site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31649 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sam Brinton Warrant Issued—Biden Official Accused of Stealing Luggage Again

A felony arrest warrant has been issued for Brinton, who is non-binary, after accusations they stole luggage from the Harry Reid International Airport, Las Vegas TV station KLAS reported.

The charge is for grand larceny with a value between $1,200 and $5,000, the warrant states.

Grand larceny is a category B felony in Nevada and punishable by one to 10 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000.

So I think it's safe to say I believe that that Tweet thread that accused him of having a continually escalating fetish was right. IIRC there was some criticism of the Tweeter's objectivity and credentials, but I guess even a broken clock..

I suppose my reaction could be called bigoted but I'm not surprised by this, nor was I surprised by the initial charges or even the claims that he was playing out a sexual fetish. In fact, I found it highly more plausible than the alternative given his bizarre behavior and reported lies when confronted.

Taken as a whole, I am more likely to distrust someone who shows such suspect behavior while also apparently being hellbent on signaling deviancy. Not a good combination.

EDIT: Strong language edit.

I am confused. How does the issuance of a warrant establish that Brinton stole the bag due to a "continually escalating fetish"? Can you elaborate?

ETA:

Let me propose an alternate theory: Brinton liked the way the bags looked and stole them because they wanted to use the bags themselves. Note how this squares with the fact that Brinton was seen at another airport using the first bag they stole. If Brinton only cared about the contents of the bag and not the bag itself, why keep the bag and use it at another airport?

It isn’t the issuance of the warrant. It is how this dude has apparently done it twice.

That suggests he is either a general kleptomaniac or was targeting the luggage for specific reasons. The woman’s clothing seems the most likely explanation if he was targeting the luggage.

Doesn’t prove anything but increases the probability of the woman’s clothing theory.

How did Brinton know the luggage contained women's clothing?

I don’t know if he did (hence why I said it increases the odds but isn’t dispositive). I also don’t know what the luggage looked like, but some luggage codes pretty obviously female.

For the first case, allegedly seen on CCTV taking the tag off the bag and putting it into their own handbag. So even if the case didn't look identifiably 'a woman's case', the name on the tag might have clued them in.

I don't think they need to steal random suitcases to get their hands on women's clothing, but then again if it is a fetish, then simply going out and buying their own underwear may not be the thrill they need. But we don't know what the reason is for this behaviour, so speculation that it's a specifically sexual fetish is not supported (as yet) by any evidence one way or the other.

I was wondering if Brinton had any other charges about stealing, and this looks like it. So they do have a problem with impulse-control disorder, but I better shut up now because any further comments are going to veer into criticising Brinton for how they look and dress etc. which is not appropriate for this discussion. Just because I think somebody with a head shaped like that should not wear red lipstick is not pertinent to "Is this person a security risk due to apparently being unable to keep their hands off other people's property?"

I don't wear lipstick because I hate the sensation of it on my mouth, but bright red lipstick is considered "sexy" and does draw attention to your mouth. So if you have a wide mouth, for example, then it will be a lot more prominent. All below is my own personal aesthetics, so don't take it as gospel.

Brinton has a potato head (apologies to the person but that is their head and face shape). This picture shows how the bright red mouth makes their entire face/head look unbalanced (the shaven/bald head means a lot of empty space). So down-playing their features is the best way to go, not emphasising them. I don't know what they were like when they had hair, but their beard is ginger, so yeah: red hair and bright red lipstick is a bad combo. "Ordinary and conventional as possible" is the way to go here. Or else have a full face of make-up, because they have narrow/small eyes so they need to use something to 'open' their eyes up. Their nose is also snub (to be kind), i.e. short and broad.

But as I said, this is my own opinion only. The bald head doesn't help because it creates more territory for their facial features and so gives them a more oblong shape. All kinds of guides online as to how to apply makeup for your face shape, like this one.

I ask because I never understood women's affectuation with lipstick. In almost all cases, it makes them uglier.

I asked some time ago - and got reply that many woman use lipstick and I am not noticing it.

So out of all cases where you noticed lipstick it seems to be making them uglier.

You can be wrong about them looking better without it.

You may be correct that for you they would look less ugly, but this does not apply to others.

You may not notice other lipstick use.

red

Sorry, I failed reading.

Many of the brand's bags look recognizably feminine and I wouldn't flinch at a bet that Brinton knows more about feminine brands than the median male.

Alternate simpler theory: Brinton thought the bags looked nice and wanted to own them. This also comports with how Brinton re-used the first bag they stole at another airport.

That could be true!

My point above is it raises the odds he is a kleptomaniac or a fetishist as a second incident reduces the odds it was a mistake

I do not think I ever claimed it was a mistake?

My suspicion is also because every story he tells deflects the issue of the contents.

Brinton later admitted to taking the wrong bag, but said that he didn’t have the clothes and other contents that the woman said were in the suitcase.

“That was my clothes when I opened the bag,” the Energy Department official said, according to the complaint.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/11/29/6-points-on-felony-theft-case-against-biden-administrations-gender-fluid-energy-official

He never checked a bag but, when he "accidentally" picks up the bag he finds his clothes in it? This is the lie he started with BTW (well..it was the second lie, the first is that he took nothing). It's not an SBF thing where he degenerated to this level. It was clearly on his mind that he REALLY needed to deflect the issue of the clothes and, in a panic, he told an absurd lie.

Then he left it in the hotel...but no one in the hotel found anything.

“That was my clothes when I opened the bag,” the Energy Department official said, according to the complaint.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law?

This is a bad theory. He's paid a decent enough salary and the bags aren't super expensive. Stealing them like this is a terrible risk reward for him. I can see someone making that mistake once, thinking they'd never get caught. But doing it again after being questioned, that feels like he's got a stronger motive. It doesn't have to sexual, he could just love the thrill of stealing

Why doesn't this also invalidate the women's clothes theory? Brinton's salary is decent enough to buy the bags... but not the random women's clothes they contained?

The story was never that he was stealing women's clothes because he didn't have any other way to obtain them. The fact that they were stolen, and thus had previously been owned by an actual women would presumably be part of the fetish. And I'm not endorsing that theory just yet, generic thrill seeking/kleptomania is also possible.

Because wanting something for its aesthetics is not the same as wanting something for the thrill of stealing it/knowing it belonged to someone else, where the transgression is a part of the appeal.

I could ask the same question: why would any of the men we know for sure stole underwear not just buy it? Why would any Peeping Tom not watch porn?

More comments

Stealing a woman's clothes is more of a thrill than buying new clothes, if you're into that sort of thing. It's like asking why somebody would pay $30 for an e-girl's bath water when they have free water in their house.

More comments

The way this game works is if a more pedestrian theory can be proposed -- even if it doesn't fit the facts -- it is automatically more credible than any outrageous one.

Simpler theories should recieve higher priors but that isn't an infinitely strong effect. In this case I find the idea of a well paid government worker repeatedly stealing luggage just because he's too cheap to buy it to be less likely than a fetish or other psychological disorder

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