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 agree with this description. I think people overestimate who all is in the know. Some people know that there's some plan to deal with Trump before the election. A smaller circle knows that it's really as assassination attempt. An even smaller circle know some details, but the smallest circle of all are the ones procuring the shooter and arranging for an uncovered rooftop. That could be as little as one or two people, as you've demonstrated.
There are clips of Victoria Nuland smirking and saying Trump won't be President. She also smirked in a similar fashion when talking about the destruction of Nordstream. I take that as evidence that she was in the highest circle, that knew there was a plan to deal with Trump, or in the next one, that knew it was an assassination but not the details.
How the heck does "procuring a shooter" even work? Much less the coordination or the concealment, but I'm still stuck at step 1. Like, if you're going to arrange an assassination, wouldn't you be relying on someone other than someone barely out of his teens, both to be successful as well as to not tell anyone? As a matter of actual fact, assassins get cold feet at least somewhat often, especially random people you don't know, on top of all the honeypots that the government sometimes puts out. Again, step 1 - how do you even find a dude like this, much less decide they are the best option?
Historical example of course is the actual (outside) plot to kill Lincoln. You had an actor, a former soldier, an assistant pharmacist, and a German immigrant all with targets. Respectively they were successful, got into a knife fight and ran away partway into the fight (and was almost caught as a spy before the attempt even started), ran away when said fight started, and the third guy got chickened out and went to the bar instead and got caught the next day.
Plus, if you think of all people Victoria Nuland, at best a mid-level functionary in a massive bureaucracy, knew about some sort of plot, that implies a pretty large web of people that strains credulity.
Well, mostly like this.
When you can identify these people, you have a menu of options. You can find a guy on the Trump campaign trail and egg him on, play into his delusions, and craft yourself an acceptable patsy in a hurry.
More options
Context Copy link
If you are arranging a conspiracy, the man with rifle in book depository (or on roof of the building) is a patsy, his job is to be seen and leave a corpse, the real shooter is professional on grassy knoll (or first floor of the building). Of course, successful conspiracy requires successful marksmanship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
An assassination just smells like 50x less risk averse than the cathedral usually is.
Well, usually they think they can rely on the media to control the narrative, but the emperor has no clothes, and people are talking about it.
It was no coincidence that this happened after the disastrous first debate and before Trump picked a VP (successor).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link