site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 24, 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.

That's the point. The two strains of argument against Scot Sumner's argument are:

  1. The fundamentals might have been better in earlier times - social life, community, family formation.
  2. Humans care about relative wealth and comfort, not absolute. Plus lots of other stuff like prestige, respect, etc. that you can't get from being a poor man even in the modern age.

That's basically the same argument that a certain type of degrowth leftist makes. If relative wealth is all that matters, then economic development in and of itself doesn't make sense because it just increases the treadmill. The only way to improve society as a whole is through fundamentals, which would include redistributing wealth to blunt the pain of being at the low end of the economic totem pole.

Yes, it is, and indeed I have a certain amount of time for the degrowth people on that basis. They're usually a lot more honest and consistent than the 'white heat of industry' technocratic ones or the 'don't worry about it, comrade, everything will work out once the revolution comes' strain. I think that their ideas are much better-founded than alternative ideologies but usually ignore the fact that:

  1. People have genuinely different capabilities...
  2. ...therefore keeping society relatively equal requires shackling the most capable in society, which is quite difficult, strongly negative for them, and...
  3. ...not a good idea in a competitive global system.

Plus, if you have to halt growth, now may not turn out to be the best place. It might be that there's a better equilibrium at a higher tech level where all the fundamentals can be protected but everyone is more comfortable overall. On the other hand, it might not turn out that way, in which case you have to remember that mod cons are not ultimately what makes life worth living for people.

Yep. Most of the damage to health and happiness comes from being at the lowest social rung - not just from having to eat ramen instead of steak. If everyone else was in the same boat, the psychosocial experience would be much less painful.