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.

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Do we…not?
I actually thought we required renouncing other citizenships before letting someone naturalize. This was based on an in-law who elected not to do so.
Turns out that might have been a requirement by the German side? They changed their laws in 2024 to allow Americans to become dual citizens, but I can’t find anything about the other direction.
Anyway, it seems like a reasonable requirement. Would probably have some knock-on effects against the people who pursue dual citizenship while staying in the home country; not sure how common they are, or how much they pay in taxes…
I think there are some words to that effect that you have to recite when getting the citizenship, but no, they're dead letter, and the U.S. is perfectly happy with dual citizenships, as far as I know.
Part of that is the lack of peer conflicts.
When I was reading up on this for an immigration thread, a lot of the citizenship cases were about the rights and obligations of dual citizens when at war with the second country. It was particularly contentious in the Civil War, since we initially flip-flopped on rebellion vs. war.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, US is weird. The oath is as follows:
But legally, the US does not force you to give up your previous citizenship:
it's 100% fine to keep it, and indeed, as I understand it, you have to file formal paperwork and pay a fee to your prior country to de-citizen yourself there, after you've become a US citizen, if you so desire.
Most countries are actually fairly chill about this, and said fee is the usual price of pushing through the paperwork that you have to pay to get literally anything done. Ironically it's the US that's rather strict about it, and hits you with pretty heavy exit taxes, though more countries are starting to talk about implementing something similar.
Yeah -- I didn't mean to imply it was a significant fee, merely an added bit of inertia against denouncing citizenship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link