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.

...

they can keep killing Ukrainian soldiers at a favorable ratio until Ukraine agrees not to be a US proxy, which is their goal.

If the Russian goal was 'Ukraine isn't a US proxy' then they could have just not invaded in the first place. The idea that the invasion of Ukraine was really Russia defending itself against the US is a bizarre fantasy. The goal was conquering Ukraine to eliminate it as a sovereign state, and to eliminate the identity of the Ukrainian people as distinct from the Russians. Putin literally wrote an essay on why the invasion was justified, it's nothing to do with America.

Russia is against Ukraine joining NATO because NATO membership might prevent Russia invading again once it has built up more strength.

It's no more bizare a cope than the idea that refinery repairs are a trifling expense in the midst of a war that was draining reserves even before primary income sources started going boom, or that progressively smaller relative material advantages negate manpower limits.

...

What do you mean by that? Can you elaborate?

...

So Russia invaded Ukraine not because of all the reasons that Putin said Russia invaded Ukraine (including in his accidentally leaked victory speech), but actually because the FBI cooperates with the Ukrainian anti-corruption department? And Putin was offended enough by the idea of a neighbouring country engaging in policing cooperation that he needed to invade the country and kill hundreds of thousands of people.

And this is despite Putin never mentioning said police cooperation at any point before or during the war?

...

What on earth are you talking about? We're talking about Russia's war aims. And you haven't as yet defended your original point that all Russia wanted was for Ukraine not to be a US proxy.

If Ukraine had kicked out all American officials, refused all American aid and publicly rejected any help or direction from the US in 2013, do you really think that Russia wouldn't have invaded the Crimea? Do you think that all of Putin's open, long-held revanchist beliefs would have vanished into the air? Because all poor, innocent Russia wanted was to not have a scary US proxy on their doorstep?

They wanted Ukraine because they considered the Ukrainian nation as illegitimate, and its lands as rightfully belonging to Russia. The regime is quite open about this, and yet it still has useful idiots in the west acting as if somehow Russia launching an explicit war of conquest against its smaller neighbour is somehow a defensive move against the US, the only nation in the world that apparently has any agency.

...

More comments