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.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is a completely rational and a smart way to think and a completely rational and smart thing to say anywhere in the world except in a forum where we agree to deal with each other's arguments as stated and not the nefarious motives we imagine behind the arguments.

What we agree to do is to apply the principle of charity and to assume good faith. If someone says "I don't hate Jews" and then proceeds to explain why Israel shouldn't exist, I should charitably take their argument at face value… at least at first. And indeed, if someone says "I don't think Israel should exist," I (formerly anyway) would at least hear them out and not assume they were motivated by a desire to fuck the Jews.

Some people will make arguments to the effect of "Israel's original creation was a great crime against humanity, sucks for all the millions of Israelis who live there now, but really the only moral thing to do is for them to leave and go resettle somewhere else." I think the vast majority of these people are in fact antisemites and there is nowhere the Israelis could hypothetically resettle that would actually make them happy. If all the Israelis relocated to Alaska and built a state there, I think most of the "Israel should be decolonized" advocates would suddenly become deeply concerned with the environmental impact of all those Jews in the pristine Alaskan wilderness and the Zionists' lack of concern for any Inuit who might have been displaced (even if the displacement happened before the Jews got there). But, I will concede there are some people who genuinely just think Israel shouldn't exist for moral reasons because it was imperialist powers unjustly moving people around. Their conclusions are ahistorical and their solutions are impractical, to say the least, and the kindest thing I can say about them is that they are useful fools, but sure, there is a niche for the sincere anti-Zionist who is not an antisemite.

It's a small niche.

This principle does not require me to refrain from inferences or conclusions, however. We are not required to assume that no one ever has unstated motives, or that everything everyone says should always be taken at face value even if the evidence suggests otherwise. That is not being charitable, it's being a quokka.

Note that the people I'm talking about will rarely even say something as direct (if unconvincing) as "I don't hate Jews." Instead, they will angrily protest against the label of antisemite and complain indignantly about their motives being interrogated, and then list all the reasons why it's perfectly rational to hate Jews (without ever using the words "I hate Jews").

What you would ask of me, then, is to pretend that they don't hate Jews because they didn't type the words "I hate Jews," and what you are accusing me of is, when I observe someone who always applies unprincipled arguments that only ever apply to Jews, not conclude "Hmm, seems like this guy really hates Jews."

We are, in fact, allowed to infer motives behind arguments. Obviously accusing someone of having unstated motives requires sufficient evidence to justify the accusation. You can't just say "I don't believe your argument is your reason for believing that, I think you just secretly hate Jews."

Fortunately (or unfortunately) the evidence is pretty abundant and the Joo-posters don't exactly make a secret of their real motives, whatever tiny fig leaf they try to paste on.