site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 22, 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.

2
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And another culture (and shooting) war event happening right now, event of more importance than the pathetic one in Montreal.

After a year (lightning speed for justice) events that happened during protest at ICE detention center in July 4, 2025 were resolved.

In rather unexpected way, by maximum possible prison sentences.

Benjamin Song, who fired the gun at the police officer, was sentenced to 100 years in prison. Song was convicted of attempted murder of an officer of the United States, as well as firearm and explosives charges. He was also convicted of riot, providing material support to terrorists. He faced anywhere from 20 years to life in prison.

Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Savanna Batten, Elizabeth Soto and Meagan Morris were sentenced to 50 years in prison. Maricela Rueda, another demonstrator, was sentenced to 70 years in prison. All six were convicted of riot, providing material support to terrorist, and explosive charges. Rueda was also convicted of corruptly concealing a document or record.

Ineffectiveness of your resistance is no longer an mitigating circumstance, and using Signal is highly aggravating one.

The judge openly said that the sentences are meant to "send a message".

As expected, Xitter celebrates while Bluesky mourns. We will see if this is one time occurance, or Trump's promise to crack down on Antifa was meant seriously.

Regardless of my views on the underlying merits of what ICE are doing, good.

There is a widespread view, historically on the left and increasingly on the anti-establishment right as well, that participating in a political protest should be a mitigating factor for ordinary violent and property crimes committed by protestors, when it is actually an aggravating factor. (The situation is different if the only crimes committed by the protesters are public order crimes). Political violence (including deliberate property destruction) is more dangerous than random criminal violence, and ideally the punishments should be harsh enough to push the frequency down to zero.

Political Violence is a semi-protected Constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment Right in the US which obviously disagrees with a lot of things related to having a functional society.

But I do think a bunch of rebels writing these words “ A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” has a meaning that is broader than everyone has guns so the British can’t come back. It’s also an idea that political violence is one of the checks and balances in the US system that checks the power in Washington DC.

How this applies to modern level technology I have no idea. But I do think actual political violence is within the Spirit of the constructs of the US Constitution.

The Counter I think is the Civil War meant something in a common law sense and has the power of an actual written Amendment that ended the day of America being a bunch of rebels. I have no idea what this means in a practical sense and most likely nothing but the US would seem to be the only government ever formed that built in rebellion as a right. In which case armed rebellion as a form of protest is culturally within the American culture.

The people who wrote the Constitution had crushed Shay's Rebellion already and knew how to deal with the Whiskey Rebellion (and the violent crushing of these rebellions was broadly popular). As of 1789, the primary reason why the well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state was because it could be used to do the crushing - avoiding the need for a (politically dangerous) standing army.

The structure set up by the militia clauses in the Constitution was designed to maximise the centrally controlled military power of the Federal Government within the limits of "no standing army" and the practical impossibility of drilling and training a geographically dispersed militia from Washington DC.

The people who wrote the Constitution had crushed Shay's Rebellion already

Not only that, but Shay's Rebellion was an immediate proximate cause of the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.