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 -
To be clear, it was pretty clear early on that the laptop was genuine. Glenn Greenwald had a good post on that.
I meant the fact the whole “we are doing game plan where there is a hack and dump of Hunter Biden before the story broke” is pretty damning.
Now, other people in this thread have presented good evidence suggesting the laptop was indeed genuine, but after he helped launder the Russian hacked emails through Wikileaks and denied any Russian connection, I'm supposed to take Glenn Greenwald said it wasn't the Russians as evidence that it wasn't the Russians? Is this a troll? I'm reminded of the old joke about how if the CIA tells you the sky is blue, you should probably go outside and look, get then get an eye test and look again just to be sure.
EDIT: Yes, I know Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange are different people. One of the things he's known for is being one of the most mainstream vocal deniers of the Wikileaks-Russia connection.
In addition to the other comments, would Greenwald not be a good arbiter of what Russian shenanigans look like, even discounting the inaccuracy of "Greenwald laundered the emails"?
More options
Context Copy link
Besides you confusing Greenwald with Assange, those weren't Russian emails. Those were DNC emails, and those were genuine too. You may be upset about how they were acquired, but the content of the emails was all true, and so was the content of the laptop. So, in both cases, there was true information revealed, and in both cases US government tried to hide it for partisan political reasons, clearly throwing all the weight of the federal government to the side of one party. Which in a normally functioning state would be a scandal, but...
More options
Context Copy link
Glenn Greenwald didn’t help launder emails through Wikileaks. That was Julian Assange. Greenwald has done extensive investigative journalism regarding Snowden and Lula. He is as close of an expert as there is in journalistic methods of authenticating data. He laid out all the ways the Biden laptop was authenticated shortly after it came to light.
Also, it isn’t crystal clear that Russians were behind Wikileaks. Sure, that is what DoJ claims. But they’ve never had to fight that in an adversarial situation. The one time they did have the chance, the dropped the charges claiming Russia would get valuable intel. Which maybe but also could be because their actual case was weak.
More options
Context Copy link
It's kind of amazingly rich to do this whole "attack the messenger" routine on Greenwald, while 100% of the doubt cast on the laptop story came from bald lying (without even an attempt at faking evidence!) by IC spooks. This is a scenario where the CIA told us the sky was green, Greenwald wrote an article of evidence it was blue, and you're throwing skepticism at Greenwald.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link