site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   42625 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 8, 2025

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The other claim is that his friends in the bank intervened when some transactions were flagged (for what, no one really explains) but this only deepens the original question: even if he was guilty of sex crimes, that doesn't imply that his financial dealings weren't in order.

If Epstein was as rich as he claimed to be without any of the wackier conspiracy conspiracies being true, he got the money by embezzling from Les Wexner. If any of the wackier conspiracies were true, he had a lot of foreign income he was being dishonest about the source of.

I personally think that Epstein's finances were above board and he simply wasn't as rich as he claimed to be (his lifestyle was consistent with the amount of money he could have made scummily but legally by charging Wexner 2-and-20 without providing alpha). But if I was the Feds I would have been going over his finances with a fine-tooth comb.

I don't think he embezzled from Wexner, even the most besotted suitor would have noticed millions drained away. But he did have a lot of control over Wexner's money and was able to spend it as if it were his own, in turn enabling him to present the façade of really, really wealthy guy (rather than just guy in charge of really, really wealthy guy's wallet).

I agree that, like a lot of the high-flying financial types of the time, it was all a house of cards and a downturn, bad luck, or close scrutiny would have shown that the emperor had no clothes. He genuinely had the most amazing luck in getting clear of the Florida sex abuse charges (as well as the dropped ball by the prosecution, as another commenter posted explaining the case in detail on here) and that is what motivates all the conspiracy theories about "was he really an intelligence asset? was he blackmailing people?"

Wikipedia does have a good précis of it all - lies, charm, connections and luck:

Although it took 12 years to deliver the story, as Matthew Goldstein of the New York Times tells it JP Morgan banker Jes Staley and CEO Jamie Dimon had a falling out over Staley's client Epstein sometime around 2012, after in October 2011 the General Counsel of the bank, Stephen Cutler, complained to Staley and others that Epstein was "not an honorable person in any way. He should not be a client." At the meeting between Staley, Epstein and Cutler, the last was assuaged when Epstein lied to his face and trotted out for character reference Bill Gates. The bank would not discard Epstein until, facing increased pressure from federal regulators, it did in 2013 coincidentally the year of Staley's departure from the bank. Thereafter Epstein moved his trade to the American affiliate of Deutsche Bank.

According to Forbes in 2025, the great majority of Epstein's wealth between 1999 and 2018 came from $490 million in fees, (most of that from two billionaires, Leslie Wexner, $200 million, and Leon Black, $170 million) with the remaining $310 million reported as income during that period by his companies as being from investment returns, and was worth $600 million when he died.

But he did have a lot of control over Wexner's money and was able to spend it as if it were his own, in turn enabling him to present the façade of really, really wealthy guy

Which in turn would let him get more private finance business.

After all, when choosing finance guys, it's an important indicia of competence that the guy himself isn't broke.

Of course, this can be gamed -- lots of those guys are in deep debt to fund an appearance of wealth that they wish to parlay into business opportunity. And many are indeed a house of cards.

I personally think that Epstein's finances were above board and he simply wasn't as rich as he claimed to be (his lifestyle was consistent with the amount of money he could have made scummily but legally by charging Wexner 2-and-20 without providing alpha). But if I was the Feds I would have been going over his finances with a fine-tooth comb.

Indeed, and that also explains why the banks (in particular JPM) were so keen to maintain his business, because he did nothing with the money except hand it to them to ride the booming 90s equity market, so everybody got their cut. The private wealth division at JPM was making huge fees from Wexner (the kind of billionaire who would usually have a more shrewd family office) for pretty much nothing.

In Maxwell’s recent testimony they asked her about the house (legally transferred for almost nothing) and at last there was an answer there, too, namely that it was in lieu of “fees”. Epstein seduced Wexner, “invested” his money (unlike the Madoffs of the world for the kind of boring, safe returns best suited to that task) and then charged hedge fund fees. Why didn’t Wexner measure his returns against the market? Hard to say, maybe he was in too deep, didn’t care, assumed Jeffrey was a genius, liked the attention and friendship, was a little in love, or was just under the thumb of an overbearing and domineering mother (which is the historical record) and didn’t really think of it much.

