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.

When, if ever, is it appropriate to refer to someone as a 'parasite?' I don't mean in a literal sense, only in the political/economic sense. My instinct says 'never', its a very dehumanizing term... but I had that resolution sorely tested this week.

Two separate examples bubbled up through the twittersphere:

First, consider an 'early retired' couple. They have been held up as a sympathetic example of citizens who will be deeply impacted by losing their health insurance subsidy. But a bit of reading shows something... surprising:

Based on figures available through Idaho’s online insurance marketplace, Bill, 61, and Shelly, 60, expect to pay almost $1,700 in monthly health insurance premiums in 2026 if enhanced premium tax credits expire at the end of this year as scheduled. That sum — a nearly 300% increase from their current $442 premium — would add $15,000 a year to their household medical costs.

Okay, first and foremost, its sheer statistical fact that your average 60-year-old will OBVIOUSLY consume more medical services now and in the immediate future than your average 30-year-old. Hence the risk premium for the 30 year old would ideally be much, much lower. But if they're in the same risk pool, the 30 year old is having to cover a LOT of conditions, medications, and services they are vanishingly unlikely to use. AND, if the 30 year old is paying taxes... they're contributing to the subsidies that those 60 year olds are using to cover things like:

Bill Gall has what he calls “old eyes”: He’s had more than 10 eye surgeries over the past decade and is now blind in one eye, he said.

Shelly has had two spinal fusion surgeries and suffers from chronic pain, which has prevented her from working full-time since 2015, the couple said.

That. Issues that arrive in older age or due to a rough lifestyle. This seems sort of sympathetic. And yet:

Bill, who worked for more than 31 years in local and state government in Nevada and Idaho, said he expects their household to get pension income of about $127,000 in 2026, exceeding the 400% threshold.

The couple had a modified adjusted gross income of about $123,000 in 2023 and $136,000 in 2024, mostly from pensions and some from individual retirement account withdrawals, according to their tax returns.

$127,000 per year? On pensions? This legitimately sounds like a princely sum to me. And... early retirement? That they achieved through working for governments? Bill the Civil Engineer, and Shelley who worked in banks and other state institutions? This is NOT your stereotypical blue collar family who busted their ass for decades to set aside a nest egg.

For God's sake. An extra $15k-20k a year is NOT going to bankrupt anyone worth a low seven figures. I cannot square that circle at all. And if they're not worth low 7 figures then how the hell did they decide to retire in their 50's? Oh, wait:

With significantly higher health premiums, the couple said, they would have to make tough financial and lifestyle decisions: pulling more money from retirement savings; claiming Social Security earlier than planned, which would lock in a lower lifetime benefit; putting off non-mandatory medical care; and traveling less.

Bill decided to retire early so the couple could enjoy nonworking years together while they’re still in relatively good health, they said.

They just wanted to consume more. That's... fine on its own, but I don't think you get to complain if you drop out of the workforce early that those remaining in the workforce don't want to fund your trips or medical care.

Being slightly uncharitable, I read this as a couple that very intentionally gamed certain financial systems in a way that let them extract a lot of personal benefits from comparatively little effort and input, and are continuing to do so after they retired by sloughing their largest non-optional expenses on the next generation.

And finally. No dependents. Its not like they've got mouths to feed and kids to raise. Every dollar they spend here on is solely on themselves, and contributes 'nothing' to the future productivity of the country.

There's a counter argument that they've quite possibly contributed more to the system in their working years than they've extracted. Maybe. But I cannot be convinced that they are justified in receiving $15-20k a year paid by young, healthy people who are still trying to build capital... when they clearly possess the means to pay their own way. Of course, government pensions are ALSO being paid for by younger generations' tax dollars. So this does start to seem quite... parasitic.

They've worked about 30 years, and they'll be retired for 25-30 more, it seems likely that they'll have extracted more wealth from the system, especially if they divert said wealth from productive uses, than they put in when all is said and done.


Second, a pair of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S.

Twitter thread with commentary Here. Original video here.

They're DREAMers, so not the most blatantly offensive example of illegal immigration. But after learning about their situation I still don't want to share a country with them:

  • They have three kids. They're not married. First two aren't his. She's a SAHM.

  • Caleb calculates they'll owe about $3,300 in federal taxes this year (the commentary thread wrongfully implies he pays zero).

  • Own a house.

