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 -
I don't understand how any White man could support the left in this country. You can think what you want about healthcare, you can hate Donald Trump if you want, all that could be true and I still don't understand how you could support the left. The left has such open, naked hatred directed specifically at White men it just feels like self-preservation should kick in at some point and supersede the rest of your political preferences.
The left has a chance to do a funny and reclaim "It's Okay to Be White" from the nazis. Maybe add (red?) white and blue stripes to the diversity/rainbow flag. We'd need some black leaders to say it on tv and in churches. Then the workers united will bring about the socialist paradise.
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed.
I was thinking about Minnesota and this comment a day or two ago. It's part of a kind of memetic that I think of as "Stop making Scott Adams look like Nostradamus."
Scott Adams, Dilbert comic creator turned online politico commentator and, recently, dead, made some not PC comments in 2023.
They're nothing special. A bit of breathless hyper-noticing and juiced up with a Very Online Person kind of flair. Ho-hum, as far as it goes. But the media pounced and Scott took a lot of flak for it. Elon defended him, which is kind of cool, I guess. Everyone moved on.
And then, at the end of 2025, he turned out to be completely right, at least directionally. Roving gangs of private citizens are harassing people - well, white men - for just kinda sorta looking like ICE agents. Which, I guess, consists primarily in ... being a white male.
While I am firmly on the right, I've never liked Trump. He's economically illiterate, a populist Dixiecrat rather than a conservative, and has no actual worldview other than an interesting and admittedly successful (in some sense) set of boomer "vibes."
But he keeps not trying to kill me or brand me as the devil. Which puts him materially ahead of half of the country, and the leadership and majority of the democrat party. And yet, they keep being astounded that I don't want to get my membership card in the "Kill Everyone who is like TollBooth" club.
More options
Context Copy link
The left is made mostly of white people and I’ve never felt anything bad directed at me for being one
Your insensitivity doesn't make it not exist.
Nor does your hypersensitivity.
The vast majority of people are normal people.
The online world intensifies a tiny percentage of extreme perspectives and actions.
People on the right are very sensitive to picking these very specific types of bad vibes from social media and pushed to them from their algorithms and then attributing it to everyday reality. (Similar problem obviously exists on the left but focused on different issues).
The world is not that bad out here.
The argument that I should become more sensitive to online microagressions and less in tune with the actual social world I inhabit is unbecoming.
"Don't be hypersensitive"
"Most people are normal"
"Except all people on the right. Who are hypersensitive"
And, the parting morality shot - "Don't introduce data and ask me to review it, that would be ... unbecoming"
I'm not going to try to change your mind on anything. I'm only going to try to suggest that you read what you write before posting and ask yourself the question "am I making any arguments here or am I just kind of teasing my opponent?"
I meant that it was unbecoming for someone on the right to ask me become preoccupied with online micro aggressions as if those were representative of my day to day reality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You don't need to be hypersensitive to understand that "As a white male, you are a member of a harmful group" is indeed something bad directed at you for being a white male.
We've been through this since ~2014. No, it is not just a few college kids on Tumblr, or whatever.
I just know that I’ve lived my entire life at the epicenter of what you guys seem afraid of, the bluest parts of the country and among college campuses.
I’ve never had anybody say anything or act in any way which would leave me to believe they harbored anything at all towards me for being white, nor have I ever seen this directed at anybody else.
So what am I supposed to do? Cower in fear of something I’ve only seen in extreme online videos? Or just live my normal life with my normal friends and not give a damn about the obsessions of the hyper political terminally online types?
Even if I were concerned with that sort of thing it’s a wave that already had its crest and has been falling since like ‘21. Which holy shit was now 5 years ago, time is moving too fast man…
In the end, just because I believe that certain people are race obsessed losers (sorry, speaking generally here, applicable to both sides), that wouldn’t change my views on things like healthcare spending, environmental protection, the value of scientific research, international cooperation, etc.
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
Try to put yourself in the shoes of one of them. All your friends are SJers. Your girlfriend is an SJer. Your internet hangouts are explicitly controlled by SJ, or have filter-bubbled you to the same effect. You probably went to some form of tertiary education controlled by SJ. Your workplace may be controlled by SJ-HR.
If you jump the fence, you're jumping it with the metaphorical clothes on your back. This is not an easy thing to do. In fact, the outflow overestimates it, because a lot of those who do "leave" didn't actually choose it; SJ expelled them first, and that meant they actually started talking to the deplorables leading to an eventual flip. That was my trajectory, for instance.
More options
Context Copy link
The hate directed from non-white leftists to their white patrons simply does not register as a threat, and this is because the left sees the white man as functionally invincible. On this point, they’re more correct than not: he is, as a matter of fact, very, very, powerful (more powerful than some on the right are willing to admit) and the gulf in capacity between himself and all non-asians makes their fear of him far more justified (on a group level) than his fear of them.
Nevertheless, he is not truly invincible. Individual whites can and have been harmed by racial reprisal, and the white man’s institutional power has been steadily eroded since the civil rights era, now being considerably weaker than it was before. Still, he rules the better part of the world (in more ways than one), and since the left sees that as fundamentally injust, there is plenty of work to do.
Kind of?
White men do have 90%+ of the world's nuclear weapons and could theoretically subjugate the bulk of the world, extracting resources at will. Theoretically, there's military and technological supremacy over non-China. Certainly there's a fairly high standard of living.
