site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's no evidence that the protestors specifically entered the church because they wanted to prevent the congregation from being able to practice their religion.

In Don Lemon's own video, in a parking lot gathering prior to going to the church he interviews one of the organizers, Nekima Levy Armstrong, who explicitly says:

Operation <garbled name>, more of a clandestine operation. We show up somewhere that is a key location, they don't expect us to come there and then we disrupt business as usual.

Another protester allegedly posted a video of himself saying (censorship from the youtube clip, I don't know what the actual censored words are but from context probably some variant of "fucking"):

How can they live so comfortably while the <censored> people from Somalia that are in this country legally--they have <censored> citizenship--can't even go to their Mosque and pray? How do they deserve any <censored> different?

I think these quotes from the protesters themselves are significantly more than "no evidence". Maybe not decisive evidence, but surely more than enough to make the charges (EDIT:) alleged intent to prevent religious practice plausible.

If I beat a guy up and he can't vote the next day because he's in the hospital, it certainly interferes with a civil right, but it's a lot different than if I beat him up specifically to prevent him from voting.

This situation is materially different than that hypothetical, as in this case they were intentionally and explicitly disrupting the religious service to coerce members. They wanted to make it clear to the congregation that their religious observances would not be permitted unobstructed while they associated with a member of ICE. That is not an incidental violation, as they were attempting to hold the congregation members' rights hostage.