site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   38166 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What does the Motte think about UFOs/UAPs? I ask because there was a relatively big instance of "disclosure" today within the UFO community. A former senior US intelligence figure (who allegedly had enough high level classifications to report directly to the president) has apparently stated to Congress and journalists that the US has recovered "non-human technology."

From the article:

"A former intelligence official turned whistleblower has given Congress and the Intelligence Community Inspector General extensive classified information about deeply covert programs that he says possess retrieved intact and partially intact craft of non-human origin.

...

Grusch said the recoveries of partial fragments through and up to intact vehicles have been made for decades through the present day by the government, its allies, and defense contractors. Analysis has determined that the objects retrieved are “of exotic origin (non-human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or unknown origin) based on the vehicle morphologies and material science testing and the possession of unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures,” he said.

In filing his complaint, Grusch is represented by a lawyer who served as the original Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG).

“We are not talking about prosaic origins or identities,” Grusch said, referencing information he provided Congress and the current ICIG. “The material includes intact and partially intact vehicles.”

...

"Jonathan Grey is a generational officer of the United States Intelligence Community with a Top-Secret Clearance who currently works for the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), where the analysis of UAP has been his focus. Previously he had experience serving Private Aerospace and Department of Defense Special Directive Task Forces.

“The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone,” Grey said. “Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us.”

...

"Grusch left the government on April 7, 2023, in order, he said, to advance government accountability through public awareness. He remains well-supported within intelligence circles, and numerous sources have vouched for his credibility.

“His assertion concerning the existence of a terrestrial arms race occurring sub-rosa over the past eighty years focused on reverse engineering technologies of unknown origin is fundamentally correct, as is the indisputable realization that at least some of these technologies of unknown origin derive from non-human intelligence,” said Karl Nell, the retired Army Colonel who worked with Grusch on the UAP Task Force.

...

Jonathan Grey says secrets have been necessary. “Though a tough nut to crack, potential technological advancements may be gleaned from non-human intelligence/UAP retrievals by any sufficiently advanced nation and then used to wage asymmetrical warfare, so, therefore, some secrecy must remain,” he says. “However, it is no longer necessary to continue to deny that these advanced technologies derived from non-human intelligence exist at all or to deny that these technologies have landed, crashed, or fallen into the hands of human beings.”

Grey noted that the hypothesis that the United States alone has bullied the other nations into maintaining this secrecy for nearly a century continues to prevail as the primary consensus amongst the public at large. “My hope is to dissuade the global populace from this archaic and preposterous notion, and to potentially pave the way for a much broader discussion,” he said.

Grusch said it was dangerous for this “eighty-year arms race” to continue in secrecy because it “further inhibits the world populace to be prepared for an unexpected, non-human intelligence contact scenario.”

“I hope this revelation serves as an ontological shock sociologically and provides a generally uniting issue for nations of the world to re-assess their priorities,” Grusch said."

I figure that most people in this community are good rationalists and dismiss UFOs/UAPs/"non-human intelligences" out of hand. Does this kind of evidence change your mind at all? What would?

For those who, like me, think this (in conjunction with the massive amount of other evidence for UFOs/UAPs/etc.) is fairly good evidence that this phenomenon is real, what might be the social and political implications of this? It's kind of hard for me to imagine anything changing our current political stalemate and trajectory, and I can definitely imagine a situation where the US completely admits to the existence of "non-human intelligences" only for the story to be overtaken the next day when Trump says something allegedly racist, or whatever. And unless reverse-engineered non-human technology starts seeping into consumer electronics or something, it's hard to see it affecting people that much on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine news that could be more important.

  1. This article was written by Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal, the same people who wrote the big bombshell 2017 NYT UFO exposé. This, if true, would be even bigger, in fact one of the biggest stories in human history. The fact that it's appearing in The Debrief and not the NYT is, IMO, a major strike against its credibility. If there was something here I have no doubt the NYT would have jumped on it again. This is not me saying "the MSM would never refuse to break an important story" but I can't think of any reason they would fail to break this particular story.

  2. A few weeks ago at the senate UAP hearing AARO director Sean Kirkpatrick said that they have yet to find any evidence of non-human intelligence or technology. This despite the fact that Grusch and others supposedly gave their testimony months ago. Now you could always say, perhaps plausibly, "the government is lying to Kirkpatrick's office" or "the government is telling Kirkpatrick's office to lie." But I don't think it's plausible that the federal government would allow AARO to misinform congress on this and then allow this Grusch guy to come forward through The Debrief.

  3. Maybe this is just me not knowing how clearances work but the fact that Grusch can say any of this stuff without immediately being thrown into prison means it's not classified info, right? And how could top-secret black projects working with alien tech not be classified?

So color me skeptical, apparently like most people here.

EDIT:

Apparently AARO has again publicly denied they have any evidence of any such black programs ("they would say that, wouldn't they?).

Over the past couple of years I've become sympathetic to, though not totally convinced of, Steven Greenstreet's idea that most of this comes down to a small but well-organized and well-financed group of true believing high strangeness fanatics in and outside of the halls of government.

  1. I agree that this becomes more credible if the MSM picks it up, and the fact that Kean and Blumenthal couldn't get it reported in the NYT/WaPo initially is disappointing, and if they don't pick it up eventually that would be a strike to the story's credibility.

  2. A fair point.

  3. My understanding is that he now feels more comfortable saying things because in some appropriations bill from 2022 Senators Rubio and Gillibrand added language providing some whistleblower protection for UAP information. From the article: Grusch "helped draft the language on UAP for the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act, spearheaded by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Marco Rubio and signed into law by President Biden in December 2022. The provision states that any person with relevant UAP information can inform Congress without retaliation, regardless of any previous non-disclosure agreements."

Also, apparently he got clearance to say these things from the DoD? Article says "his statements [were] cleared for publication by the Pentagon in April," and then also Ross Coulthart (Australian journalist) says the same here.

Also, apparently he got clearance to say these things from the DoD? Article says "his statements [were] cleared for publication by the Pentagon in April," and then also Ross Coulthart (Australian journalist) says the same here.

If so, I want to ask the DoD why they're giving people clearance to say untrue things. And if it is true, why have all these groundshaking scientific discoveries been kept secret from all the people who could have done something useful with it?

As presented, it makes the deep state sound like they've been doing absolutely nothing for decades and letting this stuff rot in a warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant; 10 years after getting a hold of something, it shouldn't still be made of Unknown Elements.

If so, I want to ask the DoD why they're giving people clearance to say untrue things.

For some categories of folks, I wouldn't be surprised if pre-publication review is mandatory. The DOD probably has to at least proofread any book by certain folks, even if they decide to write historical fiction. A memoir or anything close to their specialty could actually inadvertently disclose something classified. It's quite possible the folks here charged with "giving clearance" only care about a very narrow set of facts (names, places, dates) appearing.

Although I suppose claiming any degree of official statement or backing might be its own concern. But it's unclear to me this is actually claimed here: "the censors didn't censor my ramblings" isn't alone an endorsement.

According to this FAQ accompaniment to the story,

But it does speak to the fact that Grusch really tried to take the exact, appropriate path, the exact official channels. He’s tried to do everything right throughout this process. He hasn’t gone willy-nilly. And so, when he decided he wanted to come forward with his story, he put the information he wanted to share through DOPSR, and they cleared it. That doesn’t mean that the Department of Defense is stamping off on what he’s saying and saying, “Okay, yeah, it’s all true.” They’re just saying, “Okay, we’ll let you say that because it’s not going to reveal any secrets.”

So...top-secret bases full of alien hardware aren't state secrets? What?

To me what this reads as is, like you say, this guy was a real intelligence officer, which means his statements have to be screened by the DOD to make sure he doesn't actually leak something sensitive, and the censors looked it over and said, "okay there's nothing serious in here, it's just a bunch of whacky alien stuff, go ahead and publish it."

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