But in actual fact, most large companies and government organizations in supposedly white-ruled countries seems to have a DEI policy that works against white men. In actual fact, the prevailing animus even in the US still seems to be anti white male. That is to say media, ads, television and video games seem to be lukewarm at best about white men, opposed at worst.
"It's OK to be white" as a slogan was treated as a serious, potentially terror-related, political crime. Maybe that's changed more recently?
White men may rule the world but they do not seem to rule their own countries, or at least rule in favour of themselves in the countries they supposedly rule. Control without accruing gains isn't true control I think. The loot flows from whites in Minnesota to blacks in Somalia, not the other way around. Supposedly white-run America enjoys overwhelming superiority in strength to Somalia but who is making gains here, who is really in control?
Military and economic strength is not as important as political strength, that pillar is the most important of all I think. When we study history, we seem to focus on the military and economic angles, the great leaders, innovations, organizing principles that seem to drive history. Or with the HBD crowd race is added to the mix. But it's political strength that is the most important factor, it's 'why' Rome could fight on after losing so many men to Hannibal but then lose their 'we will never lose' aura and fall to a force of Goths and Huns. Political strength is why Somalia stands above America in some respects, even though by any of the normal analytical frameworks we use the very notion is laughable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because I can Notice who is President of the United States and who is pseduonymously posting in tumblr so they don't get fired from their job at the coffee shop and make a rational assessment of who poses a greater threat to my freedom, well-being, and prosperity.
YMMV, especially given that Republicans seem dead-set on killing their voters.
Could you speak more plainly?
More options
Context Copy link
Would you, uh, care to expand upon that?
I do hear a lot of rhetoric about abolishing white people -- even 'kill all white men' -- but it's not coming from Republicans.
The Republican Party aggressively pushes policies which are inimical to the well-being and longevity of their voters. This includes pushing crank health theories (most prominently anti-vaccine sentiments), defunding rural healthcare, and weakening environmental protections.
Can you please point to the Democratic policies implementing plans to abolish white people and/or kill all white men?
More options
Context Copy link
It's probably some argument similar to opposition to free government services = killing poors. Otherwise idk what he means.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If so, the fact that the left now fulminates on pseudo-anonymous tumblr rather than spreading open anti-white, anti-male material on their employer's official blog and Slack channel would be more of a win for the Trumpian right than anything else IMO.
I also think that left-wing whites have an entirely unjustified confidence in their own future. Demographics are what they are. One day, as usual, the left will look at the ‘utopia’ they memed into existence and realise that it has no place for them.
One day the Trumpist Mottizens will make a serious attempt to explain why I should worry more about random people on social media than actual, elected government officials holding the highest offices in the country and making policy. But it's obviously not today.
Possible, but probably not. The historical pattern has been that the inclusive, liberal parts of the US are prosperous and decent places to live while the white supremacist parts are shitholes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lots of white men hate white men too, in what is usually called "internalized racism" when discussing self-hating non-whites, "internalized misogyny" or "pick me" behavior when discussing insufficiently feminist women.
I doubt it's just white women carrying the torch here for white liberals. Some of these men think of themselves as one of the good ones or have White Savior complexes, while others are down for some self-flagellating. It's not even necessarily limited to leftists or liberals among white men.
More options
Context Copy link
That, but obviously reversed, is basically what I've heard from a lot of my friends who aren't straight white men. And you could say "well, the difference is I'm right about how the Left feels whereas they're wrong about how the Right feels," or you can say "YesChad.jpg," but I feel like neither addresses the core issue of "everyone feels hated, probably in large part blamable on social media".
There is a certain annoying rationalist-ish tendency to notice meta-level patterns and thereby conclude that there is no truth, or that truth is irrelevant, that there is nothing but patterns and that all things that can be fit to the same pattern must be interchangeable. Of course the other side has an isomorphic complaint, but it is simple, they are wrong and I am right.
More options
Context Copy link
What makes you think they are caused by a single core issue, rather than one side being right and the other wrong? Even children learns the simple tactic of pretending they were aggressed upon even though they know perfectly well they started shit. Why should we assume this is different?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Really adds a new dimension to the debate over whether handgun magazines should be limited to 10 rounds. How likely am I to be attacked by a group while walking down the street where I need more than 10 rounds? Apparently it's no longer in the realm of "absurdly improbable" but (anxious laughter) "statistically unlikely".
A second handgun is more reliable than a bigger mag anyway.
Remember, switching to your sidearm is faster than reloading. Or as Django put it, "I count two guns, nigga."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While one's mileage may vary when it comes to what "need" means and where the line between "absurdly improbable" and "statistically unlikely" lies, when you're attacked by a group you'd likely prefer more rounds than fewer. This was the case before, too.
As can be seen in the Rittenhouse experience, for example, it's not always the case that your attackers will disperse and flee once shots are fired, even if one or more of them have been struck. You may not be as good of a marksman as Rittenhouse; missing multiple, or the majority of, rounds amidst the chaos of being attacked is highly probable.
True. And indeed, at some point mag limits are moot. It becomes a question of whether you're a Virgin practicing lightning-fast mag changes vs. Chad just carrying multiple concealed handguns.
I'm discounting the wisdom of open carrying an AR-15 in public in Minneapolis since people seem unhinged enough right now to pick fights with you for having an AR-15 more than they would be too intimidated by the AR-15 to stay away from you.
It probably isn't a good idea for someone alone, but small groups running FONOPs might help.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Almost like this is precisely what the kind of person who wants those limits is afraid of. Guns naturally nullify strength in numbers.
More options
Context Copy link
chuckles_im_in_danger.jpg
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link