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 -
Why would we rule this out? Prison guards are notorious for accepting bribes and the typical theory names the Clintons, who have rather more connections than the average person. Ditto for the royal family, the mossad, and other commonly-pointed-to culprits.
The prison system is not very invested in enforcing the formal 'rules' of the system when it involves protecting criminals.
Consider, for a moment, the mechanics of what you're suggesting. Suppose you're a normal guy working a normal job and you don't know anyone particularly important or noteworthy. And then one day I show up at your door wearing a suit accompanied by two guys with the build of John Fetterman and I tell you that you need to commit a high-profile murder for a certain amount of money, possibly with the veiled (or not so veiled) threat that if you don't comply you or your family will be harmed. Do you say "Yes sir" and do it, not knowing if it will work or you'll end up spending the rest of your life in prison? Not knowing if I'm even going to pay the money you're offered? Will you believe me when I tell you that the Department will have your back and make sure the whole thing is covered up? Will you believe that I actually represent Bill Clinton or Mossad or whoever? Or will you go straight to the police, or your supervisor, or the media about how someone you could identify if necessary offered you money to kill Jeffrey Epstein? Now multiply this across the dozens of people necessary to carry this out, from the COs, to the technicians, to the prison staff, to the investigators with the Inspector General, to the medical examiner, to Bill Barr, to the US Marshalls, and practically every other link in the chain. Do you really think that none of these people would say anything? You don't think that anyone would have simply refused to participate, and at least come forward after Epstein's death? For what it's worth, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas don't seem to be living the high life these days. both were prosecuted for falsifying records and fired from the department, and Noel was working as a medical assistant in a care home the last time she was in the news.
But beyond that, what exactly did Epstein's death accomplish? Why go through all of that trouble? The worst case scenario here would be that Epstein makes public statements accusing everyone from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump to The Man in the Moon of bangin underage girls on his private island. But as I mentioned earlier, there would be no motive for him to do so at that point other than spite. If the Powers That Be were so influential as to have corrupted the entire DOJ, they could have easily written off any accusations as the uncorroborated ramblings of a condemned man with an axe to grind, and said they weren't sufficient to be used as evidence in any criminal prosecution, and they would have been right. The only thing he could have offered would have been context and authentication of other evidence. If the goal was just to embarrass these people, then he doesn't need to provide the kind of evidence that can hold up in court, hence it doesn't matter whether he's alive or dead. He could have sworn affidavits and videotaped interviews where he lays out everything in detail. He was meeting with his attorneys nearly every day after he was arrested, yet the assassins didn't plan for this possibility? Why go after Epstein and not go after other target who would be much easier to get to, like:
These people are so powerful that they can make the entire DOJ come to heel, running the gantlet of risk that comes when any one of dozens of links could blow their cover at any time, yet they don't bump off any of the other people who could be gotten rid of more cleanly, or who could have made the story go away with little fanfare?
Being harmed by revelations isn't an all or nothing thing. Fingering well-connected people probably would have some effect, even though since they are well-connected they won't be harmed as much as people who aren't well connected.
My point is that it would have been of no tangible benefit to Epstein. The prosecutor wasn't in a position to cut any deals, regardless of what information was provided.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's confusing, because it makes more sense if this is a foreign relations thing... but then why not just say that and only release the names of U.S. citizens and their role in the files? All the people want isto know who to send to the guillotines. We aren't supposed to be the world police according to Trump, so just leave the foreigners out of it. If that is impossible (I highly doubt, given the descriptions of the physical media involved), that would be ... troubling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link