site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 21, 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.

I can't think of a worse set of arguments made by proponents of the US letting Ukraine suffer a defeat.

  • Putin defeating Ukraine and then being emboldened to threaten small NATO neighbors increases risk of WWIII way more than supporting Ukraine does.
  • The US/West failing to sufficiently back Ukraine emboldens China and other would-be aggressors when they do their risk calculations.

And I mean what exactly has happened to make any of that credible? Putin is not putting forces anywhere near other borders. He’s not issuing threats to anyone else. It’s just not there and as such anyone claiming that “Ze Ruzzan tanks will shortly roll across the Baltics” just isn’t dealing in the facts on the ground. It’s an excellent excuse to pour more treasure into Ukraine to the tune of trillions in weapons. The winners of this are not the Western powers, but the weapons manufacturers who made bank off of that money. And for all that, we managed to turn a six week war into a two year war that went the way it was always going to go, except with more deaths and more destruction, more ordinance buried under now useless farmland.

And as far as the West goes, tensions between the West and BRICS wouldn’t be high at all if we’d simply minded our own business. Russians didn’t have a problem with us, China didn’t, Iran only hated us over Israel and really not that much. Us propping up Ukraine and fighting that proxy war in Ukraine and trying to cut Russia off from tge world banking and market systems told those countries that those markets were merely used to reinforce Western hegemony and that anyone who didn’t play by our rules showed them not to trust our markets or banks. Had we stayed out, Russia would be just fine with the status quo.

As far as Taiwan, we gave a lot of money and weapons to Ukraine. If we keep doing that we won’t have enough in reserve to fight for Taiwan.

Putin is not putting forces anywhere near other borders. He’s not issuing threats to anyone else.

Please be serious. Where Putin puts his forces after taking out Ukraine is the concern.

You can argue that the Europeans should shoulder the bulk of their own defense, but you seem to be arguing they are paranoid. I would be concerned were I a Moldovan.

The winners of this are not the Western powers, but the weapons manufacturers who made bank off of that money.

Personally I think that's a win-win since we have lost some key industrial capacities for munitions productions. Those are good factory jobs.

And for all that, we managed to turn a six week war into a two year war that went the way it was always going to go, except with more deaths and more destruction, more ordinance buried under now useless farmland.

Two years, huh? At least get your defeatism timeline right please.

France does ok on agriculture despite having the Iron Harvest.

And as far as the West goes, tensions between the West and BRICS wouldn’t be high at all if we’d simply minded our own business.

Just like Putin minded his?

Anyone pretending "BRICS" is a useful label because it represents an actual coalition is just ignorant about geopolitics. For starters, China and India don't get along very well. Who gives a fuck about Brazil or or South Africa as major geopolitical players?

Ironically, there's a far stronger natural argument for defending Ukraine against Russia than there is for defending a rogue Chinese province from its sovereign government. Given that Trump won't even ban TikTok, how on earth would he commit to a serious loss of life and risk of WWIII to defend an island where we have no formal obligation?

Russians didn’t have a problem with us, China didn’t

After the Cold War, the US and Russia have been at loggerheads way before the Ukraine invasion on a host of geopolitical issues.

Same with China. Issues with North Korea and Taiwan didn't begin yesterday.

Iran only hated us over Israel and really not that much.

What universe do you live in? "Only"? "Really not that much"???????????????????

"Death to America" was just for show then? Shame about all the Americans they've killed over the years. I suppose Trump et al have nothing to worry about from those assassination plots.

Ironically, there's a far stronger natural argument for defending Ukraine against Russia than there is for defending a rogue Chinese province from its sovereign government

This is a hilarious way to compare an anti-communist Western-backed nation that has existed since 1949, versus a province that was ruled by Russia for over 300 years up to 1991 and remained a pretty neutral border state up until 2014

Losing civil wars has consequences. Both China and Taiwan have a "one China policy" I do believe.

Taiwan is in reality a rogue province that exists only because the US could keep the ChiComms from finishing out the civil war. It's doomed to being reabsorbed, if present trends continue.

In contrast, Ukraine is a sovereign nation, which was recognized by all parties at the time, and is making things very nasty for the Russians.

In both the international law sense (kinda fake) as of 1971, and the force of arms sense (ultimately the main thing), Taiwan is not much of a country as would be made immediately clear as soon as the US stops giving it strategic ambiguity as a defense.

Taiwan is in reality a rogue province

Taiwan was never held by the People's Republic.

That's what "rogue" means here. In a civil war, the ChiComms won, but didn't quite get back the full territory of China.

The exact history of who controlled what when isn't even relevant here, strictly speaking.

I love history trivia too, but both sides believe in One China what do you think you're arguing for here?

That's what "rogue" means here. In a civil war, the ChiComms won, but didn't quite get back the full territory of China.

There is no "back". The ChiComms never held Taiwan. Two groups fought for control of China, one successfully took the vast majority but the other group was able to hold a small part. To call Taiwan a "rogue province" is to accept that the People's Republic of China has a claim on it which is being violated by the Republic of China. Obviously the ROC does not accept that.

To call Taiwan a "rogue province" is to accept that the People's Republic of China has a claim on it which is being violated by the Republic of China. Obviously the ROC does not accept that.

This is a wonderfully pedantic stance you're taking. The PRC is viewed by everyone, except the ROC, as the One True Chinese Government. The ROC has not tried to formally define itself as a separate country (though some want to). Or give up it's claims to the mainland.

"Get back the full territory" refers to the government of China regaining control of all of Chinese territory following external invasions and civil war. I could choose a slightly different phrasing if the word "back" offends you, but it's a distinction without a difference. It's either a rogue province, or an independent country. Take your pick.

So unless you accept that the ROC is still the legitimate sovereign power of all of China, temporarily embarrassed by only controlling Taiwan, then this is all academic.

More comments