site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   15840 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The FBI says Epstein wasn't trafficking women for powerful men.

It's tempting to say "cover up", and this saga has united all camps on the lurid "pedo cabal" narrative. We were told back in November that journalists weren't allowed to ask questions to the alleged survivors, and it seems at least one of the survivors' testimony at Maxwell's trial was questionable:

Members of the jury, I have a limiting instruction. I anticipate that you’ll hear testimony from the next witness about physical contact that she says she had with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico. I instruct you that the alleged physical contact she says occurred with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. I’ll give you more instructions on the legal term, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, at the end of the case. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it, but you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein’s nor Ms. Maxwell’s character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the document.

She (Annie Farmer) acknowledged that when she applied to receive millions of dollars from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program — drawn from the Epstein estate — she wrote on the application that she experienced “sexual abuse” in the form of “hand-holding.” For this, she ended up receiving $1.5 million, not counting whatever she might have received from the subsequent settlement funds, such as JP Morgan.

https://x.com/mattforney/status/2021297917424734429#m

I don't like to quote Forney, but this is another "survivor" there's reason to be skeptical about.

The “other victim” Brown references is Sarah Ransome. Who is Sarah Ransome? She’s a person who says she came to New York City from London, by way of South Africa, when she was 22 years old. So already, right off the bat, nothing Ransome says — even if we were to take it all at face value — would corroborate anything remotely related to any pedophilic sex-trafficking enterprise. Nonetheless, here are some noteworthy facts about Ransome. She said that when she first arrived in NYC, in 2006, she generated income by working with an “agency,” through which she would be “paid to spend dinner with a gentleman.” For such dinners, she said, she would receive $1,500. On certain occasions, she engaged in sexual relations with these “gentlemen” on her “own accord” — because, she said, sometimes they “happened to be really good looking.” So that’s what this adult, Sarah Ransome, was doing at the time she later claimed she was brutally enslaved in a heinous sex-trafficking ring.

When she became acquainted with Epstein, Ransome said, he began to pay for all her living expenses, including accommodations (an elegant apartment on the Upper East Side), transportation, food, and medical visits. She started traveling with Epstein on his private jet to his private island, with the understanding that she was to be available to provide him with massages upon request. During one of these massage sessions, she said, Epstein asked her to undress and lie down on the massage table, which she did. Epstein then started to perform a massage on Ransome, she said, and it turned sexual. Ransome was asked if she told Epstein to stop. “No, I didn’t,” she said. She confirmed that she had an orgasm during the encounter.

I grant that “Convicted sex offender did not, in fact, abuse this specific accuser” isn't a headline that's likely to win any awards for tact, but I'm still vexed that we are expected to grant “survivor testimony” near unqeustioned social immunity even when the factual record (sometimes to a legal standard) has already established that no such abuse occurred in the instance alleged.

Interestingly, the latest files revealed that Epstein had recommended his own lawyer to Robert Kraft to beat charges (against Kraft) of trafficking women from China. Instead, all charges against Kraft and 24 other men were dropped, and it was four of those women (aged 41 to 60) whom he allegedly trafficked who were arrested, charged and convicted.

Irregardless of any new developments in this case, the public and all political camps have latched on to this "pedo cabal" narrative to let it unravel. Epstein appears to have been a sexual predator who, in at least one period of his life, did engage in conduct meeting trafficking definitions involving minors (to himself). But there's nothing to substantiate a baroque, centrally managed blackmail syndicate spanning half the planet. Wealthy and powerful people likely did participate in morally compromising environments, but there is little evidence that a structured, coordinated conspiracy of the sort popular imagination has constructed ever existed.

EDIT: I'm heading to work, will read the replies later, but I gotta drop this piece by Michael Tracey, as it's pretty damning regarding Virginia Roberts Giuffre's credibility. Here are the article highlights:

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York found the marquee Epstein “survivor,” Virginia Roberts Giuffre, also known as VRG, to be so lacking in credibility that they were impelled to compose a lengthy December 19, 2019 memo detailing the many preposterous flaws with her many fantastical tales.

— They said they were “unable to corroborate” the central claim of VRG’s purported victimization, which had also given rise to the very essence of Epstein mythology as we now know it: that she was “lent out” for sexual services to prominent men, such as Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz.

— They noted that VRG’s accounts of her own sexual abuse were “internally inconsistent,” and not just over long periods of time, but within a single interview they conducted with her on September 9, 2019.

— They noted that VRG admitted to repeatedly lying about basic facts, destroying evidence, and telling falsehoods to the media.

