site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 26, 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.

Why do people engage in culture war though? I mean in some cases it is necessary like literal wars or a group actively holding hostile views against another and opposes thier rights on the basis of prejudice. But much of the discourse I have seen is more about attacking the group and pulling down even normal members of the group ignoring that they are not some genocidal murderers. Even though they bear some responsibilities for their own group or country it ignores that normal people often avoid conflict rather than holding the same prejudiced beliefs themselves.

I don't really think culture war is the solution, because whether one side is right or wrong it ultimately makes a breeding ground for hatred and nobody here will be listening to the facts and work upon a solution. It is sort of like our race, color, wealth, institutions etc .. all make up our identity of who we are. Any attack on these are an attack on the person belonging to that said group (and I am not talking about criticism of the group). Will anyone sit to think about thier position? Of course not because human nature is reactionary and much of out actions are governed by feelings. It would be unrealistic to expect the person being attacked to be reasonable, especially if it is actively hostile. But it will lead to a never ending war with each other without any solutions.

Why do people engage in culture war though?

I can only speak for myself. But I (mostly) "wage" the culture war because I believe that culture actually matters, and, in fact it matters much more than many people in modern society would like to admit. There are a lot of people who are libertarians (and those to the left of them), who essentially think nothing but GDP and economic growth, and taxes matter, and that cultural/societal norms are largely arbitrary. What these people don't understand is that culture effects economics, (and the inverse is also true: economics affects culture).

A small scale example of this is the job market: the best and easiest way to get hired at a job is via nepotism: aka a friend or family member recommends you to the boss or hiring manager, and your resume gets pulled through, you get interviewed, and then hired. This is effective because the hiring manager has some background information on you, that he doesn't have about random applicants online. But increasingly, people are becoming more isolated, and are having less friendships. We often here a lot about college grads having a hardtime finding a job, but we are also (Im speaking for me, Im gen-z) far less likely to have close friends than previous generations. If we had more connections it would probably help us get in the door faster and easier.

A large scale example is declining birthrates: an arguably cultural change that will and is already having massive implications. As populations age, we need more people to pay for retirement, and also fill jobs in the increasingly large healthcare sector. (Fun fact: healthcare is what is having the largest job growth!). We are running out of people, which is having large economic effect on socially safety net and healthcare systems.

Point is, the general idea that culture "doesnt matter" or is arbitrary is absurd. Lifestyles matter, and Im a firm believer that there is a heiarchy, to quote Charles Murray in his interview with Ronald Bailey via ReasonTV.

Charles Murray: If you say that satisfactions in life, deep satisfactions in life come from one of four domains, something I've been arguing for years—they come from family, community, vocation, and faith. You don't have to tap into all four; there are happy atheists, there are happy single people. But if you don't tap into those domains, you better have a really satisfying vocation, for example, or you better have a really satisfying community life.

Okay, what I'm describing in the new lower class are increasing numbers of people who aren't married, they aren't working, they've fallen away from religion, and they are isolated. They're living in their communities isolated from any interaction with other people. Those people are living lives that have been stripped of a great deal of the stuff of life. All right, I don't consider that argument to be nostalgic. I say that is grounded in a great deal of our understanding, both in terms of classic Aristotelian discussions of what it means to be a human being and also modern empirical psychology and sociology. I'm making the statement: this is a human tragedy.

Ronald Bailey: And yet I get the impression that if you gave them the offer, "You could go back to 1960," they would also be like you, not want to go. They'd go kicking and screaming.

Charles Murray: Yeah, yeah. The reason that they aren't going to go back to 1960—part of them are exactly the same reasons I'm not going to, okay? All right, in terms of the creature comforts and the rest of it. The other part of it is that the most impoverished part of all is they don't know there is anything better out there. We have kept that information carefully to ourselves.

If people are watching, take away anything, I wish they would take away this: it is non-judgmentalism run amok to say that the person I just described—unmarried, not working, no religion, no community—to say, "Well, these are his choices, and perhaps in his own way he's just as happy as I am, that doesn't apply to you," is a form of cruelty. And public policy cannot address this form of cruelty. We have to address it by a deep introspection into what we most deeply believe about the sources of satisfaction in a human life. And how do we transmit that? We live it openly, and we don't make it easy for people to live miserable lives.

Note: Murray is talking specifically about the lower class, but much of this is affecting all economic classes. It simply happens to impact the lower class the most.

Of course, All I've said, you can probably guess which side of this war I'm biased towards. But I'm more or less convinced that the conservative positions on these issues are better overall than anything I've seen in more liberal and progressive circles.