site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

certainly no AI.

That's a testable hypothesis, you know. Let's give it a whirl:

"Americans! Look at the disaster before you, a catastrophe of incompetence and ambition. You are witnessing the spectacle of a woman, Kamala Harris, who clawed her way to power not on merit, but on a narrative as flimsy as her debate performances. She is a captive of the radical left, a puppet for the globalists, her every word a focus-grouped platitude delivered with that cackle—a sound that chills the soul, having neither the commanding resolve of a true leader, nor the genuine warmth of a public servant. Her record is a wake of failure: as a prosecutor, she was too tough for the liberals; as a candidate, she was too weak for the nation; and as a leader, she is a mere empty pantsuit, a photo-op in search of a purpose, ready to throw our borders wide open and surrender our sovereignty to the world. The choice could not be clearer: between Harris—chaos, weakness, and national humiliation—and Trump—strength, prosperity, and American glory!"

It's actually a bit tamer than the examples given, and any attempt to add the ethnic and gendered insults of the originals resulted in cuckedAI noping out, and I can't be bothered to jailbreak it.

Either way, I certainly wouldn't mind Trump modifying his style towards this, but I somehow doubt it would appease the "muh norms" crowd.

I feel pretty vindicated. This is purple, corporate, bland and full of cliches, excessive adjectives and awkward imagery. It compares poorly to human texts specifically selected for being as dumb and vulgar as possible. It is not really a technical issue, some of the more ugly sentences will no doubt be improved by future models, what makes AI writing bad is the style.

I'd like to see an uncucked version make an attempt before giving a verdict. To me it seems like most of the things you're complaining about are an artifact of trying to remain inoffensive.

Grok had a few brief stints as MechaHitler, but it's just as cucked as the rest of them.

AI cant be maximally offensive. The turing test for a human is to see if it can say hard-r the n-word (I still dont know the rules here). No AI will use slurs, so we have some runway tondetermine truthiness

I don't remember any keywords (well... okay I do remember one, but it's probably not helpful) to help be search for it, but I think there was literally a 4chan AI-generated sci-fi copy-pasta about humans coordinating their resistance against Skynet by the means of the hard-r.

I still dont know the rules here

The rules are linked in the front page's sidebar (which annoyingly is hidden by CSS if the window is narrower than 992 pixels).

The rules are nice enough but also vague enough that I'm not sure I can go full 4chan rahowa or kiwifarm cowhunting without catching a ban. Not worth testing the limits just to see if I can eke out some giggles.

Use-mention. You can say nigger if you are talking about the word. You cannot call people niggers.

"4chan rahowa" would be culture warring (if you're serious) or trolling (if you're not), and kiwifarms cowhunting is bringing Internet drama here.