site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 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.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So onlyfans owner has died of cancer.

OnlyFans owner Leonid Radvinsky dies of cancer at 43 Under his ownership, OnlyFans turned from a platform that once avoided explicit ⁠content into an adults-only phenomenon with more than 300 million users and over $1 billion in annual revenue, powered by erotic performers and celebrity influencers.

Which means that in the next 72 hours we will hear a lot of hot takes about onlyfans. Then it will be Trump all over again.

One of the things I noticed when trawling reddit was absolute lack of sympathy from anyone. The guy may have been the most exposed to culture war dude in the world - some hate him because of onlyfans, some hate him because he is jewish and aipac donor.

For onlyfans - I don't think this is boon for humanity. And I think in a way it is just Sports Betting but for women. Mild to severe ruin of your life for the slim chance to make it big. There could be such things as too many creators, too many influences, too many habibis living in Dubai and Bali.

I can never particularly get worked up over OF. With the proliferation of AI image and video gen, there's already a race to the bottom and drastically reduced profits (and costs). There's also a massive skew towards the top few performers raking in most of the money, and the average creator makes a trivial sum.

Not that I'd care much either way, if a woman has an OF, I would consider that a red flag that significantly reduces or eliminates my desire for a longterm relationship, but I respect their right to do it anyway. God knows nobody is likely to pay much for pictures of my bussy, and I'm not sure how much of that is attractiveness or the sheer abundance of free options. I can say I have never, ever, in a quadrillion years been tempted to pay for the stuff, most of the time the free alternatives are fine or leaks are easily available.

Rare case I directly disagree with you, even though I sort of accept:

I respect their right to do it anyway.

I can't help but think that they're not really giving 'informed consent' to the activity if they can't really grasp the real odds involved (they overestimate their chances of success, nobody dissuades them of this) and the first order harmful effects, much less the second order ones, that can result.

I would never hold a gun to a woman's head to prevent her from prostituting herself (although, if it were my own daughter, I might take several less drastic but still severe measures), but I think the legality of the choice doesn't really absolve the morality of it.

Its one of a pretty long laundry list of things that I expect many women will enthusiastically hop into if enticed, yet come to regret later and be very angry that someone didn't dissuade them at the time.

Look, I think that a society that only allows people to make good choices is tyrannical, even if it's benevolent tyranny. I am not maximally libertarian, but someone selling pictures of them riding a dildo does not rise to the level of harm where I will tolerate (if not endorse) governmental intervention.

I think you have every right to personally disapprove. I do and would disapprove too, if my daughter contemplated something like that, I'd be immensely disappointed, assuming that society and cultural mores around sex stayed much the same as it currently is today. But if it was entirely normalized? I wouldn't forbid her, even if my own upbringing made me queasy. In a similar vein, I don't think there's anything wrong with working as a janitor, but I don't want my kids to become janitors.

If we apply the standard that people who aren't maximally rational and numerate can't do certain risky things, then we would very quickly find ourselves in a situation where the average person can't drink, gamble or smoke or drive large SUVs. I don't drink (much), gamble (at all) or smoke (barring vapes, which are far less harmful) but I am also opposed to a blanket ban. If they're old enough to vote and not obviously retarded, they can do what they want with their own bodies. I don't see it as my business or that of the state.

If I could sell pictures of my body for monetary gain and without repercussion?

self_made_human_nudes_uncensored_gone_wild.jpg

If hot women lined up to fuck me for money? Brother, I'd do it for free.

I already sell my body in a very real sense, since my mind is attached to it and so are my hands. That is what working for a wage means. I don't see anything qualitatively or morally wrong about sex work in a vacuum, the problem is the lack of vacuum. The kind of woman who is willing to prostitute herself is highly likely to be immensely unsuitable for me. That's just basic priors IMO. But history has no end of examples of respected courtesans or temple priestesses who were gussied up prostitutes. And society was fine with it, at the time.

Besides, I do occasionally watch porn, and I'm not a hypocrite to the degree that I would try to ban pornstars while jerking off to them.

