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 -
Too soon indeed.
Never again back a Democratic candidate that isn't an HR lady because a heterosexual male with any semblance of sexual history is at risk of getting MeToo'd just before the election.
There's a reason why none of these accusations are ever about something that happened last night, and there's always some string of enthusiastic text messages that are totally at odds with the way the accuser currently remembers things. Yet we're expected to accept unverified SA allegations influencing politics and woe be on he who dares question the word of Her Holiness, The Victim™.
This guy is probably the most obvious sexual assaulter we've had in recent memory, even more obvious than some of the people who have previously down weird sex stuff.
The guy has posted about fantasizing about raping and killing people...and joined the military to do that (in how own words!), claimed to be a huge WWII buff but got a Nazi tattoo, has significant infidelity problems that aren't contested, and I'm not even sure that's all of it.
Hearing that he was a rapist or a sex pest is more unsurprising than anything.
Would you be shocked if President grab-her-by-the-pussy is outed as a rapist tomorrow? And would you be shocked if those allegations were then found to be fabricated next week? There's always nebulous "signs" that seem obvious in hindsight, especially when characterised with a more "flexible" personal ethics than what's normal. But the allegations need to stand on their own legs as well. Or we could simply chuck legal procedure, cede to the court of public opinion (read: mob rule) and do only what's optically feasible.
According to reddit Trump is a rapist. Adjudicated civilly liable for rape or whatever phrasing they use. We're far past that in the minds of his opponents.
More options
Context Copy link
As another user pointed out, Democracy is already "mob rule" and nothing will stop the Collins campaign and conservative media from repeating the allegations against him. And nothing will stop hesitant voters from changing their minds when they hear about it. This isn't a criminal court, this is an election. If you want to talk about "proper procedure" in the court of public opinion, then it should go both ways and the politico article should not have even been allowed.
It's like my government mandated friend issue, there is a fundamental different between the government organization and the private citizen/organization. The government can not (or at least should not) arrest you for the content of your speech, meanwhile I can kick you out of my house for any reason I want. In the same way the government shouldn't jail someone without due process and high standards of evidence, but I am free to judge you off whatever standard I please, including explicitly unfair and biased ones.
Certainly, I have many reservations with involving the "court of public opinion" before the allegations are formally investigated and some degree of plausibility is established. It's a problem I don't have a workable solution for, short of CCP style censorship. My contention is, we're supposed to accept that unproven sexual allegations alone should be able to dictate political affairs, but not ask critical questions.
In practice, if this person was later found to be innocent and had an otherwise good chance of winning the elections, haven't you basically shot your own foot? There are literally no cultural antibodies against situations like this. At least the GOP can defend their own.
They're gonna dictate political affairs even if people don't believe them much because it tilts the scales.
Maybe you think X = 55 favorable and Y = 50 favorable, so you would vote X. However X now has a serious llegation against him that you think is 30% true, and a less serious allegation against him that you think is 70% true. Maybe the serious allegation at full is a -15 and the less serious is a -8. So X gets a -4.5 and a -5.6 respectively, putting them below Y and you now prefer Y.
It is perfectly reasonable that even not proven allegations if even somewhat evidenced will impact voters. And again, nothing would stop the Collins campaign from repeating these allegations. Nothing would stop the Collins campaign from repeating and finding other allegations either, as we know was part of their plan and why they're panicking now that Planter seems to be dropping out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thee number of allegations that fell through against President grab-her-by-the-pussy is precisely why I would be shocked if Trump were outed as a rapist tomorrow. If there were strong, credible evidence of rape, it would have been raised by now. Lord knows it would have been much easier than burning the Democrat's own credibility via resorting to novel legal theories and banal hypocrisies.
But the reason for that shock is that convincing evidence tomorrow only come in the context of a long history of disproven or unsupported allegations yesteryear. If there is convincing evidence, I would be shocked for it to come out now, and not earlier in the better part of a decade of effort to destroy Trump.
By contrast, I am not shocked when a first-run would-be congress critter's dirty laundry starts to appear during their first run, precisely because it is their first run and they've never been subject to stricter public scrutiny before. With stricture scrutiny comes the low hanging fruits being easily noticed, and low hanging fruits give a starting point to find the less-obvious higher hanging fruits from the same tree.
More options
Context Copy link
I hate to break it to you, but the method the US has for filling political offices relies substantially on public opinion, or 'mob rule', as you phrased it.
Criminal procedure requirements apply to criminal penalties only. Your partner may still dump you on evidence of infidelity which would not be conclusive enough for a jury to send you to the gallows, simply because there is no due process requirement for dumping a partner.
