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 -
Welp, it finally happened. However often in the past ten years we've heard about the writing being on the wall (which were coincidentally also closing in), or the other shoe dropping, it's always turned out that Teflon Don was able to escape more or less unscathed. Even January 6th, which by all rights should have ended his political career for good, turned into something he could make hay out of, blaming Democrats for overreacting to what was essentially large-scale trespassing, and playing the what-about game. 24 hours ago I thought the Epstein thing had more legs than any of the other scandals, but I didn't see it as having the potential to end things. Trump had handled it poorly, but there was still a chance that some distraction would arise and the whole thing would blow over.
With the filing of Trump's lawsuit against the WSJ, that chance has ended. With the full understanding that I'm making quite a bold statement, I think this may be the biggest unforced error of Trump's presidency so far, that if Murdock was looking to destroy Trump he played the whole thing beautifully, and this has the potential to bring down the entire presidency (though I'm not predicting that it will). It's almost as if Murdoch set a giant, obvious trap and, spying the bait, Trump ran headlong into it without even stopping to investigate. The correct way for him to have handled the whole Epstein thing would have been to shut up about it. It was a lame conspiracy theory that his base bought into but that had little purchase among anyone important. All that stuff about binders being on Pam Bondi's desk was only news among these people, and even Elon's Tweet didn't move the needle much. It wasn't a major scandal until the DOJ published the "nothing to see here" memo. From there, Trump's totally unnecessary denials only added fuel to the fire. He could have fired Bondi and delayed the whole thing for a couple months while a new AG was confirmed, during which time the matter could have died. But he instead doubled down on her pronouncement, calling half of his base losers in the process for caring about it. The WSJ thing wasn't even particularly damaging considering what else had been out there. So Trump may have sent a bawdy drawing to Epstein containing an oblique message that could have alluded to pedophilia. The story might not have survived the weekend if Trump would have just denied having written it and moved on.
Instead Trump had to sue. Because Trump always has to sue; he can't leave well enough alone. He could have taken the weekend to consult with advisors and attorneys on the best path forward. Any kind of reflection would have made it clear that this was a bad idea. But Trump is impulsive, and wasn't going to wait until Monday to file, wasn't going to give himself a chance to cool down. Get it out Friday. Now he has opened himself up to a world of hurt that he couldn't imagine beforehand. Since WSJ's defense depends on proving that their publication of the material wasn't malicious, proving the authenticity of the alleged letter is paramount. And the best way to prove that Trump can't meet his burden is by getting as much information as possible about his relationship with Epstein. Trump will have to turn over ever email or other communication with Epstein that he has. Trump will have to sit for a deposition where he will be grilled about their relationship. He will have to turn over documents. Everything is on the table, and courts give a pretty wide latitude for discovery in civil matters. And the process proceeds slowly enough that there will be a steady drip of documents that the WSJ will gleefully publish as soon as they get them. This could drag on for years, with new stories monthly about how Trump did this or that with Epstein. I'd be surprised if they don't livestream his deposition.
Unlike previous legal issues, Trump can't claim persecution here since he initiated the proceedings. While this means he also has the power to pull the plug if things get too dicey, it doesn't take much of an imagination to see how that would look. Even now, withdrawing the lawsuit is an admission that the letter is authentic. Dropping it at a later date makes it look like he has something to hide that he doesn't want coming out in discovery. Even the best case scenario, where it is revealed that the letter was a complete fabrication, isn't that great for him, as all he has really done taken one inconsequential piece of "evidence" off of the table. It doesn't make the whole Epstein Files mess disappear. But it will be a tough case for Trump to win, and it will be any tougher for him to prove enough damages to have any effect on News Corp. Is a jury in Miami really going to buy that Trump is 10 billion dollars poorer as the result of that article? But that's unlikely since the legal standard Trump has to overcome is the high as the journalistic standards of the WSJ. Murdoch is no babe in the woods, and he isn't running Buzzfeed. If the WSJ runs an article, one can assume that it was vetted properly, especially if they ran it by Trump for comment first. I don't know how this ends, but this suit just put things into overdrive.
