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.

Given he was clearly going for maximal heat and outrage, I can't rap you too hard for responding with naked contempt and personal attacks , but this was still naked contempt and personal attacks. When someone posts a "pathetic tough guy screed" of course there is a desire to knock him down a peg, but people are actually allowed to post with hearts full of malice, and while I don't love the sentiment, I'd honestly be stretching to say @Hadad broke the rules and you didn't.

I object to your characterization of my post as maximum heat. It's maximum light -- it's not my fault the OP was asking for opinions on temperature. Am I to lie and pretend I actually care about the endless parade of institutional barriers to deportation the left comes up with? Am I to feign deep concern with a system so obviously abused we have tens of millions (possibly many more!) illegals in our borders, many of them happily shouting their allegiance to foreign powers, burning American flags, and in general being hostile parasites on my home?

That Chris is petulant about this doesn't mean I'm an outrage baiter. The social contract on immigration enforcement is genuinely dead. Democrats have gleefully imposed chaos on order; I'd like for that to be reversed.

Object all you want. "I hate my enemies and want them to suffer" may indeed be a sincere statement. It's also clearly meant to generate heat.

"I hate my enemies and want them to suffer" is true, but not what I said.

"I hate my enemies and want them to suffer" is true, but not what I said.

Really?

The more pain and terror inflicted in the process, the greater the psychic wound sustained on the collective consciousness of these illegals and all others interested in following them, the better.

And it's not even that I disagree with you on the object level. Just - it looks a lot like you did indeed say that.

And it's not even that I disagree with you on the object level. Just - it looks a lot like you did indeed say that.

There is an entire post you had to excise to quote one specific line. Perhaps you could look at the entire thing, and not reduce my message to a single statement!

I didn't. Your complaint that I quoted the most relevant part of your post instead of its entirety seems somewhat misplaced, both because quoting the whole thing was unnecessary since that line encompassed exactly that which was in question, and because the rest of your post doesn't invalidate it either.

Look, if you deny it, then fine, we can drop the whole issue right here, it won't be productive anyways. You can have the last word too, if you like. Or maybe someone else can weigh in and give us a third opinion.

You did, in fact, excise the entire post to quote a single line, and in doing so missed the broader message. But if you're willing to back down, then sure, consider it dropped. Just don't do it again next time.

You're being antagonistic and obnoxious. Stop it.

More comments