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 -
Jumping right in with something that may get me in trouble, who knows?
First, obligatory disclaimers. This is a serious question. I am not trying to "boo, outgroup". I don't think Trump is an innocent little baa-lamb, okay? Let's just get all the "but of course he did it, he's the type of guy, grab 'em by the pussy" stuff out of the way. "Reade is crazy, she's a Russian asset, it was all lies". Ignore all that. Try, as far as you can, to put the background and any opinions you have on X versus Y out of your mind. Just go by the statements of what was accused and alleged and no interpretation "well of course A is the type to do this so B is telling the truth but C is not the type so D is lying".
On the bare facts of the allegation, do you think E. Jean Carroll is telling the truth? Do you think it happened as she said it happened, do you think the verdict was correct? And if you believe her, why don't you believe Tara Reade? Neither have independent witnesses. Both allege sexual assault with digital penetration (at least, so far as I understand, Carroll did at first then said he penetrated her with his penis). Both allege it happened in a secluded area. Why does Carroll get an $83 million payout for Trump saying she's a liar while Reade - doesn't?
(1) E. Jean Carroll's account (from The Cut):
(2) Tara Reade's account (from Current Affairs):
Again, no 'afterwards we learned this or we heard that', just judge the two accounts on what is said here and which you find credible, if either, or both, or none. If it's "could have happened but I don't know" or "did happen based on what's here" or "never happened". But base that opinion on what you read here of both allegations, not any political swirling around in the past or present.
Maybe I need to update my priors in light of many recent events but I have a hard time believing someone would completely make up an encounter versus exaggerate. I’ve read enough PUA material and know enough high body count guys that I feel like I know how they think.
A lot of girls do fail to give consent when perfectly willing and I think a lot of playboys have internalized that and act with some aggression. My guess is Trump did pursue her for a fling and was likely aggressive and probably handsy.
My probabilities
90% an encounter occurred between her and Trump
30% he crossed a line. Which I would say is digital penetration
<10% he raped her in the common usage sense. And I’m like closer to <1% especially since it’s in a semi-public space
I’m under no illusion Trump is some kind of Saint. The jury award is silly and is a prime example of why we have statute of limitations. I wouldn’t be shocked if Trump did it and has zero recollection of it.
She has failed to substantiate any of her claims. The dress she claims to have worn during the encounter did not exist at the time she alleges it happened. She otherwise has not given details on when exactly it occurred. She has a history of making rape accusations against men. And the primary funder of her legal expenses is the same billionaire Reid Hoffman who funded the Nikki Haley campaign.
Put it up there with Christine Blasey Ford, or the UVA rape hoax. Jussie Smollet's story was more plausible.
I've had lots of sex. I don't walk into dressing rooms and rape the first woman I find.
The claim seems to be that the dress was not made in 1994, at the early end of her time range. She had already shifted to probably 1996, because she didn't think her friend Lisa, in whom she had confided, would travel to Mar-a-Lago knowing about this attack.
I'm having trouble finding any precise claims about when this Donna Karan dress was made, so my assumption is that it was made in 1995.
It seems there should be some website going in deep with details of the 1996 Bergdorf floor layout, the sizes and colors the bodysuit were available in, etc. My search is failing me.
Surely this research would have been conducted by Trump’s legal team?
From the court records, it seems that Carroll's lawyers introduced the floor layout into evidence, but I don't see how to download them. Obviously they didn't believe them to be exculpatory.
I don't know much about fashion, but this dress seems similar to Carroll's dress. Different color, but similar buttons, pockets, etc. Maybe a different cut, as this looks a little short to wear with just tights? This is a Spring 1995 fashion show, so it was plausibly introduced in 1995, and not available in 1994.
More options
Context Copy link
I have yet to see any evidence of Trump's legal team in any case being in any way competent.
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