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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Last night, we had an election for who would represent Tennessee’s 7th congressional district at the federal level. This election was for a seat in the House of Representatives.
It was a very closely watched election because it is a bellwether of just how satisfied voters are with the right-wing politicians currently in power.
While Virginia and New York were very successful for Democrats (the left-wing), with someone who has voiced support for defunding the police (yes, he apologized for this later) winning the New York mayoral race.
While these were notable victories for Democrats in 2025, both happened in very blue states: Virginia last voted a Republican for president in 2004 and we have to go all the way back to 1984 to find New York voting for a Republican. One could make the argument that these victories mainly show greater polarization in today’s social-media driven political climate, with blue voters voting more blue. Perhaps red voters will vote more red come the midterms next year.
Or maybe not.
Tennessee’s 7th congressional district is very red; the last two congressional elections have been 60-38% blowouts, with the blue (Democrat) candidate losing by 22 points. So, if the polarization theory is true, we would expect the blue candidate to lose by even more points, perhaps having a 65-33% blowout.
That’s not what happened.
While Matt Van Epps did win, it was not a blowout. It was a 54-45% victory, with him leading only by 9 points in a district where Republicans have previously won by over 20 points. At one point, there was even a blue mirage, where the blue candidate was actually leading Van Epps by over five points.
The Democrat’s (i.e. blue) candidate, one Behn, is no blue dog moderate. She has chased ICE agents, filming confrontations with them.
Indeed, one very left-leaning site says that this looks really bad for Republicans, and with good reason: A nationwide 15-point move leftward would be a bloodbath for Republicans in the midterms next year.
Based on the elections we have had this year, it looks like a blue tide is rising after Trump’s victory in 2024.
I've learned how futile it is to attempt predicting election outcomes a year out these days.
And just for comparison's sake, Tennessee had 3,090,161 voters participate in the 2024 election.
Yesterday's apparently amounts to About 178,000 between the two candidates. That's vastly smaller than Trump's previous margin of victory, itself.
My money bets that GOP voters, noting that this was not a particularly close race, opted to stay home for the most part. The very fact that a 'blue mirage' could emerge during the process indicates the 'error bars' on how representative this election is were pretty huge.
The Prediction Market on this election never dropped below 85% chance of Republican Victory (I profited on this one because it seemed obviously underpriced overall, incidentally).
I do think a problem that the GOP hasn't solved yet is how to get their voters motivated to show up when Trump isn't on the ballot. But I currently have purchased prediction market positions in favor of an overall GOP victory in the midterms because I think they're underpriced currently. I am prepared to lose on this due to the aforementioned difficulty of predicting, I'm mostly hoping to trade on some volatility.
I think Republicans can do well on the midterms. I think the most important thing is to repeal the tariffs so that prices are not as high for household goods; while I’m mostly apolitical in real life, one friend of mine who is fairly conservative doesn’t like the tariffs at all.
Its an interesting point.
I genuinely figured we'd have gotten trade deals in place for tariff reduction by now.
But the timing will look better if the Tariffs come off in 2026 and this does in fact relieve some economic pressure in the leadup to the midterms.
I'm not even saying Trump intended to restrain economic growth specifically to release the restraints later, but its the sort of option he could exercise.
And I expect him to exercise any and all he can to help the GOP win, since he has a LOT to lose in this cycle.
The Supreme Court wasn't very receptive to Trump's argument that he can apply vast tariffs based on a thin (but extant, I suppose) Congressional mandate.
Indeed, it's probably worthy of a larger post, but I think the Court could really lean into the Major Questions Doctrine as an important way of correcting the vast indifference of Congress to actually governing.
So I don't know what happens to all those trade deals, to be honest.
That'd be a decent outcome. "Congress can choose to just sit on its ass if it wants, but it can't just delegate all its power over to the Executive and then let him decide what to do, it has to declare the actual authority in advance."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link