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.

Last week we had a conversation about Tucker Carlson’s interview of Nick Fuentes. This week we see two more salvo’s in the conversation:

New York Times: Nick Fuentes Was Charlie Kirk’s Bitter Enemy. Now He’s Becoming His Successor. [Archive]

Ben Shapiro on X [YouTube]:

No to the groypers.

No to cowards like Tucker Carlson, who normalize their trash.

No to those who champion them.

No to demoralization.

No to bigotry and anti-meritocratic horseshit.

No to anti-Americanism.

No.

I attribute some material amount of Trump’s political rise to the mainstream media covering him so much. One, because he drove engagement; two, because I think they thought he’d be easy to beat. Fuentes was catapulted into the mainstream when elements of the media and the left tried to pin the Kirk shooter as a far-right groyper. I didn’t believe Trump would succeed, so maybe I shouldn’t trust myself, but I struggle to believe that Fuentes will actually go mainstream. Shapiro plays many clips of Fuentes. To me, it sounds like Fuentes is joking in some, but I think they are extreme enough that at least most Republicans will be turned off. With Shapiro entering the ring and what my Twitter feed is feeding me, it seems like there are definite battle lines being drawn on the right.

Shapiro’s fellow Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh:

We have a very short window of time where we control congress and the White House and have the power to push our agenda forward. We’re going to waste this window fighting with each other. We’re going to squander everything. I’m furious, honestly.

It’s hard for me to gauge “normie” right circles, as before Kirk’s assassination, I couldn’t have definitively differentiated between Kirk’s and Crowder’s campus antics. It seems like Kirk may have been the most influential -if not, very possibly ascendant to be - figure on the right. Not sure through Kirk's sheer influence, but also keeping the coalition together and keeping the more radical wing at bay. I wonder if Trump will weigh in.

It’s hard to do the, “we are principled civic nationalists who believe in the inherent dignity of every human being,” routine when your organization employs Matt Walsh. Walsh believes basically the same things as Fuentes does. The only difference is that Walsh believes that Jews are part of based White Western Civilization, and Fuentes doesn’t. It’s incredibly transparent why Ben Shapiro is taking such a firm stance on this issue in particular. This is why Fuentes is going mainstream.

As Israel is becoming an increasingly brown country consisting of jews from MENA countries and religious fanatic ultra orthodox groups it is going to be hard to push the narrative that Israel is a pro western country. Israel has a long history of oppressing Christians, is causing chaos in the middle east and is doing extensive lobbying.

Which group is supposed to be supporting the west? The ultra left LGBTQ groups in Tel Aviv? The ultra orthodox? Ben Gvir talking about moving millions of Palestinians and creating a migrant tsunami?

What makes the zionist narrative difficult is that the ADL, AIPAC and the average Likud voter aren't really representing Matt Walsh base. Mainstream republicanism seems to be a wide tent as long as they are Israel first. The Israel first part is an increasingly difficult sell. They can pander Matt walsh as legitimate because he satisfies the jewish donors but he won't have the same appeal to the base. The base won't see him as more legit.

Israel has a long history of oppressing Christians

Worse than the rest of the middle east? Last I checked Christians were allowed to prostelytize in Israel, while it's illegal in Turkey, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, the West Bank, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the UAE, Yemen, and Afghanistan. Open Doors is a nonprofit that tracks persecution of Christians: Israel did not break the top 50 globally, compared to Saudi Arabia at 12th, Yemen at 3rd, Iraq at 17th, Syria at 18th, Oman at 32nd, Iran at 9th, Egypt at 40th, Turkey at 45th, and Jordan at the #50 spot.

My point being, the Middle East is very hostile to the West in general, and Israel is by far the most pro-Western country in the region and the safest place in the Middle East to be a practicing Christian.

This is, as I understand it, largely correct.

Israel certainly isn't wholly innocent of persecuting Christians. Israel is, intentionally, a country where the normative religion is Judaism, and everything else is subject to a measure of hostility. It is harder to be an Arab Christian in Israel than it is to be a Jew, and obviously that has something to do with the state's constitution. It is, however, still better to be a a Christian in Israel than to be a Muslim, and perhaps more importantly for comparative purposes, it's better to be an Israeli Christian than it is to be a Christian in almost any other Middle Eastern nation.

Again, not perfect, there are difficulties, and Israel is by no one's standards a shining beacon of religious neutrality and liberalism. But Israel is very easily one of the least-bad countries in the region.

I don’t see how the presence of non-Jews in Israel can be anything other than a transient state. Jewish nationalism is extremely strongly encoded in its institutions, culture, and constitution such that there will always be an impending threat to its minorities of some sort of fascistic upwelling towards the expulsion of minorities and purification of the state, even if presently this nascent urge (being fundamental to non permeable forms of nationalism) is held in abeyance.

Perhaps, but what you fear may happen in Israel is actively happening in just about every other country in the Middle East. Islam has long agreed that the presence of Dhimmi in the House of Submission must be a transient state.