site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 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.

9
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Unfortunately, you don't get the former without the latter. A law that is not being violated will not be repealed.

Probably true empirically but that doesn't mean you should therefore support those breaking the law*. Consider Prohibition smuggling gangs or drug cartels. You could frame them as supplying a product that consenting adults want to use and have a natural right to ingest. That is not untrue. But these laws were put in place using the pre-existing processes within a system that generally (albeit imperfectly) works to promote human flourishing.

We live in large, complex, diverse environments. It is true and unfair that there will likely always be some subset of laws that any given person doesn't agree with at some time. Becoming a civilized person requires acceptance of that fact. It is simply not currently feasible to allow each person to craft their own legal code that conforms to their individual morality. Many people fervently believe that idolatry is immoral - they cannot break into a Hindu temple to destroy statues. Many others believe that it's morally right to punch someone who could be characterized as a Nazi - that is still assault.

So even laws as broadly unpopular as Prohibition (or, hey, immigration) are legitimate to be enforced. Attempts to circumvent them should be policed and anyone using violence or other force against their enforcement is, even if they think the law is bad according to their personal "higher ethics", scum. I support the state coming down on them with significantly higher intensity and organized violence. This is not because helping people take a chemical or cross an imaginary line between countries is depraved, it's because they are chipping away at the machinery that drives organized, peaceful, advanced societies.

It's about results; morality ain't got nothing to do with it.

  • Yes - Nazi Germany, the USSR, and many other examples of oppressive governments have and do exist. There is obviously some fuzzy line that varies by individual where a government is sufficiently oppressive that resistance, including violent resistance, is justified. No, there is no objective standard; this is the Politics department, the Physics classroom is down the hall if that's the sort of thing you're looking for. And no, just because that line exists does not mean that the United States government at any level is on the wrong side.

Probably true empirically but that doesn't mean you should therefore support those breaking the law*.

It means I must choose between acceding to every bad law or supporting lawbreaking in some instances. I won't give politicians that blank check.

(and no, I don't accept "We live in a society therefore suck it up and obey", no matter how many words you put behind it).

This is not because helping people take a chemical or cross an imaginary line between countries is depraved, it's because they are chipping away at the machinery that drives organized, peaceful, advanced societies.

Sometimes, I want some of that machinery chipped away, so the organized, peaceful, advanced society can be less regimented.

| (and no, I don't accept "We live in a society therefore suck it up and obey", no matter how many words you put behind it).

And I don't accept that you're a Free Man and that following laws you disagree with means that you're being unjustly put upon and must suck it up and obey. There are many, many avenues for you to try to get a law changed depending on the law. You are not a creature in a state of nature that has been cruelly subjugated and is striking a blow against The Man by doing what you want. Calling contributing to the smooth functioning of society even in areas that you might have some disagreement sucking it up and obeying is the attitude of a child, no matter how many times you shout "freedom".

| Sometimes, I want some of that machinery chipped away, so the organized, peaceful, advanced society can be less regimented.

Totally fair and reasonable to want to live in a different, more anarchic society and it's entirely possible that such a society would be better in some ways. By all means, get out there and advocate for your vision. But your preferences do not get to be arbitrarily imposed on the ~347 million other people in the US.

And I don't accept that you're a Free Man and that following laws you disagree with means that you're being unjustly put upon and must suck it up and obey.

That's OK, I don't expect you (or Donald Trump or Governor Murphy) to accept it.

There are many, many avenues for you to try to get a law changed

"It is not my business to be petitioning the governor or the legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and, if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then?"

I am not a politician; I have no charisma nor political skills, nor the skills required to hire such people, nor the money it would take to successfully lobby against even one law (and there are many bad ones). In practice, I cannot get a law changed. My choices are obey or not.

You are not a creature in a state of nature that has been cruelly subjugated and is striking a blow against The Man by doing what you want.

No, of course not. If I'm breaking the law I'm doing what I want because I want to do it, and I don't much care if The Man doesn't like it. Advocacy? Pfah, The Man won't listen to me. Sometimes he won't listen to a clear majority; the national maximum speed limit lasted for 22 years. If it had been obeyed that whole time, we'd still have it.

| I am not a politician; I have no charisma nor political skills, nor the skills required to hire such people, nor the money it would take to successfully lobby against even one law (and there are many bad ones). In practice, I cannot get a law changed. My choices are obey or not.

Bummer. I think you're being a little bit of a negative Nancy and you are able to meaningfully participate in the political process more than you believe, but it's true that people can have diminished capacity to engage with or even understand some laws / politics. There are many unfair disabilities that nature inflicts. I hope that in the future we will have the material, technological, social, etc. ability to have much finer instruments than current legal systems for structuring behavior. That is not currently possible. Your impairment, though, doesn't result in an outcome substantially different than someone who must live under a law they dislike but is enacted through the existing legitimate processes.

| No, of course not. If I'm breaking the law I'm doing what I want because I want to do it, and I don't much care if The Man doesn't like it.

That's chill. Just don't shoot the cop that pulls you over for speeding and if you lose the court case pay your fine.

Bummer. I think you're being a little bit of a negative Nancy and you are able to meaningfully participate in the political process more than you believe

If nothing else, the country (and the state and even my town of ~50,000) is simply too big for all but a small percentage to meaningfully participate in the political process. And that small percentage is made up mostly of those who make a living of it.

That's chill. Just don't shoot the cop that pulls you over for speeding and if you lose the court case pay your fine.

All depends on how high those penalties are. At some point, it will be worth shooting over.

ETA: You would think that in a first world country it never would be. But some years ago in New York City, a cop stepped into the road front of my bicycle, forcing me to go onto the sidewalk to avoid hitting him. He then arrested me and charged me with riding my bike on the sidewalk. When I went to court, the judge in the Midtown court -- who was not the regular judge -- told me I was lucky the regular judge wasn't there or I'd be going to Rikers Island. Rikers Island is the rather notorious NYC jail; the chance of a middle-aged white collar guy getting out of there alive, with his ass intact, and without any bones broken isn't very good. It's not an original observation with me that if the penalty for speeding is death, no one stops for the flashing lights. So be it. Anyway, I don't ride a bike in NYC any more.

I would appreciate an in-depth defense of this claim. I'm a big proponent of following the law as it is, but working to change bad laws. If changing the law requires violating it then I would have to rethink my stance.

  • Speed limit is too low → mayor continues to enforce speed limit → convicted speeders get angry and complain to their municipal councilors → municipal councilors change speed limit

  • Speed limit is too low → mayor stops enforcing speed limit → there are no convicted speeders to get angry → no municipal councilors have any reason to care about the speed limit

What I expect is more like

  • Speed limit is too low -> everyone obeys the speed limit -> it becomes a non-issue, with would-be violators just sucking it up.