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 -
'Rich person flaunts the law, confident they will never face consequences' is not a very unique or interesting story. It's certainly not 'brave' or anything... if no one rich or powerful is going to face any legal consequences of any kind over Epstein connections, you can be damn sure she's not going to pay for anything relating to this, either.
But I don't see why conservatives would think this is supporting any of their claims? The conservative claim has always been that they are oppressed for their views, living in constant danger of being cancelled or arrested by the woke mobs and captured government institutions.
Someone blatantly pointing out in the most public way possible that this has always been a fiction, that governments may make figleaf declarations about opposing these types of slander but will never actually enforce them because they actually are inherently conservative entities that are on the side of the privileged and the default, that anyone can make the most vile comments they want and always could without fearing legal reprisals, that the whole Petersonian rhetoric about free speech crackdowns was and always has been a charade... why is that good for her side, exactly?
I mean, I guess the truth is that I'm being too simplistic in considering it one 'side'.
The Peterson/'free speech absolutist' wing points at 'cancel culture' and the specter of government censorship as a general bludgeon against the left, but they're actually committed to a much more broad model of conservatism and just using that to stir up their base.
Whereas people like Rowling aren't fully committed to that broader conservative project, they just want to slander and eradicate trans people, and they're annoyed that people like Peterson have scared some of their supporters into thinking they might ever face consequences for spewing vile slander 24/7, thereby mildly restricting the spigot.
So while the two have been default bedfellows up till now, it seems like JK has recognized the conflict of interest there and is ready to abandon the pretense of being oppressed in favor of proving that it's safe for everyone to start spewing as publicly and loudly as possible.
"Rich person flaunts the law" implies that the rich person gets away with crimes because they can retaliate using their wealth and connections. Rowling doesn't have judges or lobbyists on speed dial, and she's not going to contact her friends in the banking industry or the Mafia.
"Rich person flaunts the law because they have enough money to pay for a good defense, and because if something absurd happens to them, the public will see how absurd it is" is a noncentral example of a rich person flaunting the law and is more like the rich person not being railroaded than it is like a typical rich person flaunting the law.
I pretty strongly disagree. 'The system is not set up to persecute rich people, the powerful people running the system aren't really interested in harassing rich people to begin with, money can buy you out of problems through ;legitimate' methods that most people can't access' is the central meaning of 'Rich people don't ace consequences' that I always think of.
This may be one of those left vs right 'systems define society' vs 'personal responsibility and individual actors' things. I don't think of rich and powerful people as dangerous ubermensch who will crush anyone that crosses them and are therefore above the law. I think of them as over-privileged and under-perspective children, safe in a world that is carefully designed to benefit them at all turns, such that they never really need to learn self-restraint or discipline.
Then why did SBF get prosecuted and sentenced to 25 years in prison?
Because he fucked around with and stole/lost other rich people's money. Same as Madoff.
That's one of the few ways I do believe rich people can suffer consequences around here. Being new money helps.
Epstein’s crimes were not of a financial nature, nor were they perpetrated against rich people, but he still faced consequences.
I think you're ignoring the several consequence-free decades of being an open procurer and supplier of child prostitutes for the wealthy and powerful, but you're also mistaken at the end there. Epstein absolutely did perpetrate crimes against rich people - the purpose of the entire arrangement was to blackmail the rich and powerful with recorded footage of them committing unspeakable crimes. Those were the targets that got him killed - Ehud Barak has much more access to the levers of power than Virginia Giuffre.
I'm aware that that's what lead to his death, but I can't find any indication that that's what lead to his first arrest in 2006. I don't think it was part of anyone's script for Epstein to get arrested. They would have preferred that he just stay out of the public eye for his whole life.
I believed his arrest was due to his activities garnering the attention of lower level law enforcement - people high up would obviously know that Epstein is off limits, but it isn't like they can just release memos to law enforcement across the country letting them know that Epstein has a government license to run a child sex ring. Intelligence agencies generally don't give lists of their assets to every single police department in the country to avoid left hand/right hand cases like this for very understandable reasons. That's why he got arrested and then given an extremely lush sweetheart deal - he "belonged to intelligence" and wasn't ever supposed to get picked up by a local police department, but not even the intelligence agencies can make cases like this just disappear from the public view without giving the game away.
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
More options
Context Copy link