site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32034 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Since I don't see a thread about the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband, what the hell, I guess I'll make one.

I'll probably do a poor job of cataloguing the current state of known facts, but as best I can...

Paul Pelosi's attacker was a guy name David DePape, he appears to have a fairly checkered mental health history, if not homeless, appears to have lived on the edge of homelessness, appears to have social media history that doesn't have zero overlap various right wing issues (apparently concerning Covid), but appears to have a set a life circumstances far outside of the standard Trump supporter. (Is that fair summation of the facts? I hope so, if not, my apologies).

Anyway, more interesting from my viewpoint, Hillary Clinton and Elon Musk exchanged tweets over various theories of the case. With Clinton basically saying this is Trump fault, and Elon linking to an article hypothesizing that DePape might have been a gay escort. Which the NY Times quickly declared misinformation (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/30/business/musk-tweets-hillary-clinton-pelosi-husband.html), Musk deleted his tweet.

As best I can tell, the gay escort theory at this point is almost entirely based on conjecture.

Here's my question, if the conjecture turns out to be correct, will it come to light? What concatenation of events would keep it from coming to light?

Right now DePape is under arrest for attempted murder, its not apparent to me if he's lawyered up or not yet, I assume at some point he's going to have to go on record establishing a timeline for what he was doing in the 5 or so hours prior to the incident, if he met Paul Pelosi in a gay bar, that seems like something that would be fairly straight forward to corroborate with witnesses, if they arranged a meeting on an app, it would seem that digital corroboration would be pretty straight forward.

Not sure about Paul Pelosi's current ability to speak with police, but I presume they're going to establish a timeline for him as well.

If that is what happened, what would keep if from coming to light? (I anticipate some joke about DePape committing suicide, but, that would obviously drive a fair amount of theorizing were it to happen).

Follow up question, what are the consequences if either story pans out?

I think it's entirely possible that all of the rumours are true and this guy is insane in every way. I would have to imagine that drug addicted nudist gay hookers who live in schoolbuses are strongly overrepresented among the category of people insane enough to break into someone's house and then try to tie up the occupant for the purposes of taking a nap. Just crazy, no matter what the stated motivation, and he's better viewed as a random lunatic of the sort who targets anyone sufficiently prominent, along the lines of that guy who sued Kim Kardashian for making an Al Qaeda sponsored sex tape, or the guy who shot Gabby Giffords, or John Mcaffee.

Whenever something violent happens to a congressperson, or even when there's a newsworthy bomb threat or police shooting, there's always a few thousand people who intuit that it was a false flag or a crazy soap opera event. They read a few dozen paragraphs in news stories, note perceived inconsistencies, and start posting. Some do it on discord, some write for 'fake news' websites. A few are making stuff up for clicks, but afaict most genuinely believe it. Almost always this ends up being completely made up, and when it isn't it's usually coincidental. (this guy was a FBI PLANT! [two weeks later] yeah, I called that he was a generic schizo instead of being politically motivated, the libs overreacted so hard lmao). It's really uninteresting to ask 'what are the consequences if it really was a gay lover' - it's like asking 'what if steve bannon and the russians really did personally fund republican stochastic terrorism'

but appears to have a set a life circumstances far outside of the standard Trump supporter. (Is that fair summation of the facts

This doesn't mean he wasn't a trump supporter, though, there are plenty of violent and insane members of both parties, given each is ~ 1/3 of the us population. Obviously this doesn't mean any republican beliefs or policies are wrong either.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1548106/download

15. In a Mirandized and recorded interview of DEPAPE by San Francisco Police

Department Officers, DEPAPE provided the following information:

a. DEPAPE stated that he was going to hold Nancy hostage and talk to her. If

Nancy were to tell DEPAPE the “truth,” he would let her go, and if she “lied,” he

was going to break “her kneecaps.” DEPAPE was certain that Nancy would not

have told the “truth.” In the course of the interview, DEPAPE articulated he

viewed Nancy as the “leader of the pack” of lies told by the Democratic Party.

DEPAPE also later explained that by breaking Nancy’s kneecaps, she would then

have to be wheeled into Congress, which would show other Members of Congress

there were consequences to actions. DEPAPE also explained generally that he

wanted to use Nancy to lure another individual to DEPAPE.

b. DEPAPE stated that he broke into the house through a glass door, which was a

difficult task that required the use of a hammer. DEPAPE stated that Pelosi was in

bed and appeared surprised by DEPAPE. DEPAPE told Pelosi to wake up.