Eh, I agree with you that Trump keeps bringing this back up when he should shut up. I occasionally look at /r/conservative because it's interesting to me to see which news circulates and which doesn't circulate in different bubbles. This one does have staying power in denting Trump's popularity among conservatives. But beyond remaining a sore spot and blemish in Trump's record, I don't think it amounts to anything concrete. Trump can't run again anyway, and it's not like they're going to start voting Democrat. Republicans in Congress are mostly shutting up and either doing nothing because Trump is doing everything via EOs, or quietly passing a few things here and there but not talking about it. Democrats are trying to keep this alive as long as possible because it's the only thing they've managed to hit him with that has had any effect at all.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that it's tempting to lib out on this one, but resist because it's unlikely to happen. The idea that THIS TIME he's up against old man Murdoch and that will mean he's met his match, is giving me "do you know what peshmerga means?" Vibes.
Though i will say I increased the odds of president Vance significantly when I saw they released news about Trump's health. Up until now they've basically maintained that he could play pro sports, or at least the PGA senior tour, tomorrow if he wanted. Just admitting normal elderly man stuff is a big step towards resigning for Trump.
It would not be wholly surprising to see Vance finish out the term but I think he has (very, very) far from a clear path to victory in 2028 even in that scenario.
The earlier Trump resigns the better the path for Vance in 28. The stronger his case as incumbent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, Vance's incentive is to get Trump to resign as soon after the midterms, but definitely after the midterms, as possible, for constitutional reasons.
Idk, timing is pretty tough, if you have Trump on the ropes you put him away, you don't let him recover so you can knock him out in the fourth round.
If Vance has a chance to take Trump out now, he'll almost certainly get another one after the midterms- and he has to take the presidency after the midterms to be able to serve two full terms. Better to get six months that way than three years this way.
I've been using the wrong sports metaphor:
Vance has to be willing to just THROW THE DAGGER
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn't put high odds on anyone getting two chances to take out Trump. If you don't get him, there's a very good chance he's going to get you. And when you stay your hand the first time, it eats away at your support when people see you hesitate and don't know if you'll go through with it.
Coups come into this world like bastard children, half improvised and half compromised. If the deals and moves line up you can take it or you can let it go, but you probably can't time it.
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
Can't he find some way to put pressure on Murdoch and Newscorp to give in? Donald Trump does have considerable resources for suppression and dirty tricks. He's trying to put the screws on Elon right now but perhaps doesn't realize Elon's preparedness to shoulder costs for his beliefs. But Elon Musk is an exception and not the rule among major business leaders.
Now if it's Murdoch + Elon + broad billionaire coterie who are unhappy with tariffs and generally erratic behaviour then I can see how Trump might be outmatched here.
He could offer Murdoch some kind of solution to his inheritance battle (fought in Nevada, Rupert lost and now has to divide the estate between his older children; Lachlan, his heir, can’t have control). But I’m not sure that possible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He did consult with attorneys. Or else who other than one of his attorneys filed the court papers?
Given the difficulty of proving defamation in the US (touched on downthread), even if the letter is absolutely fake it's extremely unlikely that Trump will be able to make a pleading that survives contact with the court. Meaning that his lawsuit will likely be dismissed immediately as a matter of law, without proceeding to any fact finding or depositions. It will likely end with Trump yet again screeching at the liberal judge who nuked his lawsuit, even though that nuking is completely and entirely justified. I don't think Trump really has much to gain here, except maybe by showing his "sincerity" by doing everything he can to "prove" that the letter is fake.
It's amazingly hard to prove a counterfactual. Even if Trump has the feds release literally everything they have on Epstein, that doesn't prove that the letter the WSJ has allegedly seen (BTW nobody else has ever seen it) is a fake.
In fact I wonder why the WSJ didn't leak the actual letter. The WSJ reporter saw the alleged letter and was able to transcribe its entire text, yet they couldn't release an image of the letter? My guess is that it's a shoddy fake and that if the internet got to see the letter itself then the charade would fall apart immediately. But if the WSJ "journalist" puts his head in the sand and turns off his brain, they can legitimately say they had no idea it was fake.
The idea that the WSJ wouldn't have the resources to make a decently convincing letter seems weak though. Some sort of legal strategy or source protection makes sense.
It's also possible that they don't even have a copy of it itself, like if a whistleblower snuck the paper out of the files, showed the journalist, and then snuck it back in and they don't want to leave any hard evidence behind the security violations while still getting the info out. Hell maybe even a journalist got snuck in to see the files directly, but that's unlikely.
If they actually made the letter themselves then there's a remote but real chance they get sued into oblivion and back. But if some "anonymous source" provides the letter then wsj is in the clear even if the letter is quite easily identified as fake under detailed investigation.
