site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That depends entirely on who's making the decisions, I think. I'm going to vote for people who are okay with destroying our enemies.

It would help to identify our enemies first. Iranians are friendlier to Western Civilization than Israelis.

Uh, twelver Shia Islam being more compatible with western civilization than Judaism or Sunni Islam is pretty plausible, but Iran is definitely not friendlier.

No, the Muslims chanting death to America are not my friends, no matter how much you, I, or anyone else hate Jews.

Most Iranians are not religious and do not support the government, which sics foreign militias to oppress them. I speak Persian and have spent much time among them. Every couple of years there are massive riots, with thousands of deaths, as people fight back.

Even then, much of the Shia clergy opposes the regime; Khamenei isn't even a marja let alone the first among equals nor most popular religious leader within Iran itself. To concede a bit, at any rate they're friendlier than the Saudis and Emiratis, Shia are far more compatible and friendly with our world (but again, religiosity's similar to Czechia. Here's a survey giving 30% as Shia, only 40% as Muslim at all.)


strictly bans Western music and most other Western cultural output - @Hoffmeister25

Khatami relaxed that, already. Besides nowadays, everyone has a VPN. You can talk to plenty of Iranians right now, even with the attempted internet lock down, even if this isn't real. Personally, I'd only wish success to someone banning Disney, rap etc.

To react to your bailey, @The_Nybbler haven't many in this community opposed this government and arana imperii, ascribing modernity's ills to it?

Besides nowadays, everyone has a VPN. You can talk to plenty of Iranians right now, even with the attempted internet lock down, even if this isn't real.

You're making the same error Thomas Dewey did, talking to a small, wealthy, and unrepresentative set of Iranians.

Iran has 80% VPN penetration. How is that a "small, wealthy, and unrepresentative set"? Although I can be wrong, I'm specifically stating that this isn't just a narrow elite - that the Iranian people are majority friendly/not anti-American islamists.

Thomas Dewey

What are you referring to? I didn't understand but would like to!

So you don't mean that Dewey talked to a small, wealthy, and unrepresentative set and made some mistake? Do you mean that the reporter, Arthur Sears Henning or the newspaper made this error? Or sample bias in early-available data?

The usual reason for the error is that telephone surveys were used. Telephones were disproportionately owned by the wealthy, who were more likely to support Dewey. But yes, it wasn't an error made by Dewey himself but pollsters and the Chicago Daily Tribune.

More comments

Most Iranians are not religious and do not support the government, which sics foreign militias to oppress them. I speak Persian and have spent much time among them. Every couple of years there are massive riots, with thousands of deaths, as people fight back.

That only makes the question of what do you think is going to happen, once the regime is overthrown, all the more important. Presumably it being able to hold on to power, despite the majority not supporting it, is a sign of a lack of unifying goals among the resistance.

what do you think is going to happen

It's hard to say as I don't know what the extent of the "stimulus" will be. I just want the regime to change, I don't know what kind of push is needed or where it will go.

Iran has significant brain drain as education levels are high and emigration's unrestricted. I see between 3 and 5 million emigrants for a population of 80 million 2010 and ~90 million today. I'd guestimate emigration up a bit, just for Turkey (official numbers in the ...5 digits), which has big communities of Persian speaking shop keepers, lawyers, hostels, restaurants etc. then massive communities of Azeri Iranians, who receive expedited Turkish citizenship. (N.b. much of the Islamic Republic's leadership are Azeri. Azeri Turkish and Turkey Turkish are like British and American English. There are more Azeris in Iran than Azerbaijan.) Particularly in the last few years, international students have stopped going to Turkey, yet the universities catering to them have stronger enrollment than ever, all from Iran. In the case I knew intimately, 1 of 200 foreign students in a department were Iranian Azeris (the other was Persian.) Anyway, the commonality is that most people of means or ability leave.

All things being equal, I'd expect some sort of secular military government, where the army puts down the IRGC. I'm not sure who'd lead it. Because Trump killed the liberal political movement, which spent its capital to push the nuclear deal through. Nowadays, there doesn't seem to be much of a political base, as the youth are depoliticized/have no faith in change. I believe people are less "political" than in Russia on average, where people will at least riff of crazy ideas and conspiracies. Many people try to build identities around pre-Islamic Iran, being totally Western or... But most just don't. There are interesting parties like the technocratic "Executives of Construction" with low electoral support.

