@Zephyr's banner p

Zephyr


				

				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2024 February 02 13:03:12 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 2875


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Zephyr


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2024 February 02 13:03:12 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 2875


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for January 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I can think of a few examples of how better resource optimization can make things less good.


    

  1. There used to be a lot more friction around moving people around; someone who is a top 0.01% engineer might not have ended up with Google or NVIDIA or whatever due to not being as keenly aware of their level of skills. As such, you tended to get more talented people in more diverse spaces (as opposed to concentrating them all into 1 or 2 big companies). By the inverse token, people tend to be a lot more interchangeable in jobs themselves, as anyone better will have gone to a better paying position, so you are necessarily stuck with a bunch of people who are approximately the same level.
    2. 

  2. I'd argue that there is less room for disruptors too; for example, card and tabletop games (like, say, Magic the Gathering), or even early PC games (like, say, Starcraft) did not have as much penetration as to what the "best" choices were at any time. A very popular thing amongst CCGs currently is the presence of the "netdeck" - as in, someone who buys the exact deck that the pros buy, then plays exactly that. In ye olden days, it was much more likely to find someone who had simply been playing games in a different circuit than the pros were, and had completely different tactics and builds.
    3. 



Overall, very good post.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It’s not so much a loophole as a central rule of the site. As a rule, we should treat people with viewpoints that are not our own as arguing in good faith, and (in the event that there are factual disagreements) we should treat them as coming from a reasonable place.


So for example, if someone were to say that the women in question did not know that they were ICE, and instead thought they were random thugs, we address it by providing evidence that the women did know.


One reason that it is a loophole is that someone who is not arguing in good faith can make up more stuff than even the entire community can rebut. Most people, when they are presented with facts that go against their arguments, but who do not wish to change their mind, evolve their arguments - in the case of the above, for example, someone would stop arguing that they didn’t know the people were ICE, and instead argue that the instructions were unclear, or that running did not deserve death in this case. However, a determined troll will instead just go and continue making the same arguments in another spot.


There was a very determined individual named Darwin a while back who was infamous for doing this - one of the moderators here (I believe Amadan) eventually called him on it and told him that if he kept ignoring what people were responding with he’d be treated as a troll, and darwin quietly slunk away. I encourage you to look up the exchange if you’re interested - it’s a good example of the loophole while also illustrating that the mods are aware of the issue, but can’t really address it until it becomes egregious. (And of course, as we’re more right than left winged, there is a delicate act of balancing responses - someone who posts a left wing take will get a lot of replies that rebut it, and simply doesn’t have the resources to reply to all of them per se, so there needs to be some space for honest mistakes)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm actually fairly confident of the same thing - I've been fairly confident since the beginning that she wanted to speed off dramatically, and the cop she struck shot at her because he was struck by her vehicle. Lethal force was not warranted in hindsight, but of course he didn't know that at the time.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm going to argue against this because I think it's a good shoot, but I don't want Opt-out's position representing mine.


It is reasonable to believe that someone who is obstructing lawful actions (as in, ICE) should be placed under arrest. It is also reasonable to have to use lethal force against someone resisting arrest (not in all circumstances, but in circumstances where they will be hurting others, or where they is reasonable cause to believe that they will hurt others).


I believe that if someone is going to ignore the cops' orders to get out of the vehicle, then drive into a cop afterwards, a reasonable and predictable consequence of this is that they end up shot. I believe that ICE had the right to be there, as immigration and border enforcement is a federal affair. Given that ICE is not receiving on the ground assistance from state police, I believe the best strategy they can do is arrest people who are in directly in the way. In this case, it ended in tragedy; the fault lies with the woman who had numerous off ramps to stop this situation, but chose to pursue it to the bitter, predictable end.


tl;dr - Murdering dissidents is bad, no one should aspire to that. Arresting people who are directly in the way of lawful action is good. Some percentage of arrests will end up in deaths, which is bad, but can't be avoided without preventing arrests from working at all.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's not quite true - the administration is hoping to make it obvious that ICE can and will catch you if you're in the states illegally. They're hoping to set up an environment that feels unwelcoming for illegal immigrants, which means that they need to raid blue states as well.