— They noted that VRG schemed with a tabloid trash journalist, Sharon Churcher of the Daily Mail, to generate “big headlines” by accusing lots of prominent people of heinous child-sex crimes, in hopes that this would entice prospective publishers to buy their forthcoming “memoir” for big bucks.

— They noted that VRG claimed the FBI told her they were aware of “40 other Epstein victims,” but the FBI never told her any such thing.

— They noted that VRG had falsely claimed the FBI told her “Epstein had cameras watching her at all times,” and repeated this tantalizing claim to the media, but the FBI never told her any such thing. And indeed, they were “not aware of any such cameras.”

— They noted that VRG became “particularly combative” when asked for specific details of her claims, at one point cursing at the Assistant US Attorneys when they requested more information about the specific instances in which Ghislaine Maxwell had purportedly “directed her to have sex with another person.” An infuriated VRG eventually proclaimed: “She’s the one who brought me to be trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein in the fucking first place!” Which, conspicuously, did not answer the prosecutors’ question. Oh what I wouldn’t give for the video footage of VRG frothing at a stone-faced Maurene Comey.

— They noted that VRG “began using drugs so heavily that Epstein said he did not want her around anymore.” VRG has long acknowledged consuming large quantities of memory-impairing drugs during her tenure as a supposed sex slave, but I’m not aware of the drug-taking habit ever being cited as the proximate cause of her departure from Epstein. (But I could be misremembering; I’ve consumed such a lunatic amount of this material, I might as well be on some mind-melting substance.) Either way, VRG’s excess drug consumption is not supposed to be mentioned in polite company, because we’re not to “shame” her, even though VRG’s self-told memories of sexual misfortune many years after the fact are what unfortunately form the basis of the currently-existing Epstein mythology.

— They noted that VRG made a “continuous stream” of “sensationalized” claims in her public media appearances.

— They noted that VRG falsely claimed the FBI had told her there was a “credible” death threat against her, and repeated this in public several times, including in front of the Manhattan federal courthouse after the infamous August 27, 2019 struggle-session hearing I’ve previously written about. The memo says the FBI actually told her the exact opposite: that there were no credible threats against her! WTF!

Tracey has been kind enough to attach a copy of the memo, for those interested.

But there's nothing to substantiate a baroque, centrally managed blackmail syndicate spanning half the planet. Wealthy and powerful people likely did participate in morally compromising environments, but there is little evidence that a structured, coordinated conspiracy of the sort popular imagination has constructed ever existed.

This argument is rather weak when there are still significant amounts of the epstein files left completely unreleased, and what has been released is rife with plenty of illegal and unmerited redactions. The Trump admin has already had to unredact some of the files already because of how many there are. And that's despite the incredibly short time limit and restrictions they're allowing the senators to see the unredacted files for.

If there's nothing substantial to be gleaned, why is there still so much being actively hidden? Does the Trump admin just engage in coverups for the fun of it? This strategy of drawing it out for seemingly no reason has been nothing but egg on their face over and over, why do they insist on slow walking it and hiding so much of the files? This is the equivalent of walking into a kid's room after you told them to clean and they have that stereotypical cartoon bulge in the rug and saying "ah well must be clean then"

But ok sure, let's assume it really is just a nothingburger. Well that's what they get for spending years apparently lying to the public and courting the "conspiracy theorists" with bold claims. You can't just keep talking about the elite pedo rings you're gonna drain the swamp of, get into power and then say "nothing here". The only reason this even blew up is because they made releasing the files a whole spectacle, claiming they had the client list and other important details right there on Pam Bondi's desk and they would hand out information to journalists only to completely 180 and decide to hide everything.

Edit: And also, it seems pretty clear he was acting as a high class pimp even if all the women he pimped out were adults. That's still bad that he would have been running a fancy prostitute esque service for the elites, even if it's at least not a pedo ring.

If there's nothing substantial to be gleaned, why is there still so much being actively hidden? Does the Trump admin just engage in coverups for the fun of it? This strategy of drawing it out for seemingly no reason has been nothing but egg on their face over and over, why do they insist on slow walking it and hiding so much of the files?

I try to maintain skepticism in the face of most partisan-flavored claims, but Bondi's performance in front of Congress was so weirdly and unnecessarily belligerent, it's hard not to entertain the "What are they hiding?" questions more seriously now. As a conservative who is allergic to both Trump and TDS, it's bewildering to me how thoroughly his anti-civics adversarial temperament has spread throughout his administration in areas where it is best played cool. Why the AG chose to treat that hearing as a defensive MAGA brawl, drawing more attention to it, than just matter-of-factly answering the questions as if there are serious people working on serious matters, is something I will never understand. Ted Lieu's presentation of uncorroborated tip line craziness should've been easy for her to smack down with a clinical legal response, but instead she went apeshit. It has to be more than just incompetence, right? It's like actively malicious incompetence, at best.