DEPAPE told Pelosi that he was looking for Nancy. Pelosi responded that she

was not present. Pelosi asked how they could resolve the situation, and what

DEPAPE wanted to do. DEPAPE stated he wanted to tie Pelosi up so that

DEPAPE could go to sleep as he was tired from having had to carry a backpack to

the Pelosi residence. Around this time, according to DEPAPE, DEPAPE started

taking out twist ties from his pocket so that he could restrain Pelosi. Pelosi

moved towards another part of the house, but DEPAPE stopped him and together

they went back into the bedroom.

c. While talking with each other, Pelosi went into a bathroom, where Pelosi grabbed

a phone to call 9-1-1. DEPAPE stated he felt like Pelosi’s actions compelled him

to respond.

d. DEPAPE remembered thinking that there was no way the police were going to

forget about the phone call. DEPAPE explained that he did not leave after

Pelosi’s call to 9-1-1 because, much like the American founding fathers with the

British, he was fighting against tyranny without the option of surrender. DEPAPE

reiterated this sentiment elsewhere in the interview.

e. DEPAPE stated that they went downstairs to the front door. The police arrived

and knocked on the door, and Pelosi ran over and opened it. Pelosi grabbed onto

DEPAPE’s hammer, which was in DEPAPE’s hand. At this point in the

interview, DEPAPE repeated that DEPAPE did not plan to surrender and that he

would go “through” Pelosi.

f. DEPAPE stated that he pulled the hammer away from Pelosi and swung the

hammer towards Pelosi. DEPAPE explained that Pelosi’s actions resulted in

Pelosi “taking the punishment instead.”

Pelosi asked how they could resolve the situation, and what DEPAPE wanted to do. DEPAPE stated he wanted to tie Pelosi up so that DEPAPE could go to sleep as he was tired from having had to carry a backpack to the Pelosi residence.

This part is cracking me up, like he's complaining about how inconveniently located the Pelosis' house is for violent nutjobs.

Thanks,

That's basically enough to put the gay prostitute theory to bed, at least in my mind.

I mean, I feel pretty vindicated from the previous thread that this is just a totally off his rocker dude.

e. DEPAPE stated that they went downstairs to the front door. The police arrived

and knocked on the door, and Pelosi ran over and opened it. Pelosi grabbed onto

DEPAPE’s hammer, which was in DEPAPE’s hand.

Does this course of action sound like something that happened in the real world? Pelosi is far enough away from Depape that he can run to the door to open it for the police. AFTER opening the door -- at which point police are inside the house with Pelosi and Depape -- Pelosi re-engages with Depape to grab the hammer (very spry for an 80+ year old, why not let the police take it?), and Depape pulls the hammer away and hits Pelosi (even though the Police must be literally on top of them at this moment).

Does this course of action sound like something that happened in the real world?

I recommend watching some videos from this channel, which contain mostly body or dashcam videos of police officers interacting with criminals. You'll find that the criminals often behave completely bizarrely, making completely absurd decisions and incoherent actions, and cops just chilling, seconds before events turn violent.

For example, in this video, you get to observe an actual hammer attack. You see some people chatting with the driver, then they come up to the arriving officer, telling him that they guy is likely drunk. The cop engages the driver, cheerily asking him for papers, when the guy bizarrely, for no reason at all, pulls out a hammer and brings it to a gunfight.

I recommend watching more videos from this channel. Behaviors of the criminal underclass are often completely bizarre and strategically idiotic. You are assuming much more rationality than the drunks, crazies and morons actually can scrape together in the moment. The argument that "it doesn't make sense to do it" simply does not carry much weight.

The modal reaction I have to when I get a new case is "Why in the fuck did you do this? What the fuck were you thinking?" and I only represent the people that survive.

this is coming from a guy who broke into a home and wanted to tie up the occupant so he could take a nap

It honestly reads like fan fiction.

However, I have met enough absolutely bonkers folk in my life that it also isn't that far fetched of a possibility - but this updates my priors to believing he's a gay hooker / lover, not some wacko Trump supporter.

I'd like to point out what a civilized equilibrium we seem to be in, borne out by what I see seems to be a fairly common reaction to hearing some story of atrocity. You look at the news and you see some horrible massacre has been committed by a lunatic (with nobody you personally know remotely involved) and what do you hope? Not that one of Your Tribe slaughtered members of the Enemy Tribe, but the exact opposite.

From the brutal self-interested outlook, that would seem to be topsy-turvy, but so strong is the edifice of civilization we live in that the lives of our tribesmen - probably by the thousands - are less valuable than moral standing and a grievance to cash in, given that they're strangers. (Well, for most of us. If there's a place where I'd find people who'd unironically ask why Ross, the largest friend, does not simply eat the other five, it would be here.)

What this says to me is that, so long as we're playing this "please let the blood be on their hands" game, we're not nearly as close to civil war as some might fear. I'd worry more about that if I were hearing more of the opposite.

…we're playing this "please let the blood be on their hands" game, we're not nearly as close to civil war as some might fear. I'd worry more about that if I were hearing more of the opposite.

The ‘Radio War Nerd’ hosts have talked about this in relation to Charlottesville and street clashes in Portland. If you have a nation where firearms are prevalent and people are fighting with improvised melee weapons, what you are witnessing is political theater.

I’ll start taking Blue-Anon scaremongering over the rise of fascism in America seriously when we start seeing Weimar-era daily death counts from street violence.

In the Charlottesville case, an incel wasn’t bright enough to grok this and inspired a backlash by crossing the line to premeditated lethality.

