site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 1, 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.

to even ask for these things reflects an entire misunderstanding of how work works, of the whole idea of a professional. You don't get extra time on assignments, the assignments exist and you get them done. If you don't complete the work necessary in your allotted hours, you have to finish it outside of your allotted hours. If your allotted hours produce less work than the average worker, you are less valuable than the average worker. At no point in the application process did this young man seem to think of the problem as "I'm going to need to work more hours" but always in terms of "You're going to have to go easy on me." I know it's the government, but still, there's not even the illusion of caring about productivity or value for a dollar.

A friend in a big city indigent defense office was telling me about the office hiring 2 recently-licensed attorneys who had attended top-10 law schools. Both ended up being unmitigated disasters who could not handle the work (that other attorneys from mediocre schools could handle). It appeared they had been "accommodated" for many years to get by and being given actual work with deadlines, clients, etc. was too much for them.

[There is the suspicion that anyone from a top-10 school applying to a public defense office is not the best from the school, but quite a few students end up doing that (or a prosecution job) to get a few years of trial work and showing they care about the little people or whatever before moving up in the world, so I don't think these two were from the bottom 10% of their schools (and per my friend, they had impressive transcripts/resumes).]

The alarming part of the story is that one went to HR and HR sided with them, resulting in their caseload being reduced and moved to other attorneys. This person is now being paid the same as those other attorneys to do much less work, and because of the way it all went down, all those other attorneys are very aware of everything that happened.

This sets up an unsustainable race to the bottom where every attorney is now incentivized to get a diagnosis and claim a need for accommodations to get less work, and any attorney who does not will end up with much more work. The justice system creaks along rather poorly, and defense offices are usually understaffed already. Requiring twice as many attorneys because caseloads are being cut in half to accommodate them is not practical, and it wouldn't be practical on the prosecution side, either (I haven't heard of it happening, but it seems like a matter of time until the knowledge of claiming a need for accommodation spreads).

People talk about it, but I don't think it has really sunk in for many what the legal system (or other systems) are going to look like when the Boomers/elder Xers are fully gone and they're replaced with people like those I discuss above.

The alarming part of the story is that one went to HR and HR sided with them, resulting in their caseload being reduced and moved to other attorneys. This person is now being paid the same as those other attorneys to do much less work, and because of the way it all went down, all those other attorneys are very aware of everything that happened.

Are you serious? I... didn't think it was possible for lawyers to hate money like this.