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 -
New culture war news, from the secret squirrel cloak and dagger part of culture war.
And it is top tier blockbuster spy thriller tale. Tom Clancy might be dead, but his spirit is marching on.
Inside Israel’s Secret Operation to Cultivate Ahmadinejad
Inside the Mossad Plot to Install Israel's Arch-enemy Ahmadinejad as Iran's Leader
True if big, but is it big enough? What is really going on?
1/ All true news, you can always trust NYT and Haaretz. No one can resist Mossad grooming, even old revolutionary and God fearing true Muslim like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. All resistance is futile.
2/ All fake news, designed both to enhance Mossad reputation and depress Iranian morale. If even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was traitor recruited by the Zionist entity, who can be trusted? All resistance is futile.
Any way, Israel looks strong, but far from all powerful.
Speaking of Mossad and Iran, check out what the vice president just said https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/2077462242488971283
Now as we can all assume that just like Trump, Vance would never lie or act irresponsibly in his position at the top level of government so we should take him seriously when he said that Israeli and American intelligence clearly had connections to Epstein. And Epstein had a known interest in Iran.
One has to wonder how all these things may be connected, and why the Trump administration continues to cover up valuable parts of the Epstein files implicating American and Israeli intelligence communities. I wonder if it could have anything to do with what a former top advisor to the admin once said before being forced to censor himself. Did we get into the war because our president is being blackmailed by Israeli intelligence? I doubt it, he doesn't act like he's being blackmailed. And blackmailing when you're also guilty is a weird strategy. It seems more likely that the Israel/Epstein/Trump connections aren't blackmailing each other, but instead collaborative even now. They all scratch each other's back, and while there's a predator shaped chain wrapped around each one, the MAD situation gives them lenience too.
Actually, no. The rules say "speak plainly".
Stop doing this.
If you believe that Trump and Vance would lie and/or act irresponsibly, say so. Ideally in a substantive, interesting comment that adds to the discussion. Obviously, taking this path would be incompatible with what you want to vaguely but vigorously hint at: something like "Trump is paedophile". If that's an uncharitable distillation, then maybe try speaking plainly so people don't have to guess.
If, on the other hand, you don't think that Trump and Vance would lie and/or act irresponsibly --i.e. you want to disavow the entire smug point of your comment as, well, a lie -- then you can absolutely use Vance's comment as part of a chain of reasoning to connect Trump to Epstein, like you're salivating to do.
You want to have your cake and eat it. You want to simultaneously claim:
... can you please pick a principled position? You might learn something, if you actually made a single falsifiable claim and tried to honestly discuss it, rather than throwing out a general shitstorm of "my outgroup is bad" without ever committing to a single coherent position.
You're forced to guess either way. As the highest officials of the US government, there's good arguments we should presume they act in a mature manner and generally tell the truth. The courts do this with the executive (or at least generally did it). I, and you, don't know if Vance is lying here or even what parts (if he is) are lies and what are truths. None of us can know. I can not say that Vance is lying because I do not have access to all the redacted and hidden information he does.
So if we take the stance: "The executive branch is filled with honest, serious and mature people that should be given the benefit of the doubt" then we should assume that Israeli and US intelligence likely were involved with Epstein. If we don't take that stance, then it's hard to say because again even if he's lying we don't know which parts are lies and even if we did we only know that it is lies and not what the truthful alternative is. Given this site is extremely pro MAGA, I assume most people here take that stance and thus I reasoned from there.
If you want to explore the "Vance is lying" hypothetical instead and discuss what implications that could lead to, go ahead and do that instead of whining.
These can both coexist! Even the worst liars don't lie about everything. They are perfectly willing to be truthful if the truth benefits them. And you can't just flip around a lie and find the truth, not how lies work. We don't know what the truth is and what the files show. Even if he is lying about some parts of the Epstein files, it doesn't mean he is lying about every part!
Both possibilities here are suspicious.
Vance is lying about something, in which case what is he trying to coverup and which parts are a lie?
Vance is not lying anywhere, in which case what do those connections mean?
You are breaking the rules and wasting everyone's time.
Pretending that pointing that out is "whining" is pathetic.
Speak plainly.
No, I wouldn't be forced to guess about what you believe if you actually stated what you believe. I wouldn't have to guess, because I would assume you were attempting to honestly represent your beliefs.
I want you to be honest and state what you believe. Not just on this, but in general. I want you to make comments where you actually stake out a position that people can discuss, rather than just flinging shit at people you don't like, but in a way where you can't be pinned down on any particular claim, because you veil your claims behind ambiguity, sarcasm, and contempt for people you consider to be less intelligent than you.
No, they can't. Not inside the same argument!
Then say that. Ideally, pick one possibility, explain why you think it's true, and explain what it would imply.
Or, less ideally, construct a position of "one of these two things must be true", explain why you think that, and explain what each of them would imply.
What's juvenile is to simultaneously push for both being true. "Hey guys, Vance and Trump are pieces of shit and lie all the time. Also, Vance said this thing, and because he said it, it must be true; and, if true, it implies Trump is a paedo".
That's pathetic and contributes to the degradation of the Motte. Why is it so hard to just present a principled position? Why do you insist on marshalling a troop of mutually contradictory ideas-as-soldiers?
You are demanding the impossible, I can not know what is and isn't truthful in Vance's statements. I do not have access to the full unredacted information. I can only operate in the hypothetical and I addressed Hypothetical 1: He is being truthful here.
That's why if you notice a key part from my statement
I will not make bold claims like "Vance is definitely lying" when I can not know that. But I can analyze some possible conclusions if we assume Vance is being truthful, like many assume about Trump's statements, then what does that possibly imply?
"Speak plainly", how about you bother to read instead? I did speak plainly. I plainly said it was a hypothetical assumption! The word is right there.
Again even if we flip the assumption around and observe the hypothetical where he is a liar, it doesn't tell us what parts are a lie and what is truth.
No one was asking for that.
No one even remotely hinted at asking for that.
I asked you to state what you believe.
You are the only person who finds that to be an insurmountable burden, or who deliberately conflates it with being asked for a perfect factual assessment of the world.
Stop lying.
No one asked you to.
That's not what you did.
You stated, while making the patented magicalkittycat ":3" face, that Vance was being truthful.
My entire point is requesting that you cut out this bullshit, and do the thing you just pretended you were doing all along. If you want to construct a hypothetical, construct the hypothetical.
But you don't. You want to dunk on people you think are less intelligent than you, and then pretend you weren't doing it.
I have no idea who you think this onanistic farce is fooling.
Wish granted: I already read everything you said.
You always say this when you run out of arguments. It's lame. Try speaking plainly instead. Other people don't find it hard.
Another masterful exercise in completely ignoring the thing you just quoted.
What are you even doing?
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
More options
Context Copy link