site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 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.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Politically, I am an immigration restrictionist and fairly onboard with MAGA. I don’t see a contradiction in saving a migrant’s life in a tragic situation... I am in the party that insists on following the rules, because after a complicated calculus of plusses and minuses I think they make the world a better place.

You also called the hospital to leave your financial details right? To make good on the bill in case that man can't pay. Otherwise, net-tax payers and/or patients who do pay their hospital bills will find themselves in the situation of subsidizing your decision-making. Generally, the rule is that a bill is paid by the person or entity who requested the good or service.

I don’t see a contradiction in saving a migrant’s life in a tragic situation, and advocating that there be fewer such tragic situations, thousands of miles from home.

Your choice, at the margin, increased such situations. Whether it be with this migrant in the future finding himself in such situations again, or if other (potential) migrants hear yet another story of the soft-heartedness of gringos and the ultra low cost of consuming public services in the EEUU ($0).

The more extreme people on the political left, the kind currently protesting ICE in Minnesota, call people like me “nazis”. Well, if I am a nazi, I am one with a soft heart.

That's why they call people like you "nazis" and why the discourse is so one-sided. Because it works.

Because you (the general you) have a soft heart and care what they call you, whereas they have a hard heart toward you and people like you and don't care what you call them. Calling you "nazi" gets you to do more of what they want and do less of what they don't want. It makes you shy away from fighting them head on and instead turn toward policing yourself and your own side for Empathy and Compassion, for Going too Far. And then if you're religious they also have the "No, I'm not Christian and I have nothing but contempt for your backwards beliefs" card to play.

I felt there was a chance that had I not called 911 then the next time my family went outside we would have been greeted by a corpse.

For this reason I would had called emergency services to come pick him up, to spare my family this unpleasant sight.

Your choice, at the margin, increased such situations.

Indeed. The fact he reacted to a homeless guy sleeping in a park within sight of his house with “Won’t someone think of the poor homeless guy and help him” is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place. We need more people whose first thought is “Ew, get that disgusting bum out of my park” if we are ever to have hope of solving this.

Getting the bum out of your park means that the bum will move to someone else's park. Kicking the can is the reason why we are in this mess. If there were death squads killing them there would be no bums, if there were mental institutions working - there would be no bums, if there was better safety network there would be no bums, if there were plentiful cheap and affordable housing there would be no bums, if there were some form of rehabilitation and reintegration programs there would be no bums. If anyone was willing or capable of taking the full measures anywhere on the compassion/cruelty spectrum there would be no bums. The bums are failed because everyone is taking the half measures - enough to get them out of their park and their sight.

Oh - and in harsh conditions when someone is in what in my country is known as helpless condition - you go and check on them. Because next time it may be you, and you probably wouldn't want your life to depend on whether the single person passing by you can do the heuristic that you are not a bum, but upstanding citizen right while in severe snowstorm.

We need more people whose first thought is “Ew, get that disgusting bum out of my park” if we are ever to have hope of solving this.

We don't need that at all. Indeed, if those people were to stop there (though in fairness you didn't say that should be their only thought) they would be evil people indeed, so if anything I think we very much need fewer such people. What we need in order to solve the immigration problems we have is people who are compassionate, but don't let that impulse override every other consideration. We can, and should, try to help the less fortunate, but also take into account whether third parties will be hurt by our attempts to do so.

I do have a bit of feeling of disgust at the sight of a homeless man in the park. Hostility even. It offends me as a sign of lack of public order and I resent the inconvenience I’ve undergone throughout my lifetime on their behalf. But I’m also a Christian and I’m bound to help a fellow man, even if I resent his presence.