site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 19, 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.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Two Israeli embassy staff were shot dead late yesterday night as they were walking just outside the Capitol Jewish Museum. The Capitol Police have identified the suspect as one Elias Rodriguez of Chicago. Reportedly, Rodriguez shouted “Free Palestine” as he executed the couple, who were engaged to be married.

I have been meaning to write a “Civil War vibe-check” top-level post. My intuition was that the danger of such a nightmare scenario was receding, having peaked twice, with the mass-shooting at the Congressional baseball team practice game, and the George Floyd Riot/January Sixth Riot forming a stockbroker’s double blow-off top before a consistent decline in risk.

Recently multiple events have made me question this. The Zizian cult killings, the suicide bombing in Palm Springs over the weekend, and now this, make me feel like something is perhaps coming. Maybe not a full Syrian Civil War, but at least another Days of Rage similar to the period in the 1970s after the great wave broke and began to recede. I would appreciate hearing anyone’s thoughts.

Are there any countries comparable to the US that have fallen into civil war? I’m thinking about how incredibly interconnected all our systems are, it seems like trying to cut those apart would lead to collapse almost immediately.

People like to laugh about how ‘the right has so many more guns than the left,’ or that ‘the left controls the military and would easily beat the hillbillies’. But I’m just trying to figure out how the power grid, oil pipelines, trucking, hospitals, cell/satellite service and all the other million little things that go into keeping the country running could handle any kind of sudden partitioning.

My assumption would be that whoever controls the federal government controls the nation, and any state/region that tried to secede would lose instantly. So something like a coup could happen, but things would have to get a lot worse before you would actually have regional factions.

I think a second American civil war would most closely resemble the Mexican Revolution, where you have a central government of questionable legitimacy, multiple entire states that have risen up against that central government, regions within otherwise loyalst states that are in rebellion against both their state and the central government, and numerous paralimitaries and militant groups operating within that framework that don’t have ties to any particular geographic area.

In a high-state capacity country like the US, the federal government collapsing in on itself/splitting is a precondition for having something that can be described as a 'civil war'.

The problem with thinking "faction A has four times the population, five times the soldiers, six times the industrial capacity, etc," is that is assumes that all those assets stay loyal to faction A. "Who controls the federal government" might not be a straightforward question to answer.

But I’m just trying to figure out how the power grid, oil pipelines, trucking, hospitals, cell/satellite service and all the other million little things that go into keeping the country running could handle any kind of sudden partitioning.

Oil, electricity, and cell service are not necessary for staying alive. Hospitals aren't usually necessary for keeping the young men who will fight any civil war alive, unless they get wounded, in which case they can just die like in historical wars fought before modern medicine. War is brutal, you should hope it doesn't come to your country.

The problem with thinking "faction A has four times the population, five times the soldiers, six times the industrial capacity, etc," is that is assumes that all those assets stay loyal to faction A.

Yes, people forget that half the Syrian rebels started the war as Bashar al-Assad’s own troops.

Are there any countries comparable to the US that have fallen into civil war? I’m thinking about how incredibly interconnected all our systems are, it seems like trying to cut those apart would lead to collapse almost immediately.

Not a bad hypothesis. But when the environment changes, new ecological niches become viable. The UK of the 1980s was quite modern and interconnected. In another time, the Troubles could have been more traditional uprising instead of very long terrorist campaign.

The UK of the 1980s was quite modern and interconnected. In another time, the Troubles could have been more traditional uprising instead of very long terrorist campaign.

Well it was already the remnant of a traditional uprising. The partition of Ireland and the Anglo-Irish Treaty was a solution to the Irish War of Independence. It's extremely unlikely the Troubles could have become a more traditional uprising because most of the people who cared were placated enough by the freeing of the Republic (nee Irish Free State) and the peace deal ratified by both Irish and British governments.

The Provos always struggled to recruit enough people to do anything more than they did. The Troubles was essentially the very long death rattle of the Irish War of Independence (and the Irish Civil War between those who supported the Anglo-Irish treaty and those who did not within the new state). It was the end state of a traditional uprising, not the beginning.

It's extremely unlikely the Troubles could have become a more traditional uprising because most of the people who cared were placated enough by the freeing of the Republic (nee Irish Free State)

Also Northern Ireland was always going to be an uphill battle because around half the population are Scottish Protestants and not actually Irish. The fighting was incredibly difficult for the UK in the few areas that were actually 90 plus percent Irish (South Armagh).

Well, i am from Northern Ireland and its not quite that simple. We're not Scottish Protestants any more, we've been there for hundreds of years. Half my family is of Scottish descent, but the other half is from Ulster even before the Plantation happened.

I'm both Irish snd Scottish by ancestry. And thats very common, after all the Plantation of Ulster happened in the 1600's. Thats longer than the United States has even existed as a country. Plenty of time for inter marriage between settlers and natives who converted to Protestantism to create entirely separate ethnic family trees. Its why its Ulster Scots, not just Scots.