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 -
One interesting aspect would be how much we can trust the emails on Epstein's account who appear to have been sent from other people.
I think it depends on the technical specifics. If they scraped the data from his computers, then (unless the senders are the technical geeks who gpg-sign their mails) there is no proof that the sender ever wrote that. Epstein was obviously not the person who would be beyond falsifying mails for the purpose of insurance.
If they scraped them from Google (I think they did that), then the odds of him having messed with the mails sink. It might be that anything in the inbox, header and all, is still trivially writable via IMAP though. Ideally, one would want the mail server logs, but I am not sure if Google even keeps hashes of the mails they received. This still leaves the defense "that mail was sent from my mail server, but it was hacked", but with Epstein that seems a bit far-fetched, Epstein was clearly not some uberhacker.
Of course, if Epstein had messed with his inbox, one would expect that we would find things a lot more juicy in there.
Google is widely assumed to be infiltrated by NSA agents, who are probably mostly liberal politically, so honestly, who knows. I imagine their internal monitoring systems might be good, but who knows?
Why would they need to be infiltrated by NSA agents? They'd hand over emails given a warrant.
Formatting fix:
Q: Why would they need to be infiltrated by NSA agents?
A: They'd hand over emails given a warrant.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link