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 -
A post is blowing up on my part of twitter where a guy is saying he only wants to spend 10 minutes a day with his kids.. This has a surprising amount of scissor power, with people coming down on all sides.
Relevant quote:
The one straightforward argument is that, well, he's a shitty dad. Especially since he says he wants to be working, accomplishing something, and what is his work? Well, he's a creative director at some random tiny crypto business working on "building digital gold." So... easily mockable.
The other side says that modern parenting norms are fucked, as he aludes to, and that kids used to be a lot more free range. Normally I'm sympathetic to this, but the guy's kids are below five, so idk. I think infants and toddlers definitely need a lot of attention.
Either way I'm curious how parenting norms might break down along culture war lines, and what people here think?
ETA: Also, a great and extremely sassy quote tweet:
What's stopping him from letting his kids be free range ? The restrictions feel self-imposed.
I don't have kids, but I was the elder cousin that was responsible for keeping the kids alive through the holidays. Kids are so much fun. They allow men to experience power and wish fulfillment like nothing else. It's the only time you get to legally play God.
Maybe it is just me, but very few emotions match the unbridled joy of watching kids frolicking. Little puppies, Sunrise hikes, a cold summer breeze. It is a feeling of wholeness, harmony, of being at peace that nothing else matches.
Some classics:
I went off on a tangent, but sounds like someone with a lot of anxiety. I have had periods of my life when I've been unable to exist in a moment, and the urge to escape was usually rooted in an external source of instability that was causing me anxiety.
Percentiles are a better way to look at it. Divorce is the most destabilizing thing a child can go through. Only about 50-55% American kids grow up with their biological parents, who stay married to each other through their entire childhood. If the dude stays happily married, financially stable and doesn't abuse his kids, he is already above average.
So no, not a shitty dad. Above-average is all. Not good. Not bad.
It's a different world man. I checked the FBI crime statistics, and in my home town, when I was allowed to bike 30 minutes as google map says, probably 60 minutes as a kid bikes, down the bike path on the parkway to the nearest shopping center for a slushy, the murder rate in my county was 0-1 per year. Entirely domestics. In the year 2025 it's closer to 50, and lots of gang deaths. To say nothing of other random tragedies caused by associated rises in drunk driving, drug availability, and the general third worldification of my homeland. In 30 years we went from random murder literally not being a thing that ever happened where I lived, to constant low level gang violence.
I get the arguments about per capita. But I think when it comes to the loss of quality of life due to violent crime, the incidents per 100,000 residents matters a lot less than the proximity to incidents. If I'm in a crowd of 100 that gets randomly fired into, versus being in a crowd of 100,000 that random gets fired into, I sincerely doubt my perception and attendant stress levels will be much different between the two. I'm thinking "I could have been killed!" either way.
And so it goes with our kids. When I was a child, it was major news when a neighbor's child wondered off and drowned in a lake. A tragedy the likes of which hadn't been seen in decades in our town. Now teenagers show up dismembered in public parks and it's a Tuesday.
I have a general yardstick on risk. The US has always had high rates of innocents being killed in car accidents. Being a pedestrian and driving cars are base levels of risk taken on by most Americans without much thought. If someone is safer a daily commute or crossing the street, then it is safe enough for me.
The rates of school shootings, domestic terror attacks and freak homicides are much much lower than death by car or suicide. (The 2 main sources of death for young kids). Compared to a few decades ago, kids are doing fewer drugs, cars are safer and tech has made freak accidents easier to respond to.
I worry that the fears may be overblown. Safetyist neuroticism. It's a meme, but men used to fight wars and die in trenches. The US is so much safer today than before.
People don't live in amorphous clouds of statistics. They live in particular locations and can watch those places actively get worse year over year even if national stats show otherwise (because other places are actually improving or because the stats are gamed). You couldn't pay me to raise kids in the town I grew up in even though for most of its history (including the first half of my own life) it was a fine place to live.
People's eyes deceive them. Cars and suicide risk have remained high across all neighborhoods, safe ones or otherwise. The statistics match my anecdotes. I know multiple people who have died from car accidents and suicides. I don't know anyone who has been gunned down or stabbed in a random mugging. Statistics are useful because the country has a history of collective hysteria around hoaxes like killer clowns and child kidnapping vans.
To be fair to you, neighborhoods and cities go through boom-bust cycles. So yes, some places will get worse. But, the US is not uniformly getting worse.
As of 2026, it is much easier to keep your kids safe. With find-my functionality, it is easy for parents to ensure their kids stay within safe geographic boundaries. Ring cameras allow you to leave you kids at home, fully monitored. Uber allows them to go from point A->B safely. Technically, it should be easier to let kids be independent. But, safetyism leads to the opposite problem.
urban design rant incoming
I've long believed that malls replaced all acceptable public-places in post-war America. When malls inevitably collapsed, the only safe low-supervision space was lost. IMO, Levittown style suburbs (post war suburbia) are fundamentally flawed. They eliminate all the benefits of safety in numbers. They break up common playgrounds into tiny yards, so kids have to go further away to play real games instead of playing within walking distance of home. They put cars on the critical path of everything, increasing the number of interactions that kids need to have with said cars. It's a lose-lose-lose.
I am not anti-suburbs. In fact, the US created some of the prettiest and most effective suburbs before personal cars and Levittown. Bungalow courts in LA and SD allowed families to have SFH and yards, but pooled the yards together. This allowed multiple parents to supervise the kids from the home and gave the kids a larger playground to work with. The inner courtyard also naturally cages the kids off from the road, making it unlikely that they run into traffic to collect a stray ball. This is safety by the very nature of the urban design itself. Courtyard housing is the standard way of doing this in Europe, beloved college towns and pre-war USA.
I know I am not being completely fair. Cul-de-sac style suburbs are really artificial barriers that allowed whites to self-segregate better. Now that inner city crime isn't as big a deal, the natural defense provided by the maze like structure of a levittown style suburb appears redundant to my eyes. The low density of suburbs also wouldn't have been an issue if the primary residents were young, couples had multiple children and all socializing required humans to be outdoors. In 2026, socialization is digital, people have fewer kids and suburban couples are older. These same lonely suburbs were probably bustling with social activity back during the baby boom.
But that is not a good excuse. Even during the baby boom, designers should have seen that this would not last. The success of the post-war suburb was based on a ton of unlikely things going right all at once. Baby boom Americans may have been the only generation anywhere where all the unlikely things went right. Inevitably, suburbs began giving under the weight of their shaky foundations. Parents complain that the suburbs aren't what they used to be. But really, suburbs were never going to be what they used to be. Post war America was a lightning in a bottle situation and that era is never coming back. Moreover, if they'd just let suburbs abide by design principles that'd been around for 100s of years , then suburbs would have been more resilient to the shocks that come from changing circumstances associated with changing generations.
Levittown style suburbs are unitaskers. They were good for one thing and they served their purpose. I like classic suburbs styles like Courtyards, Bungalow courts and street car suburb style designs because they're Lindy for a reason. I believe they will be able to restore some degree of lost independence to kids and lost peace of mind back to parents.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with your general point, but his kids are too young to play outside unsupervised(they’ll run into the street).
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