site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 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.

'If this goes badly, that makes it even more important to do it!' That's a Kafka trap.

These are talking points not fully fleshed out arguments, but I find the quality of discussion on this latest conflict to be far below what I usually see here.

Example: "Rubio said Israel dragged us into this war." No. Just no.

And as to this specific point, I should not need to write a full length essay in order for you to be able to connect the dots here. It's not a Kafka trap, it's an army sitting outside a castle building siege weapons shouting "when these are done are we'll kill you all with these weapons." You attack before they are done, and "wow that was fucking close."

I understand that a lot of people are using this conflict to funnel anti-Trump, American, and Jew feelings, but a lot of people are actively cheering for America to lose and to support Iran, a country that is recently accused of killing tens of thousands of its own population and actively, joyfully supports global terrorism.

Likewise the U.S. isn't an amazing hegemon, but people cheering for China or Russia to take over? Jesus Christ.

"when these are done are we'll kill you all with these weapons."

Kind of a big assumption here. Are you confident that Iran, if they developed both nuclear weapons and some form of nuclear triad to be enable to credibly threaten retaliation against a first-strike, would then immediately use these new nukes to commit suicide by triggering MAD?

North Korea talks an absurd amount of shit, has nukes, and has never used them. India and Pakistan enjoy a little slap & tickle now and again and yet don't go nuclear.

You really, actually, genuinely think that the people in charge of Iran, and all the people who are involved in the functioning of a nuclear triad/delivery systems/C&C/etc are all down to, what, land a few nukes on Israeli soil (best case) and then get promptly glassed by H bombs? That seems realistic to you?

It's not a Kafka trap, it's an army sitting outside a castle building siege weapons shouting "when these are done are we'll kill you all with these weapons." You attack before they are done, and "wow that was fucking close."

Alternatively, it's seeing a big fortress, choosing to attack it directly from the front, taking heavy casualties, failing to take the fortress and then going "Whew, we sure took heavy casualties but if we had waited longer for them to improve their defenses then we would have lost even harder" while failing to consider the possibility of attacking from a less defensible angle or even avoiding the fortress entirely.

Iran is an aggressor and has been for decades, they are very upfront and explicit about some aspects of it, and other aspects are very well understood by those paying attention (like cyberattacks, proxies).

This is not North Korea that utilizes some strategic ambiguity for face saving purposes.

Iran and its proxies have gotten very good at using gaps in Western cultural thinking to engage in violence without triggering an immune response.

Ultimately this is a defensive war and needs to be modeled as such - Iran is an attacker who is attacking now, was attacking previously, and stated they will attack again in the future.