If the letter is real, transcribing it and publishing that is still absolute proof that a security breach occurred. I don't see how posting the text but not an image covers any source's butt more.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the WSJ article was probably an unforced error on their part. They have no way of proving the fidelity of this alleged document in court without burning their source, and there really is no journalistic justification for source anonymity in this case either. Selective leaking of documents involved in a criminal investigation are not something a responsible publication should be doing. I know many do it. And Watergate is, for some reason, considered peak journalism. But really this sort of thing is peak hackery.
If the letter is real, then showing the letter itself will lend a certain amount of legitimacy without giving up the source. It won't be proof but it would be a whole lot more believable.
The WSJ is going to have a copy of the letter they can carbon date to 2003? Anything less than that with a good COC is useless. Dozens of people have already made convincing hoaxes using the WSJ's piece as source material.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
'There is now way Trump will get away with [latest thing] this time!'
Not going to lie, mate, you are kind of all over the place on this. You say that this suit 'just put things into overdrive,' but your conclusion is really just jamming a lot of different concept that could be these [things].
In paragraph one, it was the survival (preferably end) of Trump's political career. In paragraph two it... could just as well apply to a thing you characterize as would have been a non-scandal if only Trump waited a weekend? Or maybe the Murdoch trap. You kind of veer from one into the other. By paragraph three, it's the terrible prospects of a disposition of a guy who (repeatedly) had (multiple) hostile prosecutions and investigations leak unflattering things for decades. Come paragraph four, it's how bad the optics will be for a guy who won his first presidential election after an audiotape of 'grab them by the pussy,' followed by a technically-not-treason conspiracy, and, well, way too many bad optics to list.
So when you throw in things like this-
Dude. Dude.
This is a guy who has been variously accused of rape, infidelity, insurrection, and racism in various courts for the better part of a decade. He was the target of a historically unprecedented fraud prosecution in which the largest fraud fine in New York history was leveled against him despite the victim testifying on his behalf. So many novel legal theories have been used against him that entire aspects of constitutional law have been developed to manage it. There have been multiple government conspiracies that we know about that aimed to hurt him in court.
I am going to go on a slight limb here and suggest that maybe, just maybe, Donald Trump has a better idea of the world of hurt that comes with court cases than you do.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think this ends Trump. The thing you’d need to end Trump is a group of people with both the power and the will to stop him. But I don’t actually see this out there. Even though democrats believe Alligator Alcatraz is a concentration camp feeding people worms, there’s not so much as an investigation on the matter, let alone impeachment proceedings. They say he’s a dictator, and write letters that may as well read “Dear Leader Trump: what you are doing is bad, mean, and we don’t like it. Please stop immediately or we’re sending another letter.” If there’s no action on things that people believe are sending us down the path of imitating mustache man, why would a document that nobody has and a lawsuit make any difference at all?
That’s not how power works. Until those with the power to do something start coordinating to use that power to disempower the other guy, it doesn’t matter. Public opinion doesn’t matter here, nor does the appearance of abuse of authority. Epstein might hurt Trump’s reputation, but it hasn’t changed anything. He’s still the president, and I think a good chunk of the base is more interested in his ability to fix things for them than a letter.
What kinds of people have the power to end Trump? His staff?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump supposedly sent a letter to Epstein saying how they both find attractive women to be the key to happiness.
Trump has said this before. This isn’t new.
More options
Context Copy link
One good thing I have only recently come to appreciate about English law is about how it limits restitution to damages the claimant can reasonably show they have suffered. Sure the claimant can make grandiloquent claims about how they have lost multiples of their net worth or projected lifetime earnings but such claims have a very real cost to your credibility before the court unless you can rigourously back them up (and the burden of proof is on you here) which in the end helps in keeping both sides honest.
England is definitely much better on restitution but in the end harassment by litigation is just as bad because the definition of libel is so onerous for the accused.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Au contraire, turning 'Is Trump a pedo' from a government coverup scandal to a boring legal drama will energize NPR resistance libs but convince everyone else this doesn't matter. They'll forget it in a week.
More options
Context Copy link
With party discipline in Congress a lot stronger than it was in the Nixon era, there is nothing that can actually stop a second-term President who wants to brazen it out. If the Democrats take control of the House in the 2026 mid-terms (and they probably will) then Trump will be impeached and acquitted. At this point the number of plausibly impeachable things he has done is large enough that the actual charge doesn't really matter.
In terms of public opinion, I think Trump was just correct when he said he could wander down 5th Avenue shooting people and his base would continue to support him - his being an awful person if fully priced in by now and I don't see him turning out to be a kiddie-fiddler as well as all the other stuff is going to persuade anyone who isn't already persuaded. Swing voters know that Trump shouldn't be President, they are just open to the possibility that Dems are worse.
