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 -
I suppose I just can’t picture a scenario where a “shadowy interest aligned ghoul” shoots up a US elementary school. Why would they ever have incentive to do that? The risk is also eye watering levels high. Makes zero sense to me and I can’t believe a single person buys it.
If I may put on my (even more) schizo conspiracy hat on really quickly, it would be very easy to come up with an incentive. By the way, I don't actually believe in the following, but writing schizo fan fiction is fun for me: In order to better control the populace, "They" (the ominous "they" or "The Kabal", if you prefer some other name) need to disarm the populace. To do this from a top down perspective would be very difficult because there would be a lot of resistance. Therefore, "They" have to convince the populace to disarm itself. A way to do this would be to cause or make-believe an event such as SH. Have you been getting those Youtube pre-roll ads from SH Promise? There's a reason that they are being promoted now.
More options
Context Copy link
...Because they're aligned with shadowy interests? Also given how little hard proof of exactly what happened the public was able to force to be released, it doesn't seem to me like the risk was that high. Plus I would imagine that for the guy going into the building, his understanding would be that if he screws up and fails to extract himself properly, he will be burned and his fellows will be forced to turn on him (with compensation to match that risk).
What is a “shadowy interest” that would benefit from the murder of a bunch of US 6 year olds? Also the risk seems pretty high to me, doesn’t seem like many people who are involved in 26 murders in broad daylight walk away clean.
I truly cannot believe there is a market for this nonsense. Also let’s not forget the main conspiracy being pushed was that the whole thing was fake to “get your guns”.
Banning guns.
Like I said, I don't think it's what happened, because the follow-up wasn't there, but it's hardly infeasible in isolation. Some of these people have billions at their disposal, and it almost certainly wouldn't take even a single billion, or even half, to pull such an attack off scot-free.
Your substance-free proclamation that you "truly cannot believe there is a market for this nonsense" like some hysterically offended NYT commenter doesn't affect the facts here.
But it wasn't in broad daylight. It was in a closed building that was then further closed off to the public while whoever did whatever they wanted to any evidence of what happened in it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We've already had proof of cases where the FBI groomed Islamic mass shooters and literally had agents observing their attack without intervening (the Texas Draw Mohammed attack).
There's been some others where the attacker was literally a paid informant, but there's no evidence (found) that he was ordered to do the attack.
So imo it's not an unreasonable jump to assume the state is directly involved in planning and carrying out mass shootings for political reasons. At best it's one of those things that exists in a quantum superposition of "duh, everyone knows that, it doesn't prove anything" and "that's a right wing conspiracy for which there's no evidence"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link