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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

“Most men in bio are short because they can’t get women, but because you’re tall I know you’re genuinely interested in bio”

Odd, as I'm not sure biology is known as a high-paying field that draws in short men (surely that would be finance or something) but not objectionable.

“Women at Oxford and Cambridge are better than Harvard and Yale because they know their job is to look pretty and get a rich husband”

If a woman finds herself surrounded by very intelligent, conscientious men, she'd be crazy to not try and marry one of them. I'm not the first person to realise this.

“There is a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges.. that’s why you have Latin lovers”

Definitely true. The link between vitamin D and testosterone is well-established.

“Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them”

Seems like a poor choice as a hiring manager. Why not take advantage of anti-fat prejudice and get talented fatties at a steal? But still not an earth-shattering revelation.

Odd, as I'm not sure biology is known as a high-paying field that draws in short men (surely that would be finance or something) but not objectionable.

I imagine the view there is "well, bio is full of women because the ladies, bless their little fluffy heads, aren't smart enough for real science like chemistry and physics, so a short guy will have a better chance there" mixed in with some "and since men are smarter than women, a guy in bio will hit the top of the profession, tenure, prizes, etc. faster and easier than competing against men in other disciplines".

Why not take advantage of anti-fat prejudice and get talented fatties at a steal?

Because fat people are stupid. If they were smart, they would not be fat. It is easy not to be fat, so if you are fat, it is because you are too stupid, lazy and greedy not to be fat. Everyone knows this!

Because fat people are stupid. If they were smart, they would not be fat. It is easy not to be fat, so if you are fat, it is because you are too stupid, lazy and greedy not to be fat. Everyone knows this!

Leaving sarcasm aside, I agree that fat = stupid is a stupidly reductive frame (with caveats for the smallish correlations with conscientiousness, IQ, SES etc).

That being said, it's 2025, for most people, relief from obesity is a prescription away. Free passes handed out if, after trial, GLP drugs don't work for them, but anyone wanting to lose weight and in possession of even modest means owes it themselves to try.

(This wasn't true back when the quote was presumably made, different times, less cooking under the warm sun of man-made wonders within my comprehension)

Because fat people are stupid. If they were smart, they would not be fat. It is easy not to be fat, so if you are fat, it is because you are too stupid, lazy and greedy not to be fat. Everyone knows this!

I assume this is a joke, because if not then something has been making us real stupid since the 1970s.

As a fat person myself, I've had the "it's easy to be thin" and "fatness is a moral failing" lines quoted at me, so part a joke, part the weariness of being judged as Watson allegedly judged fat interviewees.

As someone founded a fin-tech company, I highly recommend the biology route. It is Saturday, and I am at the office and will be stuck here until the evening. Unlike the stereotype of finance people as old money aesthetic, my view is more autistic nerds doing the actual work combined with sales people who barely work i finance or understand the products. Someone considering biology is probably not going into those sales jobs.

The more technical sides of finance are almost all men and women on dating apps don't really understand or appreciate your job title anyways. You are far more likely to meet high quality women in a biology lab. Proximity is the most important factor and finance is not it.

You are far more likely to meet high quality women in a biology lab

Endorsed. Quant finance is sub 10% women and even the women we do have are very much not "tradwife" types.