site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026

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.

What did you think being mortal enemies was? Essays? Vibes?

According to you, someone who you declared should literally be wiped out as the only reconciliation is supposed to be decent to you?

You can conduct yourself in war the way Russians do in Ukraine, or the way Israelis did in Gaza (not to mention, heavens forbid, Americans in WWII). Existential war is no excuse for savagery.

There is plenty of room for deception, stratagems, collateral damage and psychological warfare even in non-existential wars.

N.B. I don't believe either of the examples you listed are examples of existential wars. Russia overplays the existentiality as part of its official excuse to swing the nuke threat around (it would be bad optics to admit that it went to war for the sake of mere "sphere of influence"), America was on the other side of the ocean from the Axis (now USSR would be a much more salient example). Israel is closest to existential but it still has a buffer of overwhelming power over Gaza. If that buffer is threatened I would expect them to glass Gaza into the precambrian age faster than you can say "Zionism" because any political fallout is better than being overrun.

There is plenty of room for deception, stratagems, collateral damage and psychological warfare even in non-existential wars.

Yes, but to a point. There's a reason why the "little green men" tactic was seen as below the belt.

N.B. I don't believe either of the examples you listed are examples of existential wars.

Yeah, though I think you can make the case that they were more existential to the other side of the conflict, which makes it quite apt for this analogy.

Yeah, though I think you can make the case that they were more existential to the other side of the conflict, which makes it quite apt for this analogy.

Just as a side note, there has never been any existential threat on the part of Israel towards the residents of Gaza; all they have to do is stop attacking Israel and shortly thereafter the hostilities will entirely cease. That's the situation with Jordan and Egypt. Literally all they had to do was resist the temptation to lob missiles at Israel, cross the border to murder and kidnap, etc., and that was it.