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":
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.
After entertaining various noxious allegations and then finding they are unsupported, it is at the very least discourteous to then fall back on invincible ignorance.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link