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 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?
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.
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?
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?
Why does this line of reasoning apply to the clothes in the bags but not the bags themselves?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link