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 -
Welp, turns out more Epstein files are finally getting released!
Apparently there will be a vote coming out to release even more, but the docs released so far have been negative for Trump's claims to be innocent of the whole matter.
This, combined with the ruckus over Trump arguing we need foreign talent, has caused a massive cratering amongst online confidence in MAGA. From my perspective, confidence in MAGA at least online is the lowest it has ever been. Many feel betrayed by Trump when it comes to his America First promises.
Add in the storm over Fuentes and Israel, and I feel I'm seeing the conservative coalition fall apart in real time, extremely quickly.
Is this inevitable, the narcissism of small differences? Or is it just Trump not being a very principled man?
Do you have some example in mind, here? Everything I've seen from this latest release appears to simply confirm what has long been known: that Trump and Epstein were substantially birds of a feather, but Trump kicked Epstein to the curb for stealing his girls. Since that time, Epstein has occasionally ranted about having some kind of dirt on Trump, which for some reason he never actually used and of which there is (still!) apparently no plausible evidence.
I would stop well short of describing Trump as "innocent" of anything and yet the plainly intended implication of all these reports--Trump had sex with underage girls on Epstein island or at least with Epstein's knowledge or assistance--appears to still remain purely in the realm of the undemonstrated, indeed, in most contexts the unstated. Nobody wants to get sued for defamation, and they all know Trump will happily sue them for defamation, so they are just continuing to parrot vague claims while winking and nodding in the direction of Prince Andrew, producing many guns but none smoking, nor even bearing fingerprints.
Trump has spent his adult life a man of wealth and fame, albeit also the butt of many jokes. I would honestly be surprised to learn he hadn't had more than a little bit of illicit sexual contact in his life; I would in that case need to revise my priors on the nature of rich, powerful men. But it seems like there are a lot of people out there who are utterly convinced of the details on this, who keep telling me that some bombshell or other is going to drop (including Pam Bondi!), only for those bombshells to never actually manifest. It was the same with the whole "Russian watersports" thing ten years ago. If Trump were guilty of 1% of the weird, crazy, illegal things he's accused of doing, I would expect at some point for someone to be able to produce hard, non-circumstantial evidence of something. Instead we get lawfare on novel legal theories and this recurrent "this time, we've got him!" nonsense from breathless (and brainless) journalists.
I'm open to evidence! I would not be at all surprised to see it! But again, it seems, no such thing is on offer.
Is there any clarification on "by underage we mean 17" or "we mean 13"? Because I've seen plenty of online 'it's true he's a pedo he raped 13 year old sex slaves' stuff but nothing concrete (the Katie Johnson case seems to be smoke and I have no idea what exactly Virginia Giuffre was claiming happened. If I go by Wikipedia, she was allegedly 17 when Maxwell and Epstein approached her, which is not at all the same as 13 year old).
In one way, I think the very murkiness of the term "underage girls" works for those who want to get Trump; it's easier to convey an impression that this means "13 or 14" and not "17 or just under 18 or even that legally a minor is under 21 in some states". See The Onion; yes this is satire, but they're making it satire on "fucking a 13 year old" and not "fucking a 16 year old":
"Children" to the modal mind is prepubescent innocents who elicit protective instincts. Definitionally it also includes adolescents that are protoadults. Conflating the two is necessary to get the moral value immediately realized, and any attempt at deeper examination is met with hysterical screeches of "ARE YOU A BIGOT". Refugees are always stated to be "women and children" but you never get a picture of these huddled masses because people don't process bearded males as "children". The assumption that Epsteins sex island was a San Francisco Armory dungeon filled with crying prepubescents being abused by leering rapists is as rampant as the assumption that Rittenhouse killed 3 unarmed black men, and of course equally as fictional.
Ironically in this context, there's a current murder investigation about asylum seekers as "unaccompanied children" who were put in emergency accommodation meant for minors, and it now turns out one of the "minors" may in fact have been a legal adult.
Gaming the asylum system, you say? Surely not!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nothing. She claimed nothing happened.
It's all tangled up, though, with Prince Andrew (who is losing everything over allegations that he may have had legal-in-Britain sex with her) and the overall media presentation that Epstein was providing 13 year olds for his rich and famous clients to fuck on his private island. "Okay I said I was a teen sex slave for Epstein, but that particular client nothing happened" is too fine a distinction for the current meat-grinder to make (particularly since Giuffre is now dead so we can't get her version of what did or didn't happen, or if she would change her mind and suddenly remember 'oh hold on, yeah I blocked it out because it was too traumatic but now I remember that Trump did rape me' like E. Jean Carroll).
As an American, I have to say I don't give fuck about British royals. We knew they were degenerate retards in 1776, and a couple of popular Queens notwithstanding, why should we believe that has changed, or care?
The only Trump-related thing in the current meatgrinder is years-old nothingburger. Giuffre had a job at Mar-a-Lago; she was one of the girls that Epstein poached. She's talked about a lot of people, including Trump -- and said nothing bad about Trump. If the Democrats were trying to make some hay involving ex-Prince Andrew, they would have used her name. Instead they redacted it so some people wouldn't realize it was her they were talking about.
If you're going to hypothesize that she would have accused Trump if she were still alive, this is just making shit up out of whole cloth. Maybe Jimmy Hoffa would accuse Trump of putting out the hit on him if he were still alive too.
At this point, Nybbler, I think all the waters are sufficiently muddied that we'll never know who actually did what (apart from Epstein and the previous underage sex charges brought against him, which were explained in a previous comment on a different thread).
