site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 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.

Roughly one and a half years after first reading about it here and elsewhere I decided to finally binge-watch the 3-part Netflix miniseries about the infamous Woodstock ‘99 festival, released as episodes of the Trainwreck documentary series. I guess I’m lazy like that, or there are hard limits to my curiosity. Anyway, as I’ve commented on it here before, I did read and hear commentaries about this documentary and the one released earlier by HBO on the same subject, and based on these I assumed that I’ll be seeing some another tiresome woke Netflix slop about toxic masculinity and nu-metal being horrible and cringe. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised but also found that the rather little amount of woke commentary in the series seemed to be included in a rather ham-fisted and clumsy way.

To first address what was probably driving the dismissals/accusations about the series being woke propaganda slop: the topics of sexual harassment and assault are regularly brought up in it, which is understandable as this was eliciting much of the negative media focus on the festival. Based on the series there were three interconnected phenomena that were routinely taking place. One: women in the crowd flashing their tits, usually while being drunk or drugged, and prompting guys standing nearby to grab and grope them. Also, women who stage-dived were often groped all over. Three: as nudity was completely normalized from the beginning, which I imagine had much to do with the extreme heat, there were many cases of naked or semi-naked, similarly drunk or drugged women stumbling around and then getting surrounded by sleazy guys, usually also drunk or drugged, who also went on to grope them.

Plus there were rapes taking place, usually in tents and vehicles as mentioned by two interviewees, with a featured news segment mentioning 4 such cases being reported to the police. All this is mentioned in passing, except for one probable case of statutory rape which happened in a commandeered vehicle inside the rave hangar. I say 'probable' because the witness who described it said the otherwise blacked-out girl looked underage and it seemed like some guy just finished boning her, but he wasn’t sure. It also bears mentioning the context, namely that naked chicks were getting boned left and right in the dark next to the walls inside the hangar.

To finally move on to the culture war angle: there are two female interviewees relatively extensively commenting on the subject; one is a black former MTV reporter who curiously claims that the MeToo phenomenon was sparked by incidents and sexist behaviors such as these and a former attendee who was 14 at the time of the festival who said she’s just thankful that these behaviors are no longer considered acceptable.

I watched this and thought MeToo was obviously driven by multiple things, but I’m sure average drunk dudes groping drunk naked girls on festivals is definitely not one of them. Also, how do you then explain the 18-year time gap between the two? As someone of some experience at rock and metal festivals I also wondered: surely these behaviors cannot be said to be normal and acceptable during music festivals. What I think is fair to say is that they were routinely occurring on these particular festival, and that social and cultural factors that are peculiar to the late ‘90s were at play.

For example, widespread nudity was not the norm at the original festival, at least nowhere near to that extent, as far as I know, as evidenced by the many pieces of archive footage also included in this miniseries. Only by the late ‘90s did social licentiousness reach such an average level that such behaviors were normalized. Girls flashing their tits during music shows (and/or getting drugged on Ecstasy) is another expression of this, and I don’t think this was considered normal until the ascendance of nu-metal and rave, with both genres dominating Woodstock ’99. But still, it’s not like groping and touching was seen as a routine pastime during every similar festival in those times, I guess.

To mention some other things:

Curiously no member of Limp Bizkit was interviewed even though many Millennials apparently scapegoated them for the entire, well, trainwreck. Their former manager, on the other hand, was featured and he predictably denied any allegations, and it didn’t appear to me that the show’s narrative was trying to contradict him. However, it appears to be clear that him and the RHCP are responsible for cluelessly inflaming an already agitated and destructive crowd even further when an orgy of vandalism was already poised to break out, their only excuse being the organizers clearly not communicating effectively their request to help tame things down. On that note, no member of RHCP was interviewed either.

The incompetence on display on the part of the organizers is just hilarious, especially in included news segments of the bosses giving press conferences. A complete and delusional denial of the reality on the ground, one rosy and baseless statement after the other, refusing to take responsibility and shifting blame to a small number of evildoer attendees even on the morning after the disaster already happened. The mayor of the host town also came across as a complete dunce during those events, putting on an optimistic façade and actually having the temerity to even openly invite the organizers to return and put on another festival sometime later, doing all this at a point where everything already went to literally shit and things were to fall apart completely in a few hours.

