site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 18, 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.

Forcibly draft men to die for their country and no one bats an eye

I love these types of complaints so much because I can't tell if they just exist in a bubble or are being purposely stupid. Tons of people oppose drafting on a moral basis and whenever it gets done, even in immediately existential circumstances like literally defending your country from the approaching Russian hordes who are coming right now, right this moment with no time to ignore, there's still constant pushback and struggles in implementing it.

Like it's so filled with controversy that it's the literal first line on Wikipedia

Mobilization to the Armed Forces of Ukraine to combat the Russian invasion of Ukraine has resulted in military, political, and public controversies in the country.

The way I see it, there are a couple of plausible solutions to make things for fair or consistent(any additional ones are welcome):

Solution 3: They're obviously just different things and it's not a double standard to begin with so the idea of a "solution" for fairness doesn't make sense.

"The Russians are coming right now to destroy our country" is an obvious immediate direct threat. If we don't fight right now, it's over as a nation.

Meanwhile "in the next few generations we'll have the same population we did a few decades ago" both isn't obvious or immediate, and to many people isn't even seen as a threat. Tons of citizens would look at that as a good thing, they think that more people = more pie being divided up = smaller piece for them and don't grasp the concept that larger populations tend to grow the pie faster than the share of pie shrinks. If you employ the logic for high skill immigrants, then you should be able to easily understand their view point when it comes to having more youth!

Concerns about overpopulation isn't just common, it's the more believed view for the US itself and the large majority of belief when applied to the world for Americans.

This is true when Americans are asked about the U.S.: 47% say overpopulation in the U.S. is a very or somewhat serious problem and 41% say low birth rates are. And it's especially true when Americans are asked about the world as a whole: 62% say overpopulation is a big problem globally and 37% say low birth rates are.

And weirdly enough, their logic is looking to actually become true in the near future if AGI and full automation actually happens. Each new person really does just become someone else to share the robots with in that scenario. Why would you ever want to encourage the population to grow if that just means you have to share more?

Tons of citizens would look at that as a good thing, they think that more people = more pie being divided up = smaller piece for them and don't grasp the concept that larger populations tend to grow the pie faster than the share of pie shrinks.

Also they might be correct in that line of thinking. Several of the pies in our lives are of fixed sizes, like the nature and natural resources pies. Other pies are very slow to grow like housing supply.

Mmm, pie.

Solution 3: They're obviously just different things and it's not a double standard to begin with so the idea of a "solution" for fairness doesn't make sense.

It's obviously a double standard: Conscription affects men, there no corresponding duty for women, despite equality under the law being considered very important in other circumstances.

Conscription for everyone or no one would be trivial examples of a fair solution, the status quo isn't fair.

It's obviously a double standard: Conscription affects men, there no corresponding duty for women, despite equality under the law being considered very important in other circumstances.

Congrats, you've recreated the mainstream liberal feminist stance on it. The "women should register" crowd is one branch, and the "no draft should exist to begin with" crowd is another pretty loud. Here's the ACLU as well if you question it being mainstream. They've sued over the gendered draft on several occasions.

Funny enough this was debated even back when the equal rights amendment was being seriously considered, with opponents to the ERA saying that ending sex discrimination could one day lead to women in the military and the draft. One of the reasons it has stayed as just a proposal.

So, that's in a country that doesn't actually have active conscription now or anytime soon, so the stakes are low. In countries where conscription is active (or likely to become so in the near future), like Germany, Austria or Switzerland, there's a lot of feminist-rhetoric opposition to draft equality.

there's still constant pushback and struggles in implementing it.

And yet it's still implemented, eagerly and enforced by state violence against men by governments who are typically hyper-sensitive to the barest hint of coercion. Natural state of the world, I guess. While "birth conscription" is so far outside the Overton window that I can't say I've ever heard it seriously argued for. Scoffing loudly at the idea of something being a double standard doesn't make it not a double standard.