site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 29, 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.

It looks like the recent expose on child care center fraud has led to actual action in response: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/30/hhs-freezes-childcare-payments-minnesota/87965467007/

My question is: If a 23 year old guerilla journalist (who was not particularly rigorous in his methods) was able to blow this up, then why didn't legacy media go after this low hanging fruit? I have my own ideas (mostly ideological capture of the media) but I'd like to consider alternative explanations so I'd be interested in hearing your ideas about the failures of traditional journalism here and/or the decision by HHS to cut off funding generally.

Additionally, given that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and Defense are the lion's share of the federal budget, and much of the recent fraud has been Medicare/Medicaid fraud to the tune of billions, how much will this affect attempts at welfare reform? From both sides, both the people pushing UBI and the people trying to eliminate or reduce welfare generally.

As always, the answer is written in the scriptures. Conservatism is an audiovisual culture. The fact that Somalis in Minnesota were milking billions of dollars out of the government was knowable by reading and research. Some people did know it. Some people tried to spread the word (with some success). Knowing the truth of the proposition, "Somalis in Minnesota are milking billions of dollars out of the government," is much less powerful than seeing what these milking factories actually look like in person. No amount of text-based reporting on spreadsheets can elicit the same sense of deep cultural offense as seeing what presents outwardly as a normal American buisiness degenerate into hooded figures barking in Star Wars language in response to the slightest inquiry. The New York Times would never report that.

As always, Hanania is retarded. Probably 95% of progressive culture is now short form videos, and the exact same dynamic has played out countless times for them as well. No amount of text-based reporting on the countless deaths, rapes, and sex-trafficked children along the border elicited a millionth of the fury as a suggestive image of a Border Patrol agent "whipping" a migrant from horseback. It's been the case since at least Kony 2012.

Yep. Except it’s been that way since the dawn of time. People react more to what they see as opposed to what is written. Modern media makes it easier to see.

From "The Logical Fallacy of Generalization from Fictional Evidence" by Eliezer Yudkowsky:

In the ancestral environment, there were no moving pictures; what you saw with your own eyes was true. A momentary glimpse of a single word can prime us and make compatible thoughts more available, with demonstrated strong influence on probability estimates. How much havoc do you think a two-hour movie can wreak on your judgment? It will be hard enough to undo the damage by deliberate concentration—why invite the vampire into your house? In Chess or Go, every wasted move is a loss; in rationality, any non-evidential influence is (on average) entropic.

Do movie-viewers succeed in unbelieving what they see? So far as I can tell, few movie viewers act as if they have directly observed Earth’s future. People who watched the Terminator movies didn’t hide in fallout shelters on August 29, 1997. But those who commit the fallacy seem to act as if they had seen the movie events occurring on some other planet; not Earth, but somewhere similar to Earth.

You say, “Suppose we build a very smart AI,” and they say, “But didn’t that lead to nuclear war in The Terminator?” As far as I can tell, it’s identical reasoning, down to the tone of voice, of someone who might say: “But didn’t that lead to nuclear war on Alpha Centauri?” or “Didn’t that lead to the fall of the Italian city-state of Piccolo in the fourteenth century?” The movie is not believed, but it is cognitively available. It is treated, not as a prophecy, but as an illustrative historical case. Will history repeat itself? Who knows?

This is what makes entertainers dangerous. I hear friends repeat and absorb arguments from stand-up comedians all the time and it pisses me off; being entertaining is not the same as being correct, and entertainers, be they writers, artists, comedians, directors... do not have access to a source of cosmic wisdom that makes them more likely to be right about anything than anyone. In fact, many of them live very atypical, non-representative lives that I would not be surprised made them more often wrong than the modal person of similar intelligence.

From AntiDem's Ask.FM:

Shit like this is why Socrates wanted to boot all the poets out of his perfect society. Poets can make the worst, stupidest, and most horrible ideas sound beautiful (and since they tend to be artistic instead of intellectual, they are prone to doing so, especially when those ideas are utopian in nature). Their ability to do this makes them inherently dangerous - they represent a constant risk of destabilizing your society by making people believe in unworkable utopian nonsense. Socrates was not some uncultured brute, but he understood the danger so well that he believed that it was better to have a society without poets at all than to take a risk like that.

Smart guy, that Socrates.