In the latter, Proud Boy/Patriot Prayer type groups are bussing people in to Portland because that’s where they can get video squaring off with the Black Bloc folks, while the Black Bloc types hilariously claim their street violence deters the former from gathering in public.

It's also why the black bloc folks don't operate outside cities where the local government isn't already firmly on thier side.

I suspect that one of the reasons January 6th seemed to have progressives so shaken, was that they didn't think a protest could happen in territory that they controlled.

Well, for most of us. If there's a place where I'd find people who'd unironically ask why Ross, the largest friend, does not simply eat the other five, it would be here

The men having bonded through an ancient dance ritual removed the need for zero sum status games/rival elimination, obviously.

Paul Pelosi's attacker was a guy name David DePape, he appears to have a fairly checkered mental health history, if not homeless, appears to have lived on the edge of homelessness, appears to have social media history that doesn't have zero overlap various right wing issues (apparently concerning Covid), but appears to have a set a life circumstances far outside of the standard Trump supporter. (Is that fair summation of the facts? I hope so, if not, my apologies).

Shows how weird and varied people are, especially on the right, maybe even more so than the left. One thing I have observed about many of Trumps young online supporters and the alt-right in 2016-2018 is how few of them fit the traditional conservative mold. They were much more diverse in almost every respect outside of supporting trump. Gavin McInnes, Richard Spencer and Nick Fuentes, it's hard to come up with a more eclectic group of people than that. The idea that your typical anti-vax, conspiratorially-minded, or pro-Trump person is going to be some middle-aged guy with a pickup truck and listens to country music, is an way over-generalization. It may be who you would least expect.

The simplest and most accurate explanation is that "many of Trumps young online supporters and the alt-right in 2016-2018" weren't conservatives. Trump is first and foremost a populist who found the biggest issue that was unrepresented by the elites--systemic non-enforcement of immigration laws--and then broadened his base of support by promising to faithfully represent the interests of traditional conservatives as well (who also had reasons to dislike and distrust the R establishment).

In very general terms, most traditional conservatives are Republicans. The fit is far from perfect, and you can find exceptions near every boundary, but the overlap is substantial and central. You also have the loose group of "Republican-leaning independents" who 1) aren't Republicans, but 2) prefer Republicans to Democrats. Bits of this loose group can be found among centrists, libertarians, far-right fringes, etc.

There were people in 2016 whose top two choices were Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, in either order. From a left vs. right perspective, this makes no sense, but from a populist vs. establishment perspective, it captures rather neatly a broad, eclectic, extremely diverse "group" that felt unrepresented by the elites of both parties, and wanted a disruptive outsider who would shake things up. The populist sentiment won resoundingly in the Republican party primary--the top establishment candidate came in third--and lost in the Democratic party primary.

I'm not sure conflating 'the populist base' and 'the alt-right' makes sense though. The latter talk about jews and retvrning and hierarchy and anime on the internet, the former are - as far as i can tell - mostly normal american christian republicans who, if politically active, were conservative ten years ago.

Well said.

The biggest draw for Trump wasn’t that he was a successful businessman or a social conservative. It was that he actually bothered to promise anything to 40% of the population. The rest of his positions and popularity coalesced around that image.

...this has got me thinking about what’s it would have taken for Trump to run as a Democrat. “Make America Great Again” is an equal-opportunity slogan, and he’d have demolished any of his primary opponents in a general. I suppose all the actors which pushed against Bernie might have found better leverage against Trump, though.

I think Trump has some policy preferences of his own, and they are likely a mix of "more-right" and "more-left" opinions. My guess is that there's a bit of a bias to the right, but not to a great degree--in fact, in terms of personal policy preferences, I suspect that Trump averages out to a right-leaning centrist in an American context, even though that probably sounds crazy to most people.

Also, Trump was always going to present himself as populist/anti-establishment. From that angle, his first hurdle would have been the establishment candidate of the respective parties. As much as many people love to hate Hillary Clinton, she was wildly popular compared to Jeb Bush.

even though that probably sounds crazy to most people.

The crazy thing is that it's not crazy. As was pointed out a number of times during the 2016 election Trump was effectively a 90-era moderate in terms of policy. The fact that this was now seen as "beyond the pale" was held up as of evidence of just how out of touch the media had become from the regular population.

i can agree with the idea of trump being somewhat centrist in his own political leanings but only for social policies. His personal preferences for economic policy and especially taxation are way out of line with the leftist overton window. I can't imagine the guy standing for anything that would mess with his bottom line in any substantial way.

That said, i wouldn't mind if trump had run as a dem, he's good at riling people up and i think he is unprincipled (flexible? creative? choose how charitable this adjective should be) enough to say most stuff democrats would like to hear if that was the most realistic path to power for him. Like you say though, i think clinton vs trump in a dem primary is a way worse matchup than jeb, who trump basically ridiculed off stage.

