site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 5, 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.

Wrath is a sin.

This is true inasmuch as "wrath" is, when used technically, the sinful version of anger, but anger is not itself sinful in the Christian tradition.

If this guy was to be executed, walk into his jailcell in the middle of the night and end him. Everything else is degenerate.

Doing this is how the Soviets did it. Secret executions are the tool of repressive governments everywhere, and breed secrecy and fear. The Western tradition is one of public executions. The condemned also has, in the Western tradition, certain last rights that would be abrogated by executing him in his cell while he slept. As far as I know it is routine for other executions in the United States allow outside witnesses to attend.

You can argue that these are outdated ideas but understand that in the Western tradition you reference shooting someone in the back of the head in their cell block pattern-matches onto totalitarian regimes, whereas a public execution is pretty much the staple Anglo-American tradition.

Now you can also argue, I think, that livestreaming it is a bad idea. But it seems to me that we can address the question of if executions should be public and if they should be livestreamed separately.

Listening to this person made me sympathize with the soon to be martyr.

Why? He killed a pregnant woman who was his comrade-in-arms.

An American saying this about a middle Eastern terrorist is beyond a joke.

Nidal Hasan is not a Middle Eastern terrorist, he is an American citizen and soldier, born in Virginia, who shot his fellow soldiers to death when they were unarmed in a place of trust.

This is true inasmuch as "wrath" is, when used technically, the sinful version of anger, but anger is not itself sinful in the Christian tradition.

So when I use the term wrath in this context we could conclude that I am talking about the sinful version of anger. To that extent I think it's very obvious that anyone seeking out glee or spectacle in another persons death is acting in a sinful way. In this context we presume it is out of anger or revenge, which would necessarily be sinful. A better Christian would recognize just law and capital punishment, along with the necessity to personally forgive the perpetrator to save their own soul.

Doing this is how the Soviets did it.

There's nothing secret about publicly sentencing someone to death in a court of law, killing them in a manner not publicized and then announcing that they have been executed.

The western tradition of public executions, along with burning witches, is generally not what people think of when talking about 'the west' which more often refers to the post enlightenment period and the major upswing in technology and standards of living through the 18th and 19th century. Which coincides with decreases in public executions and capital punishments along with a host of other social revolutions.

Why? He killed a pregnant woman who was his comrade-in-arms.

The US army has killed plenty of pregnant women in Nidal's lifetime. Should one only sympathize with pregnant women getting killed when they are American? That's what many Americans earnestly believe. Expressing themselves as completely incapable of recognizing any hostile act taken against them from the viewpoint of its perpetrators.

Nidal Hasan is not a Middle Eastern terrorist, he is an American citizen and soldier, born in Virginia, who shot his fellow soldiers to death when they were unarmed in a place of trust.

Nidal Hasan is a middle Eastern terrorist. He has a stamp from the US government and a birthplace far from his actual homelands, but knows in his heart exactly who he is. A martyr for a cause he believes is just, who shot enemy combatants in a successful ambush.

Maybe one day American soldiers will stop killing unarmed people in 'places of trust' the world over, but until they do, there's little rational to mourn them beyond anyone else when the shoe is on the other foot.

So when I use the term wrath in this context we could conclude that I am talking about the sinful version of anger.

Not everyone is aware of the distinction, though.

There's nothing secret about publicly sentencing someone to death in a court of law, killing them in a manner not publicized and then announcing that they have been executed.

This gives rise to speculations that the condemned was tortured the death, or not killed at all. Both are bad.

Which coincides with decreases in public executions and capital punishments along with a host of other social revolutions.

Actually, at least in England, the post-enlightenment period lead to the "Bloody Code" and a rise in executions, which were often public and treated as a spectacle.

The US army has killed plenty of pregnant women in Nidal's lifetime.

This is a false equivalency and you know it, or should know it.

That's what many Americans earnestly believe.

Please quantify this statement and back it up with polling numbers or another citation.

Expressing themselves as completely incapable of recognizing any hostile act taken against them from the viewpoint of its perpetrators.

It's curious how one could get such a perspective. Certainly not from reading American novelists (such as Tom Clancy), or American scholars (such as Lawrence Wright) or American journalists (such as John Hersey) or American combatants (like Ian Fritz) or interacting with American Mottizens (we have GWOT vets on here, and I've never gotten that impression from them at all; rather the opposite.)

Nidal Hasan is a middle Eastern terrorist.

Repeating something doesn't make it true.

Maybe one day American soldiers will stop killing unarmed people in 'places of trust' the world over, but until they do, there's little rational to mourn them beyond anyone else when the shoe is on the other foot.

It is rational to punish traitors because the harm of their actions erodes trust, and as I think you know, a lower-trust society is a worse one.

The guy is a Palestinian Muslim who just so happened to be born in the US. His actions are reflective of someone who is a Palestinian Muslim jihadist, not of an American schizo. Why didn't he just go shoot up a school or something? It's because he's a Middle Eastern terrorist.

He's not a Middle Eastern terrorist. We can say that he behaved like a Middle Eastern terrorist, or that he shared their sympathies. We can argue that this is true in some spiritual sense, if we want.

But ultimately he was born as an American citizen to American immigrants who naturalized, and despite this he found that his sympathies lay elsewhere, to the degree that he was willing to kill his fellow soldiers out of misplaced affinity towards a group of people who were never really his own.

To claim that he is Middle Eastern is to deflect scrutiny from how he came to be radicalized.

This is just ethnicity denialism.

"Middle Eastern" is not an ethnicity.

I called him a Palestinian, which is a type of Middle Easterner, just like a German is a type of European.

I agree that "German" is a type of European, and "Germans" refer to people live in Germany, or it can refer to an ethnic group of Germans, typically of German linear genetic descent who live in Germany or in German enclaves or who otherwise have a cultural affinity to Germany, or it could simply refer to a German genetic line. The problem with using the last definition is that it often makes little sense to refer to people who are of one genetic group but another cultural-political group as belonging to the genetic group. For instance, referring to Fred Trump as a German causes more confusion than clarification.

And "Palestinian" has similar issues when used here.

If we're focusing on genetic lineage, it might be more precise to refer to Hasan as Arab or perhaps Palestinian Arab (since there are a few non-Arab Palestinians). If we're focusing on ethnicity in the cultural sense, I am not sure it makes much sense to refer to him as Palestinian - he can't speak Arabic, and as far as I know spent little if any time abroad. From what I've seen, he himself might have used the term "Arab" instead of "Palestinian" if you asked him to describe his ethnic or genetic background.

From what I can tell, whatever feelings towards Palestine or Palestinian identity he may have seen in himself did not play much if any role in the shooting - he saw himself as acting to defend Islam and the Taliban (which obviously are geographically and ethnically distinct from any Palestinians he might have sympathies with), not Palestine.

I think it's fine to say that he is of Palestinian descent, or that his ethnic background is Palestinian or Arab, or what have you. You can describe him accurately. But describing him as a Palestinian terrorist causes more confusion than clarification. It would cause similar confusion if you referred to Donald Trump a European political leader (even though Donald Trump is ethnically 100% European).

More comments