It is probably to the administration's benefit if they capture people behaving badly, but not their purpose; you can trivially prove this by thinking about what happens if the resistance to their actions disappears.


If the blue states stop protesting ICE, ICE is still going to be arresting illegal immigrants. If ICE stops arresting illegal immigrants, then the protestors will stop protesting ICE (presumably; there is a chance that they simply swap to anti-Trump protests, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt). As a result, we can intuit that ICE is opposing illegal immigrants, while the protestors are opposing ICE.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There really isn't - I think you underestimate the amount of TDS there is outside of the US. Seriously, we went from "liberal party may fit inside a minivan" to "a few seats shy of a majority" based not even on the CPC being seen as pro-Trump, but being seen as insufficiently anti-Trump.


If it helps, even Trump believes that he caused the LPC to win.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
One thing I don't think you've considered is that a lot of right wingers are actually fairly willing to accept immigration; their sticking point is that it has to be of individuals who help the country.


So as a general rule, I'd consider all of the following to be places where immigration shouldn't be used:


    

  1. When the immigration is used to keep costs down or drive profit up for business owners (so bringing in minimum wage workers when there is a lot of unemployment amongst low skilled workers is net negative).
    2. 

  2. When there is a shortage in resources that immigration will make worse (for example, if you have an 72 hour wait to be seen in emergency, or house prices are going to the moon, you shouldn't bring in immigrants unless they are directly related to alleviating those issues).
    3. 

  3. When the cost of the immigrant is greater than the benefit we receive from them (for example, someone who commits crimes, or someone who requires welfare).
    4. 



A lot of right wingers have decided "no more immigration" because they believe (and I believe too) that the blue tribe isn't going to respect any of the above. In Canada, our left-wing appointed judges explicitly look at whether a criminal conviction would impact someone's immigration claims, and assign lower penalties if they would. The dreamers reform in the US was explicitly predicated on the ideal that immigration law would be enforced in exchange for amnesty for existing illegal immigrants. There have been numerous allegations that Walz and other senior members of Minnesota's government knew about the Somali fraud, but didn't do anything about it.


If you want the right wing to accept immigration, then you need to be willing to make the following sacrifices:


    

  1. Kick out illegal immigrants.
    2. 

  2. Kick out criminal immigrants.
    3. 

  3. Kick out net negative immigrants (as in, those that consume more services than they produce).
    4. 

  4. Credibly commit to keeping these standards, going forward.
    5. 





Another thing that doesn't help is the hypocrisy inherent in a lot of the left-wing positions. Most recently with Biden, but with Obama too, there was an opportunity for the left to reform the immigration laws in the way they want. Instead, they chose to just not enforce the rules. If they thought their position was defensible, they'd push to change the laws to reflect what they actually want to do. The fact that they didn't implies to me either that they don't actually believe that the position they're taking is popular enough to win an election, or that they prefer to keep the leverage they have over the illegal immigrants (so they can force them to work for less under threat of deportation). Both are indefensible, from my perspective - the government is elected to do the will of their constituents, so doing something that couldn't win an election should be strictly off the table. And of course, the other position is no better than slavery.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, sorry, that should've been written more as independent clauses.


A better way to phrase it would be something like: When you are protesting, especially when you are breaking laws, you should expect to be arrested for it; if you are annoying or otherwise not supported by the majority, this goes doubly.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't think this actually matters; her character doesn't determine whether it was a good shoot, what matters is whether the situation is one in which self defense an officer shooting an individual was permissible.


