site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 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.

Traditionalism does not have an answer for this

Of course, much like communism, true traditionalism has never been tried.

I would have to disagree, I think traditionalism is working reasonably well among groups such as the Amish and the ultra-orthodox Jews.

The solution seems to be (1) discourage people from engaging with outside people and ideas; (2) discourage people from casual/recreational dating; (3) give men a special path to obtain social status; and (4) heap social status on those who marry young and stay together.

I would have to disagree, I think traditionalism is working reasonably well among groups such as the Amish and the ultra-orthodox Jews.

Not really, no. Both groups are dependent on being embedded in modern cultures which tolerate (and in some cases, support) them. Yes, the Amish would do fine if they were the only ones around, but the fact is they are not.

This doesn't necessarily mean that "traditionalism" isn't a viable solution for individuals, only that it doesn't scale. (Of course the reason Amish/ultra-orthodox isn't a viable solution for most individuals is that part of the trad solution of both groups is insularism.)

Both groups are dependent on being embedded in modern cultures which tolerate (and in some cases, support) them.

If that's the test, then no identifiable group has ever had a culture which worked reasonably well. Literally everyone is dependent on the people around them not ganging up on them.

Literally everyone is dependent on the people around them not ganging up on them.

Every individual is. But, e.g., the United States is not dependent on that the way the Amish are.

Every individual is. But, e.g., the United States is not dependent on that the way the Amish are.

If the rest of the world decided to gang up on the United States, we'd be in a lot of trouble. Certainly economically. Possibly even militarily, although that's more of an open question. Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's historically unusual for one political entity to have a decent shot at fending off the rest of the world combined.

Yes, the Amish would do fine if they were the only ones around

If you mean the only humans around in the world then maybe, sure. If you mean if they controlled solely their own territory absolutely - would they? The Amish don’t have an army or any real means of defending themselves while they live on some of the world’s best and highest yielding farmland. They aren’t welfare dependent in the way the ultra-orthodox are, but they are ultimately reliant on the United States’ power, military, borders and technological leadership. They live in a garden inside a nearly impenetrable geographic stronghold maintained by the United States.

The Amish seem to do OK in cartel ruled Mexico, they're not reliant on a strong state with an inexplicable soft spot for them. You're correct that they probably couldn't run their own country, but in a post apocalyptic world they'd just feed the hells angels for protection or something, they way peasants always have.

I meant if they were the only people in the world.