While not openly naming late-stage capitalism as a culprit, the documentary creator clearly consider it to be the main culprit, and for a good reason, I think. Despite all the bullshit and pretense of doing everything to honor the great legacy of the original Woodstock, the overriding objective was to make maximum profit, driven by the bad example of Woodstock ’94 not turning any profit at all, and this went hand in hand with cutting to the bare minimum the budget for any services, facilities, staff and security, while at the same time banning the attendees from even bringing their own drinking water on site.

late-stage capitalism

I've been aware of this phrase for years, mostly from Reddit. Is there a canonical definition, however? I say this with genuine curiosity / bewilderment. Capitalism, to my mind, is an economic condition reality bounded by certain conditions. I didn't know (and I am dubious) about there being a temporal aspect to it.


Woodstock '99 is one of my first memories from transitioning from childhood to adolescent. One of my siblings wanted to go to it but there was no way my parents would allow it. When all of the MTC reporting came out, the focus then (that is, 1999/2000) was on how bad it was for all of the fans. Mostly, the focus was on heat, water, food, and shelter inadequacies. There were definitely reports of the sexual assaults, however, they did not take center stage. My thinking is that even MTV back in those innocent (lulz) days of 1999 didn't want to dwell on such heavy issues. I could be wrong.

There was zero "woke" angle and zero "this was particularly bad for the female attendees in general." I think there's something revealing about that. As "progressive" as MTV has always been, they, up until the Great Awokening, still believed in gender roles within the context of popular music. Rock Star dudes, of course, banged groupies. Pop Idols (Spears, Aguliera, Etc.) would make dancey-dance songs and then mix in some power ballads about being dumped. Boy Bands would do dancey-dancey almost without exception and the tween girls would swoon but Boy Bands definitely would not bang them. The details don't really matter. The point is that there were assumed "roles" (even within this progressive media outlet) and different actions were permissible - or not - based on which role a person occupied.

I don't think that's the case anymore. Part of the great awokening was a homogenization in all directions. Rock Stars can't be drunk messes who bang groupies anymore. That's toxic masculinity. At the same time, Teen Pop Idols can be weirdo hypersexual entities (thinking of Sabrina Carpenter here). And everyone can (should?) have some sort of "my mental health struggles" part of the biography ready to go at anytime. It's all so authoritarian.

“Late Stage Capitalism” is a reference to Marx’s statement about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall in capitalist economies. All the twenty-dollar bills get picked up and everyone starts scumming the margins for tiny increases in efficiency.

What is weird is that we are in an era of spectacular profits: the rate has risen significantly, not fallen, due to the Schumpeterian heroism of the tech industry. Okishio has won over Marx.

There's also a kind of schizoid relationship people have with the rate of profit. When people object to capitalism, their anger is usually at excess profits, not companies ruthlessly competing away each other's margins; whatever grumbles about airline leg room there are, it's not what's driving any political anti-capitalism. But if we take Marx seriously, exploding profits is, if not outright impossible, then at least a sign of capitalism's strength, with its end state moving proportionately further into the future.

When people object to capitalism, their anger is usually at excess profits, not companies ruthlessly competing away each other's margins; whatever grumbles about airline leg room there are, it's not what's driving any political anti-capitalism.

I think this is the wrong way round. People say and think it’s excess profits but actually it’s excess competition.

It’s always dangerous to psychoanalyse one’s opponents but I think the train of thought is roughly:

  1. I seem to be paying more and more (or at least the same) for less and less. Air France used to give two suitcases for free, now I have to pay considerable markup on each of them. (I also get in-flight WiFi now but I have to pay for that and people are more sensitive to loss than gain).
  2. Companies are still making profits and there are lots of billionaires around the place. (Not actually making their money in the same business but people don’t notice this.)
  3. Therefore these billionaires must be getting rich by stealing the money that used to go into nice services for decent prices. They’re certainly not getting their money by making services better!

When people actually feel like they’re getting a great bargain and new cool stuff, they don’t usually mind the creators getting rich. If anything a lot of people support them as an 'our team' kind of thing - look at the way people felt about Palmer Luckey when he invented modern VR, or Anthropic.

The growth of tipping culture in the US, as much as I dislike it outside of specific traditions, does feel like a negative sign for capitalism: "you can just ask people if they want to pay more, and sometimes they do!" Whole careers have been built around Patreon and pay-if/what-you-want models.

