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 -
I proudly claim to be a conspiracy theorist on this site and have done so for years but I don't really see any "small conspiracies" like the kind you're suggesting. For the record, I started believing in conspiracy theories as a child in the leadup to the Iraq war - I thought that Iraq didn't actually have any weapons of mass destruction, and that those reports were lies to allow the rich Americans in charge of the MIC to steal the oil from another Middle Eastern country. I believed that the government was monitoring all domestic communications - and then Mark Klein reported on it, which was also considered a conspiracy theory until Edward Snowden just released the details. I thought the lab-leak explanation for COVID was more likely despite being told it was a baseless conspiracy theory, and now it seems to be generally accepted knowledge that it was actually a lab leak. I went into the weeds on the Russiagate story (and I have a lot of posts on that particular conspiracy theory on here) and took the conspiracy theory angle again... and it was totally, completely correct. I'm on record stating on the old site that Joe Biden was mentally checked out and could only temporarily be made to perform for special events years before the news about his actual mental state broke.
It just seems nakedly obvious to me that conspiracy theories are a more accurate and truthful depiction of reality than mainstream media reporting and societal consensus. This doesn't really bleed out into my daily life in any noxious or odious way, either - the one time I thought that somebody was conspiring against me, I had another person they tried to conspire with directly tell me that they were doing so. If anything, I think having an accurate understanding of how people work and act, built up over experience interacting with them in the real world, directly leads to conspiracy theories because conspiracies are real and a natural outcome of human psychology. People start seeing conspiracies not because they're just having their brains get filled up with microplastics, but because we live in a world where conspiracies very obviously happen and have a lot of influence on the world.
...but that's like... not at all what the documents Edward Snowden released said?
Are you sure? What, exactly, was XKEYSCORE searching? What was PRISM collecting? Why did James Clapper lie to congress, and what was that lie about? As a bonus question, please also explain what LOVEINT is and how it could possibly become a problem in a system that rigorously enforced warrant requirements for accessing surveillance data.
I did most of this long long long ago at the old old old place and in other posts. But I'll reiterate some specifics:
Databases with information in them. This is like asking, "What are forks for?" and expecting that people are going to infer that caniballism is going on. It makes you sound really bizarre.
Data from specific selection terms for foreign intelligence targets. We had a very nice PCLOB report and everything on this. It detailed how it worked. Please educate yourself.
Because the question required a classified answer, but he was in a public forum, so he provided the correct, classified answer to them via a secure channel afterward.
That's two questions, but you're not really about accuracy, are you? Perhaps I'll leave this to you, because the first is so obvious that even AI slop would suffice (and you know it), while the latter is just you wanting to advertise some personal policy preference rather than having anything to do with the facts at hand. So, by all means, advocate away. Just don't think that anything you've said here changes what facts are actually in evidence.
Nice social shaming attempt, but in this case it is closer to asking "Why do you have those forks marked 'for long pig only'". But furthermore, if this was an exam, this answer would get zero points, akin to responding with "words" when asked what a certain book has written in it. Where did that information came from? What is that information? Does it contain domestic communications?
This also gets a loud incorrect buzzer - hell, even wikipedia explains this shit more clearly than your evasive non-answer. But thankfully, due to good people like Ed Snowden, we can just go read the internal documents about it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data Maybe you just weren't educated about what the program actually does, but a part of the correct answer would be "Email, Video/voice chat, Photos, stored data, VOIP, file transfers, video conferencing, activity notifications, social networking details and special requests".
I'm sure that your alternative approach of asking someone accused of bad behavior if they did it and then just believing them in the face of contradictory evidence might be useful somewhere else though!
Behold, I am about to violate classification regulations and post classified content that cannot be posted in a public forum - you may wish to avert your eyes if you're a federal employee who isn't qualified to read this private, sensitive information:
"Yes."
That's all he would have had to say to avoid lying. He didn't provide a correct, classified answer to them in a secure channel afterward, and we know this because we can just ask Ron Wyden about it.
"After the NSA Director declined to correct these statements, I put the question to the Director of National Intelligence in March 2013. I wouldn’t have been doing my job if I hadn’t asked that question. My staff and I spent weeks preparing it, and I had my staff send him the question in advance so that he would be prepared to answer it.
Director Clapper famously gave an untrue answer to that question. So I had my intelligence staffer call his office afterward and ask them to correct the record. The Director’s office refused to correct the record. Regardless of what was going through the director’s head when he testified, failing to correct the record was a deliberate decision to lie to the American people about what their government was doing. And within a few months, of course, the truth came out."