I'm not saying anything more than we know about the facts of the case, but I continue to be flabbergasted by the way the "look at how weird this guy is, he could possibly not be a far-righter!" argument is used! It's perfectly plausible these days (typical? No, but plausible) that one might have a guy going from hippie new age Green Party type to far-right within a short period - I've witnessed numerous similar types doing the same thing because of Covid here in Finland, and there's an entire microparty - "Kristallipuolue", "Crystal Party" - which consists of alternative medicine / new age hippie types who went hardcore antivaxx and anti-measures during the pandemic, started picking up things like anti-immigration thought, and are now in an electoral alliance with a couple of far right parties.

The pipelines from new age to right-wing are often quite clear. Left-wing conspiracy theory gives way to right-wing conspiracy thinking (QAnon and so on). Localist preference to local products can be expanded to general anti-internationalist thinking (opposition to UN and EU, and so on). "Get your vaccines out of my body!" is expanded to more generic libertarianish thinking. "Male and female energies" earth-mother-type thinking can become advocation for traditional gender roles. And so on.

There are plenty of right-wingers who are generally able to conceptualize the fact that left-wingers can take sharp turns to the right, even suddenly, who have done the same themselves, but who then instantly start feigning ignorance of such potential mechanisms when it looks like one of those recent converts might have done something, you know, crazy. Something with bad optics. Then you can only be counted among the right wing if you've been a stable and solid normie law-abiding middle-class whitebread person for your entire life.

Woo always drifts right. And in the American context(not sure about Finland) there are reasons for that.

Would you mind elaborating on that thought? It’s not immediately obvious to me why that should be the case.

Not OP, but considering the educational polarization happening in America (where the less educated are more likely to be on the right), it seems reasonable to think that superstitious beliefs will cluster on the right.

This is of course not universally true. There are plenty of nonscientific beliefs cherished by the left. But in my anecdotal experience living in red states, you're going to see a lot more distrust of "mainstream" science and medicine on the right. These people love their CBD oils and naturopaths.

Lmao, I know half a dozen Reed graduates who run the local homeopathy ring. Education doesn't have much effect on believing silly things, only ensuring that people believe the correct high status silly things.

how concerned should we really be about schizos who latch on to politics versus the far more common variant which, say, pushes a commuter onto subway tracks, or stabs someone walking past a street homeless encampment?

More concerned. The schizo who tries to murder politicians could potentially be used as a weapon by malicious interests in a way the subway bum can't

if you really want a politician dead you hire a professional. 'stochastic terrorism' is at worst really rare, highly random, and surprisingly ineffective considering the people who 'answer the call' are generally loonies like this guy

Depends on whether you're a politician or not, I suppose.

I wouldn't place it completely outside the realm of possibility, after all he's not the first wealthy California democrat to have issues with gay prostitutes. But a lot of the evidence I see seems like wishcasting over the fog of war. People are suddenly experts about how glass breaks, or what irrational decisions crazy people do or do not make, or how people speak under duress.

To me the larger story is a wealthy democrat finally suffered the consequences of the policies they push on the rest of us. And it's been almost unanimously used to blood libel the opposing tribe.

A part of me also finds it incredibly rich that the leading "alt-right" characteristic this person has is that he believes is "covid conspiracies". Which conspiracy would that be? One of the ones that turned out to be true? Like the lab leak theory? Or that the vaccines aren't as effective as initially advertised? Or that the entire process which approved the vaccines and is now "recommending"/requiring shots for 6 month olds appears to be entirely captured by Pfizer's profit motive?

Being violently attacked should not be "the consequences" of making unpopular policy, or of being the family of someone who has made policies that some people do not like. If you're worried about being smeared as supporting this kind of violent attack, then don't talk as if the attack was justified.

When your policy is let your city become a lawless open drug market, and a lawless druggie somehow makes it into your gated community, its hard not to see some natural law at work.

The last I checked Nancy Pelosi wasn't involved in local politics.

The last I checked Nancy Pelosi wasn't involved in local politics.

How much did you check?

Endorsing a candidate on the other end of the state hardly counts as "involved in local politics" to the extent that she'd somehow be responsible for local government in San Francisco. It's not like she's on city council or anything.

I gotta say the lab leak revisionism kills me. I remember arguing for it during the high points of covid with friends, and even though I was vaccinated masked etc, arguing for the lab leak was enough for some people to call me a 'covid denier.' Now when I bring up the studies to those same people, they just shrug and go 'what does it matter, covid is over now.'

Good lord, I am reasonably more accepting of the covid response than the median on this site, but the reaction to the lab leak really just baffles me. I can't believe more people don't see it as by far the biggest controversy in the last decade - China very plausibly released a virus, intentionally or unintentionally, that devastated most of the world economically if not biologically. And yet people just don't think it's a big deal or doesn't matter one way or another. Unreal.

China very plausibly released a virus, intentionally or unintentionally, that devastated most of the world economically if not biologically.

1950's America would haven rightly not stood so silently for this kind of shit - we would have gotten out (several) pounds of flesh; and it would have been worth it.

