site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 15, 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.

If it was disavowed, why did people who stabbed, tasered, threw bombs at, or otherwise attacked cops get pardoned?

Because what they were subjected was a kangaroo court that was an affront to justice.

He was not forced to do a blanket clemency that covered violent crimes. The campaign even said before election that violent criminals would not be released.

“If you protested peacefully on Jan. 6 and you’ve had [Attorney General] Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned,” Vance told “Fox News Sunday.”

He added, “If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.”

Even Vance agreed it's obvious that violent criminals should not be sent into the general public. Yet what happened? Cop beaters with long rap sheets were freed.

Some of them have been rearrested for other charges like plotting an assassination against the FBI as revenge, existing charges of soliciting a minor, child pornography, etc.

As one would expect, cop beaters are not good people. Pardoning minor crimes like trespassing makes sense, in the chaos maybe many people didn't hear or notice the warnings. But why pardon cop beaters? They have made it known they are violent individuals, else they wouldn't have attacked a cop.

He was not forced to do a blanket clemency that covered violent crimes.

The time for making such distinctions was when doing the prosecution in the first place. It is not reasonable to expect the President, having seen a great injustice done, to relitigate every case several years later to ensure only the correct amount of injustice is alleviated and not one bit of true justice undone.

The time for making such distinctions was when doing the prosecution in the first place.

They did! Do you have any evidence that someone was falsely charged and convicted of assaulting police that didn't assault police?

It is not reasonable to expect the President, having seen a great injustice done, to relitigate every case several years later to ensure only the correct amount of injustice is alleviated and not one bit of true justice undone.

Historically a lot of work is put into determining who does and doesn't get pardoned. This is an article detauling it in the 1980s with way less easy access to information and they still managed it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/10/27/pardon-rules-cloaked-in-mystery/c369cf43-55b2-4201-a5b4-5d92f4775fef/

If they could do it then, they could do it now. Or is the Trump admin, even with modern technology, still incapable of doing what presidents used to be able to do?

Historically a lot of work is put into determining who does and doesn't get pardoned.

How do you feel about Biden's various preemptive and retroactive pardons before he left office?

From what I've heard there was quite a few scandals regarding some of them. His administration didn't seem to do a good job either at being properly selective.

It is a shame that we have apparently elected multiple presidents in a row unable to match the general quality and care of prior admins, despite better technology and availability of information.