Ok, sure - I'll answer! LOVEINT refers to NSA analysts using their domestic surveillance capability to spy on and monitor the communications of their loved ones and partners. Maybe 100% of all NSA employees are actually dating foreign nationals and legitimate surveillance targets, but I doubt it. The reason I bring up LOVEINT is that by virtue of the problem existing at all it shows that the warrant requirements aren't being applied and domestic communications are being collected - if the surveillance panopticon was functioning with the restrictions and rules that you are implying, it could never actually be a problem. But it is a problem, and the fact that it is means that the system is capable of abuse and is actively being abused.
Of course while LOVEINT is bad, the corrupt surveillance of the Trump campaign, including when he was President Elect, was far more serious - and incredibly convincing evidence that these systems need to be destroyed and everyone involved fired from the government and criminally prosecuted. Mind you, I'm not saying that SIGINT doesn't deserve to exist - but if your local police force has been completely infiltrated by the mafia and is helping criminals rather than stopping them, "Well we can't do anything about it because we need police" is not a convincing argument.
Which forks are those? You have a citation for those markings, right?
...for who? That answer will be precisely what I said. You get an even louder incorrect buzzer. Please educate yourself.
This is a lie. Note that when you quote the phrase
he means, "Correct the public record". Which means putting classified information in the public record. Which is illegal.
There are strategies put in place to discover these things. When discovered, those people get fired and prosecuted. Can you design a system that "functions with the restrictions and rules"... with absolutely zero possible failures? If you can, you can make a bundle of money, because everyone wants this. Just give it to us. We'll pay you an insane amount of money.
Then just tell us how to do it better! Make tons of money by telling us how to magically design these systems!
Perhaps. I've seen some serious suggestions for how to improve the systems that are in place. Do you have any? Or are you just bitching and lying about the facts that are in evidence?
The data included domestic communications from American citizens, and it comes from the companies listed in the slide. You're the one trying to claim that this data doesn't include domestic communications, and the reason you have so much trouble answering this question in an earnest way is that the answer destroys your position.
I'm going to trust Ron Wyden over an anonymous person on the internet when it comes to matters directly involving whether something was said to Ron Wyden or not. Do you have any evidence behind this claim?
Even if these strategies had a 100% success rate (which I highly doubt)... them getting caught and reprimanded does nothing to address the point that the fact they could actually do this is the problem! It's incredibly easy to design a system that doesn't fail in this way - you need to go to a court and apply for a search or wiretap warrant, then you can start collecting information on a target. If you actually enforce these requirements LOVEINT cannot happen outside cases where somebody is actively dating a legitimate surveillance target (in which case they should be forced to recuse themselves). Hell, some incredibly smart Americans actually came up with those requirements and put them into law hundreds of years ago.
No, the US government doesn't want this - nor would they pay me money for pointing out that they need to completely clean house in the intelligence community. A system which actually prevented abuse would prevent abuse, and it is abundantly clear that abuse was precisely what a lot of people in the US government wanted. There already WAS a system which functioned the way you're asking - the existing court system, where real judges in adversarial courts had to sign off on a warrant, not some rubber stamper that lets someone use opposition research they know is false to spy on presidential candidates. But that said, I'm not obligated to design a complete replacement for the government because I think that inescapable, warrantless surveillance is bad.
Yep. It's like if the gov't got a wiretap on Tony Soprano, and he called one of his kids' schoolteachers. One could say, "They're collecting the communications of schoolteachers!" But really, everyone knows that's bullshit. It's true, but it's bullshit. They're collecting Tony Soprano's communications.
Super ROFL to this. As shown above, I have literally no trouble answering this question. If Mike Flynn calls the Russian ambassador, yes, they collect Mike Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador.... because they collect all of the Russian ambassador's calls. Because he's a legit foreign intelligence target.
So you trust him when he says that he asked Clapper to correct the public record and that he did not, in fact, put classified information in the public record, right?
They do this for any targets that are in the US or are otherwise US Persons. The question is about foreign targets who are in foreign countries, but happen to have comms that transit the wires of US companies. People who have never had Fourth Amendment protections. Putin Lackey #6528, lives in Russia, but emails some people in Syria who have GMails. Maybe he even emails some US citizen schoolteachers. The question has always been, "What is the right process to collect on this guy?" Notice that we're worlds apart from some ridiculous claim that they're just monitoring all domestic comms. You've already admitted that the thing I said was false is actually false. We're literally just talking process now.
They got a warrant for that. From a judge. So, it seems like your solution would not prevent this problem. I have heard discussions of solutions that would prevent this problem, but your solution is not one of them. You are just not a serious person on this topic.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would only count that as half correct. Iraq didn't have (significant) weapons of mass destruction, but Americans, including the Democrats, genuinely believed that they did; it wasn't an excuse.
I'd also ask if you only believed in conspiracies that turned out to be correct. It's easy to cherry-pick the correct ones.
