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.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I actually agree, Marxism has been tried (and been found wanting). But I also firmly think that Christian ideals have been tried, and that Chesterson is wrong (albeit with great prose). There are 2.6 billion followers of Christianity. The world has been dominated by Christian nations for like ~400 straight years, waning over the last 60.

If someone wants to argue "okay but that wasn't true Christian ideals" than I think they should accept the same position on Marxism.

Sure, we didn't test a society with perfect Christian ideals, but that's what happens when ideals have to map on to real life. The value of an ideal isn't based on the hypothesized textbook perfect form, it's based on the real outcomes once you expose it to human society.

History shows us that when Christianity was in fact being tried, we did in fact have better outcomes on a whole host of relevant metrics to the people yearning for Christianity. It was Christianity's decline, not ascent, that was accompanied by the degradation of society.

have better outcomes on a whole host of relevant metrics to the people yearning for Christianity

Unless you were a powerless woman, or a powerless minority, or a powerless person of slightly the wrong proclivity for various things including but not limited to sexual orientation and opinions on celestial mechanics (at relevant times).

I'd posit that if Christianity was the ideal human ideology that caused maximum flourishing, it wouldn't have declined. Or at least the places where it didn't decline would then be much better places (and presumably out-compete) than places where it did.

Unless you were a powerless woman

Women's reported happiness, mental health, and life satisfaction have been in freefall since the decline of Christianity, actually.

or a powerless minority,

Minority outcomes have shifted very little in any positive directions.

or a powerless person of slightly the wrong proclivity for various things including but not limited to sexual orientation and opinions on celestial mechanics (at relevant times).

Still healthier and better off than today. Indeed, I bet the gay community at Christianity's height had far less AIDs, among other things.

I'd posit that if Christianity was the ideal human ideology that caused maximum flourishing, it wouldn't have declined.

Surely you understand how absurd this is, right?

"I'd posit that if the ideal human was healthy and ate well, no one would be overweight."

Or at least the places where it didn't decline would then be much better places (and presumably out-compete) than places where it did.

Well, it was at the height of western Christianity that it conquered the world, and to this day western nations have better quality of life than places that never were Christian.

Your points are fair, but I guess to rephrase my point as a question

If Christianity dominated times were so much better (or not worse for women/minorities/whatever) than why does only a rather small portion of western society (a good chunk of the GOP, and tiny fractions of other right-leaning western populations) want to go back?

Why isn't "make $COUNTRY a Christian theocracy again" a winning political strategy?

Healthy lifestyles are harder work than unhealthy ones, and people are accustomed to self-destructive hedonism. Why don't fat people just eat less?

I got nothing for that, fair enough

Honestly I ask myself that every time I see a fat person. I have my own shitty habits but that level of self-destruction blows my mind.

I'm sympathetic to fatties, I'd say there's plenty of reasons. But it also goes for smokers, drinkers, for people who get into toxic relationships, etc.

Comfort is seductive. Pleasure is seductive. No matter the costs, people gravitate toward them. This is why society should try to restrict them, not facilitate them -- nobody needs help pursuing vices.

I am actually somewhat in favor of more paternalism, but it's hard to have that not go absolutely fucking sideways

More comments