This sparked immediate backlash, with figures like Stephen Miller, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee slamming her on X, and outlets like Fox News and The Independent covering the uproar extensively. Yet, when I checked her Wikipedia page today, April 16, 2025, there’s not a single mention of this controversy (or any others!). I found this isn’t the first time her page has skipped major controversies. There are other omissions we’ve discussed here before, like her 2020 amplification of Claudia Conway’s anti-Trump TikToks—criticized for exploiting a minor, as reported by Daily Mail—and her 2021 false claim that Marc Andreessen used a slur on Clubhouse, later corrected but not without backlash, as noted by Fox News. Both incidents were widely covered but are absent from her page, suggesting a pattern of selective editing. The Mangione comments feel especially egregious given their recency and impact. Fox News ran pieces on both her Piers Morgan and CNN remarks, with headlines like “Taylor Lorenz’s ‘heinous’ defense of Luigi Mangione as a ‘morally good man’ disgusts X users,” while The Independent highlighted her CNN interview, noting she’s a “regular target of attacks from the right online” but also pointing to the “disingenuous outrage culture” her comments feed. National Review and OutKick also weighed in, with the latter accusing her of backtracking after initially denying the “morally good” claim—despite video evidence. This level of coverage screams notability, so why the silence on Wikipedia? The Wikipedia Talk page for Lorenz’s article offers some clues. Just yesterday a user named The lorax argued that the Mangione comments have gained “lasting impact” due to ongoing media attention, citing The Independent’s recent article as a reliable source. Marquardtika agreed, pushing for inclusion, but others pushed back, claiming the coverage might be biased or not “DUE” enough, referencing Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources Policy. Notwally, in a detailed post, dissected The Independent’s reporting, noting it mischaracterized Lorenz’s CNN remarks—her actual quote framed Mangione’s appeal as a public sentiment rather than her personal view—but still argued the controversy might not be significant enough, especially since the latest article didn’t reference her earlier “joy” comment.
This debate mirrors earlier ones on the Talk page about Lorenz’s harassment experiences, where editors have been battling since March 2025 over whether to call attacks against her “coordinated.” Some pointed to sources showing coordination (e.g., Lorenz’s claim that Tucker Carlson mobilized followers against her), while others argued there’s no proof, leading to the section being renamed simply “Harassment.”
What strikes me most about the Talk page is the tension between editors trying to maintain neutrality and those who seem overly cautious about including anything too controversial.
In the harassment debate, Delectopierre accused another editor of downplaying Lorenz’s experiences, warning that such edits “mimic some of the disgusting tactics used in Gamergate” by denying her reality. The editor countered that they were trying to expand the section neutrally, focusing on secondary sources over Lorenz’s tweets to avoid bias, but the back-and-forth shows how contentious this page is. The Mangione discussion feels like a continuation of this struggle: even with reliable sources, some editors are hesitant to touch polarizing content. But Wikipedia’s NPOV policy demands that all significant views be represented, and Lorenz’s comments—praising an accused killer and drawing condemnation from high-profile figures—clearly meet that bar. Excluding them isn’t neutrality; it’s selective storytelling.
This isn’t just about Lorenz; it’s about Wikipedia’s credibility. If her page can skip over statements this explosive, especially when they’re so fresh and widely covered, what does that say about Wikipedia’s ability to handle divisive figures? The pattern of omission suggests a bias toward downplaying Lorenz’s most polarizing moments, which risks presenting a sanitized version of her public image.
I was considering jumping into the Talk page debate myself, arguing that the Mangione comments deserve inclusion under NPOV given the breadth of coverage and their impact. But as it turns out my IP is banned from editing even though I’ve never tried.
I’m curious if any of you have noticed similar patterns on other Wikipedia pages for controversial figures. Is this a systemic issue? Do we need a new Wikipedia built by uncompassionate LLMs?
The scary thing is it's not limited to individuals, or even just current events. You'd think history would be a little more dispassionate, but unfortunately that isn't the case.
Here's the example that really made me realize the extent of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache
While there are sections in there about the Apache wars with the US, there is absolutely nothing about the fact that they were almost eradicated by the Comanche. In fact, it barely even mentions the Comanche at all. That would be like discussing small pox and barely even mentioning the vaccine while going into great depth on its decline during the 20th century.
The Comanche Wars article will helpfully add for context the fact that "they also shared parts of Comancheria with the Wichita, Kiowa, and Kiowa Apache" (for some value of "shared"...), and explains that those wars were because "The value of the Comanche traditional homeland was recognized by European-American colonists". They do say that the wars "began in 1706 with raids by Comanche warriors on the Spanish colonies of New Spain", but you have to find the article specifically about the Shoshone to learn that "Some of them moved as far south as Texas, emerging as the Comanche by 1700."
I still don't get why pushing for the moral legitimacy of the Comanche conquests is a thing. I'd think the idea of a "traditional homeland" should have deeper connotations than "we conquered your neighbors more than six years before we tried to conquer you too!"
Ah, yes. The Comanche, according to wikipedia were "nomadic traders" up until... "As European Americans encroached on their territory, the Comanche waged war on the settlers and raided their settlements, as well as those of neighboring Native American tribes."
More options
Context Copy link
I'm pretty sure it's just the standard "never show weakness" logic. People who take this position are highly concerned with optics. It's hard to assert that you have a morally superior position when flaws can be found in the building blocks. Strategically it's better to gloss over as many as possible, redirect when exposed, and then scrub them from the records when the spotlight is elsewhere.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link