The pussification of our world can be seen in every single corner of our country. Kids barely even say Trick r Treat anymore, they just kind of vaguely stand there expecting candy that is worse by every qualifying measure compared to 20 years ago.

In a meta sense this is for the best; killing several million more people may not be the best thing to do. Buuuuuut, is it really better that a billion of us live in a complete untruth?

as /u/NewCharlesInCharge states ' A lab in China, most likely with funding from the United States. The geopolitics on lab leak are a wash. ' The issue is we aren't hanging our own at a near fast enough rate, or at all.

I’m generally pretty anti violence, but this is one area I’d like to see heads roll. The deaths and destruction from their negligence far outweigh the deaths even if we kill every virologist on the planet. Not that I’d recommend that, just putting it in perspective. Again I can’t understand how more people aren’t outraged.

I’m generally pretty anti violence, but this is one area I’d like to see heads roll. The deaths and destruction from their negligence far outweigh the deaths even if we kill every virologist on the planet. Not that I’d recommend that, just putting it in perspective. Again I can’t understand how more people aren’t outraged.

Yes, this is the most blackpilling thing about the whole COVID episode.

Scientists are playing russian roulette with the whole world, so they can publish some journal articles no one will ever read to burnish their metrics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientometrics

And the world is just fine with it.

Including powerful and influential people who can nevertheless die with the billions of ordinary peons when some bigger oops happens in the future.

Trump mentioned lab leak which made it red tribe coded. Any admittance of lab leak by the left at the time would be admitting Trump was right.

Ecohealth was led by Americans and asked the US to fund the whole 'inserting furin cleavage sites in coronaviruses' program, though there were a bunch of Chinese scientists also working there and the Chinese probably ended up funding this circus since the US declined.

This was a crisis of the international medical researcher class. But it absolutely is a gigantic crisis that should see executions. War crimes and such were retroactively invented and applied at Nuremberg. 'Negligence leading to megadeaths' can also be retroactively applied.

Okay yeah the fact that the US is implicated explains a lot. Still, viral researchers need to learn I agree. I’d rather we get rid of them all than keep risking more pandemics that could’ve easily been avoided.

Okay yeah the fact that the US is implicated explains a lot.

Yeah, it explains why China wants to push the lab theory as opposed to the market theory which implies China is unwilling or unable to enforce its own laws that they knew existed to prevent pandemics.

A lab in China, most likely with funding from the United States.

The geopolitics on lab leak are a wash.

Yeah that makes more sense. Alas.

It's important to forgive the people who made wrong calls regarding the pandemic, so says an essay in The Atlantic at least which has published some less forgiving essays in previous times.

Funny how the right is now in the position the left was wrt color blind meritocratic liberal centrism. "Oh, NOW you want to wipe the slate clean, after everything was in white people's/covidians' favor that whole time?"

I don't think holding politicians accountable for something they did last year is comparable to punishing an entire race for something that happened 150 years ago.

Well they want to hold the Atlantic writer accountable, not a politician. And even if she is on record having been on the wrong side before, people like her must never be allowed to forget. There is no moving on.

Never. Forget.

Honestly, I think motivated cognition is at fault. The scale and scope of what would be required to even the scales is so massive, so disruptive, so far out of the ordinary run of "things that happen or seem feasible" that the only reasonable response is shrugging one's shoulders and declining to sink hope, emotional investment, and/or actual effort in something impossible.

I’m back to the usual refrain of every year since about 2015:

“How is this becoming partisan?”

Someone breaks in and makes a probably-political, certifiably-insane attack on a public figure. This is obviously bad. Stochastic terrorism is bad. Defending the actions is (or should be?) basically off the table.

That leaves deflection. First responses in last week’s thread: “gosh those wacky Green Party members” followed by a squabble over whether or not DePape’s emphatic support for QAnon and Trump meant he counted as Republican. Now: one of the most powerful men in America memeing about how the attacker might have been a gay escort, and thus...it’s a Democrat own-goal? What?

I’m reminded of any number of events in summer 2020 in which people tried to rationalize rioting. “Yeah, I get that XYZ was unjust, but I’d like to step back to the part where y’all decided to start burning stuff.” When the bad thing is indefensible, we are more likely to see deflection.

Presumably the motivation is getting out ahead of the Other Team abusing their actual, legitimate criticism. Even if Democrats somehow resisted the lure of equating DePape with mainstream Republicans—which he clearly was not—, there’s still hay to be made of the extremists. It’s the traditional setup for a little “something has to be done.” But is throwing out bullshit theories really the best way to counter it?

I suspect that the answer is no, and that the mainstream GOP response is a more measured rejection. I don’t have evidence for this at the moment; if anyone has examples of GOP officials making public statements on the matter, I’d like to see them. But my theory is that when the official policy is silence, in the era of social media, that’s effectively handing a megaphone to the fringe.

But my theory is that when the official policy is silence, in the era of social media, that’s effectively handing a megaphone to the fringe.

Yes, "silence is violence" has been the Progressive party line for a long time.

