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.

For a somewhat lower stakes culture war topic:

A few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered that troops who need an exemption from shaving their facial hair for longer than a year should get kicked out of the service.

The culture war aspect here is twofold:

  1. "The Department must remain vigilant in maintaining the grooming standards which underpin the warrior ethos" - SecDef Hegseth
  2. Waivers are primarily issued to black soldiers (who are more prone to shaving-related skin issues)

To the first, I have never been particularly impressed by the "warrior" posturing. Most proponents of it that I've met been underwhelming human beings (at best), but that might be forgivable if it cashed out in superior performance. However, if the performance of the Russian Army (or the IJA or...) is any indication, boring competence and logistical capability seems to heavily outweigh posturing about warrior spirit when it comes to combat performance. (These are not strictly in tension, but leaning into "warrior ethos" seems to go hand in hand with disdain for unglamorous organizational work).

It's also not really clear to me how beards compromise warrior ethos (especially since vets seem to love them), but I've also never been in the military, so it's possible there's a piece of experiential knowledge I am missing.

To the second: while I strongly doubt this is a scheme to purge the military of black soldiers, I struggle to think of a practical justification for this policy. The traditional rationale is for gas masks, but that doesn't apply to special operations forces (who are presumably so high speed and low drag that they outrun the poison gas) and beard-compatible respirators already exist.

The beard issue is silly ;what's more concerning is Hegseth saying that rules of engagement are for pussies. He advocated for trump to pardon men like eddie gallagher and the blackwater operators at nisour square. At least for now the military is limited to blowing up narco boats and standing around federal buildings.

I’m curious if you know much about the Nisour square incident. If you do and you think those guys are guilty, I’d love to hear more.

I’m no expert on the military or counter insurgency. But I did watch a 3 hour interview with those guys on the Shawn Ryan show. It’s very obvious to me that they are innocent. Worse than that, it’s a case where a bunch of veterans were set up up by Uncle Sam in order to kill Blackwater and hurt Eric Prince.

I’ve only heard one side of the story, but they did not look mistaken about the facts nor did they come off as liars.

It seems a shame they’re still being used as examples here for trigger happy war criminals. Especially when we have so many legit cases to point to.

I’ve only heard one side of the story ... obvious ... innocent

You've been had.

the Nisour square incident

  • bomb went off by a meeting
  • the meeting was called off
  • 4 Blackwater trucks got ready to secure an evac route
  • they were ordered to standby in the Green Zone
  • they disobeyed orders and went to Nisour square
  • they disobeyed further orders to return to the Green Zone
  • in Nisour square, they were ordered to halt traffic for another team leaving the area
  • a civilian car approached
  • they shot 40 people in response to 1 car with 2 people inside approaching ... because they freely shot into traffic and at police while driving back to base
  • Paul Slough in particular shot most of these people, firing wildly into traffic, ignoring orders to cease fire, until a colleague pulled his gun on him
  • this in fact blocked the evac route, so the convoy they were on standby to maybe help, waited 30 minutes, blocked by blown up cars

It’s certainly possible that in been had.

But nothing here seem particularly damning. Your bullets just seem like the prosecutions cliff notes.

Are you denying one or more of those assertions, or are you accepting them but saying they’re actually fine?

There's no evidence that they were fired at, although one vehicle did take damage from ricochet fragments of an M203 grenade fired by the convoy. They panicked and fired indiscriminately.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/24/opinions/blackwater-defendants-pardon-trump-opinion-oconnor

https://archive.ph/gFrF8