site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023

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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why yes, I did know that Watergate was a partisan hitjob and Nixon did nothing wrong.

It was a coup, the second within a decade, and I have to hand it to the deep state, at least this time they didn't murder him in broad daylight.

While we're bringing up conspiracies, I'll just remind everyone that Allen Dulles conspired to assassinate JFK, and conspired with Lyndon Johnson and John Hoover to cover it up. Johnson got to be president, and Dulles and Hoover got to continue running their respective spook spaces.

Allen Dulles conspired to assassinate JFK

What were his chief motives for that, you think ?

Payback for getting fired over the Bay of Pigs. Also securing control of the deep state/MIC in the hands of favorable leadership instead of someone who wanted to break it into a thousand pieces and scatter those pieces to the winds.

Are there any books or videos you would recommend to learn more about this stuff?

https://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL141.htm

Here's a rundown, with a list of sources at the end. It's not specifically about Nixon, but Russ Baker's Family of Secrets has long been one of my favorite books on the general deep state. Since most of my reading has been specifically about the Kennedy assassination, not Watergate, most of my recommendations would lead that direction.

I’d be very skeptical of any of these claims.

You should be skeptical of the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for John Kennedy's assassination, and that Jacob Leon Rubenstein acted alone in killing him before he could defend himself or tell his side of the story.

Why do you call him Jacob Leon Rubenstein instead of Jack Ruby as he’s universally known?

For the same reason why I used John Kennedy, and John Hoover elsewhere. I like to refer to people differently than their commonly known moniker.

Same here, but I find it fascinating regardless of the veracity. Things don't have to be true to provide insight, and I often find that conspiracy theories, because they are based around one big outlandish claim, often put a lot of effort into getting other more mundane details correct - because it implies the big claim is correct too. You still have to verify the facts you've learned, but I find I get a lot of leads on interesting topics through conspiracies, if not the actual conspiracies themselves.

That said, and maybe it's just because I have seen some very seriously crazy conspiracy theories or maybe it's because I lean right, but I don't find those claims particularly outlandish. The public presentation of Nixon has always had an air of the 2 minute hate to me, even when I was left wing I didn't really understand it. Even with all the movies about Watergate and him, a lot of people seem to have no idea what he did wrong, only that he was bad. And while the idea that he was innocent is ludicrous, the idea that he was operating on a standard level of corruption for the environment isn't. Which is a roundabout way of saying I don't care about Nixon, but I do care about unelected and unaccountable officials meddling in the affairs of state to promote their own agendas.