The trick is that, frequently, the yeschad.jpg response is the correct one; violence upon people who falsely accuse others of crimes for political gain rather than following the established law and procedure for that (on both sides) is generally called "justice".

Stochastic terrorism is bad.

I believe I can safely say this about the past: I, and a few other dorks I know, would have cheered the death of any mayor that closed their town down and was seen eating lobster in a near by town.

So, maybe?

Defending the actions is (or should be?) basically off the table.

You may not like being compared to Stalin. You may not think you and Stalin have much in common politically. You might abhor Stalin and his politics. And yet, so long as comparing you to Stalin is an effective tactic, you have no choice but to defend yourself against it. So long as this action can be credibly linked to conservatives, they have no choice but to claim that beating up politician husbands is the gasp of the oppressed and the voice of the downtrodden.

Aye, that's what I was trying to include as getting out ahead. I'd rather Democrats not try to conflate this dude with the mainstream right, such that Republicans didn't reach for dumb justifications...but I'm not holding my breath for everyone to be reasonable. Given that Democrats are going to push hard on this, sitting around and doing nothing is no good. Saying "whoops, my bad" is worse, especially if you didn't do it.

But are outlandish accusations any more effective? Maybe I'm typical-minding, but my reflex to gay-escort or pizza-parlor conspiracies is "are you serious?" It loses credibility compared to quiet disapproval and disavowal.

I present, as evidence, the measured response from party officials. (This could also be down to branding, as no one would be impressed by Mitch McConnell trying to play firebrand.) I think that career politicians are content to quietly let the accusations smolder out, but outsiders and/or randos on Twitter have to use a different calculus. What's best for engagement isn't necessarily best in a general sense.

A shady member of a mildly-corrupt political dynasty based in San Francisco cavorting with an obviously off his rocker gay prostitute isn't totally implausible, especially given the dude was arrested in his underwear. And especially given that the political dynasty in question is extremely unpopular.

The hell?

No, bringing mentally ill hookers to your house is not normal. Neither for random citizens nor for politicians, unpopular or otherwise. Not even in California, har har.

It is not maximally implausible, just incredibly so. Literally incredibly: I wouldn't expect it, and believing it without a stitch of evidence is...unwise. I shouldn't have to point out that we have DePape, in his own words, talking about "punishment" for Nancy Pelosi, and how he was "fighting against tyranny." It's batshit crazy--but it is strictly less batshit crazy than saying all this, but lied to the police to cover for the man he just hospitalized with a hammer.

“How is this becoming partisan?”

Because we live in the era of hate hoaxes, lies, etc.

Jussie Smollett happened, basically every instance of feces-swasticas or n-words on college campuses, if solved, ends up being done by a black or jew. Kavanaugh.

Everyone notices these patterns. Being a victim is one of the greatest currencies in the modern media. If sympathy and prestige is granted for being hit with a hammer, the incentive to get hit is obvious. If we just called everyone who got assaulted by homeless schitzos losers, which is more accurate historically than what we do now, the incentive for hoaxes would go away, and people would stop suspecting hoaxes.

if anyone has examples of GOP officials making public statements on the matter, I’d like to see them.

Senate Republicans have made the usual statements, e.g.

https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/1586081299076419586

https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/10/sasse-statement-on-pelosi-attack

https://twitter.com/LeaderMcConnell/status/1586017719912210440

On the other hand, as far as I can tell there have been no comments from Trump or prominent House Republicans like McCarthy or Jordan. And conservative media has been markedly less measured, where aside from the rumormongering there's the position that this is really the fault of Democrats for failing to control crime (see also: MTG in the House).

Trump seems to have condemned the attack, but he couldn't avoid putting some spin on it.

Per The Hill:

Former President Trump in an interview Sunday called the attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) husband in their San Francisco home a “terrible thing” as he railed against crime in Democrat-led cities. “With Paul Pelosi, that’s a terrible thing, with all of them it’s a terrible thing,” Trump said in an interview with Americano Media, a conservative Spanish language outlet. “Look at what’s happened to San Francisco generally. Look at what’s happening in Chicago. It was far worse than Afghanistan.”

It was far worse than Afghanistan

Per usual, Trump is god-damn right (insert Breaking Bad gif) ... death and decline in America is much worse than any other part of the world, but most especially the past of the world that for 2,000 years is unchanged - with all the negatives that entails. Sure, the almost 2,000 US deaths there is a shame, but the 175,000(ish) death of the Afghani are, I don't know, worth less than the weekend murders in Chicago. It's obviously a shame, it makes me hate America so much, I wish those Afghan's could be fat pieces of shit like me drinking IPA's on Halloween night while watching MNF and possibly ordering Mexican food (imagine an Afghani burrito? Bet that shit would be tight), but they're not. They're some kind of other that isn't me and it's a travesty. But fuck if we can't even make our own better, TF are we gonna do with the average Afghani? Let them live their lives? Ok - but that life is objectively terrible.

I'm pretty sure that your post is sarcastic, but I must note how easy it is to imagine an afghani burrito. I've more or less assembled such before, and it was great since chickpeas are way better than beans in my book.

I'm honestly not sure it's all that sarcastic. One thing I read into that was "Afghanistan and other parts of the world were never all that great, but we've had further to fall and we're getting there fast."

Thanks. This sort of quiet condemnation is pretty close to what I was expecting: polite solidarity. It’s decidedly not a mea culpa, which would be foolish, and it’s also not full-throated spin.

I’m not sure if the media response supports my theory. On one hand, it’s good sensationalism, especially reporting on meta-drama like Musk tweets. On the other, I expected more lockstep with the party.

When the bad thing is indefensible, we are more likely to see deflection.

But rioting isn't indefensible. Even the looting part. All one has to do is claim that the person whose store is getting looted owes his property to some widely denounced social force. Since one shouldn't be allowed gain from "crime" his title anulled to it, and anyone is free to take it. If the looters have excuse that they are victims of the very same force, well that just makes their looting a form of restitution.

One can quibble about the details, but looting as reparations is on solid logical grounds, assuming common legal principles and the progressive ideas regarding "white supremacy".

But defense of looting was multi-faceted: aforementioned "it happened, it was us, it was justified", the "it didn't happen" the "it happened, but it wasn't us".

There was some dissent, which admitted fault, but it was more about violent protests being ineffective/harmful for achieving their goals, than harms of violence itself. (This qualified denunciation of violence got the person who suggested twitter bachlash, but I forgot who it was.)

looting as reparations is on solid logical grounds

Yes, but there's established procedure to do that.

The fact that a partisan can't convince most of the country's power brokers to impose them is not an excuse to go levy that tax anyway; the concept that at the end of the day, that partisan is not allowed to deny you the ability to defend yourself against them if they try to do it anyway... is what the term "bearing arms" means.

No, it’s still not logical, and I don’t think that argument made much headway in the mainstream. I’m sure some people said it on Twitter; some of them were probably even serious. But the two options you linked were much more common.

For most people in the US, widespread violence is something that happens to other people. Defending on the facts is something reserved for people with skin in the game. Deflecting or denying is more likely for a bystander.

There was some dissent, which admitted fault, but it was more about violent protests being ineffective/harmful for achieving their goals, than harms of violence itself. (This qualified denounciation of violence got the person who suggested twitter bachlash, but I forgot who it was.)

You're thinking of David Shor.

what would keep if from coming to light?

Leftist media outlets will probably never mention this story again, regardless of what information becomes available.

While I agree that there is some strangeness about the entire story, I think the “gay escort” theory is highly unlikely, for the very simple reason: people like Pelosis can afford and procure services of higher quality providers than crazy hobos.

people like Pelosis can afford and procure services of higher quality providers than crazy hobos.

Come on man, if I win the lottery, I'm still gonna love 100$ footjobs.

Nt

I've heard this said a lot and it doesn't make sense to me. I'm not at Pelosi's level, but I'm rich. I have no idea how to hire an escort. People think that when your net worth crosses some line, they send you a packet with ways to hire an escort, hire a hitman, not pay taxes, etc... The level of fantasy about wealth than exists in the minds of non-wealthy people is often absurd.

Perhaps the idea is that, as you approach the kind of wealth that allows you to sip ridiculously-expensive champagne in some restaurant, you'll gain the connections and networking that allow you to get a seat at said restaurant. Find-and-replace for any other rich-people thing.

The idea is wrong, then. More often it's the other way around; the social ability to get you those connections and a seat at that restaurant also get you the wealth/

You might not know to pay less taxes now, but if you actually cared to learn, you’d start out with some obvious steps, like, for example, asking people who you think might have better idea than you do. Rich people typically are good at figuring out how to get things done, as this is typically how they got rich in the first place. Your last line about “the level of fantasy” is bad, and you should be able to do better than that.

I feel like there's a level of rich where you have a home office and someone who manages your staff, who probably has a career history of managing rich guys' household staff, and presumably they can field requests like that and discreetly figure out how to execute them. No? This probably isn't like $10M rich, though, it's probably like $150M+. Not that every rich person lives that way, but makes sense to hire people to handle all of the effort in managing your houses, your social schedule, your philanthropies, etc., and I assume that people who do that for a living end up either fielding weird requests like this themselves from time to time or at least developing a network that would help them figure it out.

I heavily agree with this. It’s not as easy as people think. There’s also a serious vetting issue if you don’t have experience. Even a place like has Eros has as many scammers as real. It’s a lot of work to find escorts even if your willing to pay up. And men want variety so their likely to play a lot of hands which increases risks.

Even if I were to assume that Paul Pelosi likes having illicit affairs with seedy male prostitutes, I find it hard to believe he'd be stupid enough to use his real name or let the guy know where he lives.

not pay taxes

This is code for reducing tax burden through generally legal means that some people may believe to be unfair, against the spirit of tax regimes. Everything from an H&R block tax preparer finding one weird trick deductions for you to a personal wealth manager doing all kinds of interesting work falls under this category. Quality of the services provided and what options are available scale relative to wealth. As does the general feeling of unfairness. Sticking with retail banking/investment/tax preparation with something on the order of 10m USD in assets may be a suboptimal life choice.

