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 -
So, is everyone ready for the Republican Jussie Smollet?
A NJ Republican psychopath appears to have hired some kind of fetish artist to scar her body as part of an elaborate hoax to fake an attack by rabid Democrats
We're using the NYPost here, I figure it is more reliable where Republican hoaxes are concerned.
I was riding my bike past that nature preserve around then. I wasn't attacked by any Antifa. Go figure.
Lol Rutgers Law.
The young Ms. Greene's motive in this is pretty unclear. She was at one time a staffer for a NJ representative, presumably from Cape May county. But so far no one is reporting really extreme kind of politics. Cape May County Republican is practically the definition of "boat owner" Republican. It's a red tribe area in the way that any wealthy white area with lots of retiree fisherman and a few small farms would be. But it's not militia country or something. It's not somewhere full of conspiracy nuts, at least it wasn't.
Have we just cracked this much? I'm a little unclear on what kind of body modification is in the offing here exactly, is that stuff semi-permanent? That's HORRIFYING. Is it that worth it to hurt the other team? False flags all seem to be so poorly executed that they don't achieve anything for the "team" attempting them.
I'm unclear on whether this story fell apart so quickly that it was never reported as actually occurring, or if the story was suppressed because of the "wrong team" associations. I never heard anything about it until I heard she was being charged for false reporting. The cover-up appears to have been so thin and weak that it fell apart almost immediately. I haven't even seen much reporting on the Jussie Smollett of it all. Is this kind of insantity so routine it doesn't even break through to the front pages anymore?
While I did think of you guys in a Running Dad way (but in one of the many variations where he's running toward instead of away from something) when I first saw this story on the interwebs and had a comment in the works, it's perhaps in somewhat of a orthogonal direction than what @RoyGBivensAction suggested.
If the allegations are true with regard to her committing a Smollett, and that this is not some sort of weird hoax or whatever: this could serve as a cautionary tale for the online right when it comes to trusting thots, given how hard the online right has been simping for figures like Sydney Sweeney lately and how there's an entire ecosystem of supposedly rightwing e-girls whose characters, surprise surprise, appear not to be too different from e-girls as a whole.
Wow, can't believe she crossed state lines. There's also some joke in there about how chicks will leave you on read while they do things like drive across states to pay someone $500 to carve up their skin, get tied up and beat up.
It's always a shame when a more than "WOULD"able chick chooses to scribble upon her skin. I also found amusing the implicit admission that doing things like prancing around in a bikini is a central aspect of a young woman's lifestyle. And indeed, "25-year-old girl": #Fightfor35.
Damn, that's cold—vicente_del_bosque.gif. I can't help but imagine Van Drew as the Wojak with the seething mask in front, but grinning behind it. Most people have never heard of you, but now you've suddenly made national news because a young former female employee got your name scrawled on her body.
Nah, 'girl' is any woman 15 years younger than the speaker. The same way my 70-year-old relatives talk about a 50-year-old as 'such a nice young man'.
I don’t know. This whole world is topsy turvy when I’ve got 20 year old girls calling me “dude” and guys much shorter than me calling me “buddy.” You’d still get a glass cracked on your head if you say that to another man where I’m from. It’s like calling someone “friend” or “homeboy” making quotation marks with both your hands at someone right before you spit at and smack them across the face. That term was always considered insulting in any context. You never call someone that.
‘Dude’? or ‘buddy’?
Reminds me of a Pratchett quote:
“Dude” is appropriate. Just in proper context and not when a woman calls you it. “Buddy” was always considered an insult where I’m from.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Nice young man," not a "nice boy". So there's not the same parallel. Also, although just another anecdote, my ~70-year-old relatives would never refer to 50-year-olds as "young."
That being said, when I'm 50 someday I'd be happy to take the free W of being referred to as a "nice young man" or a "nice boy," and possibly ration the memory like a camel.
