site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 4, 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.

With most things, there are trade-offs. Like Scott, I stand beside the snakes and traders.

Cops have a non-zero systemic murder rate. This tells us fuck-all if they are net positive or not. Perhaps they are basically a criminal gang running a protection racket and kill everyone who does not pay up. Or perhaps they are mostly good once per 50 years two crooked cops will use their uniform to cover up a 2nd degree murder committed by one of them by planting a gun on the victim.

Or consider organizations with regard to systemic child abuse. Any organization whose members will have contact with kids will have a nonzero systemic child abuse rate, because you can sink any amount of resources into reducing the risk and organizations generally run on finite resources. However, there is a vast difference between "we should have considered the fact that the kid was waving at their teacher as evidence that they were in an abusive relationship and started an investigation" and "once we got too many complaints about the priest touching kids, we simply transferred them to another church".

Likewise with collateral damage. Either claiming that no civilian casualties are acceptable or that any are okay is foolish. Killing one civilian for every 50 killed enemies would in most wars be a conduct noble beyond belief, while killing 50 civilians per killed enemy would be excessively brutal.