site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 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.

I take your point, and would prefer to split the difference by saying that the international rule-based order is a polite fiction that constrains smaller and weaker countries most of the time, but doesn't change the fundamental reality that larger, more powerful nations have international interests and will find a way to justify violent warfare, regime change and other such things in pursuit of them. This is true IMO regardless of one's feelings on the morality of the matter.

I personally am not sure I find straightforward annexation in the general case to be clearly worse than regime and culture change as America tried to carry out in the Middle East (for example). I am quite willing to believe that Russian are fairly unkind and extractive rulers, and among the people you would least like to be occupied by, although I also find @Botond173's point convincing:

I ask you to consider the difference between A and B in the following two cases:

One:

A: The effects of Soviet hegemony in Eastern Germany on the national identity and patriotic sentiments of local Germans, as evidenced by their average propensity to vote for right-wing nativist parties since 1990

B: The effects of US hegemony in Western Germany on the national identity and patriotic sentiments of local Germans, as evidenced by the displayed level of their willingness to preserve themselves as a nation since 1949

Two:

A: The effects of Soviet hegemony in Poland on the Catholicism and patriotic sentiment of the locals

B: The effects of US hegemony on the same in the last 25 or so years

I’d say there’s clear evidence that it’s US and not Soviet hegemony that has the larger detrimental effect on national identity and survival.

On a personal level, I find the West's attempts to destroy their enemies (and their friends) through slow corrosion to be... unappealing, perhaps. Having long since lost faith in the liberal project, the attitude of, "Don't worry, you* will choose to dissolve your country" repels me as much or more than blunter, more ham-handed attempts to do the same thing.

*or the leaders who pass our filtering process.

If this also means that Putin fails to conquer Ukraine, that is a bonus, but for the international supporters of Ukraine that is not the essential outcome. The goal is to make the war net negative for Russia by making them pay a high price in blood and economy.

As long as the Ukrainians are fine with dying for that, it seems like a no-brainer for the West to give them the materiel to continue their war.

I have heard this argument before, and acknowledge its force, but I think it's important to acknowledge that 'the Ukranians' are not a homogenous group. There was a huge exodus of young men who fled recently when Zelensky relaxed the borders, and apparently it has become commonplace to Ukranian families to send their male children abroad before they reach 18. As with many wars, I am not convinced that the young men actually doing the dying are doing so voluntarily, and being a young man myself that weighs upon me with disproportionate force.

In short I find your position broadly reasonable and defensible, but disagree.