Likewise, there is no motion to suppress testimony in political campaigns, because not getting elected to the US Senate is not a violation of your fundamental rights. In the end, it is up to the sovereign to decide how much any allegations disqualify you or not.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm personally of the opinion that Trump has probably had sexual encounters that would be considered rape by median 2020 peak woke values of such, however I don't think he's likely to have committed anything especially vile by standards of his immediate cultural standards. I'm sure Platner got laid a bunch for tweaking the right signals that'd kill it with a Tumblr chicklit enthusiast, but 'manly takechargey man' is a role that is always going to be dancing on the line of consent. Especially when consent can be assigned and retracted retroactively at any time for any reason
More options
Context Copy link
No, and no, respectively, and that's the fault of his brag-about-sexual-assault behavior and of his attackers' throw-mud-and-see-what-sticks behavior, so neither of my "no"s is wrong in either the positive or normative sense.
Are there, though? Politician is a pretty awful job for people who aren't attracted to power, which might correlate with sexual force kinks and probably correlates with being willing to lie for power, but even vague signs aren't "always" there. It's not a wacky coincidence that we've been talking about Platner pretty exclusively before this final straw. Cory Booker might be a contributor to federal gridlock, but do you think he might be a rapist? John Cornyn might lie about how partisan his Supreme Court confirmation behavior was, but do you think he'd lie to frame someone for rape?
In this case in particular, we're in theory talking about a candidate who was head-hunted by party insiders, not somebody whose drive to power led him to start a campaign on his own initiative. If we're already widening the search that proactively, couldn't we just have found someone with no Nazi tattoos, no public statements of bloodlust, no reports of abuse from exes, no violations of wedding vows, and no accounts on creepy sites famed for underaged sexting? This is not actually a big ask! There are loads of normal people out there, some of whom would probably agree to run for Senator anyway!
More options
Context Copy link
Shocked? No.
But Trump is vulgar, being a sex pest makes sense, rapist maybe less so but not shocking. This guy is HEINOUS. He bragged about having thoughts of raping men for dominance, like it makes more sense than not!
Vague, nebulous post-hoc signs are a problems but this guy is not that!
If you had to make a most Sus guy in a lab it would look like this guy.
I followed it up with another question.
You know why MeToo ran out of mileage?
The signal-to-noise ratio of the allegations was probably the worst we've ever seen at the time. Becky accuses Brad on twitter, incident happened somewhere in LA several years ago so no evidence exists, she was super scared so no police complaint was filed, you know the drill. And she's definitely not lying because "you don't lie about these things and it's hard to lie about it rape".
Except, it's the digital age. It's never been easier to lie! People lie, casually and often, about far more outlandish things than SA. And the online mob will reliably follow her word to lynch Brad.
You can't reason with the mob, why allow them to get involved at all?
There are people who want Trump gone, we know that. We have precedent within the decade for smear campaigns (see Russiagate) to delegitimise his Presidency. An unverified rape charge at a politically critical moment? Is that not Sus?
You're confusing MeToo with the campus rape allegations. I'm not aware of single MeToo incident that involved a single individual making accusations about an isolated instance of sexual misconduct that happened decades ago. The closest was Brett Kavanaugh, but even that isn't a great instance because it was a presumed attempted rape and it didn't prevent his Supreme Court confirmation. The New York Times did a postmortem in the fall of 2018 documenting over 200 incidents, the overwhelming majority of which involved some kind of workplace harassment. The perpetrators often admitted the accusations or at least to some kind of vague wrongdoing "I apologize for any inappropriate behavior...", and most of the cases involved multiple accusers, witnesses, or some other kind of corroboration.
I said several years ago, not decades ago. Meaning a large enough window for people to forget or misremember key details about the incident and for key pieces of evidence to no longer exist. Aziz Ansari comes to mind, and he even apologised to her afterwards. There was also Jeremy Soule in the games industry, accusations surfaced 10 years after the alleged incident and he went off-grid afterwards. Chris Avellone was accused of sexual misconduct that allegedly took place in undisclosed time periods, two of his accusers retracted the accusations and settled a libel suit outside of court. I don't know if this counts, but Depp v Heard involved alleged incidents (including sexual) spanning years.
Because the GOP is understood to be on the "man" side of gender politics, which allows for presumption of innocence (not just legally, but socially and professionally). If he was a Democrat, he would've been dropped like a hot potato.
I don't doubt the stories NYT picked up and ran with actually met some degree of plausibility to formally report, but MeToo was an ambient enforcement of social pressure to listen and believe countless stories with varying levels of believability. We have to just accept that misconduct allegations could surface at any point and we should take every one of them very seriously, but never seriously ask critical questions.
