site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 7, 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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You probably ought to take a break from slathering on the emotives and supply a specific argument as to why they should, which will be difficult because no coherent argument for such action exists.

There is endless material by conservative economists and other such experts on the matter. You can disagree with the likes of Hayek/Friedman/Sowell/etc but to act as if no coherent arguments exist whatsoever is simply a skill issue on your part. Why be proud of your lack of knowledge?

If you are going to call the Trump Administration corrupt, I think you should detail who in the Administration has been convicted of corruption in a court of law. I have lost count of the times you have argued that the procedural outcomes of the criminal justice system settle a matter: well, this also is one of those procedural outcomes, yet here you seem to believe that your own judgement takes precedence in a way that you have never and will never accept from your opposites.

Corrupt does not necessarily imply to the point of illegality. There are plenty of ways to be corrupt without being illegal. For example, foreign governments just coincidentally deciding to invest into his meme coin I think it's corrupt. Installing sycophants on the Kennedy Center board who threaten to destroy the whole thing entirely if they can't put Trump's name on it might not have been illegal, but it's corrupt.

And likewise maybe lying and saying you'd give every citizen 5k isn't illegal, but is that not corrupt?

There's also of course the obvious issue that they currently control the cops. I can call Putin corrupt without him being convicted of it for the obvious reason that he is corrupt and the Russian police will never touch him because he is literally the one in charge of Russia. The DOJ is explicitly a political weapon now, and as such I feel I can treat their lack of action as irrelevant as I do Putin.

There isn't one, and you know it.

Exactly. We went from having at least one pro capitalism fiscal responsibility party to having zero. It is a loss for any of us who believe in capitalism and fiscal responsibility.

And when the consequences come due, as they must, it must be a great relief to you to know that your side will grimly tighten their belts

I'm a reaganite libertarian, "my side" has been for belt tightening already. Sorry the world is too complex for your brain to understand more than two viewpoints exist, but your bullshit about "my side" doesn't apply.

There is endless material by conservative economists and other such experts on the matter. You can disagree with the likes of Hayek/Friedman/Sowell/etc but to act as if no coherent arguments exist whatsoever is simply a skill issue on your part. Why be proud of your lack of knowledge?

It's been a while since I read them, but I don't recall any of their material about why it's bad to redistribute money, that will get redistributed no matter what you do, to your preferred social causes, instead of to the causes preferred by the social liberals. Can you perhaps post a link or two where they've made that case?

I'm a reaganite libertarian, "my side" has been for belt tightening already.

Reagan did not tighten the belt.