  • $133k in 'bad debt.' (that is admitted/disclosed)

  • Total debt (including the house) is $420k.

  • Early 30s.

So, at the very least the house can be seized to cover most or all of that debt if they ever just stopped paying. But hearing the rest of their financial situation and how aggressively they (well, mostly her) spend money and I'm really forced to assume they're getting financial support from some other programs to eke out more than a basic level of existence.

I am at a loss as to how these people could be considered a net benefit to the country. Unless one of those kids goes on to cure prostate cancer or something, booting them out would have no noticeable negative effect. To be faaaaair she seems to be the main problem. If it were just him cranking out work it'd be hard to be offended.

But we have two non-citizens and their kids enjoying, from the sound of it, a living standard higher than the median American in their age bracket (just counting the home ownership, for sure) and overall paying little into the system at present, and racking up enough debt that its questionable if it'll ever get paid down.

Presumably they have a net positive effect on GDP when measured on the spending side, and if we ASSUME they don't declare bankruptcy, or renege and duck out on the debt, or just die early (not something I wish on them), they're helping the engine of Capitalism in this country sputter along.

And yes, YES there are plenty of U.S. Citizens who are doing WORSE than this. Caleb has had many of them on his show.

But ask me how I'm damn near certain that these two aren't saving enough for retirement and will not save enough for retirement (around the 41 minute mark she talks about pulling money out of her retirement) so if they're around in their late 60's they're either still working with no end in sight OR have figured out a way to sponge benefits out of the government to maintain their livelihood and yet still die with a mountain of debt someday.

I doubt they'll be in any position to retire early like Bill and Shelley up there. It certainly seems like they're choosing to live parasitically, but unlike the early retirees they still have a lot of good working years in front of them to make up the difference.


Two separate cases that are only similar in the abstract: couples who have gamed parts of the U.S. economic system so as to have their lifestyles paid for without contributing as much to it as the support they have extracted (yet). Bill and Shelley managing to pull off a plan that would be virtually impossible to repeat for anyone much younger than they: get the state government pensions + the Fedgov subsidies and then stop working well before most people could afford to do so.

This raises a question: are 'we' really supporting this entire apparatus on the efforts of some small and possibly shrinking minority of our actual population? Without getting too Randian, what's the ratio of productive/unproductive left now?

It leads me, specifically, to ask: HOW MANY PEOPLE DO WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY PULLING THESE KINDS OF SHENANIGANS. There have to be known strategies that are shared amongst groups on how to follow these paths, exploit edge cases, take advantage of lax enforcement, or otherwise slip into niches that allow you to live 'above your means' for some period of time if not indefinitely. On the individual level its rational. On the population level, the equilibrium can get dangerously unsustainable. Have we crossed that tipping point? I don't know. Feels like it to me.

I personally recall visiting a friend in college and learning that both of his parents (in their 50s) were 100% disabled, getting checks from SSI. Both were mobile but certainly had some impairments... but what stuck with me is more the fact that they had a massive collection of Disney movie memorabilia (especially Tinkerbell) all throughout the house, displayed on shelves floor to ceiling, and even then I wondered "who paid for all this and how does buying these kinds of trinkets square with the claim that you're unable to support yourselves and need government help? Clearly you've got money to spare if you can spend it on things that has no investment value."

We've got some indeterminate number of guys like Oscar paying $3500/year in taxes into the system. We've got some indeterminate number of guys like Bill pulling $15,000/yr OUT of the system in insurance subsidies. WHO THEN IS MAKING UP THE DIFFERENCE. Someone who is good at the economy please help me budget this. my country is dying.


Today was payday for me. I had a really good month last month. And yet I look at my actual pay stub and see that ~24% of that will never even touch my account due to Federal Taxes. Florida has no income tax, so I can be certain that money is going to pay for all kinds of lovely U.S. Government programs. And now, I have to wonder, what portion of that is going to help Oscar and Natasha raise their kids and pay their mortgage. What portion is paying down Bill and Shelley's insurance premiums so they can take a cruise, or fly to Australia or whatever.

I've KNOWN how bad the Government money faucet was for the past 15 years. Trump and DOGE showed just how blatantly fake/fraudulent much of it is, earlier this year. But this here has me putting a face on the issue and that makes it feel personal, even though I have no direct grievance against these folks.

Here's my personal history:

  • Never used welfare, food stamps, or even unemployment insurance. Have literally never pulled money from a government program to pay my bills... other than the Covid stimulus.

