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.

George Floyd's death was not a result of a political assassination. This is an important distinction. Nor was he really anyone anybody knew about. Heather Heyer might have had a better claim. But honestly, the best comparison is probably MLK as there are few instances to choose from. Would you hold a moment of silence for him?

Christian, non-violent, tragically shot. I might not agree with everything he wished for but it'd be impolite not to memorialize him

Non-violent is overrated. Activists try to pretend that nonviolent is the same thing as nonharmful, and have invented very clever ways to harm people for a cause without being "violent".

Also, nonviolence harms everyone because a lot of nonviolence depends on taking advantage of other people's reluctance to use violence to prevent harm. That encourages violence in society and is a form of destroying the commons. It also involves media manipulation, which is a fancy word for lying (which is of course a nonviolent act).

Remember that debanking Covid protestors in Canada was an act of nonviolence. (Actually, so is debanking anyone.)

From the point of view of Progressivism, Kirk was profoundly harmful to society. He successfully advocated for views which were obviously wrong, and likely did so while knowing he was wrong. He was a persistent purveyor of disinformation. Even supposing that he did not understand the fascist nature of the views he espoused (which he likely did in private), enacting his political and cultural ideals would, in fact, result in fascism. Preventing fascism is the most important goal of democracy, and Kirk was daily working to undermine that. His kind of political activism was inherently illegitimate, since it sought, wittingly or not, to demolish liberal democracy and its protection of minorities. Tolerance of the intolerant is not a virtue. Kirk did far more harm to society than most "violent" criminals locked up in prison, and yet he was allowed to walk free and spread his hateful ideas unchecked. That he was typically polite cannot hide that his ideas were inherently hateful. Kirk was "nonviolent", but he was the propaganda arm of a system that every day uses violence to control marginalized people. Without people like Kirk, that system of violence cannot survive, and so Kirk is responsible for a great deal of systemic injustice.

Yes, I mean this is the central disagreement, and sadly I’m not sure it is possible to bridge this divide. Most people agree that if you were in Germany in 1928 that assassinating important Nazi activists would be justified, given foreknowledge of what was to come. So the question sort of becomes, are Trump/Charlie Kirk/2025 American Republicans comparable to Nazis in terms of the threat they pose? Of course I think this is an absurd comparison, but it seems like a substantial portion of the left believes at least semi-sincerely the answer to that question is “yes.” It is a divide that I’m not sure how to bridge. If I were speaking to someone like this I don’t even know where I would begin attempting to dismantle this. We’ve been inhabiting totally isolated media ecosystems for 10+ years at this point

Most people agree that if you were in Germany in 1928 that assassinating important Nazi activists would be justified, given foreknowledge of what was to come.

Justified? Maybe, depending on your moral framework.* But wise? Much less clear. Assassinating MLK didn't reduce public support for his ideals, and it doesn't look like it's going to work out for Kirk's killer either. I doubt it'd have been helpful in interwar Germany either; the capacity to stand up to the communists' political violence was a major selling point for the Nazis. I don't think raising the salience of the subject would have been a winning move.

(Killing Hitler, I think, is much more defensible. He really was the driving force behind much of the Nazi's objectionable behavior. But Kirk wasn't a politician.)

* Not necessarily easily. I think the above compels a good Utilitarian to say it's not justified. (Well, maybe a false flag attack on people you agree with is...) And it'd have to be an odd sort of deontology that recommends killing activists on the basis of what their ideals will lead to in the future. I guess you could believe that 'spreading hate' or some such is worthy of death per se without reference to the consequences?

Assassinating Nazi activists or officials in 1928 would’ve most likely resulted in the following:

  • Increased attention and sympathy for the Nazis on the part of more moderate nationalists who’d otherwise not have harbored such sentiments, at least not to a significant degree

  • Increased overall hostility towards, or at least increased alienation from, whatever political force the assassins belonged to

Who the hell knows? People may as well have looked down on the nazis for failing to defend their own. Or cheered for them getting killed. 1920s Germany was a society at war with itself.

"Failing to defend their own"? I find that to be a rather bizarre interpretation. The SS and SA units were already active at that point so it's not like the party could conceivably be accused of failing to take preventive measures. Also, the only people whose political assassinations invited any cheering and jubilation in the Weimar Republic were the communists and the signatories of the Versailles "Treaty", as far as I know.