You may find this video by David Mitchell amusing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did anyone actually believe this though? The Smollet case was notable for being so obviously wrong and there being many people who fell for it.
A lot of them are either fooled easily or have never met pathological liars before. The tells were pretty obvious to me. He was mostly caught out on his inconsistencies.
A lot of people think lying is simply a matter of whether or not people volunteer up information or confess their involvement in certain activities. That’s not how they get you most of the time. A long time ago I read an encyclopedia on the tactics of trial lawyers that was written around the first half of the 20th century.
This is how they catch you. The first thing they do is they’ll have you tell your story from beginning to end. Then after some lines of questioning they’ll have you tell the exact same story again, but to start from the middle. Then after they repeat multiple lines of questioning they’ll have you tell the same exact story again, from the end, all the way back to the beginning. And often times you’ll get tripped up, you’ll be caught thinking your way through the web of fabricated details you made up, it becomes very disorienting and incoherent.
Naturally this doesn’t take 100% of the time. Some people just remember things in weird ways. Some people’s natural conversational pattern causes them to misspeak a lot. Some people are naturally more nervous and anxious than others. But it’s effective enough where they rely on this method of interrogation to this very day.
And it’s the same thing where they coax you into conclusions you wouldn’t agree with by describing an activity but avoiding the word that describes it directly. So for instance, if you were accused of “stealing” money, they’ll ask, “Did you ever take property that didn’t belong to you?” Because they know “steal” is an emotional trigger word that raises the alarm bells in the mind of the accused, such that they dodge, resist and avoid it. Same with “kill,” “rape,” “shoot,” “rob,” etc. But if you’re a trained target or are acutely aware of the precise frame of the question, you know what it is they’re asking. If you look at the Nuremberg Trial’s for instance, Herman Goring ran circles around the prosecuting attorney such that they had to appoint a more specialized and seasoned attorney in his case to be able to handle him; because he knew what the word game was that they were playing with him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
False-flags are like hairpieces, you don’t notice the good ones. This lady and Smolett aren’t political operatives or intelligence agents, they are crazy narcissicists looking for attention. It’s like Münchausen’s syndrome.
More options
Context Copy link
Algorithms bubble check: was this on any major commentators radar as a real thing? I didn't see anything about it it until the hoax angle came up.
More options
Context Copy link
Everything old is new again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Todd_mugging_hoax
More options
Context Copy link
I'm quite enjoying the idea that 3 tie-dye wearing Deadhead stereotypes zip-tied a random woman, carved wounds into her, and wrote "Trump Whore" on her. That is even less believable than the Smollett situation, which is saying something.
Although, is this finally the counterexample to PJ O'Rourke's claim that no one wants to be tied up and ravished by someone dressed as a liberal? Please get @Sloot in here asap to explain how this was a tactic to get sexual attention.
Do men actually ever do things like this? Smollett is kind of close, but he reads a bit differently to me: he wasn't seriously injured, and he seemed to more be trying to get negotiating leverage for his career than sacrificing himself for the greater benefit of the Cause.
Jussie was also, you know, gay.
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps the male equivalent is a mass shooting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, if you believe in the Jersey Devil, conspiracies come along with it.
My guess is this woman was probably "known" by the local police who smelled a rat right away. From the story it appears the scars are real and permanent, so she's just moved from the crazy/hot section of the card to just plain crazy. A shame in some ways, though a blessing to those foolish enough not to heed the wisdom about sticking it in the crazy.
This sort of chap?
It depends on your explanation for Jersey Devil.
If you think it is unknown, but natural animal that must eat, sleep, poop and die, then you must have explanation why no devil lairs, feces or remains have been found, and conspiracy by authorities who are deliberately hiding the remains is most plausible one.
This is official tinfoil hat explanation for Bigfoot - the feds in black helicopters arrive and seize any sasquatch remains only evidence left are redneck tales told around campfire.
If you see it as literal devil from hell or other supernatural entity, no cooperation of earthly mortal authorities is necessary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link