  • I've held two government jobs in my life. One was Census Enumerator, the other was Public Defender for the State of Florida. Its not inconceivable that I could work for the Gov't in the future, but right now I have no intention to return. No pensions for me.

  • I've made some boneheaded financial decisions in my life. Its not even a joke to say that I've only been able to reach my current financial position because I was trading Crypto in 2014-2020, and it happened to work out for me. I have never rugpulled a memecoin or otherwise indulged in the scammier parts of that ecosystem.

  • Yet. YET I've managed to maintain my life on what I earn, and follow most of Dave Ramsey's advice to have adequate savings, minimal (unsecured) debt, and I fully intend to sock away enough to retire on my own even if I never get to draw a social security check.

  • I'm unmarried and have no dependents so I'm pretty much boned on my tax bill, although I do use some strategies to mitigate the damage.

  • I have debt comparable to Oscar and Natasha, but on a good day, when everything shakes out, I'm probably at around $250k net worth, and diligently reducing the debt load as I go.

  • I have not taken an extended vacation in almost exactly 5 years. I could afford to, but it feels irresponsible for various reasons and I've chosen to prioritize financial stability for so long its hard to break that habit. For the right woman, perhaps.

And some days I feel like an utter buffoon when I can see people living a lifestyle that matches or maybe even exceeds my own by making choices that, while individually rational, are deleterious to the overall fabric of the civilization they exist within. Its bad enough if they're burning up our surplus wealth that could have been put to productive use, all the worse if the capitalist machine itself starts to break down under the strain.

One of my favorite little storybooks as a child was The Little Red Hen. The hen goes around seeking assistance from the other animals to make some bread from scratch. Finding no help, she completes the whole process herself. and at the end of the day when the bread is done all the animals follow the wonderful smell and show up hoping to get a piece. And she politely tells them to fuck off. (I also read The Rainbow Fish as a child, that message didn't stick.)

I start to feel like that's going to be my life trajectory. Building as much as I can through my own efforts while trying to cooperate with others, who have found alternate ways to subsist, and then when I finally sit down to enjoy it all, in this version the farmer shows up with a shotgun and says "these other animals are hungry, you're gonna share half that loaf with them." Bluntly and uncharitably, this seems like the logical outcome of the many policies that the Boomers implemented over decades to keep themselves financially secured into old age, which has left a lot of cracks and crevices in the mess of various entitlement programs that various amoral latecomers can latch onto and coast along even after the Boomers are gone.

All paid for by whatever percentage of the population is suckered into actually producing wealth and paying their taxes every year.

I don't want to dehumanize them. Bill and Shelley seem like good people. Oscar seems like a decent guy. I want my fellow Americans to thrive, along with most humans on earth. I do NOT want to tolerate a system that has such a mix of malincentives and avenues for cheating that it is actually easier for the low-conscientiousness hordes to simply shove handfuls of seed corn into their mouths and demand payouts from the most productive members of society than it is for them to maintain a job, not acquire too much debt, and live within their means with enough saved to sustain them into old age.

But human beings are exceptionally good at finding ways to drive excess calories into their own bellies at the expense of others. You might even say this is the actual basis for the entirety of the culture wars: which tribe will do most of the work, and which will consume most of the rewards. Bastiat had it right a long time ago. I don't blackpill over this stuff, but I do wonder how one is supposed to feel when the entirety of your civilization depends on your demographic continuing to accept a status quo that confers benefits on everyone BUT your demographic.

Oh, did you hear that California is going to put a Wealth-Tax Proposal on the ballot next year?

I'm sure its nothing to worry about.

I finally sit down to enjoy it all, in this version the farmer shows up with a shotgun and says "these other animals are hungry, you're gonna share half that loaf with them."

Half a loaf? You're quite the optimist that you think you're getting to keep half. I think it more likely that we're going to get the Boxer retirement plan.

Your overall post reminded me of the TW post about the "chump effect." I thought the term was coined by him, but apparently it was the City Journal article he links to.

Stories like the two you pointed out make me feel like quite the chump, as I do most days when I think about these things. I didn't have undergrad debt because I busted my ass in a hard science to maintain grades for my scholarships at a state school. I paid off my law school loans (what a mega-chump move). I drive a 15-year-old paid-off truck. I go to work every day to defend people who are mostly guilty and generally ungrateful. I'm earning a pension, but at best it'll be 60% of the payout that Boomers and Xers are getting from it (thanks to various reforms to keep the system solvent that only took effect long after their benefits were locked in), and that's if I can stick it for another 20 years. So give me that chump jacket, I've earned it.

