site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 8, 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.

9
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Prediction: the man who shot Kirk has no history of political activism as part of the Democratic Party or any organised centre or far-left group.

To loosely spitball an idea that's been kicking around in my head for a while: maybe (some of) what we see as "partisan fraying" is actually happening mostly in cyberspace (it's an old word, but I think it applies here), where it's easy to un-person someone on the other side: "oh, that a troll/bot/foreign psyop, ban them." (see "words are violence") The virtual version (aspect?) of our culture really is fraying at the seams because there never was a notion of "national unity" in the borderless cyberspace. This bleeds over into meatspace mostly from people who can't see the difference: I think you have to be terminally online to accept "X is genocide" to logically precede "so we should kill X supporters" as reality. And political activism still has a huge meatspace component: you go to conventions, protests, volunteer to phone bank or go door-to-door that filters out someone radically, terminally online enough to actually choose violence.

But I could be very wrong.

ETA: Surely there are some limits on legitimate political organizations accepting purely-online contributions. Otherwise it seems a matter of time until "your so-called phone-bank volunteers that you never vetted in-person were actually call center workers in [foreign nation A] getting paid by [foreign nation B]". The JIDF et al already get looked at pretty askance.