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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes, they can do it. But none of them did except AIPAC. And now it's this one fringe lobby group for crypto, mostly funded just by Marc Andresson. Meanwhile Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and Big Pharma get regulated to death despite their massive lobbying efforts, because apparently their lobbyists just... all suck at their jobs? How else are we supposed to explain this?

Big X likes regulation; it keeps Little X from forming and eating their lunch.

Only up to a point. Some regulations represent a dire risk to their industry. Coincidentally, Matt Ygelesias wrote [this[(https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-forgotten-politics-of-big-tobacco) today about the history of tobacco regulation, and what a political struggle it was to rain them in. It succeeded eventually mostly because people just got annoyed by second-hand smoke, rather than any sort of principles health message. But Clinton and his coalition were never in danger of being unseated in primary challenges by big tobacco. His vice president Al Gore even came from an old tobacco growing family and was a senator from Tenessee where they still grow lots of tobacco, but he could still openly campaign against the tobacco industry.

You have a second [ instead of a ] to form your link.

what a political struggle it was to rain them in

The expression is "rein them in," in reference to the reins of a horse.

rather than any sort of principles health message.

principled