I hope it is clear that I am willing to tolerate, if not endorse, many things that I disagree with or disapprove of. I ask only for the same charity in return. If OF caused giga-AIDs and the imminent extinction of the human race, I'd look the other way. It's not that bad.

Look, I think that a society that only allows people to make good choices is tyrannical, even if it's benevolent tyranny. I am not maximally libertarian, but someone selling pictures of them riding a dildo does not rise to the level of harm where I will tolerate (if not endorse) governmental intervention.

Maybe I'm not someone who's hung up on labels as much as another person is but frankly, I don't give a damn whether it's a black cat or a white cat so long as it catches mice. Call it tyrannical, call it freedom, call it whatever the hell you want; I really don't care. What matters is whether you end up a better society or not. That's the real test. Not whether the government is right.

People who are incapable of understanding harm until after it's already happened to them are the ones most susceptible to being harmed and being negatively impacted. The best way to avoid getting cancer is to not lead lifestyles that are conducive to fostering it. There's nothing prejudicial about saying to someone "look if you don't want to die of lung cancer, don't smoke." If you're someone that truly wants to make good decisions and stay out of harm's way, then the first thing to 'not' do is smoke. Whatever else someone's predisposition may be. "No raindrop ever considers itself responsible for the flood." A societal attitude that says "I'm not personally for this choice, but I respect someone's right to pursue it," makes an implicit demand upon themselves and others that even if they don't partake of the activities that lead to bad outcomes, one should be obligated to permanently live at risk being surrounded by those bad influences. You're still a part of the problem. The fact that you aren't the source of it doesn't mean you aren't a contributor.

You don't need to be "maximally rational" to perform a basic risk to reward calculus. As an individual, sure, you can do whatever you want. But the state has to concern itself with the collective health and welfare of the society as a whole. And you can be as crazy and stupid as you want, but that doesn't mean you need to receive state assistance for doing so. You can collect your Darwin award for that. I've done innumerable ignorant things in my life. Never once have I done something stupid.

I don't give a damn whether it's a black cat or a white cat so long as it catches mice.

This position works because the government of the person who said it is not democratic. It actually does matter in America if the masses think the government is right or legitimate in what it does.

If the illusion of democracy is good enough for you then you will of course be satisfied with that answer.

Countries do what they believe makes sense in their circumstance. And if it produces the outcomes that are agreeable to the people there, who are you to tell them they're wrong (by that standard)? It's a very western centric attitude that leads people to say something like that. But man judges everything in relation to himself, so it's not uncommon. And as the US loses power overtime as all empires do, you'll see it being lowered into the grave and people will be saying "but... we're... free! This isn't supposed to be happening..." And they won't be able to come to grips with where they went wrong in their thinking.

You misunderstand. I don't care that the Chinese have a different system, I may even admire parts of it. I'm saying that the democratic/American system cannot be blase about this in the same way. Americans are very puritanical about their liberty, if nothing else.

Countries don't do things, people do. The question is whether the American people will tolerate that argument baldly put. I think there's obvious financial incentives in destroying the last guardrails of the old world, but the arguments about freedom that license it find far more purchase than they did in the past and that's because of the people.

It's self-evident to me that Islam Is Right About Women Gambling. But "this is simply a net loss for society and you're fooling yourself if you think we need to run this experiment again - humans are still as weak and stupid as they ever were" probably would have failed on many, many people and that matters.

Xi doesn't have to care. Small d-democrats do.

Americans are very puritanical about their liberty, if nothing else.

If by puritanical you mean have our head up our own ass, then I’d agree. Americans tend to fetishize the concept. We proudly go around thinking we’re the freest and most open society on Earth. And in some ways that’s accurate. But in reality America is an open society with a closed mind. Americans tend not to listen to the rest of the world.

Countries don't do things, people do.

And people are what make up countries. Families make up nations. Nations make up state’s.

Xi doesn't have to care. Small d-democrats do.

And democrats only have to pretend to care. To me bread and circuses are insufficient to have a functional democracy.