To be clear, I think it's obviously met here, even if all of the following are granted (and I don't necessarily agree they all were):


    

  1. The ICE officer was in front of the car deliberately, in an attempt to detain the individual in question.
    2. 

  2. The woman was attempting to flee from the situation, not hit the officer.
    3. 



Even given all that, the death of the woman is a tragedy - a tragedy of her own making, but still a tragedy. Baying for the blood of your enemies is something that reflects a poor character, and is corrosive to your soul. Them calling for your blood is a reflection of how horrible they are - don't justify it by being the monster they want.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Did you watch the first video link? Specifically, the first few seconds have:


    

  1. A pickup truck with blue and red lights flashing in it.
    2. 

  2. Someone saying "get the fuck out of our neighborhood".
    3. 

  3. Two individuals coming out of the truck, one of whom says "get out of the car" twice, then "get out of the fucking car".
    4. 



So unless the video is a fake, she was not being told to leave, and I think it is reasonable to assume (based on #1 and #2) that these individuals were at minimum police of some form, and probably known to be ICE.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'll take that trade-off; even if you disagree with the authority of the government, disobeying an armed individual and taking actions that make you look like a threat can result in death, so both people FAFO.


I'd appreciate it if the other half of the deal also came through (as in, given the January 6th individuals were charged with assault and interference with officers, I'd appreciate it if the people obstructing ICE were charged with the same). Or alternatively, that both groups are pardoned.


Edit, to clarify a bit:


I'm of the opinion that although you have the right to protest, your right ends where others begin - so gluing yourself to the highway, impeding officers by blocking their cars in, blowing up cop cars, and assaulting individuals all are things that you can and should be arrested for. This is a good thing - if people agree with your position, there will be outcry against your arrest. Part of the reason that the civil rights movement worked was that the police were put in a position where they had to arrest people for things that are hard to consider a crime - things like being black in a whites-only diner, or sitting in the wrong spot on the bus. But an important point here is for the protest to work, the government needs to arrest you for breaking the law, and most people can't agree that the actions you took deserved you being arrested.


The "Just Stop Oil" protestors who keep attempting to deface works of art should expect that they'll be serving jailtime for their actions - because the act of protest is the act of committing crimes in an attempt to prove the laws unjust. Acting surprised when you are protesting in an annoying and illegal way for a cause that the majority does not support gets you arrested is just not examining how protests actually change things.


I am very frustrated by the number of protestors who seem to not have any understanding of how this works; if the government simply reacts to your protest by doing what you wanted, then it wasn't your protest that did it - it's what they wanted to do anyways.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Also, if a cop feel that is a threat, they should already be brandishing your weapon before they see the suspect drawing his, they are not a cowboy in the Old West who needs to rely on his ability to draw faster than his opponent so that he can claim self defense.




Not to address anything else in your post, but I will say that a lot of people, especially blue-tribers, claim that brandishing a weapon is an automatic escalation (see all the accusations of how Rittenhouse was provoking people by being armed).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think there may be too much of an inferential gap here on what you are seeing versus what I am seeing - your description of the situation does not at all reflect what I can see in it.




There's also pursuing legal changes that would make it vastly harder to employ illegal immigrants.




I would agree that this should also be done, to hopefully end this on a non-sour note.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So you know how it's popular on Instagram to post about how women are taught to "never let them take you to another location, piss yourself, etc." to avoid sexual assault, and men don't have an equivalent of that? This is that equivalent.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I read a joke once that every war is started by the defender; if they'd just rolled over and let the attacker take what they want, then there wouldn't have been a war (in case it wasn't clear, I'm agreeing with you).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


This is the slippery slope I mentioned, where "we require certain authority to do our job" becomes "we can do whatever we claim is necessary." ICE has a specific job that doesn't really them to send out masked goons like this.




Okay, so what would you suggest instead? ICE's goal is to remove illegal aliens from the US. The people involved are unwilling to listen to the government saying "you need to leave now" - or they'd have left. Short of physically apprehending them, what would you suggest doing to remove said illegal aliens?




If people have evidence of this, they should present it.