Wow, how many lawyers do we have on this website?

I for one appreciate your sacrifices.

I didn't have undergrad debt because I busted my ass in a hard science to maintain grades for my scholarships at a state school. I paid off my law school loans (what a mega-chump move). I drive a 15-year-old paid-off truck.

Same, same, and same. Although its a 13-year-old Honda, and I haven't finished paying them off, its only a matter of time.

That said I can be 'proud' that I beat out the early stage of DEI-based admissions to actually secure a law school slot in a highly-ranked school and then (eventually) find a decent job.

Its only been in recent years I've realized how much of the deck was actually stacked against me and how much better off I'd probably be if:

A) The system was actually as meritocratic as I believed

or

B) I just said "fuck it" and cut the corners and cheated as much I could get away with.

I don't believe in Karma, although I do believe "what goes around comes around," so I expect I'll come out of things alright. I didn't become the 'type of person' who cheats and cuts corners, so I won't be subjected to the various failure modes that cheating and cutting corners are prone to.

But there's no avoiding the fact that the political system is still functionally designed to redistribute rewards of good behavior and high performance no matter how well you follow the rules, which makes one much less inclined to follow the rules.

I remember feeling like a chump in my 20's and early 30's. Graduated with a crisp engineering degree, making more money than most of my peers right out of school. And yet... the subsidized housing in my area was nicer than anything I could afford... except for having to live around people in subsidized housing. I'd meet women who went into education and the county would subsidize their first home, which I was still over a decade away from doing. About 10 years before I actually bought my first home with a 20% down payment and a fixed rate 30y mortgage, I went to a seminar about home buying which was packed full of immigrants being told all the programs they qualified for. The company I worked for routinely lost government contracts that would get diverted to no-compete minority owned businesses.

None the less, pride kept me from smashing the defect button as hard as I fucking could.

I did eventually get married, have a kid, buy a house in the country, and my investments have appreciated to the point where I may not have to work anymore. Also it turns out when you are married, if your only income is capital gains the first $100,000 are tax free. Is that my defect button? It just might.

Granted, I didn't have as many kids as I wanted. I wish I'd had them earlier. I wish home ownership hadn't been this constantly moving goalpost the first 15 years of my adult life. But unless they pass a wealth tax, which isn't impossible I admit, the 20 years of my adulthood doing the right thing despite feeling like a chump have been better spent than every parasite out there.

As a fellow Caleb Hammer enthusiast, I suggest you check in on some of the episodes with people in their 40's or 50's. The story of the out of control 20 something financing a lavish lifestyle ends quite catastrophically.

But also, I can't wait for EBT payments to halt if this shutdown continues.

I don't believe in Karma, although I do believe "what goes around comes around,"

Isn't that just karma? Maybe I misunderstand the term, I'm not well versed in Eastern religious thought.

Simply put, I don't believe in any sort of Cosmic Scale or Ledger such that bad behavior is guaranteed to be punished. Bad people will 'get away with it' in many cases.

But there's a level of path dependence to bad behavior. If you like to commit acts of violence and terrorize others, you're much more likely to hang around violent people and thus you're far more likely to be victimized and/or killed by violence.

Similar if you like to commit theft, scam others, leach off people's goodwill, the sort of people you hang around are more likely to steal from you, scam you, and leach off of you. Which can be its own punishment.

Do things that damage others, at the very least you're risking that one of those people will flip out and come for you in a rage.

The risks you accept by engaging in antisocial, harmful conduct may or may not ever come back to bite you, but you are inviting those risks.

Consider the ending scene of the film It's a Wonderful Life. George Bailey lived a life of relative destitution thanks to making choices that kept him from achieving wealth and fame. And yet, by constantly sticking to his guns and doing the "good" thing, the thing that benefited others, he is a beloved figure and nobody hesitates to come to his aid at the drop of a hat.

Mr. Potter, in contrast, will probably still die rich, but very much alone.

There is no 'just world,' but the world we create is indeed defined by our actions, and just actions will tend to create more justice, if only in your local environment.

Makes sense, thank you for the explanation!