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 -
The press release claims they were charged with "Luring a Child with Computer for Sex Act". Likely NRS 201.560 1b, 4a. One to ten years, same as for statutory sexual seduction. Interestingly enough, using a computer is a mitigating circumstance, doing the same without a computer, network etc carries a penalty of two to 15 years.
So the cops posed as 15yo's or younger. Grown men going for sex with 15yo's is bad. I mean, it could be that the cops only implicitly mentioned their supposed age, as in, "I was $AGE when $EVENT happened", but otherwise I have no problem with this sting as far as I can tell. Depending on the specific circumstances, I think that a minimum sentence of a year is a bit harsh though. If a 15yo manages to get on tinder, she will likely find some adult guy willing to fuck her in very short order if she does not mention her age. Doing the same as a sting, with the only difference being that you mention the age will likely catch a steady supply of guys without changing the situation of the real minors one bit.
Of course, it could also be that these men were grooming what they thought to be 8yo's on Roblox or whatever, but cynically, that would be a lot more work per person caught, and also be a lot more impressive, so they would mention it in the press release.
--
The left will of course make hay with this story. Trump's handling of the Epstein case is already suspicious as fuck, so the narrative "MAGA leadership believes important people get to fuck 14yo's" is already there. Add to that the Israel connection, where the narrative of the left is that the US is bending over backwards to give Israel whatever they want. "Trump supports Israel murdering kids in Gaza, so why would he not support them raping kids in Vegas" or something.
Of course, the people who claim that Jews have an undue amount of influence will also make hay with this story. Jews ritually murdering Christian babies would probably fit better into their traditional narratives, but Jewish men getting away with sexual misconduct -- especially against minors -- is still a juicy story for their side.
On part of the Israeli guy, this seems a major failure of judgement. I mean, that guy was in fucking Vegas, and could not be arsed to hire a hooker who at least claimed to be 18? The obvious solution on Trump's and Nethanyahu's part would have been to just let him get convicted to the minimum sentence and put on probation after half a year. No cybersecurity expert should be worth this PR disaster.
It's probably simple arrogance.
More options
Context Copy link
At first glance this sounds wrong, but I'm not sure I'm actually upset that trying to "lure a child" IRL (effectively) is considered worse than typing into the Ethernet on a keyboard.
More options
Context Copy link
Optics! Think about the optics!
Maybe they feel that in modern time, when scandals come and go with lighting speed, when public with attention span of gnat stops caring once last hour's breaking news rolls out of screen, worrying about "optics" is no more necessary.
Maybe they are right.
Optics matter, sometimes. I vaguely recall reading on WP over some Eastern European government which fell because they pardoned someone who had been convicted in some orphanage child sex scandal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link