site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 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.

How much data do we need to show that teenagers are stuck in a collective action problem when supermajorities of them are saying 'please help us get out of this collective action problem'?

I have data that says only 16% agree that a total phone ban at school is a good idea, and only 30% agree that any phone restrictions at all are a good idea. Tracks well with my experience in school.

The teenagers themselves agree. 68% of them feel worse after spending time online.

Caused by doom scrolling and algo slop. Fix social media, don't target adult privacy rights and teenagers' access to phones.

50% say a digital curfew would improve their lives,

Sleep related. Best solution is to delay school start times and encourage parents to give teenagers a bedtime, not this spyware bill.

47% would prefer to live in a world where the internet doesn't exist.

Not a majority, too abstract a question, just a vibe, also too bad, this bill doesn't make the internet disappear (which would be a disaster), it just attacks internet privacy.

How much data do we need to show that teenagers are stuck in a collective action problem when supermajorities of them are saying 'please help us get out of this collective action problem'?

You'd need a book like The Case Against Education. Except, The Anxious Generation was slop and didn't even include most of the data Haidt used on Substack to make the case. He actually dumbed it down for normies. Apparently normies need a fallacious book to accept that there is a problem, but a non-fallacious one can't be produced. Hm.

I have data that says only 16% agree that a total phone ban at school is a good idea, and only 30% agree that any phone restrictions at all are a good idea. Tracks well with my experience in school.

I would distinguish between school discipline matters and social matters. Clearly, young people aren't happy with the digital first childhood, but all kids like messing around in school. The two positions aren't really in conflict. Although frankly, the idea that we should be consulting children on the kind of discipline they are subject to seems pretty stupid. I imagine a lot of kids would like to be able to bring alcohol into school too.

Caused by doom scrolling and algo slop. Fix social media, don't target adult privacy rights and teenagers' access to phones.

I mean, I'm 100% behind banning stuff like infinite scroll, but it's not like there's a big button governments can press that says 'make the digital world not addictive'. I mean, really think about what that would entail. You'd have to ban video games, youtube, dating apps, Reddit and a bunch of other stuff I haven't thought of. There's an awful lot of stuff on the internet that is (or can be) addictive. I've dumbed down my phone about as much as possible and I still find myself idly scrolling on the Wikipedia app. Addictiveness is just a characteristic of the digital world. Banning it all for everyone would be far more authoritarian than just preventing teenagers from using the worst offending apps.

Sleep related. Best solution is to delay school start times and encourage parents to give teenagers a bedtime, not this spyware bill.

Delaying school start times isn't a bad idea, but we had early school start times before and we didn't have kids demanding restrictions on themselves. This is different. Also, bedtimes, really? Do you honestly think that parents haven't thought of 'tell your children to go to bed'? The kids themselves recognise the problem isn't 'lack of bedtimes', it's the addiction machine sitting on the bedside table.

Not a majority, too abstract a question, just a vibe, also too bad, this bill doesn't make the internet disappear (which would be a disaster), it just attacks internet privacy.

The very fact that such a high number would want to delete a technology that is so integrated into their lives should give you pause for thought. Teenagers in the 1920s didn't want to ban the radio, kids in the 50s didn't wish they lived in a world without television. The internet has clearly damaged the social fabric in a meaningful way, and the fact that young people have noticed too deserves more than a flippant response.

You'd need a book like The Case Against Education. Except, The Anxious Generation was slop and didn't even include most of the data Haidt used on Substack to make the case. He actually dumbed it down for normies. Apparently normies need a fallacious book to accept that there is a problem, but a non-fallacious one can't be produced. Hm.

I've read both of these books but I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Could you clarify?

Although frankly, the idea that we should be consulting children on the kind of discipline they are subject to seems pretty stupid.

Maybe less stupid than consulting the rabble on the kind of laws they are subject to, considering they destroy civilization when they choose wrong, but kids in school just have a little more fun, since school is pointless anyway.

I mean, I'm 100% behind banning stuff like infinite scroll, but it's not like there's a big button governments can press that says 'make the digital world not addictive'.

Governments could ban infinite scroll, start at a fine of $10 million per day of any company commanded to remove infinite scroll. I bet it will be gone quickly.

I mean, really think about what that would entail. You'd have to ban video games, youtube, dating apps, Reddit and a bunch of other stuff I haven't thought of.

No, you don't have to be any more consistent than your take on schools and democracy. The government is a murderous asshole that goes on random violent rampages over small triggers, it is not a Kantian philosopher attempting to achieve a perfectly Consistent moral Order of Things.

Addictiveness is just a characteristic of the digital world.

Either-or fallacy. Ponder heroin and cigarettes, if you will.

The very fact that such a high number would want to delete a technology that is so integrated into their lives should give you pause for thought.

Maybe it wouldn't replicate.

Teenagers in the 1920s didn't want to ban the radio, kids in the 50s didn't wish they lived in a world without television.

You don't know that.

I've read both of these books but I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Could you clarify?

How? What's confusing you?

encourage parents to give teenagers a bedtime

Do you not remember being 12/14 and arguing passionately that you were now old enough to be allowed stay up late(r)? Maybe you can force 15 year old Teen Kid to go to their bedroom, but you can't force them to go to sleep (and you can't lock them in, either).

Do you not remember being 12/14 and arguing passionately that you were now old enough to be allowed stay up late(r)?

Apparently 50% of them now want a bedtime, so why would this be an issue for them?

aybe you can force 15 year old Teen Kid to go to their bedroom, but you can't force them to go to sleep (and you can't lock them in, either).

But you can take their phone for the night, which is what I presume digital curfew means. Or use some kind of parental control so that it locks down.