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 -
Yes, your personal political enemies are all cartoon villains, as always.
Yes https://apnews.com/article/election-2026-ohio-governor-ramaswamy-acton-mother-93ab182c3e0a95d25ddb409ec0628231
... and where, exactly, does he say "The 12 year old must have had it coming", or words to that effect?
What else am I supposed to call choosing to side with a child rapist fugitive and his enabler over a victim?
That is evil and normal voters seem to agree considering how Ramyswamy's chances have plummeted. There is no need for Vance to defend this, but he does so anyway the same way there's supposedly no reason to cover up the Epstein files and yet..
What it actually is by all appearances: a belief that the 12-year-old girl made it up and the husband was a tragic victim of a justice system too quick to take a disturbed child's inventions as gospel. You might call this a dangerous heuristic, even a culpably reckless one, but I think it's clear that a person who believes that is not cartoonishly evil in the same way as one who believes that the rape did occur but was no big deal.
I'm sorry, I'm supposed to believe that Vance and Ramyswamy's stance on the criminal justice system is that it's just too harsh (something that fails to show in pretty much any other topic) instead of that they don't care and are trying to use every method they can to take down Acton.
The father was a fugitive from the law! They're literally backing a guy who was accused of sexual abuse by two children and then skipped out of state while out on bail. He is a man who saw a trial coming and thought oh fuck I'm gonna be found guilty due to the available evidence. And because he is literally a criminal who fled the courts, we never got to see the results but we sure do know what he was expecting!
So again, it seems less "they think the criminal justice system needs to be softer on crime" and more "they're trying to use every tool they can reach for, including distorting child sex abuse". That's disgusting!
Then back up your actual comment, instead of trying to distract everyone with generic outrage about things we agree are disgusting.
If you've forgotten, here's what you said:
I did back it up, right here. I don't think they really doubt it happened, they just don't give a fuck that it did. 12 year old Amy Acton (actually I think it was 9 years old when the abuse started) grew up to be a Democrat so who gives a shit?
That has literally nothing to do with the quote I'm asking you to back up.
In case you've forgotten, here's the quote again:
As you know, nothing you've said actually addresses that. You're free to keep throwing smoke bombs and pretending that your comments about other things have anything to do with the quote I'm asking you about.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link