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.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think this will not happen, I suspect they will go with what is seen as the compromise position in the democratic camp of establishing term limits such that each president gets to appoint a judge.

While that would be reasonable, it's much harder to do without a constitutional amendment.

Who by the way are not a solidly Democratic voting base

Hispanics are still a solid Democrat base although Trump was able to draw an unusually high number. The trend would have to survive a non-Trump candidate. We'll see. But there's still a big difference between the Mexican who've been here for a couple generations and the Guatemalans streaming across the border. The freshly arrived must be like 90-10 voting for the party that is going to give them amnesty and welfare. One cannot simply elide the difference. It's huge.

Two parties is stable because if one party is totally out of the game then the one party splits.

This hasn't happened since... ever so I'd chalk that up to theory. More likely we just go the route of California. One party equilibriums are extremely hard to break out of for the simple reason that the only path to power and patronage is through the one party. You see this in deep blue states where they can't find anyone decent to run for governor because why would they. Heck, you see it in Florida where obvious Democrats run as Republicans because they have to.

so long as you don't send under trained goons into their neighborhoods and constantly say weird white nationalist shit

People on both sides are frothing at the mouth about the mere hallucinated fantasy of it happening so that they can resist whether it's in pink vagina hats or camo. We've had big blowout elections before, this wouldn't be our first, just our first in a while because of Trumps monumental unpopularity combined with a legion of sycophants that demand the party embarrasses themselves for his honor.

This is some pretty strong language. I'm starting to get the feeling that this is turning into a "it will never happen but when it does the Nazis deserve it." Being the voice of sober reasoning isn't so easy when deep feelings of anger and betrayal are evolved. And it's exactly this attitude that worries me. The blue team really, really, hates the red team. (Yes, much more than the inverse, there is data). Furthermore the left believes that hate is righteous, which makes it much more dangerous. We've seen some places go extremely far left as a result. Virginia and Massachusetts legalizing abortions of convenience up until the moment of birth was something that greatly saddened me. I can see how compassion can go out the window when politics gets too heated, and opposition just gets steamrolled.