But either way, a combination of a couple hundred million in fees from Wexner, reinvesting his own money, some shrewd early-90s real estate purchases in Manhattan (a few apartment buildings, as I recall) and the $170m from Leon Black (Epstein’s only other “client” even though he never managed his money and the one case where I suspect blackmail is possibly central) and his fortune is easily explained even with some blunders along the way.

Why didn’t Wexner measure his returns against the market? Hard to say, maybe he was in too deep, didn’t care, assumed Jeffrey was a genius, liked the attention and friendship, was a little in love, or was just under the thumb of an overbearing and domineering mother (which is the historical record) and didn’t really think of it much.

Yeah, I'm just reading bits and pieces but it does seem to be that Epstein did a genuinely good job of sorting out Wexner's finances, was smart enough not to milk the cow too hard, and probably was a 'friend' (not sexual) for someone who didn't have a lot of friends due to all you describe. Plus, if Epstein was already hosting and/or arranging the kind of parties he later threw, then it would have done no harm (and maybe a lot of good) to Wexner's public image to be seen in the society pages with attractive twenty-something women on his arm. Nobody would expect him to be seriously dating those girls, but to be 'out and about' in public with them would have helped as cover for "oh, Wexner is too much of a playboy to get married yet" if there were rumours about his sexuality.

Wexner owned Victoria’s Secret before he met Epstein. He definitely wasn’t relying on Epstein to procure girls for him - the reverse seems more likely.

Oh, Epstein certainly used that connection to his advantage, but there's a difference between "guy has to hit on models who work for his business" (rather creepy and sleazy, low-class) and "guy who meets attractive young women at parties in the right social circles" (eligible bachelor).

The impression I'm getting - and admittedly this is all at second- and third-hand - was that Wexner was socially awkward/dominated by his mother enough that he couldn't manage this kind of thing (unlike Trump who had no problem hanging around the Miss World pageants or whatever). So having a fixer who can make sure photos of you with appropriate arm candy end up in the gossip columns and who manages your public profile, amongst other things, is very convenient and useful.

This profile from 1985 is fascinating; it's a guy who at age 48 still has Mommy very clearly holding on to the apron strings, he's a guy from Ohio who is now a big cheese in New York (and probably aware that he doesn't fit in with the circles he is now moving in - see that little line about "he doesn't pronounce 'La Grenouille' or even 'entrepreneur' right and it doesn't matter").

Wexner is what used to be known as a “confirmed bachelor”. He doesn’t feel alone. He doesn’t seem to want a child and, despite what he says about the perfect woman – Ali McGraw as she was in Love Story, someone who is “very, very pretty” and not aggressive – he seems to be waiting to achieve some mystical harmony and balance in himself first. “A lot of people think because I am not married I am asexual or homosexual, but I enjoy a relationship with a woman,” he says sometime later, hating to discuss this, known for keeping this part of his life very tucked away. Of course, like his social absence, this increases his mystery and allure. Only Alfred Taubman, among his friends, still constantly tells him to get married, but Wexner, whenever asked, says, “Me and the pope.”

So someone like Epstein, charming and comfortable with that kind of society, who could help Les manage his social life, or manage it for him? Worth his weight in gold. Even setting aside any gay attraction, the important thing is that Epstein too was Jewish (and his Jewish heritage seems to be very important to Wexner) so that automatically makes him someone Wexner feels he can trust, someone with the same cultural identity, someone who gets it. Let Jeff manage the money while Les moves on to things he finds more important (new business deals, art and philanthropy) and, so long as profits are being made, what's to question?

(The irony about the perfect woman being someone who is not aggressive is that he ended up married at age 56 to a lawyer. Maybe I'm stereotyping lawyers, but that seems like the aggressive type to me!)

(The irony about the perfect woman being someone who is not aggressive is that he ended up married at age 56 to a lawyer. Maybe I'm stereotyping lawyers, but that seems like the aggressive type to me!)

His preference was probably "not aggressive [romantically/toward him]" rather than "not aggressive [in general]", given the combination of socially awkward and "dominated by his mother".

Or they were naturally friends due to common interests.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats