site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 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.

going after some dude’s dad

I don't know, I thought Fuentes was doing the pearl clutching here. All the "low blow" faux-offense. Nick never gave a straight answer.

I think the interview made it clear that Fuentes is, well, actually racist. I think most normies will be turned off. But maybe GenZ really is that different.

What answer is there? That a Chicago working class guy tells his son, that his family is not going to eat "black fare" and this is some sign of extreme racism? This is right in the alley of your mildly racist uncle ranting about how terrible black music is during a family dinner. Exactly as Fuentes mentioned, Morgan tried to use this anecdote to paint the villain story of how Fuentes's dad is some sort of white supremacist doctor Frankenstein, who created some sort of superracist. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Fuentes did not reply, because he did not want to drag his father into this. He did not want to apologize or even explain his fathers behavior, because frankly it is none of Morgan's business. Absolutely rational response from Fuentes.

Fuentes did not reply, because he did not want to drag his father into this. He did not want to apologize or even explain his fathers behavior, because frankly it is none of Morgan's business.

Fuentes made it Morgan's business by putting it out there. Sorry, he pussied out. This was, to use OP's language, a shit-test where he didn't agree and amplify or even deflect, he just got angry and all of that Zoomer irony and unapologetic energy fell away.

Morgan did more harm to his cause than if he was muted but it's kind of absurd to think that we can't question a man who admits he's racist about potentially racist statements his dad made that he publicized and how that might have shaped his worldview from the start.

Fuentes made it Morgan's business by putting it out there.

Also around year ago there was a crazy guy who showed up in front of Fuentes's house with a gun. After the police was called, the guy was shot to death in Fuentes's backyard only to be found, that he actually murdered his roommate in other city before appearing at Fuentes's doorstep . Yeah, it is a complete mystery why Fuentes wants to keep his father's name out, when there are literal crazies looking for victims.

By the way Piers Morgan also mentioned his wife Celia Walden numerous times on his show. He literally mentioned his sons during this show, showcasing how empathetic and upright they are. Does this mean that Morgan's family is now fair game for any future discussion with him? Anybody can now demand Morgan to explain unempathetic behavior of his sons, dig up their racist tweets, or maybe showing how one of them visited a strip club or something like that, they are now cleaned for the chopping block - right?

Oh an it is not to get under Morgan's skin, it is just to have an honest discussion about what he said and an opportunity for Morgan to expand on hist stance. He may be asked about his wife or sons and their misdeeds five times in one interview even if he is visibly uncomfortable. In the end it is he who brought up his sons and wife into public spotlight.

By the way Piers Morgan also mentioned his wife Celia Walden numerous times on his show. He literally mentioned his sons during this show, showcasing how empathetic and upright they are. Does this mean that Morgan's family is now fair game for any future discussion with him?

The behavior of his wife is literally one of the main rebuttals being used by Fuentes fans right now.

And? Are you for or against that? I'd wager by your logic Celia Walden is now a fair game for all crazy groypers now, and it is all Morgan's fault for bringing her up in the past. In my eyes it is a low blow.

Obviously no one should go to her house but it's not that hard a case. They're both public figures. He spouted off at the mouth, she did so too, multiple times. I don't know that anyone outside of groypers care but you can obviously bring up the state of his marriage if he's bringing it up and putting others down.

His sons are what would give me pause but I can't recall what context they were brought up in. I'd hope young kids could be kept out of it.

Assume Nick Fuentes was some rando leftist, like Ta-Nehisi Coates, would it be fair to bring up things his dad said about politics when asking about his own left radical views?

His sons are what would give me pause but I can't recall what context they were brought up in. I'd hope young kids could be kept out of it.

The context was Morgan saying how Fuentes was antisemite, Fuentes said it was because Morgan is a boomer and he is representing a new young wave. Morgan then said that his sons are around Fuentes's age, and that they are empathetic and good people very unlike Fuentes. So now I guess it would be fine to have Morgan's sons under microscope and digging up any potential problematic antisemitic, misogynistic and racist behavior if they are such exemplars of uprightness. From now on to forever.

Assume Nick Fuentes was some rando leftist, like Ta-Nehisi Coates, would it be fair to bring up things his dad said about politics when asking about his own left radical views?

No. I think that it is a distraction and a low blow. I think it is a normal gentlemen's agreement not to bring family into such a debate, even if people brought their family up before themselves. Morgan himself said that he has literally thousands of interviews. Fuentes has thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of hours of his show. It may be that both of them mentioned their family at some point, but still it should be a taboo. Maybe it is my sensibility here, but coming after someone's family to win debate points is absolutely vile tactics.

Especially here, Morgan got what he wanted, which was Fuentes admitting that he is a racist. Morgan just wanted to go one step further somehow proving that Funetes's dad is racist based on this one clip. It is such a stupid shit to pull off - maybe Fuentes hates his father and he would gladly smear him. His father was not there to defend himself about such a wild speculation and accusation. It is just not right.

So now I guess it would be fine to have Morgan's sons under microscope and digging up any potential problematic antisemitic, misogynistic and racist behavior if they are such exemplars of uprightness. From now on to forever.

From what I understand his wife is a public figure who made a bunch of "funny" comments about Piers publicly. It isn't fun but she put it out there.

No. I think that it is a distraction and a low blow. I think it is a normal gentlemen's agreement not to bring family into such a debate, even if people brought their family up before themselves

In that case, Coates himself brought it up as part of a discussion on his evolution on Israel iirc. It's sort of odd to me that no one else can do the same, for the exact same reasons.

Like, it's one thing to defend Fuentes for being defensive given his strange life and because he's afraid of violence or his dad being fired but it was literally bringing up his own anecdote for the exact same reasons.

His father was not there to defend himself about such a wild speculation and accusation. It is just not right.

Given that his dad never appears on Fuentes' streams (AFAIK) this sort of argument functions more as a good reason Fuentes should never have put that into the world. He already put his father in that position. There actually isn't a firewall between what Fuentes says on stream to hardcores and what comes out in the more mainstream outlets especially when Fuentes is doing a promotional tour on said outlets.

It's conceivable that the woke Left has burned up so much social capital that we're at a point where even a significant segment (but not yet majority) of normies aren't that bothered by racism anymore.

It may be better to say the accusation of racism, and thus its ability to decide arguments over things like micro-aggressions which had to be defined below the level of 'typical' racism in the first place.

I think most normies will be turned off.

I think most conservatives will be turned off, conservatives gonna conservative after all. They're the faction that can afford to be snooty; it's a purity thing (per Haidt).

actually racist

People who are fed up with conservatives redefining this word to privilege themselves are ambivalent at worst and positive to "racists" at best. This is why conservatives like Morgan, and his age cohort more generally, pearl-clutch about this.

Nick never gave a straight answer.

I think the interview made it clear that Fuentes is, well, actually racist

Whatever gave you that idea? Was it Fuentes saying "I am racist"? How is that not a straight answer?