site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026

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.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

His sentence structure, paragraphing and grammar is so awful, yet we're led to believe this is Elite Human Capital who legitimately earned billions in finance? This whole thing was deeply sus from the start and only gets more sus.

I sometimes work with people near the top of a trillion dollar company and they’re clearly bright but just make the minimal effort to communicate, like it’s better for me to burn time decrypting their ambiguity than for them to write clearly from the start.

I don’t know if it’s some kind of a power move, they really are too busy to communicate any better, or maybe they’re just operating on too little sleep.

I don’t think finance bros give a shit about grammar. But there is also a huge divide between private equity types and public market types. You need stronger soft skills if you interact with non-finance people and need to sell stuff and build out a business like in PE.

It does seem like Epstein was more of a tax guy and/or wealth management guy.

Yeah I've worked in jobs with direct exposure to UHNW guys in text channels. Most of what gets you to that level of financial heft is a combination of drive and going all-in a few times in a row, which means in my experience they can be all over the place in literacy and communication skills. As you leave the pack of the UMC increasingly actual competency/skillset matters less than having the right mix of risk tolerance, luck and stubborness to actually make it through the great filter to hyperrich levels.

Epstein wasn't a finance bro, he was a tax-dodge bro. His entire net worth came from buddying up to billionaires with strategies on how to tax-optimize their personal holdings. Requires a lot less intelligence when your opponent is the federal tax authorities rather than other razor sharp finance types.

I noticed this too. Maybe he used good grammar and spelling when writing formal documents to his finance associates and used bad grammar with his friends and cronies. Many people who met him described him as bright and charismatic even back in his younger years before he was famous, so I figure that these emails can't possibly capture the full extent of his communication skills.

Watching him write such incoherent slop to Chomsky and then reading his glazing replies is unbearable. Can't piss off the donor. Or turn down his offer to get a ride in his private jet.

Pinker was wrapped up in this too and I read his defense a few years ago and didn't really appreciate where he was coming from and thought he was just trying to distance himself.

The annoying irony is that I could never stand the guy [...]. Friends and colleagues described him to me as a quantitative genius and a scientific sophisticate, and they invited me to salons and coffee klatches at which he held court. But I found him to be a kibitzer and a dilettante — he would abruptly change the subject ADD style, dismiss an observation with an adolescent wisecrack, and privilege his own intuitions over systematic data. I think the dislike was mutual—according to a friend, he “voted me off the island,” presumably because he was sick of me trying to keep the conversation on track and correcting him when he shot off his mouth on topics he knew nothing about

Now that I'm much more familiar with Epsteinspew I completely get it.

His sentence structure, paragraphing and grammar is so awful, yet we're led to believe this is Elite Human Capital who legitimately earned billions in finance? This whole thing was deeply sus from the start and only gets more sus.

Uhhh, no? We are absolutely not supposed to believe that. Are there people who are still clinging on to that?

Isn't the official story still that he's just this random finance billionaire who was also a sex trafficker and killed himself in prison... no, the footage cannot be found?

So far as I know the official story is not 'this guy is Mossad/CIA/Illuminati and that's how he has all this money despite being a complete weirdo and allergic to writing properly.'

They're STILL blotting out names on those emails too, it's not a good look.

My understanding is that he had some sort of weird possibly-homosexual relationship with a big NYC rich guy which he parlayed into control of his affairs and used that to accumulate the majority of the money?

That’s Les Wexner. There’s no evidence they were gay, but there’s evidence both were straight (the girls). Those who deny that Epstein worked for Israel can only hold up their hands in confusion as to why a billionaire financier set up Jefffrey Epstein with properties, powers of attorney, a jet and an infinite money glitch. But if you look at what Wexner was doing in the same year he employed Epstein, it was forming the MEGA Group, billionaires who would meet in secret that directed their funds and influence toward pro-Israel causes. Then of course, Ghislaine’s father was an agent of Israel (as per Victor Ostrovsky) whose funeral was attended by “the President, Prime Minister, and six serving and former heads of intelligence” of Israel, with Yitzhak Shamir eulogizing “he has done more for Israel than can today be said.” Epstein may have been working with other intel agencies at the same time, but I personally believe the Israel connection is the most satisfying explanation for his rise and reach.

The young Robert Maxwell procured weapons for the IDF from Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe during the Israeli War of Independence, and the details of precisely what he bought and how he bought it are still not public. That would be sufficient to explain Yitzhak Shamir's presence and remarks.

Athough I assume Robert Maxwell was talking to Mossad regularly, there isn't a good reason to think he was some kind of super-agent that would explain parts of the Epstein story. In addition, he would have been most useful to Mossad for his contacts in the Soviet Bloc, which didn't pass over to Ghislaine, and were a lot less valuable after 1989 anyway. John Major also hinted that Robert Maxwell had been useful to British intelligence during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Conspiracy theory shower thought - Maxwell jumps off the boat at almost exactly the time he ceases to be useful to British and Israeli intelligence.

The dates also fail to line up for a Robert Maxwell-Epstein connection. Ghislaine moves to New York shortly after Robert dies, and starts dating Epstein about two years later, after the Epstein-Wexner connection (which is the key to Epstein's wealth, and therefore to any sane conspiracy theory) is in place.

Robert Maxwell did know Epstein in the 1980's, but only in the vague sense that all elite coethnics know each other. Their business interests didn't overlap except for about 10 months in 1991 when Maxwell tried to expand in the US - Maxwell was active in the UK and Europe whereas Epstein was focussed on the US and the Gulf.

None of this means that Epstein wasn't Mossad, of course. Just that Mossad didn't use the Maxwell family to recruit him.

I think there are some agitators that understand this and are using it to reinforce the image of ICE (and the larger right in general) as heartless jackbooted thugs

The problem I have with that theory is that as far as I can tell, it's always been their tactic. If anything, they seem surprised it's not working anymore.

I think you might have replied to the wrong comment....

I think your comment ended up as a reply to something completely different.