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 -
Joe Rogan continues to provide some of the most interesting conversations in the world. Yes he seems to have gone down some conspiracy rabbit holes, but he gets interesting people in a seat and has a long ass conversation with them.
Recently he had Vance. A few things popped to me.
-You'll never convince me Vance isn't part of the SSC/Rationalist diaspora, when he goes off of politics he just oozes it.
-For the UFO fans he says he'll keep looking into it but he doesn't have a lot of hope.
-He did a good job defending some of his more questionable personal and political actions (the demon comment, election issues, the current Iran tactics). Less good with some other things like quashing the filibuster.
-Vance states he is an Epstein conspiracy theorist (but not in the popular way), in the interview he focuses more on the financial aspects of whatever Epstein got up to and focuses away from the pedophile stuff, hard to tell if he really believes nothing is there on that end.
-Joe Rogan's haters continue to be annoying and non-credible, he pushes Vance more than I remember seeing him come at most of the political guests I've watched (but is accused of being glazing).
I've been fortunate to be around for or involved in private conversations with "notable" people, it's fascinating. At the same time I'm not a notable person, so even when that's happened I have to just accept the circumstances and hang back. We live in a time where JRE and other things like "In Good Company" (and even smaller things like the brief podcast Enes Y did) give unprecedented access to the thoughts and plans of the profoundly powerful. Previously you had to sit for a public speech or pay for a dinner, now we can really get a bit of a slice of what Vance is about.
What a wonder.
I feel like the Epstein political/business links are a way more interesting thread to pull than quibbling over whether he hired 16, 17 or 18 year old girls to act as Escorts at parties. Anybody trying to claim Epstein was sacrificing 4 year olds to Satan is clearly on some galaxy-brain nonsense and is going to float into the air sharting themselves if a civilized discussion emerges. Who was paying for Epstein, how many other whoremonger types have his sort of network and how'd he manage to ascend so explosively strike me as actual questions worth getting answers to.
Epstein is the same as Pizzagate. It is the natural continuation of Franklin, or Bohemian Grove. There are sex trafficking networks that operate all over the world to bind public figures through shared perversion and blackmail. You can see the tail, or the trunk, or the foot all by itself, every once in a while. If you pay attention, you noticed it's all an elephant.
Franklin was boy prostitutes in Franklin Oklahoma connected to high level politicians, including visits to the HW Bush white house. Hunter Thompson filmed a snuff film at Bohemian Grove.
All of this stuff has been around for those with eyes to see for years.
I have no doubt that Epstein did sex trafficking, likely of people a bit under the legal age of consent, and I'm fine with him going to prison. I just think that it was way more 'paying a 16 year old escort' than it was 'kidnapping 4 year olds for snuff films'. Say what you want about Pizzagate but the allegations there were more about genuine children and kidnapping.
More options
Context Copy link
No, look -- I have friends in the Bohemian Club and the Family (which split off) and have spent some time on campus. There are many interesting things I could tell you, but nothing like that. They're just summer camps for extremely successful men who want to goof off with each other without dealing with the public. They're more interested in forming cover bands and putting on silly stage plays than conspiring about anything. I mean, I'm sure they do plenty of that elsewhere, but not at the Club. That's just not what it's for. And they don't even seem to get any slack on regulations. For example, a little creek wandering through the woods got designated a 'navigable waterway' (absurd) and so they can't rebuild a cabin that slid down into it.
The food is very nice though and the best part about it is that it's an extremely high-trust environment. You can just walk up to anybody and he's gonna be very interesting and capable of a great conversation and happy to talk to you because if you're there you're pre-filtered for talent, success, and urbanity. Politics vary much more widely than you'd think, though due to the average age most people are fairly boomerish and mainstream. From my perspective they mostly come off as naive neolibs and have the same sensibilities (re: race and sex) you'd find anywhere.
Anyway the instinct to mistrust the elites is good and right, but they go to the Club to re-live being teenagers at boy scout camp and have a good time, not to discuss work or, uh, kill people? Yeah I'm pretty sure that never happened. It's all much, much more normal, and even boring, than I expect you to believe.
ETA: Something that might help illustrate the vibe is that if a member has his cell phone out in public he's kicked out of the club for two years. If he brings a guest and the guest has his phone out in public the member is still kicked out for two years! This has nothing to do with secrecy. It's about creating a pleasant, relaxing in-person social setting away from the world. Scrolling or taking work calls there would be totally contrary to the point of the place and they're serious about maintaining the vibe.