The first video has the car physically in their way; ICE tells the woman to "[get] Out of the car" twice, then says "Get out of the fucking car" once. Another woman screams "Nooooo!!!" as the first car begins to back up, then accelerates forwards amidst other cries of "Noooo!!!". I think the evidence that the car is impeding ICE officers is that the first video shows the car impeding ICE officers.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Which of the following would you disagree with?


    

  1. This woman used her vehicle to impede ICE officers.
    2. 

  2. It is legal for the federal government to enforce immigration and borders.
    3. 



From my perspective, if both are true, then innocent is not an accurate description of this person.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Intent does matter, which is why it matters whether it's someone who has the legal right to keep me there versus someone who does not. If two large men with guns come to my (home) door and ask to "have a chat," I'd be justified in stabbing them to escape if they're randos, but not if they're cops.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As far as I'm aware, entrapment has a much more narrow scope that I think you believe it does. Entrapment is meant to encompass actions where the police convince someone to do a crime when they would otherwise not. For example:


    

  1. Masked men show up to your house and take your spouse hostage, and threaten to shoot her unless you rob a bank - if the masked men are undercover cops, this is a very straightforward example of entrapment.
    2. 

  2. You walk by a store, and see something you very much want in the window, but continue by. An undercover officer asks you why you don't get it, and you go back and steal the item - definitely not entrapment, as the officer did not suggest the illegal activity, even though you wouldn't have committed the crime without the suggestion (I believe in some jurisdictions it wouldn't be entrapment even if the officer had suggested it - usually the standard for entrapment is that the officer put an unfair amount of effort into convincing you).
    3. 

  3. You join a club to complain about how badly your state is run, and part of the grousing is people wishing death on your governor. If the undercover cops are the sole individuals responsible for planning an assassination attempt against said governor, it's entrapment - however, if someone else was actually planning to assassinate the governor, and they merely assisted them, then it isn't.
    4. 



Presenting an opportunity to do a crime is definitely not entrapment; otherwise, hitting someone crossing the street would not be a crime (as they presented you with the opportunity to commit vehicular assault).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Just because they don't block your car doesn't mean you got away scot-free. They can follow you, block roads, use spike strips or PIT maneuvers to make you lose control in a way that's unlikely to be lethal, and so on.




Sorry if I misunderstand, but isn't this just high-speed chases again?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sorry, I was exaggerating for comical effect.


Here's a bit more elaboration on what happened:


    

  1. Christina Freeland was the former finance minister of Canada (if you aren't familiar with Canadian governmental practices, that means she was serving as an elected MP in our house).
    2. 

  2. She acted as finance minister during the tenure of Trudeau, and resigned after being asked to present a budget that he tabled.
    3. 

  3. When Trudeau resigned, there was an election where she was elected again, but this time she's in Carney's government.
    4. 

  4. She was appointed to a role that is basically "Special Envoy to the Ukraine."
    5. 

  5. She accepted an unpaid offer to go work with Ukraine as a financial advisor to Ukraine in December last year (word on the street is saying it was on the 22nd).
    6. 

  6. She told Carney on the 24th.
    7. 

  7. Canada gave a $2.5B loan guarantee program to Ukraine on the 27th.
    8. 

  8. She initially did not announce that she was resigning from her MP position, but only did so under pressure.
    9. 

  9. There is supposed to be a 2 year "cooling off" period between being an MP who administers a file, and taking on a position in that industry. X link from a former ethics minister Conflict of interest act Canada.
    10. 



Basically, I was calling it a "defection" as Freeland has always been a bit of a Ukraine activist in government, and was working directly with Ukraine (as a Canadian MP, which she still is today) when she decided to swap over. It's fairly blatantly a conflict of interest, but I figured very few people would care to know all the details.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


your senator would be risking his job and reputation for a measly low 5 figure payout.