On the other hand, this feels less Marx ("from each according to their ability") and more Banksian post-scarcity: "from each according to 'eh, why not?'".

It’s negative because of the misuse of social pressure to extract the tips. It’s not just “do it if you feel like it.” In many cases, the person finds himself or herself in public or with friends while the waiter hands over or spins the iPad with the tip already filled in, then the person is forced to either go along (and add another 15-20% to the total bill) or publicly choose to not tip. To me, the issue is less tipping itself and more the coercive approach taken where im pressured by the knowledge that other people see what im doing (often including the waiter himself) thus making it less of a free will gesture and more of a pay or be a jerk gesture.

If only!

When only some people tip, they get to play a little prisoner’s dilemma. Those who pay the surcharge reduce the cost of labor to the employer, and thus the cost to any free riders. In turn, the non-tippers benefit themselves (and harm the employee) more than they inconvenience the employer.

From each according to “how much do I want to be (seen as) an asshole, today?”

I think there are principled reasons to cut down on tipping besides the first order effects (more money for the non-tipper). Just as there are principled reasons to avoid burning fossil fuels, the first order effects are great (my flat gets warm, my car goes places), but the cumulative effects of everyone doing so are bad (climate change). Or giving Kevin a better grade for his paper.

For tipping, the obvious effect is that it shifts the supply-demand-equilibrium for waiters to lower wages, up to the point where a waiter makes as much as before. So in effect, all you have changed in giving the customer veto rights over 60% of their compensation. Personally, I do not favor a view of the service industry as freelancers whose job is to make people happy so that they get paid.

When only some people tip, they get to play a little prisoner’s dilemma.

That's interesting, because I see a slightly different prisoner's dilemma. If I tip in advance, I'm paying a modest premium to get better service than everyone else; to reduce the chance of anyone adulterating my food/drink, etc. But if everyone tips in advance, employers reduce hourly wages and we're all back to square one. And I don't get better service. It would be great if customers could coordinate and agree never to tip, but as with most prisoner's dilemmas that is difficult.

So basically, I see the tippers as the defectors while the non-tippers are the cooperators.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone tip in advance.

But if that were the case, yeah, it’s a race to the bottom the other way.

DoorDashing is like that, tipping an advance. You do it as an incentive to give great service, not as a confirmation of great service given. Predictably I'll leave a generous tip but they won't come to the door, wanting me to go out to a parking lot (I usually order only when at a motel) and forget things.

For delivery apps like that, it's effectively a bidding system. Drivers see the estimated payout for a trip that includes the advance tip amount, so they are a lot more likely to take a trip with a decent tip. $0 tip trips sit in the queue getting rejected until a driver takes it because it's convenient or they are desperate. Worst case, if it sits for long enough, the app will increase the driver payment by a bit until someone takes it. So it's really not ensuring good service, just faster service.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone tip in advance.

As guy mentioned, it's getting pretty common. I find it pretty offensive when (1) I am being asked for a tip before the service has been performed; and (2) all the person is doing is handing me something over a counter.

Nevertheless, I sometimes tip in advance in hopes of getting better service. For example if the person is preparing a mixed drink and therefore has discretion over how much effort (and alcohol) to put into my order.

The "opportunity" to tip in advance is all over coffee shops, and in more and more quick take-out places (ice cream parlor, etc). You order your drink, they punch it into their tablet kiosk, then flip it around to you and it asks how much you want to tip before you swipe your credit card. It's pretty awkward to tap "other amount" and enter "0". I've seen on the internet (i.e. no idea if true) baristas saying they'll spit in drinks where they don't get tipped.

Oh. Oh, duh. Yeah, I didn’t even think of that as advance. To me, it’s the end of the interaction.

Those who pay the surcharge reduce the cost of labor to the employer...

Heh, I recently got to answer a tip prompt on a credit card reader from a sole proprietor.

From each according to “how much do I want to be (seen as) an asshole, today?”

There is certainly an element of this, especially IRL. But there are also examples like Andreas Kling writing much of SerenityOS and the Ladybird browser while paying rent with donations for BSD-licensed software.

This was probably something built into the software and not something deliberately chosen by the business.

Eh, no, not at all. Virtually all of these POS systems let the business choose exactly what appears on them. Now, there DO exist defaults that some owners will use, but customization is the norm.