site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 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.

Unlike climate change laws, I can easily ignore them.

"At least for now" is doing a heroic amount of legwork here. To the extent it is true, today (and in some parts of the country it is even now false), it is not for lack of demand or intent. It is due to a set of political norms that have so far prevented the social conservatives from taking away others' liberties for their own instrumental ends. However, those norms are being intentionally dismantled as we speak. If they succeed, then the entire conceit of your post will rapidly become false.

As to the global/local distinction well.. the same people who handwring about TFR certainly don't see it that way. It is highly relevant to this group /which/ subpopulations have which tfr (either high or low) at the global level. Indeed we are talking about subpopulations at the level of nation state or higher, hundreds of millions of people. The "just use your personal freedoms" argument is hardly convincing to me, let alone (likely) anyone who worries about great replacement topics.

but it's hard not to notice that they are all fundamentally cultural

The opportunity cost argument is not cultural, it's largely about economic incentives.

A single look into the lifestyle of the ultrafertile makes it clear that all the personal reasons seculars usually give are basically bullshit

There's no discrepancy here. "You can have more kids if you drive yourself into (relative) poverty" and "populations that face a lower opportunity cost for having kids have more kids" are just two sides of the same coin. The seculars' statement, "I need more income/resources to have kids and maintain my economic standing" is just the inside-view expression of that fact.