site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   32500 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 12, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Massachusetts Man Arrested for Knowingly Concealing the Source of Material Support or Resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, otherwise known as the FBI grooms yet another kid; an agent have been in contact with a guy since he was 16 until 18, LARPing as an ISIS recruiter and soliciting gift cards, Indian scammer style.

  1. What is the value of these ploys to society? This seems morally abhorrent to me and the only justification I can find is that "he would've done it if the agent was a real ISIS member," but (a) he tried to report the contact and (b) this logic doesn't work for entrapment.

  2. What is the value of these ploys to the FBI? Going off tropes, more crimes = more funding more power and more reputation. If that's the case I want more concrete and detailed pathways.

  3. Is there a way I can access the criminal complaint? I am skeptical of the "Brain Development Issues" and think the Intercept is trying to sensationalize the story which works to the latter's detriment; what the FBI did is unacceptable even if the guy was a genius.

I think presumably the implication is that the FBI believes that ISIS truly does recruit online and that by re-routing some of the would-be terrorists to them, they are taking away "real" terrorists. This assumes that a) there is a finite number of people who would commit a terror attack for ISIS online (thus being a sort of zero-sum thing), and b) if the FBI doesn't help them, they will go to someone real who can. I think assumption A is probably fine, I don't really think that the FBI is somehow generating additional potential recruits by their actions, so a fixed pool generally seems to make sense. Assumption B is a bit trickier, but from a law enforcement perspective, is it truly worth the risk of ignoring potential terrorists because you're hoping that they aren't serious and that they will grow out of it or something? Furthermore, I don't have much sympathy to be honest for the so-called "false positives" in this kind of scenario. Even if you are (let's say) hoodwinked and egged on by the FBI to do things you don't want to do in actuality... nothing's really stopping you from just stopping these conversations? Unless their process violates assumption B (the honey traps somehow radicalizing MORE than a comparable "real ISIS" control group) I can't see this being a concern keeping many people up at night. It's not like going to a terrorist training camp is the kind of "whoopsie" that anyone could be suckered into doing.

is it truly worth the risk of ignoring potential terrorists because you're hoping that they aren't serious and that they will grow out of it or something

The effort/skill gap between getting into honeypots and real ISIS recruitment is immense; consider the weakening to irrelevance of ISIS and the ease with which FBI can just place links into search results among many other things. All the people who fall into the gap are would be innocents if not for FBI intervention. But I view this method of law enforcement distasteful, violating the presumption of innocence and akin to running a statistical analysis and arresting everyone who fit the psychological profile of terrorists.

nothing's really stopping you from just stopping these conversations

You're underestimating the power of attachment and coercion. At the very least getting into extended contact with a recruiter builds expectations. I have as much sympathy for the false-positives as much as I have for victims of entrapment.

It's not like going to a terrorist training camp is the kind of "whoopsie" that anyone could be suckered into doing.

The low barrier to entry that allows even a 16-yo to contact them is malicious. Those are the exact types of people to commit to the cause when presented with a seemingly viable avenue for action, and would've otherwise just moved on.

It also is probably a good idea to let actual wannabes know that the "recruiter" they are talking to might be an FBI agent. Clandestine networks can't work if participants can't be confident that they are actually clandestine.

Flood the zone with fakes, and then to the extent actual terrorist recruiters exist, they'll always be written off as fakes by potential recruits.

Not a bad idea. Imagine a future of fedposting bots, deployed very widely. You can test the loyalty of the citizen to the state in real time. Occasionally expose him to a proposal of terrorist activities. If he responds positively or doesn't report it to the government, he is targeted for punishment or remedial patriotic education, depending on the seriousness of the offense. You could pretty much snuff out all terrorist activity in the crib.

You could pretty much snuff out all terrorist activity in the crib.

1984 was not intended to be an instruction manual! And this would be a perfect way to start terrorist activity in anyone who did not want to live in a totalitarian state. What would be considered "lack of loyalty to the state"? You really don't think that would suffer definition creep?

Well technically it would work I guess. But then you could also torture anyone suspected of disloyalty to the regime to death while forcing them to name accomplices. That also works quite well, but I don't think I'd want to live in a country where that was routine policy.

Exactly where to draw the line is a little tricky, but I think if we're routinely persuading malcontent teenagers to do just enough to get them convicted without them ever having spoken to an actual dissident group of some sort, and this happens say 10x more often than actual terrorist acts, we've gone too far in the direction of suppressing dissent.

Yeah, if we're talking "isolated 16 year old meets sympathetic listener online who subtly encourages him in the direction of jihad over two years worth of interaction", then the Feds could as easily have encouraged him to talk about wanting to shoot up his school, or rob a bank, or assassinate a state governor.

If they were really serious about preventing radicalisation or whatever, they'd have contacted his parents or mental health services when he was 16. Instead, they waited until he was 18 and legally adult before "surprise, you're arrested, you criminal terrorist master mind you!" That sounds a lot more like "keeping our numbers up" than "nipping terrorism in the bud".

Feds could as easily have encouraged him to talk about wanting to shoot up his school, or rob a bank, or assassinate a state governor.

Please, the Feds do not do assassination plots against state elected officials. It would be about KIDNAPPING a state governor, though what you do with her once you have her I don't know.

I don’t think there is any reason to conflate lack of loyalty to the state with willingness to commit crimes, including aiding violent organizations in faroff lands. As far as we know, this guy was completely loyal to the state. Just as plenty of Americans who illegally aided the IRA during the troubles were loyal to the US.

Was the IRA an enemy of the US like ISIS is?

It was engaging in what it considered to be a war against the UK (the UK considered it to be sporadic violent crime, rather then war). If you accept the IRA's claim that it was waging war, then it was an enemy of the United States per article 5 of the NATO treaty.

Just as plenty of Americans who illegally aided the IRA during the troubles were loyal to the US.

This is oxymoronic. If you violate the policies and laws of the government, you are by definition disloyal.

To the government perhaps, but the government and the country weren't always considered one and the same. Civil war is usually patriots vs patriots.

I think presumably the implication is that the FBI believes that ISIS truly does recruit online and that by re-routing some of the would-be terrorists to them, they are taking away "real" terrorists.

That's similar to my thinking, I would imagine that the justification is that they're clearing out the proverbial deadwood. This approach also has the added benefit of reducing the probability of these kinds of people forming their own groups and deterring smarter people from attempting to reach out and join/form their own groups.

I would say it's a sound strategy.

On the other hand, if you filter out all the dumb people, only smart people end up forming groups. Maybe you want the dumb people to join the groups because it'll make it easier to break the weakest link.

if you filter out all the dumb people, only smart people end up forming groups

More likely you get no groups forming at all, as the number of smart people who also want to join or form radical terrorist groups in the US is so small that the odds of enough of them actually connecting with one another to make a meaningfully sized network are practically non-existant. The exception to this is when you have places where smart malcontents may end up naturally gathering, like universities, which you should be monitoring closely to break up any nascent networks in their infancy.

Clearly the FBI are good at their jobs, the kind of attacks that the modern US regularly faces are not ones conducted by organised groups, but are instead almost always lone wolves and lack any sort of staying power, usually being "one and done" terrorists.

It’s fairly plausible that the smart people join different groups, or follow strategies for joining the same groups which are calculated to have an ending other than being the one wearing the vest and shouting allahu akbar, and the dummies are never really trusted with much information anyways.

I don't get it either. I'm sure there is more to the story, but at risk of strawmanning:

"If I can groom him into terrorism, someone else could. Therefore he's a criminal" entrapment as well as some sort of KPI's for arrests that make the weak-minded and gullible low hanging fruit.

Is there a way I can access the criminal complaint?

Courtlistener for the case is here, complaint and affidavit, though the pretrial detention motion may be helpful as well.

Obvious disclaimer: these are all allegations by the FBI. I'd hope they wouldn't outright lie, but I wouldn't put money on it, and I'd expect that they've excluded anything especially exculpatory from the complaint.

What is the value of these ploys to society?

The FBI alleges that Ventura had made at least some motions common to ISIS fanboys who escalated to violent acts, and plan to travel to join ISIS fighters:

From the complaint affidavit:

On or about August 3, 2021, during the chats exchanged between the OCE and VENTURA, VENTURA explained he had not yet pledged his allegiance to the leader of ISIS. Pledging allegiance is a common way for ISIS supporters to demonstrate their commitment to the group. This is referred to as making “baya” or “bayat”, and typically this pledge is made before any martyrdom operations or acts that are taken on behalf of ISIS so that if the supporter is killed, he supposedly obtains all the rewards from Allah, or God, when he goes to heaven.

On or about January 26, 2023, when asked about hijrah (i.e., traveling to join ISIS), VENTURA stated “I want to give my life for jihad fisabillah [for the sake of Allah] intention is pure from heart,” and also stated that he would “make good fighter for dawla.” As described above, I understand “dawla” to mean ISIS.

On or about January 26, 2023, VENTURA asked the OCE if VENTURA could perform an “ishtishadi” attack. VENTURA further informed the OCE that he wanted to fight for ISIS for a couple of months, but then became a “shashid” (i.e., a martyr) via the ishtishadi operation.

On or about April 9, 2023, The OCE asked Ventura if he would want to participate in an ISIS operation on Eid al-Fitr or go straight to the ISIS training camp. On or about April 10, 2023, VENTURA responded to the OCE "Be party of attack ...." and "Then can send to training camp ....."

In the same conversation, VENTURA told the OCE, “I plan buy ticket for tonight or tomorrow night inshaallah".

On or about April 10, 2023, VENTURA purchased a ticket for a Turkish Airlines flight from Boston with an ultimate destination of Cairo, departing at 11:10pm on April 10, 2023

And from the motion in support of pretrial detention:

The Defendant has shown an obsession with violence – he indicated a desire to commit a suicide attack, attempted to travel to join ISIS to participate in its operations, maintained a cache of over 100 horrifically violent videos, and researched homemade grenades, fertilizer bombs, and how to obtain firearms...

Third, the Defendant is a flight risk. He made at least three attempts to leave the United States and join ISIS. He obtained a passport, credit cards, and airline tickets. He inquired about traveling to Russia to join the Wagner Group of mercenaries in its fight against Ukraine and conducted internet searches about traveling to other European nations.

If this is true, it's likely that the FBI are emphasizing the financial support simply because it's the easiest to get a conviction, but it's not hard to imagine a slightly nuttier kid doing something violent as a result. Of the presented evidence, this might just be within the scope of janky sixteen-year-old 'planning', but it's at least the sort of thing that's easy to talk up how it might be the Next Terror Attack.

Though even the affidavit doesn't push that direction universally. Hussain mentioned the kid "appeared ready to turn in his purported ISIS contact", but the actual behavior was a little dumber:

On or about April 10, 2023, at approximately 10:50pm, the FBI received an electronic tip (E-tip) to the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center (NTOC) from an anonymous source stating the following:

I want 10 million dollars in duffel bags and time to get money in proper places you know who I am you already lost my trust so if you want information on attacks you must pay if you want to save lives and do you’re job this offer here is you’re final chance I want the Cash and Immunity no funny games I known you thought I am retarded fool but jokes on you I will not admit I sent this or communicate until the cash is delivered [FBI AGENT 1] I am speaking to you dumb little bimbo this is my only offer try more offensive actions and you will regret it do what I ask and I will help you simple as this Cash and immunity Cash delivered first 10 mill duffel bags front door no jokes I am not joking or playing funny games you have already lost my trust and this is you’re last chance to fix it text or email me when my demands are accepted then give some days and we can talk in person.We have 1 week or 2 until attacks I have information about happen and much more if do what I tell

On or about April 11, 2023, VENTURA called the FBI Boston Operations Center requesting to speak with someone because he wanted to help with “terror”.

On or about April 12, 2023, at approximately 2:14pm, VENTURA called the FBI Boston Operations Center requesting to speak with FBI AGENT 1 because he had information about urgent incoming terror attacks, but would not provide any further information to the Operations Center Technician.

On or about April 12, 2023, at approximately 3:03pm, VENTURA called the FBI Boston Operations Center requesting to speak with an agent again regarding upcoming terror attacks. VENTURA stated the attacks would take place overseas and would happen in the next 1- 2 weeks. He said the sooner agents call him back, the sooner they can “make the deal”.

On or about April 12, 2023, at approximately 4:43pm, FBI personnel placed a call to VENTURA. On the call, VENTURA stated he had information regarding upcoming mass attacks in Egypt planned by Daesh in Sinai. He stated the attacks were scheduled to take place around the time of Eid al-Fitr. VENTURA also stated that he had information pertaining to ISIS recruiters and individuals who facilitate travel to ISIS.

On or about April 13, 2023, at approximately 7:55am, VENTURA wrote-in an electronic tip (E-tip) to the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center (NTOC) requesting a call back by April 14, 2023. He requested 10 million dollars and immunity in exchange for information he believed would stop an ISIS attack.

This seems less like someone wanting to flip cell leadership, and more someone worried they were getting caught.

I think the FBI's framework is still bullshit. This kid probably flunks the propensity prong for entrapment as a legal matter, because most people aren't going to spend a whole bunch of time trying to find ways to join ISIS and then toy with flying to Cairo. The FBI's handler (says that they) very carefully simply prompted the kid about things he could do, rather than telling him to do them; a genuine terrorist recruiter could probably have been more direct.

But at the same time, it's difficult to understand what's better served doing a severe prosecution, rather than calling the kid's parents early on and having them pull his internet access — even assuming he would have been as easily manipulated by an actual terrorist, that’d still keep him out of their reaches. Maybe that's what would have happened if he didn't try the ETip fuckery, but we don't really have insight for that.

What is the value of these ploys to the FBI? Going off tropes, more crimes = more funding more power and more reputation. If that's the case I want more concrete and detailed pathways.

The FBI has made very overt claims that ISIS-specific stochiastic terrorism justifies or requires special powers or legislation, and it's one of the few remaining places that Red and Blue Tribe normies continue to trust the FBI. I think the focus is more specific than the general Gotta Keep Numbers Up.

We don't know enough about what happened to conclude that the FBI acted improperly, do we? The Intercept article says, "In August 2021, when he was 16 years old, Ventura began communicating with an undercover FBI agent online. He told the agent of his desire to make “hijrah,” or migrate to territories under control of the Islamic State." That certainly sounds like he initiated the conversation, though we can't know for sure.

Then, after backing out of plans to go abroad, " In January 2023, just after his 18th birthday, Ventura got back in touch with the FBI agent on the encrypted messaging platform. Apologizing for not being communicative in previous months after his supposed injury, Ventura again said he wanted to travel to the Islamic State. The pair discussed the possibility of him dying in an attack by ISIS fighters somewhere in the world or attending a training camp." Again, that sounds like he reinitiated contact and claimed to be interested in going.

And I am not too impressed with him calling the FBI tip line, given that he demanded $10 million in cash in duffel bags.

None of this means that he was a threat; the cash in duffel bags thing certainly supports the notion that he is not all there. But unless the FBI knew that, which they probably didn't, that says nothing about the propriety of their actions. And note that young, not very sharp, males are probably the demographic most likely to actually go through with joining violent groups or with harebrained schemes like going abroad to wage jihad.

And I am not too impressed with him calling the FBI tip line, given that he demanded $10 million in cash in duffel bags.

The irony would be if he was only going along with the 'recruiter' in order to scam them, as the FBI were at the same time scamming him.

Either he thought he really was talking to a genuine terrorist, or sometime during the two years he figured out it was the Feds. Either way, his ultimate goal was to get money out of them by claiming "I totally have solid real info about a terror attack, trust me, just pay me and give me immunity (so I can't be done for blackmail) and I'll tell you" while having no intention ever of going anywhere near a genuine attack or martyrdom.

Feds hate him! He got free machine guns and a cute informant gf with this one weird trick!

That was almost the exact plot of an episode of Malcolm in the Middle.

After all the sordid scam investigation history of the FBI I wouldn't presume good faith. The press in general has also tended toward covering up and cooperating with FBI, so I wouldn't parse The Intercept's exact wording as a clue to figuring out what happened. Granted, we don't know enough to say for sure what happened. But the precis makes this sound very sketchy. How likely was it for some autist 16-year-old to get anywhere on his own merits without the FBI stepping in?

I am not arguing that we should presume good faith. I am arguing for not presuming bad faith.

How likely was it for some autist 16-year-old to get anywhere on his own merits without the FBI stepping in?

I have no idea what the data says on that. Do you? Presumably, it depends on the degree and type of autism. Assuming this guy has autism in the first place.

I am arguing for not presuming bad faith.

About the FBI? You should re-evaluate your life's choices my dude. If the FBI told me the sky was blue I'd go outside to check, just in case.

Perhaps you should evaluate your vulnerability to availability bias.

Not-all-there males in their late teens leave behind body counts all the time. Now whether the FBI is stepping in to assist these budding mass shooters, I couldn’t tell you, but they are uh, mostly not unabomber level geniuses nor pictures of mental health.

Right, as I noted, "young, not very sharp, males are probably the demographic most likely to actually go through with joining violent groups or with harebrained schemes like going abroad to wage jihad."

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