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 can cut through most of the murk wrt Trump's actual involvement with Epstein with a few observations:
Any negative fact about Trump that could be leaked has leaked over the last 10 years.
Any criminal charge that had the barest chance of sticking was thrown at him in the last 5 years.
Biden and Co. were in possession of the Epstein files from 2021-2024.
Nothing in the Epstein files that directly implicated Trump in criminal activity was leaked.
No criminal prosecutions for such behavior were attempted during the last five years (caveat: those prosecutions would probably take place in Florida, which is friendly ground for Trump).
MY Bayesian priors on Biden and Co. deciding to leak nasty Trump stuff are extraordinarily high. So the lack of such leaks indicate that salacious Trump stuff just wasn't there... or the ongoing possibility that there's a MAD situation where tons of people would get burned if Epstein stuff goes public. However if that were the case, why'd the attack Trump from every other angle?
Does this prove Trump didn't commit statutory rape, or that he's objectively not a pedo or hebephile or whatever? Nah. But looking at the longer Trump record, it doesn't fit any other observed fact, unless he's just a general, indiscriminate horndog.
Lemme put it this way, if you believe that Trump did indeed bang Stormy Daniels (lol remember that name?) in 2006, when she was in her mid-20's and an active porn star... I REALLY think you have to downgrade your belief that Trump actively prefers young teens. Keep in mind this was around when the Epstein stuff was coming to light! There's just no way a guy would look at THIS (SFW) as a workable substitute for a teenager. And for the record I do think it is more likely than not that he did bang her or at least have a sexual encounter.
Anyhow, I remain glad that people are refusing to let the Epstein issue die. I grew up in Palm Beach County during the time his activities were getting investigated and prosecuted, I've been aware of the basic facts of the situation since I myself was in my teens. I hope enough pressure builds to force some actual revelations and possibly prosecutions... but it'd be nice if people were a bit more realistic about what they'll probably find.
I don't think he actively prefers them.
Suppose some elite socialite organized a hunt for migratory birds on their private island. From my knowledge, Trump is not much of a hunter and has never displayed any intent to break federal wildlife statues.
However, if he were to learn that the creme de la creme, including British royalty, is along for the hunting trip, he might still come along and shoot at some birds. He will probably not kill the most, but in my model he would certainly enjoy rubbing shoulders and doing something naughty with the rest of the elite.
Likewise, if it is an open secret that the rich and powerful enjoy banging underage girls on Epstein's Island, I do not think that Trump will go "too bad that is not my cup of tea, they will have to have their secret club without me". Instead, he is likely deviate from his usual preferences a bit to be part of the secret club. After all, few men are so much into MILFs that they would not enjoy a blowjob from a busty 16yo.
...
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, but the allegations are not "blowjobs from 16 or 17 year olds who would be legal, depending what jurisdiction you were in", it's "Trump and Epstein raped twelve and thirteen year olds".
If it were just "sexy hot 17 year old" nobody would much care. It has to be "frightened coerced beaten thirteen year old" or nothing, because the mud has to be the blackest, dirtiest, stickiest mud to throw.
Politico, back in 2019, did an article on all the assault allegations (as of then) against Trump. While there's plenty of gross, disgusting, and immoral acts (by my sex-negative prudish religious anti-fun judgement), there's only two (unless you go by the updated definition of rape) charges of rape: 'Katie Johnson' with the Epstein allegations, and E. Jean Carroll with her Bergdorf Goodman adventure - which, let me say, I don't believe or at least do not think it proven. Read her account, replace "Trump" with "Biden" and imagine for yourself all the media articles ripping the holes in the story wide open and claiming she was trying to smear a decent man for nefarious reasons, ranging from trying to extort money to being a Republican plant.
The rest are all of the "grab 'em by the pussy" kind: groping, kissing, unwanted touching, invitations to go back to his room. Distinct lack of "I was only twelve and he raped me in the hotel bedroom" accounts:
More options
Context Copy link
Yep.
But Trump deviates from the elite norm in more ways than one. Being a Teetotaler, for one.
Is there any evidence that Trump gave in and accepted an invite to sample the finest wines or spirits in the world with his elite buds? It wouldn't be very scandalous, but I've heard no such fact.
Dude also happily enjoys diet coke and McDonalds, to boot. I get the feeling he knows what he likes and indulges in it, and isn't easily tempted to do things just because the cool kids are doing it.
I'm not saying this means he wouldn't want to have the 16 year old, just that he's far enough outside the celeb/power broker stereotype, I don't think he's the type to try something just to fit in with the crowd.
...
Yes, his brother had very serious alcoholism and died early as a result.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think Trump would happily go to a wine tasting with other powerful people, even if he wouldn’t personally drink.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump digs himself in deeper with every new quote. Epstein "stole" young girls from him? Now why would he say something like that?
As far as I can tell from the clip in question, those were literally women who worked for his company or resort, and they left his employ because Epstein tempted them away with some other offer. And he's not particularly happy that it happened!
Is "stealing" employees not a relatively common phrase?
If Trump had said something more literal in terms of "abduct" or "kidnap" I'd perk my ears up for sure. As it stands, this makes it marginally LESS likely Trump was complicit, because it indicates he was NOT facilitating Epstein in trafficking his employees. If Trump was helping Epstein, why would Epstein need to 'steal' the girls?
Am I wrong?
It was a not entirely unheard-of plotline in Edwardian-Era comedies.
The preferred term is normally "poaching".
"Stealing" implies you have a property right in your employees. "Poaching" suggests that the employees are wild animals who you have customary rights over as long as they are on your territory.
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