Giuffre and what she might or might not have said - her book is out now and a lot of media commentary on it was dragging in Trump's name. I could well believe she might be coaxed into dropping hints about Trump and Epstein in order to sell the book, were she still alive; it seems she did exactly this (changed her statements) about her husband:
So when there's money to be made, victimhood status, and pressure to 'name names' on someone probably not very mentally stable, I am ruling nothing out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They mean 16-17. If they were 13, they'd have said 13.
The anti-Trump faction has a significant, perhaps even majority, element whose entire objective is to pretend there isn't a distinction between 17 and 13 in this matter. Pointing out the
adulteryadultness of these women works against this goal, so they won't do that.The pro-Trump faction is well aware of the above, but they also don't have any other effective tools to oppose that viewpoint other than flagrantly ignoring people who claim they're the same. Saying "well, akthually, they're adults" works against this goal, so they won't do that.
The demand for sex crimes (as with hate crimes) vastly exceeds its supply.
That's what I'm getting at: they can't say "the girls were 13" because they weren't ('Katie Johnson' aside), but if it's "yeah he foozled around with hot 17 year olds" that's nothing really. It might be grubby, but if it's generally considered that 14 year olds can be mature enough to decide to have sex and go on birth control, it's tough to argue that 17 year old is too young to have sex.
But the insinuation that "Epstein liked 'em very very young, and Trump was a big best pal of Epstein's and liked to party with him, so you know what that means" is what they're going for to do the damage.
With each other.
With someone much older.
You may or may not think this distinction relevant, but it is drawn by those advancing the aforementioned propositions.
Not just with each other, with someone X amount of years older than them, the precise number of years depending on the state and the law.
If 14 is old enough to decide to have sex, then by 17 you've been sexually active for three years, making decisions about your fertility, and should be experienced enough to decide if you want to sleep with a 30 year old, right?
That's the equivocation that sticks out like a sore thumb to me: 6 year old Johnny or Susie is old and mature enough to have a solid grip on their gender identity and know if they're really a boy or a girl; under-18 year old Susie is mature enough to decide for herself to have sex and can get a judge's decision to circumvent parental notification laws if she needs an abortion; 22 year old Susie was a poor helpless immature girl coerced into an unequal power-level relationship by wicked 28 year old Johnny!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ins't the US age of consent 16? Now you can well argue that these 16 year olds were coerced but then having sex with them would be rape regardless of whether they were 16 or 21 so the age factor would drop out of the equation completely and it just becomes "Trump used coerced prostitutes" which is a much weaker story and would have dropped out of the news years ago (see the Stormy Daniels saga, although she wasn't coerced). The fact that it's continuing means at the very least some of the people were under 16 when the relevant events happened.
Everyone knows that's false, though, for reasons Sloot covered above. And most claimed "coercion" is just progressive/selfish-woman-speak for "he said he wouldn't keep supplying/buying me X if I didn't put out/consent" anyway, so using that standard I'm forced to conclude it's very unlikely the Rotherham girls were coerced either.
In a landscape where the media tends to blow its load all at once I sincerely doubt this is the case.
The Rotherham girls were a lot younger than the women/girls on Epstein's island. The official report states that the majority were between the ages of 10 and 16.
They were also threatened with/subjected to violent reprisals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Depends on the state, but crossing state lines to have sex with a woman under 18 is probably illegal somehow, even if the states involved have a lower age.
I wonder what odd juxtapositions exist in places like Nevada where prostitution is legal and the age of consent is 16. Like if you’re a teacher at a public high school and some kid there is employed at the Mustang Ranch, is it legal to go and fuck your students? That always seemed disgusting as fuck to me.
Whenever you see an age of consent below 18 it almost always is actually accompanied by a number of caveats. Prostitution, pornography, age difference and the adult being an authority figure being very common variables to be taken into consideration.
More options
Context Copy link
IDK about that, but Texas has an age of consent of 17 unless you have some legitimate reason for knowing the minor in question, in which case it's 18, and flat out bans school district employees from having sex with the students. These seem like obvious rule patches.
More options
Context Copy link
This page indicates that the minimum age for prostitution in Nevada is 18 or 21, depending on the county.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think that follows. I think the fact that it's continuing means that, at the very least, the people who are continuing this believe that they can create a public impression that some of the people were under 16 when the relevant events happened. Hard to say if the people who are continuing this also believe that some of the people were under 16 when the relevant events happened, but their belief regarding this doesn't matter, it's the belief of the voting populace that matters.
More options
Context Copy link
Like everything else in America, it varies by state. However, since Hollywood is in California, 18 has been memed into the canonical age of consent throughout the country (and, indeed, around the world).
Critically, 18 is the age at which normie parents - and particularly normie red tribe parents - stop thinking "What if this was my daughter?". Of course the reality is that Mirpuri rape gangs, Jeffrey Epstein, your local street corner pimp etc. all preferentially go after kids without high-functioning, involved parents, so it was vanishingly unlikely to be your daughter. But I don't think normies get this.
If it was your teenage daughter, the age of consent in your jurisdiction wouldn't be relevant to your desire to wreak terrible revenge against the sleazebag.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Some US states have their age of consent at 18. But even if it wasn't, it's not like the moral outrage would stop over that. I notice that people who loudly decry sex with late-teen girls generally aren't considering local ages of consent as a valid argument in favor. It would simply shift to "they weren't adults".
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
More options
Context Copy link