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 -
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?
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.”
This part is cracking me up, like he's complaining about how inconveniently located the Pelosis' house is for violent nutjobs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link