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 -
Sam Brinton Warrant Issued—Biden Official Accused of Stealing Luggage Again
So
I think it's safe to sayI 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.
Two stolen suitcases is “beyond reasonable doubt” that he has a fetish that he can’t control, probably related to the idea of stealing the identity of a woman and/or her clothes (imo). If he merely liked to steal, he is smart enough to realize that he shouldn’t steal at an airport again. Instead, he has a fixation on stealing women’s luggage from the airport specifically. He would not have been able to make it this far in his career if he simply couldn’t control himself with stealing any random object. This perfectly mirrors his identity as a man that likes to dress and appear as a woman, and who likes to receive attention based on the strangeness of his doing so (his interviews, manner of speaking demonstrate this).
The danger of such a person in government is that he could decide to steal secrets for attention. If he gets off at transgressing his identity, then he may get off as transgressing his identity as an American government employee.
This happened just recently, when an MTF transgender military officer — the first in history — tried to give private medical information to a Russian spy. This transgressed his identity as a military officer, Then there’s Bradley Manning, who leaked information to WikiLeaks, transgressing his identity as an intelligence officer.
The base rate of transgenders in these sorts of positions is… half a percent total makeup? Probably much less? So if you imagine 200x more of these crimes, surely that’s an overrepresentation.
In a previous comment, you asserted that Manning leaked the documents because she wanted to "flee from" or "subvert" her "true identity". The comment initially claimed Manning had fled to Russia; when someone pointed out that this was false, that it was in fact Edward Snowden (a cis-het man, it may be worth pointing out) who had moved to Russia, you removed the claim from your comment, but apparently did not update your overall theory. A comment of mine citing Manning's testimony regarding her motivation for spying, which contradicted your theory, was likewise ignored.
This entire theory of trans people doing something bad because they want to "transgress their identity" is based on a handful of cherrypicked examples. I could just as easily pick a bunch of convicted spies to make the exact opposite argument. Consider Jonathan Pollard, one of the most notorious cases of espionage in US history. He was a Jewish-American, who, by supplying classified information to Israel, was staying true to his Jewish identity and refusing to sell out and assimilate. Or Steven John Lalas, a Greek-American who supplied classified information to Greece. Even after being convicted, both were proud of what they did, which was standing up for people belonging to their identity group.
All three of your examples, far from being "beyond reasonable doubt", are in fact based entirely on unfounded speculation and cherrrypicking.
Yes I thanked the commenter for the correction. Were Bradley to flee to Russia that would count as additional evidence for; that he didn’t, doesn’t dissolve the other evidence for. By “flee from identity” I mean that Bradley had an urge to escape or avoid their identity. By flee I don’t mean literally running away. This flight is psychological, based on an avoidant coping strategy for the person’s inability to accept their true nature and its accompanying emotional baggage. But I do think it’s also possible that instead of avoiding their identity, the desire is a transgression. So in that sense yes I have updated my theory.
I’m ignoring Bradley’s own testimony because I don’t trust it. The transgender military officer wax’d poetic about loving America; yet he still did what he did, demonstrating a total disregard for America. I don’t exactly trust the outwardly presented motives here when my very theory is based on conflict between identity and transgression/avoidance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link