site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 18, 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.

This implies that the right wing and left wing argument about state control are entirely about morals and not about the effectiveness of capitalism, free markets and a hands-off government.

If "your rules fairly" includes doing things that you think are stupid, inefficient, counter-productive and extra prone to corruption (as the traditional small government conservative would think of governments owning companies) then doing it back would be nonsensical.

It only makes sense in a situation where the main argument to not do something is because of morals or tradition or law, rather than it being bad policy. Why hit our country in the face just because the left hits our country in the face sometimes? You just help to normalize and move the overton window on counterproductive self-face hitting among normies.

You just help to normalize and move the overton window on counterproductive self-face hitting among normies.

Just like you can't get back to the state of "nobody does it", you also can't get back to the state of "it isn't in the Overton window". Either it's acceptable for only the left to do it, or it's acceptable for both sides. You can't move the Overton window to "it's acceptable for nobody".

There are a great many situations where your statement would be obviously untrue. Should cons start getting abortions to own the libs?

If you believe that state ownership of private enterprise is a good thing for the nation then you don't need to talk about "the other side" to begin with, you can justify it off the merits of state ownership.

If you don't believe it's a good thing for the nation, then why would you want the country to harm itself?

Thank you so much for putting this into words better than I could