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.

every statement you just made only reinforces @MonkeyWithAMachinegun's thesis.

Um... yes? That's the point? If this seems like a reasonable response to you, you're deeply confused about what that post is doing.

Are you endorsing @RandomRanger's claim that "There is no truth, only competing agendas" and that "There are no objective standards by which we can judge one culture better than another"?

If so, are you trying to argue that the position of absolute moral relativism seemingly being advocated here is "pro" rather than "anti" western? and If you do believe that, do you believe that CS Lewis, Adam Smith, St Augustine, and Marcus Aurelius would all share your belief?

To be more clear, I'm saying that the claim that 'there's no truth, only competing agendas' is just a tactic, it's only rolled out in certain circumstances when the aim is to muddy the air. It's like how there's no such thing as race, just the human race and there's also no definition of race because of all this genetic variation... but also Black gets its capital letter and not white and any idiot can immediately see racial differences at first glance, which is how the whole system works. Try telling a Brazilian admission board that there is no race, just the human race and see how far you get with that. The definition of the words change to meet the needs at the time.

And that's why I said they were heirs of Orwell.

Are you posting under the influence, sir?

Are you endorsing @RandomRanger's claim that "There is no truth, only competing agendas" and that "There are no objective standards by which we can judge one culture better than another"?

No, I am telling you you're misreading that post very, very badly. That is not his claim, but his account (further elaborating on MWAM's) of what the postmodern-influenced keyboard activists in question believe in practise. (And also, between the lines but I may as well make it explicit now, that you need to calm down and take a few deep breaths...)