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 find it impossible to believe that if there were some hint of damning evidence about Trump in Epstein's files that it wouldn't have gotten leaked during either of the last two elections. There is just no conceivable value that the Dem establishment would have held high enough to cause them to refrain.
Much more believable that the juicy parts of the relevant hard drives and data were "accidentally" thrown into an incinerator in 2019.
The list consists of Boomer men who either were wealthy New York Jews or hung out with wealthy New York Jews (like Clinton and Trump), so it is going to be 70+% Democrats. While the Democratic Party was led by Boomers, releasing the whole list hurts them more than Republicans. With most of the Clinton-Pelosi generation of Democrats retired, releasing the whole list mostly hurts Trump personally.
This implies adequate compartmentalization of intel, and we know that doesn't happen. Were there something substantive that indicted Trump and also indicted a bunch of boomer dems, one of the dozens of bright-eyed young socialists in all those retinues would have seen it and said "Fuckin' two birds" and dumped it to the press.
Even the righty wet dream scenario where the DNC itself would cease to exist from >90% of its major personnel being indicted still demands an answer to the question of why a radical in the lower ranks doesn't release it. They aren't all ruthless realpolitikers, plenty are true believers in socialism as a winning platform and that the DNC only loses elections because they aren't radical enough. That's means and motive.
The last challenge point was the election. That nothing was released after November 6 is proof nothing substantive exists.
Consider an alternative possibility, which we've seen demonstrated in public numerous times: The Democratic party lacks balls, has always lacked balls, lacks balls at every level from top to bottom. The strain of trying to pretend to have balls and be a Democrat eventually gave Fetterman a stroke and now he's a blithering retard.
Okay, come on, this is just pure reddit-tier boo-outgroup.
You are better than this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen this excuse used approximately a thousand times, and look: what if your priors just are wrong here? What if the Democratic party and its surrounding establishment just aren't the all-powerful, almighty band of operators that this theory presumes that they are? What if genuinely is information that they haven't obtained, at least in usable form, until it comes out?
The theory presumes nothing of the sort. But they had control of the executive branch. If Trump has info that he could be hiding for personal reasons, there is no reason to think Biden's people wouldn't have had it too. If anything, the Dems ought to have a much stronger prior for having access because so much of the IC and deep state was supporting them. What possible chain of events could have taken place to make some killshot link between Trump and Epstein available to the Trump admin now, but not to the Biden admin any time in the last four years?
More options
Context Copy link
They dont need to be all powerful, they were in power. While in power they used every bullet they could, and even fabricated evidence to use against Trump and invented novel legal theories to try and nail him. All that tilting at windmills could have been avoided if they had a video of him having sex with a 15 year old prostitute.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What about Epstein's links to Mossad? Supporting Israel is a rare example of US bipartisanship, opening this can of worms would have serious consequences for relations with Israel. There would be MAD as Trump and Republicans name all the Democrats they know of with Epstein connections. Very damaging for both parties and govt legitimacy generally, it only strengthens outsiders and populists (see how Musk has been using this issue).
Plus it'd be a funding nightmare given how much Jewish patronage they get. The Republicans are propped up by Adelson money and now Yass, while the Democrats get lots of money from Soros and some of the other liberal Jewish donors. If you go through the biggest donors for each party, about 50% of them are Jews, more on the Democrat side. A bunch of Jewish billionaires (many of them strong Israel supporters) are unlikely to want lots of investigation into the corrupt connections of a Jewish billionaire with Mossad connections. They certainly don't want any more anti-Semitism in America, there's already lots of complaints and nervousness on that front.
From my post about 2020, I'm assuming it hasn't changed that much since then:
Mildly amusing, fictional, Thick of It video (Malcolm Tucker: NOBODY brings up dodgy donors because it makes EVERYBODY look bad!): https://youtube.com/watch?v=uaydTJqZoIM
There's a frequently expressed desire by the public to 'get money out of politics', might this money be a good place to start?
At least in the Anglosphere, the public support State funding of political parties (which is the alternative) even less. In the past, you could probably have reduced the cost of politics by restricting the ability of FCC-regulated broadcast media to accept paid political ads (this is how the UK kept the cost of politics down) but that is increasingly irrelevant in the modern media landscape.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. The whole point of democracy and a nation-state generally is that it's supposed to be for the people, not some market product to be bought and sold among scheming elites.
No good having '1 man 1 vote' but having the guy you elect serve some foggy mess of donors, lobbyists and media instead of you.
More options
Context Copy link
Obligatory SSC:
Personally, I do not think that Jewish money is any worse than gentile money, and you would require significantly higher levels of antisemitism in the US before "I may be funded by billionaires, but not Jewish billionaires" becomes a selling point in US politics.
Even if billionaire money is a problem in politics (and it can be argued that it is -- look at the maximum marginal income tax and how it has evolved since 1950, not that I expect billionaires to pay even that), this is a coordination problem. Almost all of the present politicians are where they are because they are cozy with rich donors, cutting down on campaign funding would really disadvantage them over competitors. And unilateral rejection of funding would hurt your own side.
It is like going to medieval Europe and saying "if we all coordinated to disallow metal weapons and armor, wars would be a lot less bloody which would be better for everyone". Even if all the nobles could coordinate to accomplish that, no knight wants to be beaten to death by a peasant with a stick, so they would still not do it.
Also, there is this guy whose shtick is that he does not accept big campaign donations, but for some reason I think few of the "Jewish money ruins everything" demographic are going to vote for Bernie.
More options
Context Copy link
This is because the public, by and large, doesn't have much money to spend on politics. They're trying to kneecap anybody with a competitive advantage. If it's not money, it's exclusive access. If it's not exclusive access, it'll be something else.
It's bottom-half people complaining they're not winning. And unless you have a strategy to profit off of the long tail, they're not worth listening to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that Trump's involvement is the more peripheral "lot of smoke, no fire" kind of thing. The Democrats wouldn't release it because it would have just been brushed off as such and made it look like they were grasping at straws, just like the various prosecutions. If there was nothing they could prosecute, it would just be another smear that everyone forgot about in a week.
I don't know if they planned it this way, but it was good ammunition to have in the event that Trump won the election. Now that the pressure to release it is coming from his base, and he at least alluded to releasing it, but he has cold feet for some reason, it makes matters worse. It's like with his tax returns; it's unlikely that they would reveal any criminal activity, but there's something personally embarrassing that he doesn't want revealed. Now that he's been intransigent despite the pressure, anything that is in there that's unfavorable is going to have a much bigger impact.
More options
Context Copy link
If there's one thing we learned about the Democratic establishment in 2024, its that they love themselves more than they hate Trump. Very possible that those in charge decided that the hit to Trump wasn't worth the risk to themselves or their friends from bringing additional scrutiny upon the Epstein story.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link