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 -
Tucker Carlson, underwater UFOs attracted to nuclear power, head injuries and a cover-up?
That's all in this interview: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kAaFEOCHE4I&t=4258
It looks pretty legit, it's a long interview. I'm not the best at discerning AI fake lip movements from real speech but it seems right. It seems difficult for AI to do such a long video, with expressive facial movements and hand gestures. (Maybe Mussolini-style really expressive posture and hand gestures will be a way to express authenticity in the near future?)
Anyway, Tucker starts off with the whole legitimizing preface about how he lived in Washington for ages, he worked with the government, never one of those 'conspiracy theorists' who believe fluoride causes brain injuries. Then he describes how this Stanford Professor wanted to talk to him. Apparently he's a big expert on head injuries and the US Department of Defense was consulting with him, trying to avoid making payments to families of 100 servicemen who had traumatic head injuries from UFOs. Some kind of mysterious energy scrambles their brains. Tucker affirms that these UFOs are really interested in nuclear power, visiting A-bombs, nuclear subs, carriers and missiles. This matches up with what I heard for a long time about their interest in nuclear activities, though I'm sure people will point out that nuclear power is often near our best radar/investigative apparatus on airbases or carriers.
I guess it begs the question of why this elite professor didn't come on the show, though I suspect the US military has ways of putting pressure on people. Many professors aren't willing to become massive media figures over night, maybe he reconsidered. Maybe they wanted more proof, to ironclad their story. Tucker doesn't mention it, though he says he was strongly persuaded that the professor's credentials are real. He says Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have some of the UFO wreckage and have been studying it. He implies it's alien. I would've thought with all that they could come up with something more exciting than the F-35 with that tech.
There's also something going on underwater, these heat sources that aren't rising in accordance with physics, weird moving signatures at hundreds of knots underwater, UFOs there too. He sneers at Prince Harry too, as part of his argument that most people aren't going to be freaked out by aliens arriving on the basis that they'll just be reading about celebrity drama the next day - they're too pacified. It's sort of correct on a meta level since he only talks about UFOs at the end of the interview, the first hour mostly seems to be about Canada, Onlyfans, trans. I skimmed through the transcript (and highly recommend you do the same if like me you're unwilling to watch long stretches of video).
I'm predisposed to agree with Tucker that there's something large-scale and serious going on like aliens. I already thought that the standard anti-alien-UFO arguments were somewhat weak. It seems you could explain away anything if you try hard enough: radar glitches, sonar glitches, advanced targeting systems getting confused by clouds, sustained human error from military professionals... That could almost cover up a small war! I think the whole 'priors' argument is overstated - its like a circular argument if we dismiss things that look like non-inertial movement as non-inertial movement is impossible. Priors are supposed to be updated both ways. Likewise with interstellar travel - it might be very hard for us but perhaps it's much easier for very advanced civilizations. We have no idea how far the tech tree goes, we certainly haven't completed our basic understanding of how the universe's forces operate. 95% of the universe is 'dark'. Maybe you need a staggeringly powerful stellar-scale particle accelerator to get to the next level and do crazy things. Or strong AGI. The US military also filed patents on some powerful technologies a few years ago - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30256/scientist-behind-the-navys-ufo-patents-has-now-filed-one-for-a-compact-fusion-reactor
Still, I suppose Tucker could be trying to sow confusion as part of some 5D chess gambit - he does by his own admission have a long history with govt and mainstream media. To his credit he apologizes for being part of the problem, defending the Iraq War (towards the end of the video). There's also the whole Tucker text messages story which came out recently which implies he might not be entirely honest. I'd like to hear about the context in which he called Trump a 'destroyer' and 'demonic force' though, on that matter.
Opinions? Thoughts? Predictions on whether Tucker will make a big official announcement about aliens?
Traumatic UFO head injuries ... mysterious energy ... is just UFO havana syndrome. Impossible to nail down neurological / psychological symptoms, "it's affecting our brains remotely", unclear and shifting mechanisms. And even, for literal Havana syndrome, "seven U.S. intelligence agencies" recently came to a consensus that "the involvement of a foreign adversary was "very unlikely"", i.e. it's wasn't real. It's just influenceable or careless people catching a trend.
And same for the underwater UFOS, "these heat sources that aren't rising in accordance with physics, weird moving signatures at hundreds of knots underwater" is just - weird instrument signatures, always physically implausible and on the boundary of error, constantly shifting.
Why a "5D chess gambit"? He either, like many people (and you), has a personal interest in UFOs, maybe more than usual because it's informed by more personal secondhand accounts, or is playing to an audience for attention. Both make more sense. And aliens are popular enough already, how much more confusion does this really add?
Well, I did think about Havana syndrome. But Havana syndrome doesn't kill you and get doctor's inspecting your brain. That's pretty nailed down, that's nails in the coffin (at least after the autopsy).
Okay, so the full claim from tucker is, from the transcript
This is a hundred times less plausible than havana syndrome. Giant glowing things that remotely kill people that approach them? "some kind of powerful energy that we cannot identify" - what? We understand physics very well, it has to be one of the recognized kinds of radiation if it's acting remotely, or maybe a ... fast-acting gas?? And if this has invaded military bases and killed someone, let alone killed a hundred servicemen, I can't believe at all the 'military' believing it's 'some powerful energy we cannot identify'.
There's probably a combination of telephone game retelling andcombining a bunch of different stories into a big narrative - like (hypothetical!) 100 soldiers killed by 'unidentified flying objects', when that includes 'hobby drones' and 'our planes we didn't identify correctly during training accidents', plus someone filed a dumb lawsuit about UFO brain injuries that the person was asked to consult on, plus some internal UFO believers in the military (which there have to be, given how many people generally are into UFO stuff). [preceding was written before I looked up gary nolan, and not edited afterwards, so you can compare my vague illustration to what happened]
Apparently, he's referring to Gary Nolan -
So, most of the individuals weren't dead! And the claimed brain damage ... from a vice interview of nolan
There's then a detour into how some of what they thought was 'damage' was really natural physiological variation in caudate-putamen density, or something, which was more common in their patients due to selection for competence among military personnel. Which ... doesn't seem that plausible, but is mostly irrelevant.
He's also "analyzed inanimate materials like alleged UAP fragments".
Not buying it.
(And he is certainly tucker's guy: "Nolan appeared on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight[32] show on August 1st 2022, during which he discussed his UAP related research in an hour long interview." This goes )
From your own source, 25% fatality rate. This is surely separate from Havana syndrome, which didn't kill anyone. I think so at least, his pronoun game isn't great. 'The majority of these patients?' The dead ones or the full 100?
Anyway, they picked up these guys and the Havana syndrome people as part of the same process but it doesn't follow that they're from the same cause.
And then he talks about the weird isotopes of magnesium and the inhomogenously mixed materials, which is a very strange thing to find. You can choose to flatly reject this guy but his credentials are pretty impressive.
Yeah, but it's an entirely separate strange thing from the military havana syndrome. There are a lot of strange things, on a planet with 57 million square miles of land area and eight billion people Both because strange things happen, magnesium isotope fractionation gets some results, idk if this matches his thing. Or maybe something was measured incorrectly.
People with credentials are wrong all the time, and 95% of other people with credentials would dispute UFOs generally, as well as many with credentials disputing any of these allegations. So the credentials shouldn't make you lean towards his view. And his evidence is not great.
Why would anyone irradiate magnesium to make these weird isotopes and drop it off for people to find? Surely this could only happen artificially. Are we proposing that some freak natural occurrence leaves behind some irradiated magnesium right next to a 'UAP', which in your mind is a completely separate bizarre natural occurrence?
It's like the theory that Epstein managed to kill himself in an anti-suicide room AND that the camera failed just when he did so. Two connected simultaneous unexplained events? Surely it is more plausible that there's an orchestrating party involved.
Furthermore, 25 people are dead! Either Havana Syndrome was real or there's another kind of energy that's killing people, or the professor is lying.
Well they weren't with him in the lab, measuring the isotopes or examining the brains. I'm confident that 95% of people with credentials would opt out of disputing people who had seen the evidence, when they themselves have not.
yeah, because 'UFO sightings' happen all the time, and in lots of places, which is a lot of opportunities for a second coincidence. A paper about that magnesium notes
So maybe it was from a meteorite, which would ... well, it's an "unidentified aerial phenomena" to the viewer, but not in the sense of 'unexplainable' or 'aliens'. You can google things too, btw!
He claims they died from these strange injuries. That might not be true, though. These people were
Government + defense + aerospace is a very large group of people to start from!
So some of them saw UAPs, some of them were sick ... but if you put normal people who claim to see UAPs in a group with people who have unrelated brain issues, or maybe allow enough time for some to die of old age, and you can have a group that's partially 'UAP injured people' where '25 died' without the UAPs causing it.
... when the evidence is for UFOs zapping peoples brains by "emitting so much energy that you're basically getting burned inside your body"? Or for isotopic magnesium that's part of an alien craft? A lot more than 5% of 'people with credentials' would dispute it.
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