site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

According to the results of a search right now, there has been no discussion here of the Pragmata controversy so far.

Wikipedia talk page

(There is no Wikipedia article on it, at least not yet.)

Summary on Know Your Meme

Shoeonhead's video

Forbes review

Slant Magazine review

I’d put forth the following arguments:

It seems the Blue Tribe generally views Gamergate as a propaganda defeat because they see it as a long-term contributor to the MAGA/alt-right phenomenon but at the same time I don’t think they concluded that they themselves are even partially to blame. Therefore they are looking for opportunities to fight back, and are now including the pedophilia accusation in their attacks on evil gamers. As far as I can say, this was generally not yet the case back in 2014.

I’m also noticing something that eluded me so far, namely that the probable reason why both the original Gamergate (the Zoe Quinn controversy) and the current controversy proved to be effective ragebait to the Blue Tribe is that they are fueling two of their grievances at once.

One: they generally believe that toxic loser men are aiming to police women's sex lives out of resentment and hatred. I don’t think they have anything specific in mind. (I once asked here what this stuff is even supposed to be. I only received one answer: ‘compelling or aggressively encouraging women to not be floozies.’) It’s just a general vibe that makes them feel the ick. It’s why they think Quinn was unjustly attacked.

Regarding Pragmata I think their train of thought is the following: this sleazy game feeds into the typical male fantasy of being the protector and patriarch of a nuclear family where he is supposedly owed sex, affection, food, services etc. His subjugated wife is the idealized woman who is virtuous and yet hot, basically a personal slut. And it’s not like these dudebros are making any effort to be the supportive, emotionally intelligent, suave etc. male ally that is worthy of a relationship, instead they want to realize their fantasies by curbing women’s freedoms. It’s just terribly gross.

Their other usual grievance, of course, is that toxic males want to appropriate hobbies and cordon them off for women, turning them into their own toxic ghettoized playgrounds.

I don't see the connection between this and Gamergate. At best, you could say "this game causes gamers to be attacked as pedophiles" which fits with the Gamergate narrative ("gamers attacked").

My only exposure to controversy about the game was people calling it sexualized, creepy, and pedophilic. The people who call this game perverted are themselves gooners. They are kind of like woke people who call DnD racist for having low-intelligence orcs. It is a kind of self-report. "Strong man protects little child" is completely normal and wholesome in media. It does not therefore become un-wholesome because the child is loli-coded.

Pedophile is becoming more common attack de jour among the Extremely Online. I expect it will follow a similar path of the word "racist." Concretely, I expect within the next decade, a new round of MeToo/cancel culture to include cancelling men for being "pedophiles" but this will not involve any legal proceedings. The "pedophilia" in question will just be age gap relationships (not harassment!).

If this prediction is true, then it would be unsurprising to see the newest term of derision applied early to an easy target like gamers.

In short, I think the controversy is caused by:

  1. perverts sexualizing the game (even though it is not sexual)
  2. getting mad at it (because straight male sexuality is taboo)

I'll probably regret asking, but how is the robot daughter in the game 'loli-coded'?

The admin of Kiwi Farms claims that she looks too good, with lip gloss, makeup, and a ridiculously fancy hair style, which implies intentional sexualization.

a ridiculously fancy hair style

I haven't seen all the images so maybe there's one where she does have her hair done, but God damn, if "long hair not tied back or up" is considered ridiculously fancy, I better not show anyone that photo of me when I was nine and hadn't even brushed my glossy, long, tresses when the photo was taken!

Here's the full quote of his opinion.

By the way, someone posted this [image of Sarah Miller from The Last of Us] at me on Xitter and I think they thought it was an epic slam dunk.

But, uh, it kind of immediately proves me point. It's an even better point of reference than Ellie [also from The Last of Us]. If you compare that girl to Diana it is even more starkly obvious than Ellie why Diana is so fucking creepy.

Sarah Miller:

  • Flat, short hair (juvenile haircut).

  • Knobbly nose.

  • Close together facial features (neotenic feature)

  • Far-apart eyes.

  • Natural complex and lips.

  • Thin, fuzzy eyebrows.

This looks like a real child.

Diana:

  • Waist-length hair that is featured like a pageant girl.

  • Extreme blush.

  • Lipgloss.

  • Plucked eyebrows.

  • Dark, painted eyelashes despite being blonde.

  • Facial features are further apart like an adult woman's.

  • Facial features are both hyper-realistic and also completely blown out like she has foundation on.

  • Facial features are completely symmetrical like a Sims character.

Like come the fuck on JUST LOOK AT HOW SHE IS MADE UP.

How can you sit there and lie to my face? How can you say that these are the same designs that serve the same innocent purpose?

If you think this is the same thing you have autism. You should not have paternal instincts activated because you have autism and your paternal instincts are broken.

The website's users seem to be more or less evenly split on whether they agree with him.

Or, to paraphrase:

Sarah Miller: I wasn't attracted to this, and she is kind of homely. I'm not attracted to butch haircuts or neotenous features, so that means nobody else would ever be either. By the way, I did not get along with the girls when I was in elementary school.

Diana: I was attracted to this, and that made me uncomfortable. This means other people will be attracted to this temptress too, and that's a thoughtcrime and bad. This is especially funny because of where I'm posting this opinion. Anyway, I think pedophiles would choose this one, 100%, even though I just got done explaining about how this looks nothing like an actual kid.

(This is mainly because I don't actually think "pedophilia" has anything to do with actual kids, and is more about policing men around young women, which my mind tells me this is; obviously this here is an attempt to get around that.)

This isn't really that difficult to understand.

I'll take "telling on myself" for 500, Alex.