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 -
It's possible the only reason this happened is because some high-billing lawyers managed to wrestle enough client control to force everyone to face the music. That said, everyone's statement comes across as perfectly reasonable, so it would be surprising if they believed none of what they said.
Epstein's scheme of doling out unprotected sex with barely legal teenagers on his private island was calculated to ensnare rich and powerful people, so it doesn't seem surprising if Dershowitz fell into that. I also think that Epstein's harem of girls would at least appear to be consenting.
For Giuffre, it depends. In rape cases, the identity of the perpetrator is rarely ever in question in my experience. Either the guy is a stranger and is nabbed because of forensic evidence, or the two knew each other, definitely had sex, but one disputes whether it was consensual. Memory is fallible, and I can't imagine what kind of hell these girls were subjected to to keep them compliant in Epstein's harem. This happened so long ago that it was inevitable for the accusation to carry some doubt, and it would not have been honest for Giuffre to ever claim otherwise. Just the same if she said it was definitely not Dershowitz. The only honest answer here is maybe.
Ah, I never followed this saga closely so missed out on the detail that it was a deliberate honeytrap. I thought it's just a service Epstein provided to gain favors and network, like how McKinsey's Rajat Gupta passed around insider trading tips for social creds rather than out of financial gain. Suppose that's not surprising because people tend not to build tremendous wealth (referring to Epstein) without being schemers who are willing to think far outside of the box.
Under that framework, perhaps I got it upside down on thinking a Harvard Law Professor would know better--they're presumably so risk-averse throughout their lives that they wouldn't even think of a host trying to blackmail them with an underaged sex slave, typical mind fallacy and all.
Wonder what the proper playbook is for a billionaire. Step one, get an amicable divorce? Step two, start funding and frequenting high-status places like art galleries and nonprofits where young attractive women gravitate to? Step three, take them out on above-board dates and hope some will sleep with you voluntarily, and make sure to go to a bar where her ID will be checked by the bartender?
If I were hired as a consultant to strategize this, I'd probably also suggest multiple billionaires group together and roam each other's nonprofits and art galleries so it's harder to accuse them of abusing direct-report relationships. Nothing wrong with dating someone who works for your friend, right?
When I said "calculated to ensnare", I meant it more as "marketed towards". I think that Epstein was using his harem to gain favors and network, I'm not sure if it was indeed a deliberate honeytrap although that's plausible given the age of the people involved.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link