site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 27, 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.

I don't think it's a good example for what you want to argue. I scored 100%, and anyway, in real life we solve such issues by having legal vehicle categories, different categories need different licenses, can use or cannot use bike paths, some are allowed on highways, others aren't etc. And there are regulations about what the criteria are for a vehicle to be classified as a particular category. And those criteria depend on manufacturer data and tests and documentation. It's not as easy as one sentence, but that's fine, we are able to cope with it by writing detailed rules that mention engine volume, maximum speed, total weight, size, etc. And for each of those, yes it's fractal, you need to define how to measure the vehicle, with empty or full tank, with an average person sitting inside or not, for the width, do the side mirrors count or not, etc. But these questions don't mean you have to throw your hands in the air and give up. It means you just need to answer these questions as they come up and put them in the rules. It's doable and it's done.

There are much hairier areas of law though, like what exactly counts as slander, or fraud, or how you can determine intent, what kind of assault reaches what level, how do you determine if a certain bodily harm will heal in N days or N+1 days, when the category of severity would hinge on that, since healing isn't an instantaneous event. But in practice, we seem to be able to manage. Doctors and legal medical experts see many cases and develop an intuition for calling it one way or another.

I don't think it's a good example for what you want to argue. I scored 100%

Obviously that scenario is simple, it's just a thought experiment to demonstrate to people how complicated what is logically a "simple" law can get if lawyer-ed sufficiently