Soule's accusations came in 2019, and Avellone's in 2020. The Johnny Depp allegations became public during his 2016 divorce but disappeared from the headlines for years and didn't become a major part of public discourse until the 2022 defamation trial. I bring these dates up because your post implied that MeToo petered out because of a raft of similar claims that people stopped taking seriously. MeToo took off with the Weinstein accusations in November 2017 and continued apace until the following summer, during which they slowly petered out, with the Asia Argento and Les Moonves allegations being the last major ones. The Ansari thing came out in January of 2018, and while it sort of fits the pattern you describe and was controversial at the time, even among ardent MeToo supporters, it didn't have much of an effect on the momentum of the movement as a whole.
There was always a sort of motte and bailey going on with the Kavanaugh case, at least insofar as it was discussed by Kavanaugh's defenders. There were also political considerations involved that swamped the whole thing, and I'll state for the record that neither side covered itself in glory throughout the affair. For some background, Ford privately reported what she remembered to Diane Feinstein, who was the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in July, amid speculation that Kavanaugh was on Trump's short list to replace Kennedy. Feinstein kept this information to herself until Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings were nearing conclusion in September, which required them to be extended for some time while the claims were investigated. The Republicans may be broadly described as on the "pro-man" side of the argument, but I don't think they defended Kavanaugh purely based on ideology but through political necessity. Had Feinstein quietly informed the White House and the rest of the committee of the potential scandal, there's a good chance that Kavanaugh isn't named, nobody asks any questions, and nobody has ever heard of Christine Blasey Ford. By timing the revelations when she did, Feinstein ensured that the administration couldn't pull the nomination without causing the Supreme Court to start the fall term short one conservative justice, which would have benefited Democrats.
To make matters worse, there wasn't really even time to adequately investigate the allegations. Which is why I also disagree with your characterization that their position was one of a presumption of innocence, as that implies merely a presumption, not a conclusion. The GOP and most conservative commentators did not take the position that the matter should be investigated and adjudicated, but that the accusations should be discounted on their face. "Believe all women" may not be a tenable policy, but neither is "assume all women are lying for personal or political gain". Whatever problems there were with Ford's story, it was difficult to conclude that they were fabricated out of whole cloth; she had made the accusations privately on several occasions beginning in 2012, and it would be ridiculous to assume that it was all part of some long-term setup as if she had a crystal ball and knew that he'd be nominated for the Supreme Court one day. In their hast to confirm Kavanaugh before the first Monday in October, the administration tried to limit the Senate investigation as much as possible, and when several senators said they would only vote for confirmation if Kavanaugh was cleared by an FBI investigation, the administration micromanaged the investigation in an attempt to limit its scope and conclude it quickly.
Of course we have to take them seriously. The entire movement was based on the idea that, despite awareness campaigns and legal protections dating from at least the 1980s, this kind of behavior was still disturbingly common and still not taken seriously. None of the big names that came out of MeToo—Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey, Mario Battali, etc.—have been exonerated, and I haven't heard any suggestion that the accusations against them were fabricated. There simply isn't any evidence that a lot of people were getting railroaded or that nobody was asking serious questions. To the extent that most of this was controversial, it was cases like Ansari's where there was no factual dispute over what happened, just whether it was appropriate. This is why I don't understand the blowback from it, which largely suggests that none of these claims are credible and that we should just ignore them, because even subjecting the accused to an investigation would be too much of a punishment. What basically happened in the end was that women came out and said that something was true, that this kind of behavior wasn't being taken seriously enough, and conservative opponents came out and told them that they had no desire to take it seriously. That's what it all boils down to.
I'm not claiming the movement petered out cleanly in one summer. But it did break down into a lower grade yet persistent cultural enforcement mechanism. The timeline nitpicking doesn't take away the fact that MeToo normalised treating accusations as sufficient grounds for professional and social destruction in far too many cases. The cases involving high-profile names going unpunished were the motte. The bailey was many, many smaller cases with varying levels of credibility, but decisions being made purely to appease the online mob. This is like nuking an entire city to kill a couple hundred terrorists. The online mob, a phenomenon that did not exist to nearly the planetary proportions just a few years prior, was the backbone of MeToo. A self-righteous and frankly, ignorant social force animated by a twisted sense of justice, that does not believe in a process beyond believing the accuser's word (sourced from social media, the uncontested bastion of truth and objectivity), and is so easily manipulated, probably should not have a say in these matters.
And that reveals the double standard at the heart of the whole affair. Yes, Feinstein sat on the letter for strategic reasons. Yes, the timing was political. But that's exactly the problem. The Democrats weaponised a decades-old, uncorroborated allegation at the last possible moment to derail a nomination. They didn't bring it forward early for a proper vetting, they leaked it (or allowed it to leak) at the eleventh hour for maximum damage. It was calculated lawfare and the GOP knew it. The process was already a circus by this point.