The more interesting question is how the right-wing media ecosystem changes if there is a serious feud between Trump and the Murdochs. Rupert was always an Old School journalist first and a conservative second, and from that perspective filing this type of lawsuit is an unforgiveable sin. Asking for $10 billion is a signal that this is personal for Trump too, rather than using meritless lawsuits as a polite way of requesting a bribe as he did with CBS. I expect this one to run until Rupert dies, and there is a strong possibility that Lachlan is close enough to his father that he will fill obliged to continue it.
Even worse, the company is now going to go to be split among his primarily progressive children, who are even more opposed to Trump than Lachlan is.
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree. Trump’s awfulness had previously been directed at people the MAGA base also had issues with. Illegal immigrants, elite celebrities, Democrats, academics. In the Epstein case Trump is perceived as defending all of those people in the coverup. Now the Trump-branded awfulness is directed at his own supporters—that’s the difference. He called his own supporters losers and weaklings, using the very same rhetorical tactics to shut them up that the base chafed at so strongly when, only a year before, it was Democrats in power doing the same thing. (E.g. covering up Biden’s age-based incompetence with ludicrous claims, ‘cheap fakes’, etc.)
In addition, I think the MAGA base genuinely cares about seeing justice come to the children and young women victimized by this pedophile cabal. This sentiment runs deep among social conservatives. It relates to longstanding scandals/conspiracies involving Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, Hollywood actors, rich financiers, and the other archetypal Republican villains for 30+ years. The base won’t let such a visceral scandal pass. This was a central promise of the Trump 2024 campaign. Trump has a real problem on his hands now.
I have a pretty hard time believing anyone with any real power cares about child sexual abuse qua child sexual abuse. And I don't mean this as a partisan claim. The Catholic Church of course had a big visible scandal, but left and right organizations alike prefer protecting power over protecting children. On a smaller scale, it's a common story (and I personally know examples, which, due to my social circle, likely all vote Democrat) for children to report their own parents covering up their abuse at the hands of an adult their parents apparently cared more about protecting than their own child. While reducing the abuse of children sounds like a great goal to, well, probably nearly everyone, in practice calls for it seem to only actually get used as a cudgel against the outgroup, and even then rarely to any significant effect.
I'm not disagreeing with you in broad strokes, but 'protecting young women's sexual purity' is much more of a right wing value. Obviously Epstein is dead and the MAGA base doesn't think he's chilling in Cuba with Tupac, though.
More options
Context Copy link
No contradiction spotted.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
American libel and freedom of the press laws are also really strong to the point that it's mostly going to be on Trump and his team to show that the WSJ knowingly made specific claims they had strong reason to believe were fake. Given how cautious the WSJ article is already with wording like "It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared." hedging for possible ghostwriters/forgery by Epstein for blackmail/etc, Trump doesn't have much chance here.
It's an uphill battle for politicians trying to silence media, and that's part of the reason why over and over again they keep filing in states lacking anti-SLAPP laws because even they know it's mostly frivolous and for headlines/supporters, while they quietly drop it later on.
I think as Coffeezilla pointed out though, this reaction itself is meaningful and suggests the Trump admin also views the contents as damning if real.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with @Sunshine. This will make lots of noise in the usual places, but absent rock-solid proof that Trump banged underage girls (and not just "barely illegal" underage, but like 12- or 13-year-olds), it will just add to the growing pile of things that Democrats say prove Trump is a monster unfit to be President and Republicans say are a bunch of unfounded smears and whattabout Clinton.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm putting my money on Nothing Ever Happens. If there was bombshell proof that Trump is a pedophile it would have been leaked years ago. In the absence of that, this will just be yet another lawsuit Trump gets embroiled in for years. People will forget about this in a week.
That's where I am as well.
Maybe I'm too cynical here, but to me the WSJ story doesn't seem to add anything that we didn't know before. Trump and Epstein were friends, and Trump says creepy things about young women and sex. We knew that! "Trump engages in sexual misconduct" just isn't a story that I can see going anywhere - Trump supporters have already rationalised that away, and people who would oppose him over it already oppose him.
Unless there is genuinely rock-solid proof of child sex abuse - and I would be shocked if there is - then this just doesn't change anything. Trump is a pervert in the way we already knew he was a pervert. The needle does not move.
More options
Context Copy link
Trump successfully dodges every other attempt to scandalize or imprison him (and a literal bullet) and yet people still think THIS is the one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link