site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 12, 2025

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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Drug liberalisation: I believe this was one of Rob Henderson’s canonical examples of luxury beliefs, but it fits here just as well. There are some people who can experiment with psychoactive substances without becoming addicted or developing psychotic symptoms, but these people are rare, and addictive pathways for normal people are predictable and well understood. For most people, experimenting with psychoactive substances will be a net-negative, and you should not gamble on being one of the weird people who can take a lot of LSD and see no ill effects. Ergo, drug liberalisation is almost certainly a net-negative for most people and hence for society as a whole.

To the contrary, there are many who can experiment with alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana without becoming addicts. This isn’t true for fentanyl, but illegal fentanyl is so dangerous that the only people who use it will be stupid/impulsive, so you can’t draw conclusions about the general population from them. The % of people whose lives will be ruined by experimenting with drugs is a minority, though it isn’t a tiny minority and prohibitionists are right to note that drug use is a big social problem. But the options aren’t drugs or no drugs, it’s how much drugs will cost and how easy they will be to acquire. Making them cheaper and easier to acquire via legalization will probably lead to more use, but this must be set against the costs of the drug war, such as the money spent on enforcing it, negatively polarizing people against policing, making it harder to get pain medications people actually need, and making drug use more expensive and dangerous for people for whom it's a net positive. Plus, the drug war is fostering a culture of helplessness that is particularly harmful to the lower class: https://www.themotte.org/post/1850/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/322160?context=8#context

Think about it, what’s the cultural messaging from drug prohibitionists? It’s all about blaming “chyna,” “the border,” or “the Sackler family” for people’s decisions to inject themselves with dangerous substances. Never do they acknowledge that the addicts bear any blame, it’s all about wallowing in collective victimization and helplessness. And now we’re having a trade war, putting hardworking people out of work, for the sake of this biotrash. Drug prohibition needn't include this element, old-school conservatism was much better.

I seem to remember that the Drug War of old included an element of "it's your own fucking fault, just don't do drugs" and it still failed horribly. Is your contention that we just didn't try hard enough, that we just never had anything as persuasive as "You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack"?

This isn’t true for fentanyl, but illegal fentanyl is so dangerous that the only people who use it will be stupid/impulsive, so you can’t draw conclusions about the general population from them.

Fentanyl is often laced into other illegal drugs to make them more addictive — or in other words people are being poisoned with it without their consent. A lot of the moral panic over fentanyl is about that aspect.

Never do they acknowledge that the addicts bear any blame

Wasn't that pretty much the entire point of that paragraph of my original post?

I'm talking about the attitude of the MAGA movement, which is basically the Republican Party now. People here do not speak for it.