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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm done with this. You're a naked, unabashed hypocrite. You think that gender identity, like sex, is an innate trait. And you also believe that people of a particular gender identity should be given special treatment, which implies that people without that gender identity should not receive special treatment. By your own admission, you think we should build a separate prison facility for trans-identified male convicts to protect them from the non-trans-identified male convicts who might want to hurt them. What about vulnerable non-trans-identified men who might be at especial risk of violence in prison? Fuck 'em.

You demand special privileges for people who possess what you believe to be an innate trait, an "accident of birth". And then turn around and smear me as a pervert and racist for demanding special privileges for people possessing a different innate trait. The only difference between us is that the trait I'm talking about is falsifiable and can be trivially checked with a cheek swab test.

You believe that male people who claim to identify as women deserve special protection from male people who claim to identify as men, even though there's no inherent reason we should expect a member of the former group to be less capable of defending himself than a member of the former group. But you believe that female people deserve no special protection from male people, even though a mountain of scientific evidence demonstrates, without ambiguity, that male people are vastly stronger than female people (and also qualitatively different, in that male people can penetratively rape female people, but not vice versa).

I think you just don't care about female people's welfare. Strange that this is a feeling I get so often when debating with trans activists, who are basically just crypto-MRAs.

I'm done with this. You're a naked, unabashed hypocrite.

As often happens in discussions that get heated and personal, you are veering into unnecessary antagonism.

"Your argument is hypocritical, here's why" is much less antagonistic than "You're a naked, unabashed hypocrite."

Strive to be less antagonistic, even if the other person is aggravating you.