Anyway, I'm not sure what precisely would cause the regime to change. I don't believe the current US government is terribly competent or able to nudge things along, but Israel's success is shocking and impressive. Perhaps something can come out of it. Continued airstrikes degrading the security state and ideological forces, but not state forces, could lead to the military or civilian-military forces overthrowing the current regime. However, I've seen a few strikes on army bases, but have no clue who/what was targeted. It could easily devolve into civil war or see the state continue, as is.


re: the liberal movement, Rouhani (though a cleric, with a Scottish PhD with a credible plagiarism claim) campaigned on rebuilding relations with the West, personal rights etc. which saw the civilian administration asserting itself against the IRGC. After that project was destroyed, the regime brought back the morality police etc. Although these days, you still see women walking around without a hijab in Shiraz, Tehran etc. Yet to some extent, the current president Pezeshkian is a moderate (fun fact, he proposed free Turkish education in Iran) relative to his opponent, but nowhere near as much as Rouhani or Khatami, still he (as well as many politicians) opposed the governments reactions to protestors at different points, calling the repression unconstitutional etc. (before backtracking...) He's had women vice presidents (besides many governors etc.), and even a Sunni!

Sometimes the US pays lipservice to the fact that there's a civilian government and state military with a clergy and militia on top, but doesn't actually focus its efforts fighting the ruling clergy.

I just want the regime to change,

Well, my first instinct is to chastise you for your recklessness, but if I'm being honest this is not much different than how I feel about Europe, so fair enough, especially if you have ties to the place.

Iran has significant brain drain as education levels are high and emigration's unrestricted. I see between 3 and 5 million emigrants for a population of 80 million 2010 and ~90 million today. I'd guestimate emigration up a bit,

No total regime collapse? No neighboring countries swooping in to setup a puppet state? No civil war? No refugee wave?

Iran was able to build many impressive things in-house, so I don't doubt there are many educated people there, but I distinctly remember people telling me the same thing about Syria, to the point where "doctors and engineers" became a meme.

All things being equal, I'd expect some sort of secular military government, where the army puts down the IRGC.

That sounds like the good ending, but I have my doubts. "Khamenei is a religious fanatic who hates us for irrational religious reasons, and so cannot be reasoned with" is a common argument, but I can't help but notice that Putin is secular, Hussein was secular, Gaddafi was secular, Assad was secular, and none of them had better luck being seen as rational people to be reasoned with. So unless it's possible to impose a puppet regime of the US and/or Israel, I don't think a secular military government will be accepted by them any more than the theocratic one is, and so, we'll see a descent into chaos. Hope I'm wrong.

For context, I mentioned that I support regime change/oppose the government because people misunderstood my criticism of the government as "defending". I don't especially advocate for Cruz/Trump driven-regime change though I'd pray for its success.

Hussein was secular, Gaddafi was secular, Assad was secular...

Indeed. The powers that be do not care nor wish for human flourishing (to the extent they had good policies). Replacing the Khmer Rouge with something less bad is a net win for humanity, even if international recognition doesn't improve.

No total regime collapse? No neighboring countries swooping in to setup a puppet state? No civil war? No refugee wave?

I was describing the current situation, to explain apathy/lack of significant reformist movements. A civil war would naturally create a large refugee wave, but we don't know whether continued force will cause regime change nor what any of this looks like. As I stated before, I'm skeptical of the current admin's ability to engineer a positive outcome.

Syria ... "doctors and engineers"

Syrians were at a "higher" cultural and educational level, than other Arab countries. The "issue"'s that they supported the regime and didn't emigrate, which motivated groups deftly left out.

Personally, I'd only wish success to someone banning Disney, rap etc.

To react to your bailey, @The_Nybbler haven't many in this community opposed this government and arana imperii, ascribing modernity's ills to it?

See, I knew this was coming. There is a consistent bait-and-switch deployed by defenders of the proposition that rogue/irredentist regimes such as Iran are actually secretly friendly to Western culture/interests. The initial claim is always “No, they’re not actually trying to ban Western culture or actively harm Western governments.” And then when someone brings up examples of those regimes explicitly opposing Western cultural imports or waging covert/proxy war against Western countries (particularly America), the claim switches to, “Okay yes, they are opposed to the West, but that’s good, actually, because the West is degenerate and its cultural imports deserve to be banned.”

Yes, I have issues with much of the lyrical/philosophical content of hip-hop music and the culture around it. I agree that much of Disney’s recent output is of questionable artistic quality, and that some of its messaging is insidious. However, if there is such a thing as “the West” (and I’ve expressed my skepticism that such a construct refers to something real and consistent) then surely one of its defining factors, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries, is that it is extremely reticent to ban entire categories of art. As an American, I can effortlessly find the intellectual and artistic output of countries and cultures which are openly hostile to my own; I can follow Russian nationalists and Iranian mullahs on Twitter, and I can watch ISIS videos online without needing a VPN lest I risk imprisonment. Only a very insecure and consciously-insular regime would ban the output of its critics, either domestic or foreign. That the Iranian regime does so is a sign that it is not friendly to the spirit of Western-aligned cultures. (It is also, of course, openly very hostile to the political, economic, and military interests of Western-aligned nations.)

