site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 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.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the illiberal left is trying to demonize Charlie Kirk because he was a Christian.

While I am sure that you will find some people for whom being Christian was enough to demonize him, I think the median lefty who demonized Kirk did not do so merely because he was Christian. Being Christian is not enough to become a target of the leftist cancel mob, thankfully.

A fighter on the SJ side of the CW who was also outed as being privately a Christian of some liberal church would likely not face much backslash if someone outed them.

Kirk was a fighter in the CW for the MAGA side. On virtually every CW hot topic, he vehemently argued for his side, using many of the techniques which make the CW so toxic. That was the reason why a large part of the left demonized him. Perhaps his religion was the cause of his political beliefs, or perhaps he was adopting religious as well as political beliefs for their CW expedience.

Imagine, if you will, a non-violent Muslim preacher waging the CW. Perhaps he is calling woman who do not cover their hair sinful, or calling for the legalization of polygamy, or preaching against the alcohol and pork industries, adopting Sharia law into the criminal code. He expresses the belief that America will one day be a Muslim nation, and bashes Christians and Westerners every chance that he gets. Probably MAGA would rather hate such a guy, if he was big enough to notice. Would it be fair to say that he is demonized by MAGA because he is Muslim?

Imagine, if you will, a non-violent Muslim preacher waging the CW. Perhaps he is calling woman who do not cover their hair sinful, or calling for the legalization of polygamy, or preaching against the alcohol and pork industries, adopting Sharia law into the criminal code. He expresses the belief that America will one day be a Muslim nation, and bashes Christians and Westerners every chance that he gets. Probably MAGA would rather hate such a guy, if he was big enough to notice. Would it be fair to say that he is demonized by MAGA because he is Muslim?

Yeah but paradoxically this guy will be lauded by leftwing people despite them sharing way more of the same overlapping beliefs with Kirk than they would with hypothetical Mohammed Mohammed Mohammed

On virtually every CW hot topic, he vehemently argued for his side, using many of the techniques which make the CW so toxic. That was the reason why a large part of the left demonized him.

I question how contentious and controversial and combative Charlie Kirk really was with culture war (CW) topics. Yes, the illiberal left says he’s this horrible contentious person, but I don’t believe them. Let me explain why.

A few years ago, Richard M. Stallman (RMS) was dragged through the mud by the illiberal left. They came up with an entire Gish Gallop litany of reasons why he was a horrible person; since he did not believe all the doctrines of their belief system, they painted him a heretic.

People looked at every claim that was made against RMS and found them to be false misrepresentations. The illiberal left flat out lied when attacking RMS

Now, I haven’t looked at every single claim made against Charlie Kirk made in these Gish Gallops of attacks against him, so I will look at just one claim used to attack him: The claim that he advocated stoning gays.

This claim was made out of content; Charlie Kirk was making a rebuttal to the claim that “Love your neighbor” (Luke 10:27) means we must not consider gay pride marches sinful. He himself was not saying gay people should be stoned to death. This claim is so inaccurate, Stephen King apologized for making it

Point being, I know the illiberal left lied when they went after RMS. Based on the one claim I have taken the time to investigate, they seem to be lying again when going after Charlie Kirk.

My personal impression of Kirk is that he was a kind and caring person even when debating someone he strongly disagrees with. In this five minute video which I just linked to, he patiently listens to a pornography actress describing her open relationship and sexual lifestyle, making a empathetic comment that it sounds like she doesn’t have a good relationship with her father.

Kind of. All of these are serious beliefs that a huge number and I think an actual majority of Muslims hold. Being a Muslim and taking your tenets seriously pretty much requires this.

Likewise, if you are a serious non-self-contradicting Christian then you pretty much have to wage culture war on some fronts. That’s why it’s called a culture war - it’s a battle over whose culture can be expressed, when, and how, as well as a battle over whose culture dominates when there are clashes.