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.

Ok, this turns the proposal from an absolute joke into something that you can put a (thin) veneer of respect on, which makes it much more dangerous as it might actually stick.

Of course I'm sure the original proposal from Trump himself was a $100k yearly/each entry fee and now footsoldiers of the administration in their characteristic fashion are trying to sanewash the policy.

Why was it an absolute joke, according to you?

I mean the whole idea that the correct thing to tax was every single entry of an H-1B worker into the US in the first place is ludicrous. Even if you believe H-1B workers damage the US the amount of damage they cause doesn't change if they take 0 or 4 visits outside the US for holidays/on work/to visit family etc. etc., there's no sensible reason why anyone would decide it's the individual entry of a H-1B worker into the US which causes detriment (not to mention the complete silence on how entries of people who are dependents of the H-1B worker would be handled). Calling the policy half-baked would be doing it a credit.

Ah, you're critiquing the details of the policy, not the idea of the policy.

Well yes, as with so many things Trump, the implementation concept is strange, the members of administration seem to not be on the same page about what it entails, and it's likely to be walked back.