> Is a comparison of world views or a discussion of the stated goals of various groups really "culture warring?" When that comparison is a thin veil over “righ

> Is a comparison of world views or a discussion of the stated goals of various groups really "culture warring?" When that comparison is a thin veil over “right wing bad”, yes. Though, it’s pretty laughable he considers JD Vance a white Christian nationalist. Same guy with an Indian wife who wore traditional Indian garb when visiting India, wore a Kippah while touching the wailing wall, yet refused to kiss the ring of the pope. > I take a different view, that politics is "the art of the possible." Politics is coalition building. If enough people decide it’s for white Christian nationalists, then that’s what it is. If enough people decide it’s a diverse, secular economic zone then that’s what it is. > If discussing differences in world view is "culture warring" and not to your liking, what's the alternative I have issue with the authors framing - pretending there is an objective truth and then telling you what it is (without explicitly saying that) is dishonest. State your views plainly and let readers decide. I have no issues with discussion in principle.