And there's the question of what counts as a conspiracy theory. "Yeah I believe in a 9/11 conspiracy theory. A bunch of Middle Eastern terrorists conspired to attack...." If you go by loose enough standards, everyone believes in conspiracy theories and plenty of conspiracy theories are correct. If "conspiracy theory" is to be meaningful, it has to mean more than "there were people in a conspiracy", and I wouldn't count any of those you got correct as conspiracy theories. I think 100proof above has a good start with pointing out that conspiracies are about how you can blame contradictory evidence on the conspiracy.
I don't believe for a single second that Dick Cheney earnestly and genuinely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe Colin Powell didn't know he was lying, but the intelligence agents who cooked up the fake evidence he used most definitely did. Maybe I just find it hard to accept that they genuinely believed that given that I saw through the scheme as a small child, but c'est la vie. I agree that the motivation of stealing oil/profiteering doesn't explain everything, but I'd give the credit to PNAC, A Clean Break or Oded Yinon for the rest.
If I go back and look at my conspiratorial beliefs that I don't think panned out... the biggest and most obvious one is that I thought the COVID vaccine would be significantly more harmful than it actually turned out to be. I thought that the BRICS would develop an alternative to SWIFT and the US financial system substantially faster than they actually did. I thought there was insider trading/advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, but I'm not sure that's been proven wrong yet (or what the non-conspiracy explanation for the dancing israelis is). I've been wrong about plenty of other things (like what the left wing government in Australia would actually do...), and I've made several claims on here that could pan out to be false in the end (like on nuclear power) but in my experience beliefs that get attacked as conspiracy theories tend to be more accurate than ones that don't.
I only listed beliefs that I was called a conspiracy theorist for advocating and stating at the time - hell, I can look up one of the listed beliefs on wikipedia right now and it is directly labelled a "right wing conspiracy theory" (specifically the Russiagate disambiguation page). It might be different now, but the exact same arguments were in fact deployed against those beliefs you said aren't conspiracy theories at the time. While the poll itself is seemingly gone now, have a look at this MotherJones article from 2013 - https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/bush-lying-about-wmds-conspiracy-theory/ Belief that the WMD lie was in fact a lie was considered a conspiracy theory by the mainstream even after the point at which we had evidence demonstrating that was the case!
My apologies if it feels like I'm attacking you for this, because you're not the same people who made those attacks in the past, but this is actually one of the reasons why I don't particularly like the term "conspiracy theory" when used as a pejorative - the category is very slippery and hard to really pin down. Your definition, while it might be more accurate, very clearly isn't the one being used by the rest of society, and I don't think there's any real reason to actually preserve or try to save it. What value do you get out of being able to label something a conspiracy theory? What is the term actually communicating beyond "I think this theory is dumb and wrong, and the person who believes it does so due to faulty reasoning"?
Wikipedia is biased to the left. I wouldn't go to Wikipedia for information about whether it's correct to call something a conspiracy theory.
There are a lot of things that have a real definition, but are also abused to attack political opponents. "Conspiracy theory" is one just like "Nazi". Would you suggest that because Trump and the president of Ukraine are called Nazis, but I would not call them that, "Nazi" is a useless term?
It communicates that it is a particular type of faulty reasoning.
I can find multiple reputable, mainstream outlets referring to it as a conspiracy theory. It is still considered a conspiracy theory by vast swathes of the population, and many of those other claims were considered conspiracy theories by both the right and the left wing of politics. The NSA surveillance, for instance, was derided as a conspiracy theory by both sides of politics, as was the claim that Iraq didn't have WMDs (Tony Blair was ostensibly on the left). The rubric I actually use is "was I consistently called a conspiracy theorist for advocating this belief, and were others who espoused it similarly accused" and wikipedia was simply an additional piece of evidence (hard to provide evidence of quotes from in-person discussions two decades ago).
I unironically do believe that nazi, like fascism, is largely a useless term in the modern day. It had a meaning, once, but now it is effectively just a snarl word and it isn't really possible to draw a consistent or useful meaning out of the word without context. In the last week alone I've seen Israelis get called Nazis who then turn around and call their opponents nazis for opposing them - the term no longer even necessarily implies antisemitism. You can still use the word in arguments, but if you do I feel like you should be obligated to let the reader know what you actually mean by it.
Ok, what type? Can you actually provide a consistent definition that covers all the conspiracy theories I laid out in my first post?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd be interested to read them, would you mind sharing the links?
I actually went back and looked through my posts on here and on the old reddit site, and unfortunately a lot of the decent posts I was arguing against have since been deleted, making the conversations really annoying to read. I'd say that the most substantive post I made on the topic is the long one in this thread here https://www.themotte.org/post/842/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/184278?context=8#context
Ah. Yesterday when you said that you were correct in your assessment that Russiagate was a conspiracy, I took that to mean "Trump really did conspire with the Russians to pervert the course of the 2016 election". I see now that you meant the opposite - that Russiagate was a conspiracy on the part of the Clinton campaign to discredit Trump, which is my stance on it as well. Carry on!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link