site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 3, 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.

Does it seem to you that Muslim immigrants are more an enemy of western civilization than Blue Tribe progressives?

Obviously. "Blue tribe progressives" are white people, which is to say they are part of Western civilization. Muslim immigrants aren't. This idea that they are somehow equal amounts to gaslighting. I don't want to live around Muslim immigrants (a few countries excepted), I'm fine if my neighbor is a Democrat.

It is said that the difference between Extremist and Moderate Muslims is that the extremist Muslim wants to kill you, while the moderate Muslim wants the Extremist to kill you. I observe that a similar distinction obtains for Blues. Not all Blues, certainly, but likewise not all Muslims, and the two are close-enough allies that accepting one is going to mean you get the other in any case.

It does not seem to me that Progressives consider themselves part of Western Civilization in any way I recognize. Given that their project has from its inception exhibited a radical hostility toward every part of Western Civilization they do not own and cannot seize, which has only grown more vicious over time, I do not understand why you think they are part of something they fervently declare their desire to destroy, nor why you should want them to be. I can understand that they emerged from western civilization; parasitic wasp larva emerge from caterpillars, but this does not mean they will develop into butterflies.

I am fine with living around Muslims, right up to the point where they start doing Muslim shit. I am likewise fine living among Democrats, right up to the point where they start doing Democrat shit. Past that point, I do not think living near either of them is a good idea. I reconciled myself long ago that Blue-controlled territory is not a place I am willing to live, nor even to visit if it can be reasonably avoided.

I have long noted that a fault-line within the right runs between those who would prefer to ally with blacks (or other non-white populations) against blues, and those who would prefer to ally with blues against blacks (and other non-white populations). Perhaps it might come down to an assessment of which alliance seems more plausible to you. An alliance with blacks seems quite unlikely to me, and getting less likely by the year, but it nonetheless seems profoundly more likely to me than any alliance with Blues. Many of the perceived grievances between Reds and Blacks are illusory, and much common ground exists even if it remains stubbornly unrecognized. But the grievances between Reds and Blues are very real and growing by the day, and the common ground appears to me to be non-existent; our values are far too incoherent and antagonistic for mutual coexistence.

I do not understand why you think they are part of something they fervently declare their desire to destroy, nor why you should want them to be.

It’s really very simple: they’re white. They are genetically part of Western civilisation.

A white communist can be reasoned (or compelled) out of being a communist, but no amount of right wing political victories will make the Arab your kin.

A white communist can be reasoned (or compelled) out of being a communist

What evidence leads you to this conclusion? When the communists massacred the flower of Poland in the Katyn forest, did the fact that the killers were white offer some form of consolation? Did a hundred years of horrifying Communist disasters inoculate Progressive ideology against Communism in some magical way that cannot be seen or measured but should nonetheless be relied upon?

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that there is more than one way to be a really bad neighbor?

It's perfectly plausible a non-communist Russian state would have massacred a bunch of Poles too, in fact we have a very clear example of a non-communist state contemporary to Katyn massacring a bunch of Poles and a bunch of historical examples of non-communist Russians killing Poles. In any case, I don't see how this is a counterargument to the idea that original poster's assertion that you can compel someone to stop being communist but you can't compel someone to become a different ethnicity.

I am pretty sure the Janissaries are an example of people being compelled to become a different ethnicity; it seems like a strong argument against your whole line of reasoning here, in fact. Nonetheless, I will readily agree that it is, at a bare minimum, extremely hard to compel someone to be a different ethnicity; what I am asking for is evidence that you can compel people to stop being communists, because I cannot in fact think of any examples where this has successfully been done, and it is something I would very much like to know how to do. You are saying that it obviously can be done. I am asking for proof.

I think your example illustrates exactly my point: Ottoman and later Republican Turkey was mostly run by European-origin (white) Muslims precisely because race and ethnicity is important–in this case, because ethnic Europeans tend to be more capable at running large and successful empires.

Anyway, if you look at any Eastern Bloc state after the fall of communism you can see examples of former communists, the same thing happened in Weimar Germany, if you're interested in forcing people to stop being communist you could look at Indonesia. All of those Eastern European states are better off for having former communists around compared to the Western European version of having immigrants from the Middle East.

I think your example illustrates exactly my point: Ottoman and later Republican Turkey was mostly run by European-origin (white) Muslims precisely because race and ethnicity is important–in this case, because ethnic Europeans tend to be more capable at running large and successful empires.

While physiologically white, the Turkish elite of the Ottoman Empire were not European. The Ottoman Empire was founded in what used to be called Asia Minor and is now called Anatolia - i.e. on the Asian side of the Bosphorous. And the Turks themselves were descended from Steppe nomads who repeatedly conquered and then went native in Muslim Persia before moving west to take bites out of the Byzantine Empire.

The ancestral homeland of white people (defined by genetics and physiology) stems a long way into western Asia, and includes Africa north of the Sahara.

More comments