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 got into an argument with a person on Facebook who was defending his decision to compare ICE to the SS and the Gestapo. When arguing that such a comparison was not in the least bit hyperbolic and distasteful, he pointed out that ICE have killed 40 people since the beginning of January 2025.
Assuming that figure is accurate, I find it profoundly disquieting that this person apparently thinks that killing 40 North or South Americans is morally equivalent to killing 6 million Jews. What the hell kind of exchange rate is that?
On a quick Google, this is probably a died in custody figure, not a "killed by ICE" figure. For reference, are (on a quick Google...) upwards of 70,000 people in ICE custody.
So I would say that you should assume the figure is not accurate if someone frames it to you as a homicide figure.
More options
Context Copy link
The old tension between the "the salient thing about the Nazis is that they killed Jews" and "the salient thing about the Nazis is that they seized power and brutally eliminated all dissent, the Jew-killing just came later as a natural consequence" views? Americans are often programmed to favour the former, but I don't think the latter is so rare or unreasonable. This is especially so because I am European, but perhaps some American lefties are in the same memespace now. In our eyes, the Nazis would still have had the Nazi essence even if they hypothetically had left the Jews alone. Comparing to such hypothetical versions of the SS and Gestapo is still hyperbolic, but not in the way or to the extent you say.
I agree with @The_Nybbler that this is an ahistorical reading. The Nazis did not kill Jews because they were "dissenting" (indeed, the Nazis killed cooperative Jews: see part V here) – they killed them because they were Jews.
More options
Context Copy link
This isn't true. The Jew-killing was a goal separate from seizing power and eliminating all dissent, not a consequence of it.
I mean, I'm aware (and I think most others who have what I would consider this reading are) how centrally it featured in the agenda of Hitler and other core Nazis from the beginning. The "natural consequence" argument is not "they seized power first and then serendipitously decided to kill the Jews", but "someone seizing this much power and agency is bound to produce a pile of corpses one way or another".
This amounts to an almost fully general cynicism against action and ambition - the assumption is that the world frustrates and obstructs you if you want to achieve anything significant, and if you are the sort of person whose reaction to being obstructed is "we should find a way to root out the obstructionists" rather than to give up, then you will likely eventually mass-murder someone while trying to immanentize your ideals, simply because even Little Timmy probably believes in something that, if taken seriously, would require murdering millions and all that is stopping him is that he is quick to give up. This is of course pretty antithetical to the Yankee ethos, so it would not catch on in "Optimate/Vaishya" (or what those Moldbug terms were) America.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link