site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   37971 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 8, 2024

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Seems that Crooks may have been prematurely fingered.

There’s some DR Twitter speculation that the real culprit is Pittsburgh-based antifa street brawler Maxwell Yearick, who certainly does uncannily resemble the supposed photos of the shooter, but I’m gonna wait and see how things shake out before endorsing any of this speculation.

  1. That's a troll , @jewgazing on twitter There's also a photo going around of a guy in a gun youtuber t-shirt, supposedly of the shooter.

  2. people misidentify Crooks as the Yearick antifa guy. But the antifa guy is way too old.

  3. in a "simulation is totally fucking with us" cleanest shots of Crooks are from a Blackrock advert shot at his school.

Crooks has an ear that perfectly matches the shape of the dead guy's ear, and is young enough to match the corpse photo.

Couple odd details: crooks wears glasses, but shooter has no glasses.

  1. it looks like the secret service were observing and aiming at the guy before he took the shots. At least it seems so from the video.

They were on the roof of a maybe 1.5 story tall shed, the shooter was on what looks like a garage or story unit.

  1. extended video of the shooting by NTD. So the timeline is, first three aimed shots, Trump ducks, then 5-6 rapid shots (didn't count), one of which hits hydraulics on a backhoe? behind Trump which starts spraying oil. Muted shot at the end, probably from a sniper rifle that headshot the assassin.

Cca 5 seconds from the first shot by the assassin, to the final muted shot. Hard to say whether 4) is true because I feel had they had him in his sights, he'd have been killed 1-2 seconds after firing or presumably, before even firing.

it looks like the secret service were observing and aiming at the guy before he took the shots. At least it seems so from the video.

I wonder if they were just unsure. I don’t envy them, it would be a big scandal if they executed some random guy watching from a nearby roof.

Or a police officer

There's no way all the sniper teams wouldn't be on the same radio channel imo.

Also, the guy wasn't even dressed like a cop and tbh, anyone aiming a gun at a guy protected by counter-snipers is fair game and asking for a bullet. You just don't do this.

Coupled with the rooftop being unsecured and the counter-snipers apparently watching the sniper beforehand, it does smell like a setup. We'll hear about it, if the SS detail truly got 'do not shoot' orders from their bosses, that's gonna leak.

look at the picture. There wasn't even any other place than the assassin's rooftop where they could be looking. Since WW2, snipers hiding in trees are a lost art. Wehrmacht in France was pretty fond of that but I haven't heard of that since.

That's not what I'm saying. The secret service was there in limited capacity and relied on local law enforcement for much of the security (but not sniper teams), miscommunication regularly happens, especially when different departments are trying to cooperate.

We're talking about a split second decision here not watching the guy for a couple of minutes and deciding not to shoot until he shoots.

They can't possibly be as amateurish as not be clear on just precisely how many riflemen are doing security. Having to waste time in a crisis figuring out who's who -that'd be totally nonsensical in a crisis.

From what I've seen in a twitter thread by a guy who says he was SS, the counter-snipers are always just the secret service, local LE does perimeter security and is responsible for, among other things, people staying off rooftops with a view of the stage etc.

Reread what I wrote.

If you look at the other videos, up to a minute before they're looking in the direction of the shooter..

Of course, seeing as FBI is investigating it, the odds of ever hearing what really happened are low.

crooks wears glasses, but shooter has no glasses

Did the gun have a scope? If his prescription is mild he wouldn't need the glasses with a scope.

Or he could have been wearing contacts.

Haven't seen a good picture of the gun yet.

About the only thing that's clear that it was a semi-auto with a low recoil, so probably a .223, and he wasn't completely bad at shooting.

That video isn't of Matthew crooks though, but a troll?

Entirely plausible! All I’m saying is that until I see some real reporting corroborated by multiple sources, I’m going to avoid accepting any claims at face value.

EDIT: I’m now seeing multiple outlets reporting that the FBI themselves have named Crooks, so I now assume that identification is correct.

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