I have no idea how to hire an escort.

I mean, if you were so inclined, it wouldn't be hard to find out. You can literally Google it

I can't help you with the other two, but Aella's happy to explain how escorting works.

Man, that was a wild ride. I don't think I will ever be able to use the knowledge, but I now know a ton about the business side of prostitution that I never really even considered.

There are definitely gay guys who are more into crazy hobos than handsome escorts.

Counter point: rest stops.

People like Pelosis can afford and procure services of higher quality providers than crazy hobos.

So can Hugh Grant and Eddie Murphy, and yet they were famously caught with Hollywood Boulevard hookers. There is a precedent for "slumming" for sex among the rich and famous. Probably moreso for San Francisco gays as the Castro District culture and history there is rich. I wouldn't be surprised if it was somewhat similar to how upper-or-middle-class Black celebrities will affect street dialect: faking authenticity is big in some subcultures.

The basis of the escort theory is, essentially: How did he get into the house? How does a house owned by one of the richest couples in America in one the most crime-ridden cities in America, not have a security system that can defend against a lone crazy person making a semi-spontaneous attack? And how is a lone crazy person disordered enough to think this crime is a worthwhile endeavor and yet ordered enough to find his way through the Pelosis' security apparatus?

This "fetish for hobos" theory does not sound entirely absurd and incoherent, especially considering the examples you give, but...

The basis of the escort theory is, essentially: How did he get into the house? How does a house owned by one of the richest couples in America in one the most crime-ridden cities in America, not have a security system that can defend against a lone crazy person making a semi-spontaneous attack?

I mean, does "Paul Pelosi has a fetish for gay hobos" is really the first thing that comes to your mind given this evidence? Is this really simplest theory filling available facts?

Look, I'll propose something much simpler: DePape ringed the bell, someone (maybe even mister Pelosi) answered the door, and DePape said something that was misinterpreted, resulting in the person letting him in, thinking that he was expected. It could have even been something as simple as him saying "hey, I have something for Nancy". Does that really sound less plausible than "Paul Pelosi has a secret fetish for gay hobos"? Or, check this out: DePape rings the bell, Pelosi answers the door, and DePape just shoves the octogenarian and barges in? I'm not saying that either of those is what actually happened, but that these are simply way more a priori plausible than the "fetish for gay hobos" theory, they depend on fewer assumptions and inferential steps.

Look, I'll propose something much simpler: DePape ringed the bell, someone (maybe even mister Pelosi) answered the door, and DePape said something that was misinterpreted, resulting in the person letting him in, thinking that he was expected.

Sure, but if it happened in the way you speculate, it's what would be reported. However, I doubt anyone can simply walk up and ring the Pelolsi's doorbell (in the middle of the night). Unless the Pelosi's themselves don't take seriously all of her public hand-wringing about right-wing violence, they surely have active measures in place to protect themselves from it, right?

Maybe a long-standing relationship? IDK.

Maybe he's a pathological penny pincher like Robert Kraft.

Does it ultimately matter what ideology this particular crazy was latching onto? Does it matter if he demographically matches what you'd expect? That sort of crazy drinks whatever extremism is in the water.

I don't expect any real consequences. This story is another of the many hundreds of stories that garner 30,000+ upvotes on /r/politics and similar venues where blue tribers tell themselves they're right about the populist right being evil, while conspicuously ignoring similar stories that suggest the opposite.

A huge part of the leftist advantage in the culture war is their control of bully pulpit to choose which stories the public focuses on. How many people who aren't conservative know that the Wakeusha murderer was a BLM anti-cop radical who called for violence against whites? If they know, how many times have they been reminded of it?

So yeah, that thing where the left gets an unfair boost in political capital is happening yet another time.

EDIT: I didn't actually address the theory itself.... rant over. I see people bringing up his sexuality (among other things) as evidence against him being a MAGA type, which I find unconvincing. (One of the most famous 'white supremacists' is Nick Fuentes, a hispanic.) He doesn't seem like someone who be connected enough or hot enough to smash with someone as rich and prominent as a Pelosi. Feels like a stretch, but stranger things have happened.

One of the most famous 'white supremacists' is Nick Fuentes, a hispanic.

You mentioned that, and not the femboy thing?

There's some circumstantial stuff that suggests this isn't a standard B&E like glass being outside the french door in some photographs and why Paul was given permission to go to the bathroom where he called 911.

I don't think the glass means much. It appears the window is a "shatterproof" type (with a film intended for protection against flying objects, not B&E), so the guy probably broke it then pulled it outwards when the hole wasn't big enough.

If it turns out that DePape was a gay escort hired by Paul Pelosi, that fact is going to be buried deeper than Vince Foster glued to Hunter Biden's laptop. But it seems to be entirely made up anyway.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats