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.

I think people here are underestimating 25A possibility if Republicans lose Congress, which is looking increasingly likely. Existing Democrat hatred of Trump + impeding Iran war disaster + global economic crisis + some wildcard (blackmail/allegations etc.) it's not as crazy as it sounds especially if Vance is willing to throw his weight behind it.

25A section four has never been invoked, and I'm skeptical that Vance has the personal political machine to be the first. Diadochos style taking the throne by assassination feels plausible but is probably no more likely, but everyone would agree it would be legitimate.

I think that's the thing getting left out. Legitimacy. It matters. And the US has an assumption that removing a president for incompetence/incapacity is illegitimate. Why would Vance want to be an illegitimate successor taking ownership of a very difficult situation?

Why would the Democrats replace Trump with Vance? They know the latter is more reactionary in practice, has a longer attention span, will avoid some of Trump’s worst policies for the economy (by limiting tariffs and seeking a quick resolution in Iran), is invested in staying in power for a second term, and will replace cabinet ministers chosen because Trump liked them on Fox with seasoned conservative operatives who have spent decades wargaming coming to power. That seems like a bad trade.

You misinterpret what the democrat politicians are about. Openly centrist Dems + moderate dems (about 65% of the party) would happily endorse 80% of MAGA's policy goals, including deportation and certain tarifs, if they were carried out competently with a less jackbooted aesthetic.

Remember: if they had to choose between Bernie and Trump, the congress criters would rather have Trump.

25A isn't likely. It's actually a lot harder than impeachment, by design. You can do the initial removal quickly but the President just has to send a letter to congress stating he's not disabled to return to power. The VP & cabinet have 4 days to dispute that and if they do then congress needs a 2/3 vote in both houses within 48 hours to make the removal permanent.

Trump picked his cabinet based on loyalty more than competence. If Trump is out of office most of them would be standing on highway onramps with "Will Work for Food" signs. They may be incompetent, but they aren't so stupid as to realize that replacing a guy who won't fire them with a guy who might isn't going to be good for business. If Vance decides to end the war, then Rubio and Hesgeth at least are dead men walking, and Bondi and Kennedy are probably gone as well. If the tide actually turns against Trump to the degree that this is even a possibility, I'd expect impeachment and removal from office before any 25th Amendment shenanigans.

Trump picked his cabinet based on loyalty more than competence.

Repeating the leftoid talking point endlessly doesnt make it true.

Hegseth is clearly vastly more competent than Austin (to be fair, a low bar as Austin wasnt even present for large chunks of his tenure), Bessent runs circles around Yellen, Rubio mogs Blinken, and really the only sorta tie is Bondi vs Garland. You may not like the agenda, but Trump 2.0's cabinet is actually capable of doing things, unlike 1.0 or Biden.