site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   32902 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 5, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

any evidence of motive at all.

I'm sorry but the idea that some dude lugged around a bunch of guns he didn't use without raising any suspicion and picked a specific venue with more security than average when he didn't have a discernable motive beyond killing people is still goofy.

The assassination attempt theory seems most parsimonious given the nuclear glow the whole thing is coated in. Few things look more suspicious than the Las Vegas shooting. JFK is an open and shut case in comparison. So using it as evidence for anything else is just a bad argument.

A much simpler explanation is that Paddock was simply a psychopath who relished the idea of killing people. Getting the guns into the hotel room was trivial, they do not inspect people's bags. As for whatever security was present at the venue, it did nothing to stop Paddock, so was it really more security than average in any meaningful way? The large number of guns that he brought is a bit weird, but can be explained simply by him having a gun fetish or him overestimating how long he might be able to hold out against police forces.

The idea that there are actual psychopaths who hurt people simply because they enjoy it is disturbing, but it is obviously true. I do not see why it would be so unlikely that Paddock was simply one such person, whether he had always been that way or whether something turned him into one.

Him being that crazy doesn't square very well with the rest of his life history.

My theory is that somebody (likely the FBI) set up a fake arms deal and he realized it a bit too early but equally too late to get out, so being faced with life in prison he decided to just lash out and went the murder suicide route.

The FBI, hid their involvement for the obvious reasons, which is something they've tried to do in the past in response to various fuck ups.

Is large illegal arms deal supposed to be better squaring with the rest of his life history?

Yep.

Lots of people commit crimes and scheme in various ways. Mental illness that would result in this behavior (like Schizophrenia) appears earlier in life the vast majority of the time. The personality structure we usually see with this kind of thing, outside of explicit ideology (ex: religious extremism) tends to boil over earlier in life, see: school shooters. Personality disorders of all kinds dial down later in life, in part because the people with the worst manifestations get killed, kill themselves, or end up more or less permanently engaged with the legal system.

He could be the exception that proves the rule of course, but the usual stuff is less likely given what we know about his life history and success.

He doesn't pattern match to a serial killer, someone struggling with psychosis, cultural bound attacker (or other ideologue/extremist).

It's very, very weird.

Well it's not unheard of for depressed people to decide to kill some random people on the way out. There was that kid who flew a small plane into a building (didn't kill anyone) after 9/11 who claimed to be inspired by islam but was probably just bullshitting.

Paddock was simply a psychopath who relished the idea of killing people

This is a possibility, but people like that don't tend to be effete accountants whose most prominent vice is gambling. He self evidently didn't have the low inhibitions that type of person typically displays.

There's various theories of how his increasingly erratic or depressed behavior could explain or motivate the shooting, but I haven't seen one that doesn't have a big hole in it.

can be explained simply by him having a gun fetish or him overestimating how long he might be able to hold out against police forces

The sheer amount doesn't square with either of those explanations. Or the fact that he killed himself.

A gun nut fantasizing about using his collection so badly that he feels the need to bring that much stuff around just shoots himself without actually using much of the hardware? How does that add up?

This is a possibility, but people like that don't tend to be effete accountants whose most prominent vice is gambling. He self evidently didn't have the low inhibitions that type of person typically displays.

"don't tend to be" does not mean "cannot be" and people for various reasons blow up lives own and of others.

The assassination theory also doesn’t add up if you spend more than thirty seconds thinking about it, though.

Not saying it's not also full of holes. But it's got the least holes in my opinion. This whole thing reeks of spooks being involved.

Something suspicious happened here. We don't really know what, I'll easily admit.

A gun nut fantasizing about using his collection so badly that he feels the need to bring that much stuff around just shoots himself without actually using much of the hardware? How does that add up?

Crazy people do things that make no apparent sense to outsiders.

This isn't the general purpose argument you're making it out to be.

It's like he's a badly written movie villain who's somehow both extremely competent when the plot needs him to be and insanely disordered when that's required.

There's no pattern of behavior, which, in the real world, would lead one to think that more than one person is involved.

Now it is possible that he was insane in the specific way that makes this whole thing happen the way it does, but how likely is that versus another explanation is all a reasonable person should care about. You can explain away any crime with convenient bouts of madness.

Who was Paddock attempting to assassinate in this theory?

The theory on the Las Vegas shooting is that Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman was in Las Vegas at the time and that the concert shooting was a diversion to draw most of the law enforcement resources in the city to the other side of town in order to give assassins easier access to Mohammed. In this theory Paddock himself was a patsy who believed he was at the hotel for a large illegal arms deal, and was shot in the head just before the massacre started. That would explain the rather excessive amount of arms in Paddock’s room, but I don’t know if I necessarily buy that myself.

The initial theory was that Paddock was targeting MBS under contract or whatever, then when it was quickly shown that the Saudis were on the other side of town it morphed into this distraction thing. It all seems implausible - officers assigned to guard VIPs don’t go running when there’s a mass casualty event for precisely this reason; his security detail wouldn’t run if they got a report of this incident on the radio.

And what's the motive?

Oh, I agree! That link was included with a heavy dose of irony.

Another loss for my reading skills or the ability of text to convey irony. I'm going to blame the tool. As is tradition.

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