site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 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.

Welp, turns out more Epstein files are finally getting released!

Apparently there will be a vote coming out to release even more, but the docs released so far have been negative for Trump's claims to be innocent of the whole matter.

This, combined with the ruckus over Trump arguing we need foreign talent, has caused a massive cratering amongst online confidence in MAGA. From my perspective, confidence in MAGA at least online is the lowest it has ever been. Many feel betrayed by Trump when it comes to his America First promises.

Add in the storm over Fuentes and Israel, and I feel I'm seeing the conservative coalition fall apart in real time, extremely quickly.

Is this inevitable, the narcissism of small differences? Or is it just Trump not being a very principled man?

...the docs released so far have been negative for Trump's claims to be innocent of the whole matter.

Do you have some example in mind, here? Everything I've seen from this latest release appears to simply confirm what has long been known: that Trump and Epstein were substantially birds of a feather, but Trump kicked Epstein to the curb for stealing his girls. Since that time, Epstein has occasionally ranted about having some kind of dirt on Trump, which for some reason he never actually used and of which there is (still!) apparently no plausible evidence.

I would stop well short of describing Trump as "innocent" of anything and yet the plainly intended implication of all these reports--Trump had sex with underage girls on Epstein island or at least with Epstein's knowledge or assistance--appears to still remain purely in the realm of the undemonstrated, indeed, in most contexts the unstated. Nobody wants to get sued for defamation, and they all know Trump will happily sue them for defamation, so they are just continuing to parrot vague claims while winking and nodding in the direction of Prince Andrew, producing many guns but none smoking, nor even bearing fingerprints.

Trump has spent his adult life a man of wealth and fame, albeit also the butt of many jokes. I would honestly be surprised to learn he hadn't had more than a little bit of illicit sexual contact in his life; I would in that case need to revise my priors on the nature of rich, powerful men. But it seems like there are a lot of people out there who are utterly convinced of the details on this, who keep telling me that some bombshell or other is going to drop (including Pam Bondi!), only for those bombshells to never actually manifest. It was the same with the whole "Russian watersports" thing ten years ago. If Trump were guilty of 1% of the weird, crazy, illegal things he's accused of doing, I would expect at some point for someone to be able to produce hard, non-circumstantial evidence of something. Instead we get lawfare on novel legal theories and this recurrent "this time, we've got him!" nonsense from breathless (and brainless) journalists.

I'm open to evidence! I would not be at all surprised to see it! But again, it seems, no such thing is on offer.

Is there any clarification on "by underage we mean 17" or "we mean 13"? Because I've seen plenty of online 'it's true he's a pedo he raped 13 year old sex slaves' stuff but nothing concrete (the Katie Johnson case seems to be smoke and I have no idea what exactly Virginia Giuffre was claiming happened. If I go by Wikipedia, she was allegedly 17 when Maxwell and Epstein approached her, which is not at all the same as 13 year old).

In one way, I think the very murkiness of the term "underage girls" works for those who want to get Trump; it's easier to convey an impression that this means "13 or 14" and not "17 or just under 18 or even that legally a minor is under 21 in some states". See The Onion; yes this is satire, but they're making it satire on "fucking a 13 year old" and not "fucking a 16 year old":

“Epstein was no friend of mine, and I never drew us becoming knights and competing at a joust for the virginity of a 13-year-old Eleanor of Aquitaine,” Trump said when asked about Time Pedophiles by a reporter, suggesting that someone else could have written, inked, and lettered the series before falsely signing his name. “Anyone who knows me knows I wouldn’t draw myself in a covered wagon picking up minors on the Oregon Trail, nor would I write a story arc about going back into prehistory, long before humans invented the age of consent, to hit on Cro-Magnon girls. Sorry to disappoint, but the fact is, I don’t draw cavemen.”

...The storylines in the series are largely driven by the reliance of Epstein’s time machine on Enigmium, a mysterious substance that “never ages” and can only be obtained via sexual encounters with girls between the ages of 12 and 17.

"Children" to the modal mind is prepubescent innocents who elicit protective instincts. Definitionally it also includes adolescents that are protoadults. Conflating the two is necessary to get the moral value immediately realized, and any attempt at deeper examination is met with hysterical screeches of "ARE YOU A BIGOT". Refugees are always stated to be "women and children" but you never get a picture of these huddled masses because people don't process bearded males as "children". The assumption that Epsteins sex island was a San Francisco Armory dungeon filled with crying prepubescents being abused by leering rapists is as rampant as the assumption that Rittenhouse killed 3 unarmed black men, and of course equally as fictional.

you never get a picture of these huddled masses because people don't process bearded males as "children".

Ironically in this context, there's a current murder investigation about asylum seekers as "unaccompanied children" who were put in emergency accommodation meant for minors, and it now turns out one of the "minors" may in fact have been a legal adult.

Vadym Davydenko (17) died following a serious incident at an apartment complex in Grattan Wood, ­Donaghmede, on October 15.

He had been in Ireland for four days and was staying at a Tusla facility for juvenile international protection applicants separated from their parents.

A suspect was later arrested as part of the investigation and charged with Vadym’s murder.

The male was also residing at the juvenile care facility at the time of the incident. His age was given as 17 in his first court appearance with his case last heard before the Children’s Court last month.

The Irish Independent has now learnt that inquiries have led investigating gardaí to believe that the suspect is in fact an adult male and not a juvenile.

Examinations into his background, including procuring a birth certificate from relatives, have indicated that he was over the age of 18 at the time of the incident.

Gaming the asylum system, you say? Surely not!

When Kabul fell to the Taliban, there was a widely shared picture of an overcrowded C130 filled with refugees. I love that picture because it is FULL of men, with barely any women or children. I contrast that with the fall of hanoi where evacuees had women and prepubescents. My liberal friends actually had to stop for a second to wonder what "women and children" really meant, and anytime refugees got raised in any conversation subsequently they all bit the bullet immediately before I could play the photo card.