Nah, Canada is corrupt, they'd be fine - we just had our former finance minister and special envoy to Ukraine defect to Ukraine, and we still don't know the list of individuals who are compromised by foreign governments.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think it also creates perverse incentives, especially if you're in a position to choose how to resolve the bet. For example, let's say there is a market for whether Canada will send over $1b to the Ukraine between January 1st - April 30th, 2026. If I'm a Canadian MP, especially one of the ruling party, I can choose how to resolve the market - which means if I decide I earned a bonus, I can look at whatever position has a better payout, bet on that, then delay/accelerate sending aid to make my position true.


The issue becomes that "making money" is a much stronger incentive than "doing the right thing" - so you could take even outlandish positions and bet on them.


"But not everyone has that much power! Most people only know a little bit!"


Well, yes, true, but most people have areas of influence. Not everyone can know whether NVIDIA's new chip will make it to market before Intel - but the employees at NVIDIA could delay, find "faults", etc. in an effort to push the date back.


Insider trading is bad when the people betting on it are also the people who decide which direction it resolves in.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's cause you're not a crazy person, unlike me, who is verifiably insane.




So I'm going to talk a bit about my parents' style of parenting, while trying to avoid enough specifics to give away exactly who I am - so you can hopefully kind of get why it made a difference to me.


I was the oldest child of several; my parents were very clear on how little they wanted to be married or have kids (my mother, specifically, told me that having kids was the worst decision of her life, and she actively encouraged me to be kidnapped - her advice for if a stranger tried to abduct me was to go with them). An overriding theme of my childhood was that I had to earn my right to exist; I wasn't allowed to listen to music, spend time with other kids, or any number of other specifics that would certainly give me away. I was forbidden from inconveniencing them in any way (so like, I was "allowed" to go to a friend's house, but only if I could get there on my own; when I was 8 and my friend lived 30 minutes away by car, this was obviously a challenge).


With my siblings, the situation was a lot more about sacrificing for them; my parents loved to buy enough food for all but one of us to eat, and then would guilt me into giving up meals for them (my father was an extremely wealthy man, and his take-home pay was over $300k a year). They did the same with other things, like school trips or clothes or whatever else. Although I was nominally allowed to "take" any of the offers made, if I did I was told it would make my siblings suffer, or I'd be depriving the family, or whatever.


As a result of this upbringing, I was a horrible nervous wreck when I graduated from high school; I took an adult job as a programmer which I worked while I did my degree, but I felt so guilty about the amount they were paying me that I literally only cashed half my paycheques from the job, and burned the rest (for reference, they were paying me around $500 a week). I couldn't make or maintain any sort of friendships at all because I felt that everyone was tolerating my presence because I was useful, so I spent years in therapy over it - actually, for the first 3 years of therapy, I literally couldn't say a word to my therapist at all because I felt so much like I was ungrateful and deserved it.


My mental model of myself at this point was that I was someone who'd had a good upbringing, but that there was something horribly wrong with me that made me too tainted to be around other people.


So at around this age, one of the book series I was reading was Terry Goodkind's "The Sword of Truth." (Yes, yes, I know - don't judge me, I was like 18-21). One of the books in the series (called "Faith of the Fallen") follows a woman named Nicci who expressed the exact same emotions that I was - she saw herself as a bad person. The book itself was not great - but it resonated with me. I remember that this was around the sort of time that you could go online and like, talk about books with other people, so I looked up the book to see what people said - and on top of everyone criticizing it, they mentioned it was like "Atlas Shrugged" (which, from reading Atlas Shrugged, it absolutely is - like, it's literally at the fanfiction of it level). Reading that was a huge revelation for me - before, I'd felt like I had to do everything that other people wanted, because I could do it and I had to pay back my upbringing, and because I was only tolerable if I was doing everything for others.


I am not the person mentioned in all debates are bravery debates, but the same sort of thing happened to me.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It also doesn't matter; my experience with parents (who actually love their kids) is that they'll do anything to avoid the risk of losing them.


Having it happen just once is enough for parents to rule out the risk forever.