It's the faggiest damn thing I've ever seen
-Richard Nixon
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem with this thesis is there’s a baseline rate of sexual crimes, and despite all conspiritard claims to the contrary, I do not actually see evidence that the rate for powerful people exceeds the baseline rate—especially given the obvious misincentive to accuse powerful people of things in hopes to score media views or even extort settlement money.
Sex crimes are likely bimodal. A lot at the low IQ/limited options side and a lot for the very rich. The rich have power and run casting couches and the poor just do weird stuff.
But the middle class people fear getting in trouble so far less degeneracy.
I think it's a baseline rate for every the middle class version of sex crimes is creepy coaches and priests.
Every few years we would hear of either a priest or coach getting caught doing something pervy. When I was in highschool it was the JV girls soccer coach, one of the girls found a camera in the locker room, they traced it back to him.
My sister had a weird and uncomfortable encounter with the physical therapist for the high school. But it was a few years after we were gone that he got arrested for a statutory assault.
I would not be surprised if the news about sex crimes is bi modal. The middle class likes to look down on the lower class animals beneath them, and also know the sordid details of the rich and famous.
Maybe. I might prefer the term sexual deviancy to sex crimes for a bimodal distribution of sexual deviancy. For both the poor and rich sexual deviancy is low costs. For the poor they have little to lose. For the rich the costs is money they have plenty of. For the rich it might be 300 prostitutes a year (technically illegal but not prosecuted) or sugar babies or whatever Charlie Sheen was doing. The middle class can neither risks jail (they lose families) or just buy a lot of sex. But for the poor and rich sexual deviancy is rather cheap. Though saying this also means there are a lot of female semi-prostitutes in the middle class.
Actually have a friend who’s got a trust fund, dad sent him to sex-rehab, and is probably up to around 300-500 a year semi or full prostitutes. So this definitely exists in the upper class. I found it funny when Aella tried to claim most of her clients were either virgins or married guys with wives who no longer want sex. I bet like alcohol and every other market who clientele is from high volume users and possibly semi addicts.
I feel like the looseness of borders around 'sex work' also make it tricky to collate exactly what counts.
Aella clearly counts, but like if hypothetically some rich guy has a fuckbuddy that he knows is like 100% to put out to him/his friends if he invites her to a Yacht Party and pays for her proverbial ticket, is that not sexwork on some level?
I’m not even sure if Aella and her hoe friends count. I think they’ve all made like date me papers and want to marry an autistic tech nerd. So creating a website with a buy me now button for 4k an hour just filters for the exact social skills they already want to sleep with in a way an autistic nerd can filter thru.
It kind of depends on how many men they are sleeping with and whether it’s more sex more other stuff.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The casting couch isn't a rich people thing, it's a theatre thing. Theatre has been associated with promiscuous behaviour for millennia.
In general, I see no evidence that the increased capacity of the wealthy to buy access to sex results in their doing so any more than their capacity to buy unlimited Doritos and Mountain Dew results in their doing so.
Sorry but your analogy doesn’t work. Rich people don’t drink Mountain Dew because it’s an inferior product. Doritos are kind of good but it’s limited by other reasons (getting fat not money). And rich people do spend more money on food than poor people.
Both of those products have economic limiting factors that are not monetary - health. The pleasure of fucking 19 year old girls on birth control doesn’t have negative health consequences. But can be acquired with money.
More options
Context Copy link
I think athletes are the exception? Probably because most wealthy need to become wealthy or inherit the expectations of the wealthy so they make better decisions.
Athletes are constantly caught in prostitute scandals, rape scandals, even ordering underage women via text message.
Athletes have a lot more in common with lottery winners than typical high earners, with social clout on top of it
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the problem is with the organization.
It is possible that there is a small town where a group of wicked people meet up at a local business and abuse their children together, all covered up by the local head of police.
It's a different matter when that same structure is reproduced at an inter-continental scale, with private islands, officials with enough access to allow border crossing, organizations whose overt purpose provide plausible deniability ie modeling agencies, fashion companies, NGOs...
Then we can expect child abuse not to be a matter of opportunity but of sourcing.
More options
Context Copy link
Don't call me conspiratard.
How do you think underage callboys got into the white house? Why were they there? Who brought them, and why?
Or do you simply deny that it ever happened?
We see glimpses, from time to time, but if you're waiting for a grand reveal you'll never get it.
To what does this refer? Google isn’t helping.
Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush
Craig Spence
A quick skim does not indicate any "underage callboys" in the white house in these sources.
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
More options
Context Copy link