I agree with you that the Persian people have no inherently adversarial relationship with me and mine. They are one of the great historical cultures of human history, and I long to see them returned to their former glory. This would not be possible under an Islamic hard-liner regime with revolutionary and anti-Western sentiments baked into its DNA. A proud and high-IQ people deserve better than these incompetent, blustering, grubby mullahs. My problems lie almost entirely with the people on top in Iran, and not with the people who have to live under their boot.

defenders of the proposition that rogue/irredentist regimes

You're responding to a post where I say foreign militias are holding the regime in place, which the people don't support. How do you construe that as defending?! Even the "30%" (I think that's a motivated number, but directionally correct that a majority aren't) of Shia in the country don't support the regime, with grand Ayatollas opposing Khamenei. I'm a am pro-regime change in Iran. @Hadad

Two understood it the same way, so my writing is the common denominator, but... I don't understand.

The problem is that you led with the claim that “Iranians are more friendly to Western civilization than Israelis [are].” This claim strikes most readers as extremely bizarre, given the many ways in which Israel’s culture (at least in their major cities) is manifestly more in-line with Western cultural norms than Iran’s is. (Israeli women can dress however they please, gay sex is tolerated and even mildly celebrated, they both happily consume Western media and produce media which is easily legible for Western audiences, etc. Many Israelis are originally from Western countries, and fluently speak Western languages.)

Therefore, for your claim to make any sense, it has to be about how Israel’s government is supposedly unfriendly to the West. This may or may not be true, but it’s at least a legible claim. If this is your claim, though, then it stands to reason to also interpret your claim about Iran to also be about the government. And the claim that Iran’s government — which openly funds organizations which have attacked Western shipping, committed terrorist attacks against Westerners, etc. — is more Western-friendly than Israel’s strikes a lot of observers as, again, bizarre.

Are you now saying that your original claim should be read as “Iranians [the people, not the government] are more friendly to Western civilization than Israelis [the government, not the people] are”? Or are you genuinely sticking to the claim that the average Israeli citizen hates Western civilization more than the average Iranian citizen does?

genuinely sticking to the claim that the average Israeli citizen hates Western civilization more than the average Iranian citizen does?

Yes. I chose my words carefully. N.b. I don't "hate Jews" as someone above assumed. I just see that Israelis and Israeli media doesn't cargocult and follow the West, seeing it as the best thing in the world, as Iranians do. I can easily find statistics (which correspond with my (admittedly probably, but not intentionally motivated) beliefs and first-hand anecdata that Iranians are less religious than Israelis, with demographic trends only accelerating this, considering Hasidic demographics etc. who are not inline with what you call "Western cultural norms". But I oppose these "Western cultural norms" and see them as anti-Western^TM. I believe their pushers hate my people.)

gay sex

Well... Maryam Molkara convinced Khomeini to issue a fatwa in 1987, so that in Iran the government will (forcibly) pay for your sex change, so it's not gay, anymore. Only Thailand "leads". Overall, there's a cottage industry of cosmetic surgeons, with 2.5 million nose jobs per year.

It's great that they don't all chant death to America. In the event the nicer ones overthrow the local powers, perhaps relationships could be repaired! Hopefully they manage to do so soon, otherwise it won't matter. No amount of good men will justify letting Iran go nuclear.

Iranians are friendlier to Western Civilization than Israelis.

If you skip over the whole batshit Islamic theocracy and the "Death to America"/"The Great Satan" thing

Right, that and the fact that, as I understand it, the Iranian regime strictly bans Western music and most other Western cultural output, to the point where their people have to find bootleg version of American artists’ music. Yeah, very “friendly to Western culture.”

I don't think you'll have any luck finding serious American candidates who advocate for genocide.

Nonsense. It's par for the course for US politicians to support Israel over Palestine, and it's also par for the course for people to say that's a genocide.

We haven't seen an impassioned and unambiguous attempt at genocide by a first world country since the Holocaust. Israel's actions, as genocidal as they may or may not be, simply don't compare to the total national annihilation that I think you're envisioning.

Despite your fantasies, I don't think you are actually Holden Bloodfeast incarnate. It's easy to say that you want all your enemies (who consist of an entire ethnic group) to die in nuclear hellfire on the internet, but I'm confident you aren't actually sociopathic enough to push the button and witness the results yourself. In any case, nobody really wants the game-theoretic consequences of real genocide being back on the table. I certainly don't, as I'm not exactly lily white myself and I'd prefer p(TND) or even p(Liberia) to stay as low as possible.

The goal isn't genocide. Genocide is just an acceptable cost. Nothing stops Iran from abandoning its nuclear ambitions before dying, much like how nothing is actually stopping Palestinians from not embracing a life of suicidal terrorism.

This requires no sociopathy, fyi. You're correct that I'm not sociopathic. But I'd absolutely push The Button. I'd mash it, and then continue to exist as a stable, psychologically well-adjusted person. The outgroup has no moral value to me. If you're convinced I wouldn't, well, okay. I say I would, you say I won't, guess the conversation's done.