Why the head of the FBI chose to treat that hearing as a defensive MAGA brawl, drawing more attention to it, than just matter-of-factly answering the questions as if there are serious people working on serious matters, is something I will never understand. Ted Lieu's presentation of uncorroborated tip line craziness

Doesn't this answer itself? Ted Lieu repeated accusations that Trump raped a child and killed it, this isn't a serious matter, these aren't serious people. Maybe Placid Bondi would have been a better media strategy. But given that senior Democrats are now arguing we have a pedophile president coverup, I'm not convinced any other Bondi media strategy would have received less criticism. Bondi could have been totally calm and relaxed and people would be saying, "The head of the FBI doesn't care about crimes, she's drawing more attention to the coverup!"

Doesn't this answer itself? Ted Lieu repeated accusations that Trump raped a child and killed it, this isn't a serious matter, these aren't serious people.

Random witness testimony might not be great evidence, but it is a form of evidence. Pam Bondi's claim was specifically "there is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime.". That is just factually wrong.

If she said "there is no convincing evidence" or "no strong evidence" that would be an opinion of hers. If she said " no admissable evidence", she'd likely be corect.

But instead, she stated a blatant falsehood. Written witness statements are often not very useful in court due to the inability to cross-examine, but "not useful evidence to prosecute because it's inadmissible in its current form" is also not the same as "not evidence"

“u/magicalkittycat participated in a child sacrifice cannibal ritual on Mount Clinton. What, that’s a solid accusation, that makes it evidence, you have to refute this now, there’s evidence!”

We all understand what “no evidence” actually means. It assumes implicitly that some claims are so low-effort that they don’t merit rebutting. When you call random anonymous tip line accusations about child rape “evidence” you’re implicitly asserting that they’re credible. Otherwise, what kind of gotcha language game is this?

The falsehood happens when Ted Lieu treats total bullshit as worth anyone’s time. Then, when Bondi dismisses this out of hand, he gets to act offended. That’s what this all is, it’s an obvious political stunt. It’s manipulative and it’s not in good faith. Unless you want to argue that “Donald Trump raped and killed a child” is credible, then it’s obvious that the distinction between “no evidence” and “no credible evidence” collapses. Or what, is Pam Bondi getting angry at obvious bullshit supposed to be a crime now because Ted technically rigged the question? This isn’t subtle and everyone knows exactly what’s meant here.

“u/magicalkittycat participated in a child sacrifice cannibal ritual on Mount Clinton. What, that’s a solid accusation, that makes it evidence, you have to refute this now, there’s evidence!”

Yes that is evidence normally. It's not strong evidence, but someone saying they witnessed it is a tiny adjustment upwards for Bayesian reasoning. It might be from say, .000001% to .0000011% or whatever, but yes it is evidence.

When you call random anonymous tip line accusations about child rape “evidence” you’re implicitly asserting that they’re credible. Otherwise, what kind of gotcha language game is this?

You can debate how useful that evidence is, I don't think on its own there is much. But it does exist.

In fact, there was enough evidence to at least cause a preliminary investigation into Trump. The Trump DOJ itself acknowledges this.

The Justice Department looked into sexual misconduct allegations against President Trump in connection with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein but did not find credible information to merit further investigation, Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, said on Sunday.

Why would they have investigated further at all unless the allegations had served as Bayesian evidence towards possible guilt?

Or what, is Pam Bondi getting angry at obvious bullshit supposed to be a crime now because Ted technically rigged the question?

He didn't ask if Trump committed a crime or not! He asked if the DOJ knows about the presence of any underage girls at the party Trump and Epstein had attended. She could have said "no, we are not aware of any" or something along those lines. Instead she falsely claimed there was no evidence of any crimes.

Nobody really thinks an anonymous random or motivated accusation constitutes evidence. There is no evidence Trump raped and murdered a little girl. I think you’re committed to defending this ridiculous definition of evidence because the alternative is admitting that Bondi did not commit some kind of perjury, and you were wrong.

Nobody really thinks an anonymous random or motivated accusation constitutes evidence. There is no evidence Trump raped and murdered a little girl. I think you’re committed to defending this ridiculous definition of evidence because the alternative is admitting that Bondi did not commit some kind of perjury, and you were wrong.

I never said she committed perjury, that requires intent. Ted Lieu's accusations of perjury are quite weak in fact. Because it's reasonable to interpret "there is no evidence" as having meant "there is no credible evidence", the bar showing otherwise is quite high.

However, it is still an untruth as it's called to state that there is no evidence.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats