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 -
Last week there was a discussion on the motte about Trump’s cabinet picks, in particular about Rubio who is something of a hawk. This goes against what many of Trump’s isolationist supporters want. It’s almost certain that Trump is making these picks extremely haphazardly, deciding on names after a bare modicum of thought and prioritizing vibes, “loyalty”, and Fox news appearances over any other concerns. The NYT has documented this extensively, and it’s entirely in keeping with the chaotic nature of his first term.
One of the goofier explanations given by those on the right was that nominating Rubio was actually a 5D chess move to get Rubio out of the Senate, which is apparently extremely necessary for some unexplained reason…? As opposed to Trumpian loyalists like Murkowski. It was just a silly idea altogether.
Why do I bring it up again? Well, because it might have actually worked! Just… on the wrong person. Trump nominated Gaetz for Attorney General, and Gaetz almost immediately resigned from the House when the news broke. This is a bit unusual, as most people stay in their seats until their confirmation is done. There was the looming release of an ethics report on Gaetz which will likely damage his reputation somewhat, so there’s a chance that Gaetz was always planning to resign, although I somewhat doubt it. In any case, Trump yanked the nomination when it was clear that there was bad press coming from it, and now Gaetz has said he won’t come back to Congress even though he probably technically could.
One might ask why Trump would want to get rid of Gaetz from the House. Well, Gaetz was instrumental in paralyzing Congress over the last term, so perhaps Trump wanted to avoid that. The issue with that explanation is that Gaetz is a fiercely pro-Trump, so it seems weird that Trump would promise something to an ally, and then leave them high and dry. The word “backfired” might be a more accurate description in such a case.
My guess is that Gaetz will probably come back to the Trump White House in some form that doesn’t require a Senate confirmation, after the news dies down.
I looked up the scandal on Wikipedia. He allegedly had sex with a 17 year old (who he claims he thought was 19)? That's what's made him radioactive? Is there anything else I'm missing? The wiki section for this says "UNDERAGE SEX TRAFFICKING" so I was expecting he was ordering 9-year Ukrainian war orphans to his house or something, but this really underwhelming. Technically a crime, yes, blah blah blah, but reminds me of the pearl clutching over Lewinsky.
It gets more interesting: it's likely these 17 year olds were recruited off sugar baby websites by the former Seminole County Tax Collector by the name of Joel Greenberg who gave them fraudulent real Florida driver's licenses which listed their ages as over 18. Joel Greenberg was arrested for a scheme of sending letters claiming to be young teenagers in order to accuse his middle school teacher primary opponent of sexually assaulting them, and they found treasure trove of crimes on his cell phone and computers. Greenberg then attempted to get a deal from the feds by floating to the Barr DOJ that he had evidence a sitting member of Congress had sex with women under the age of 18. Despite the DOJ being filled with frothing-at-the-mouth partisans, they opened a secret investigation into Matt Gaetz (and likely a grand jury), and then former DOJ officials likely attempted to blackmail Matt Gaetz's father for $25m in exchange for a Biden admin presidential pardon for Gaetz's "looming" sex trafficking charges (which spurred one of the most bizarre, and true, interviews of a sitting Congressmen on National TV), but after the blackmail thing was burned the sex trafficking investigation was leaked to the NYT, Joel Greenberg plead guilty was finally sentenced to 11 years in prison (only 1 year more than the mandatory minimum for his specific sex trafficking conviction), and the DOJ dropped the investigation over a year later.
It's unverified if it's specifically true the women Greenberg admitted to giving fraudulent real Florida IDs were the 17 year olds Gaetz is rumored to have sex with, but given the behavior of the DOJ, I think that's a good guess as to why no charges were brought.
I think it’s likely Gaetz knew about the fake IDs rather than it being a deliberate attempt to gain kompromat by Greenberg, who was a consummate failson in many ways. Him and Gaetz were both from rich families and became friends over a mutual interest in crypto and guns, apparently. Gaetz also hasn’t really thrown Greenberg under the bus (even though coming out publicly and saying “the woman had an ID saying she was 19, I later found out my friend had set this up as part of a blackmail scheme”) would indeed be a fair defense not only legally as you say but also, at least to a major extent, in the court of public opinion.
It's hard to know since all of this stuff is leaked/rumored as we don't have the full report. My understanding is the rumor is Gaetz was with Greenberg when he was making some fraudulent IDs with the implication being Gaetz knew what was going on, but the specific period we're talking about is in 2017 when the girl was still 17 and I believe this rumored instance was after that. I believe I've heard Gaetz refer to someone going to prison for 11 years (which would refer to Greenberg), but I don't think he's ever said a name.
Given the frothing-at-the-mouth behavior of the DOJ going after anyone connected to Trump, I suspect Gaetz has pretty iron-clad defenses in the court of public opinion and real court, especially when the case would have to be brought in Florida instead of Washington DC or the SDNY.
As a former client told me: if you're going to do shady shit, never in writing and always in cash.
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