site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 12, 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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes, non-European immigrants and their descendants vote for the Democrat party by large majorities except for a couple small exceptions like Cubans and Vietnamese.

Have you seen the maps that show what the electoral map would look like if only whites/non-whites could vote? In the first case, Trump wins like 45 states. In the second case, he loses all 50.

For a long time, Republicans coped with the idea that people from poor countries were natural conservatives because of strong traditional family values. This has not born fruit. I get that Sima Aunty doesn't want her kids to get transed. But that doesn't matter if she always votes for the party that does. Indians and East Asians are one of the most reliable democratic voting blocks, and have recently started to become major players in the DSA/Looney Left branch of the party. There is still lots of white surplus to be redistributed, and only when its gone will the coalition have to fight over the rest.

Trans issues, as comical as they are, are not really a big deal in the arc of history. Trends come and go. Demographic replacement is forever.

A lot of that depends on how much of classic Anglo-American conservatism you can discard. Latin America shows you can have western conservatism in a majority non-white society if you allow patronage. You will have to bend certain principles of the Anglo-American right, but US demographic change doesn’t mean leftists run the table completely.

Latin American conservatives mostly do what they can within the system they’re in but the problem is that either (as in Brazil) they’re prevented from doing anything by all powerful courts and a constitution that they can’t overturn or substantially modify (eg almost all Brazilian government spending is constitutionally protected ie a coup complete problem), the central government itself has relatively little power in the face of rampant lawlessness, powerful regional governments, organized crime and anyone who tries to realistically challenge that will either get killed or enough of their lieutenants on the ground will to make reform impossible (Mexico), or, in situations where reactionary coups are possible and do occur, any right wing movement finds itself so impossibly indebted to and a mere patsy for either a corrupt non-ideological military hierarchy that just wants to extract maximum loot out to Miami, organized crime groups (who mostly want the same) or a combination of both to the extent that unsustainable levels of graft eventually bring down any political project by stifling economic growth and competition anyway.

For a long time, Republicans coped with the idea that people from poor countries were natural conservatives because of strong traditional family values. This has not born fruit.

The thing is, if you accept the "WEIRDest people in the world" thesis (which I do), these immigrants' values are not actually "conservative" from the perspective of a Western (white) society, because the Western tradition is itself "liberal" compared to non-Western societies. There was a half-hearted attempt at an ideological synthesis 10-20 years ago (from the alt-right / neoreaction camp) to try and resolve this paradox by saying "we need authoritarianism at the border so we can have liberalism in the interior" (which also would involve mass deportations to "fix" the last several decades of immigration). However this doesn't seem to have had any impact - I never hear anybody on either side of the immigration debate making this argument.