You call it "discounted on their face." I call it recognising a political ambush when you see one. The fact remains, the presumption of innocence wasn't abandoned by the GOP. The false dichotomy of "believe all women" versus "assume all women are lying for personal or political gain" is exactly the problem. The sane position is simpler and more rhetorically humble: "I'm sorry for what you're going through but I don't know you. I don't know the accused. I wasn't there. I don't possess the means to verify your claims. I'm not implying you're lying, I'm asking you to show basic merit to your claims when you're asking the public and institutions to defenestrate someone over them." This is where the online mob fails the bar, not that they intended to pass anyway.
Ford's story had serious problems from the start. Massive memory gaps (duh), no corroboration from people she named, changing details, and a history of left-wing activism. "She mentioned it privately multiple times since 2012" is weaksauce, frankly. People tell stories to friends for all kinds of reasons, including (mostly) personal. And none of those supposed confidants came forward with contemporaneous evidence anyway. You don't need a "long-term setup" to explain this. And FYI, I'm not saying this was the case. But it is a possibility that cannot be ignored. Point being, we don't know.
Look, I wasn't expecting to debate MeToo on TheMotte in 2026. In hindsight, the movement blew up well beyond its stated principles. The "overwhelming majority was workplace harassment claims with corroboration" line is true for the NYT's carefully curated list of big fish. It is necessarily not true for the ambient cultural wave that swept through every industry, university, and social circle. MeToo created an environment where a single accusation - often years old, often with no contemporaneous evidence, often from someone who may or may not have a vendetta - was enough to trigger professional death. Believe women became the default. This didn't stay confined to Weinstein and Spacey, it also infected the middle ground, and that's where the real damage was done.
This isn't a decibel contest, there are no objective metrics to quantify social media noise that I can just link to. There was a cultural norm where accusations, especially from women, carried enormous presumptive weight, and questioning them was socially radioactive.
The fact that a bad date with pressure but no clear non-consent became national conversation under the MeToo banner shows how far the evidentiary bar had dropped. And it wasn't even the alleged victim that went to the tabloid, a friend of hers did. This was not an outlier. It was the new standard in action.
You keep weakmanning again and again. The blowback was "normal standards of evidence and skepticism should apply before we treat an accusation as sufficient grounds for professional and social destruction." The movement was trying to replace those norms with faith-based decision making. No one was arguing against investigating claims, that is exactly what they were advising. Go to the right authorities and let them do the job. If a decision was made following an exhaustive investigation and your claims were substantiated, great. Not a problem. But the online vigilantism was the real engine. This is the part that MeToo's defenders keep minimising. A self-righteous digital crowd that wasn't there, doesn't know any of the people involved, has no access to evidence, is motivated to lie for clicks and engagement, and is primarily driven by signaling virtue. That mob gets to have the loudest voice in deciding someone's fate, treating due process as an annoying inconvenience at best? That is what made the signal-to-noise ratio catastrophic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Two things can be true at the same time.
MeToo involved a bunch of bullshit.
This guy is by his own uncontested words a huge shit bag in multiple ways, including in ways that would make you think he's the likely sort to commit sexual assault.
The contested stuff is just a cherry on top.
Additional process information includes the fact that this stuff was out their for months and then held back by various individuals, it wasn't fabricated right now, and the fact that the people who vetted him found and knew about a lot of this and admitted it.
It's blowing my mind that people are defending this guy.
Progressives are defending this guy because Platner's just the top image in hello_human_resources.jpg
I defend this guy because I want a candidate (who has politics I don't even agree with) to win an election regardless of how much female-privilege-associated (re: "consent violations") dirt appears, so that people stop listening to women when they invoke it.
We are not the same.
(What your mind is being blown by are conservatives who don't understand this, so they're all busy debating whether it was or wasn't consensual because that's the framework they use to Protect Women. They don't understand that the entire concept of "consent" was destructive from the start and that women don't need that protection in an equal world.)
I mean you realize you are supporting a guy who supposedly said he would love an excuse to rape men, right?
In today's instance of "Worst Person You Know Made a Funny Post"...
More options
Context Copy link
Yes?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean I agree it's sus and this wouldn't likely be platformed as enthusiastically if it wasn't otherwise convenient to do so, but also Platner's whole existence is prettymuch 'overly horny man who tiptoes on the line of consent' and with that established it's hardly a massive stretch that he's fallen across the foul line at some point. Especially with modern conceptions of consent where it's entirely vibe-based and can be switched on and off retroactively whenever suits.
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