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 -
Epstein files are currently being released. DOJ link HERE. Epstein Files Transparency Act PDF HERE.
Some notes from picking a random place to start and going through them one-by-one:
Lots of questionable redactions.
Funniest one so far.Cumstained porno mag. Looks like they decided to redact only her tits. Can they do that under the law? NSFW Link.
There is at least one male whose face is being consistantly redacted. Were there any male "victims"? Not sure what the legal basis for a redaction could be. Doesn't look like Trump to me.
Jeffery is definitely a boob guy.
Some of the ass pics that are in there are unredacted. Interesting choice.
A second redacted male figure. Looks like Epstein himself tbh. Maybe an accident?
Quote from a victim's interview notes: "What doing? Why bringing me dark girl?" "Bringing young girl." "Yeah but not dark."
They are definitely redacting the portions of interviews where they describe what Jeffery did sexually. Understandable, but not sure if legal under the Act.
"Tell girls don't wear heels, just wear casual everyday clothes." Really makes you think.
I'm glad I didn't do a direct download.
Now I'm getting big binders full of thumbnail pics. I hope the corresponding full-size photos are somewhere else in the files.
Lots of pictures of clouds. I think the guy just liked photos.
Did we really need to redact the photos of the other guys in the police photo lineups? Are they victims? Not super relevant but gives you an idea what the culture was in the office when they were putting these together.
Very ominous scrapbook page titled "Looking For a Way Out", with redacted pictures of a girl.
Lots of pictures of Bill Clinton in there. So far no smoking gun that he actually did anything illegal but... he really did seem to be there a lot, and often posing next to women of questionable age.
That will be "it's different because he's Our Guy" and "The GOP/Trump is hiding all the really incriminating stuff".
I don't think the current Democrats will waste much time on defending Clinton.
I mean, it is known that he was fucking around. Few Americans would have trusted him with their 16yo daughters even in the '90s. And especially with Hillary gone from the political stage, he serves no purpose for the Democrat party.
"Yes, we ran a sex pest presidential candidate who probably fucked underage girls in coercive settings in 1997. The GOP ran one in 2024, so by all means let's talk about why this is bad."
Oh, I expect plenty of hypocrisy on this about Bill from the Democrats. I don't think he was fucking 17 year olds, but given that he had no problem fucking Monica Lewinsky when she was young enough to be his daughter, that's a very damn low bar.
The hypocrisy was the feminists going on about "so long as he keeps abortion legal, I'd strap on the kneepads and give him a blowjob myself". Sexual harassment and power differentials and age gaps are bad - except when it's Our Guy.
Sort of the reverse that happens with Republicans as seen by the Democrats: X was Literal Hitler when in power or running for office, give it a few years and now X is the only good responsible statesmanlike Republican, Y is Literal Hitler.
Clinton was the greatest guy, this is why we should elect Hillary because she was as good as co-president during his terms, give it a few years and it's Bill who? Oh that guy, nobody cares about him anymore.
Of course, this is similar to how the Christian Right saw Trump. "Sure, he probably has fathered 10x as many abortions as the average man, but if he manages to set the stage for getting Roe vs Wade overturned, that will far outweigh his personal failings."
Nor is either clearly wrong (in their respective value systems). You can either optimize for outcomes or never compromise with sin, but not both. Both of the extremes are bad, either you are constantly turning allies in for jaywalking and never have any impact, or your organization turns the instrumental goal of power-seeking into its terminal goal, with your original goal becoming a mere fig-leaf. Neither sociopaths nor fanatics (who might also be sociopaths just playing the game, of course) are very good at effecting social change, after all.
For what it's worth, since the 2010s, the SJ left has really doubled down on the fanaticism, to the point where they spend half of their energy self-devouring. Of course, you could argue that this applies less to the upper echelons, but "that guy is a sex pest, but he is our guy" is not a message they can communicate to the rank and file.
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