site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   21931 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 30, 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Months after being freed from 14 years in confinement, Assange is back in the spotlight, criticising the government.

This man is simply irrepressible! I have high hopes that Australians will be able to vote him into Senate soon.

Here is his hour long address to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE): https://youtube.com/watch?v=Mq85IZMeigc&t=2120s

Some juicy extracts from the transcript (I used ChatGPTBox to summarise but it was reluctant to talk about politics)

  1. "I want to be totally clear. I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today because after years of incarceration I pleaded guilty to journalism. I pleaded guilty to seeking information from a source, and I pleaded guilty to informing the public what that information was."

  2. On CIA activities: "We exposed the CIA's infiltration of French political parties, the European Central Bank, European economics ministries, its production of malware and viruses, its hacking of iPhones."

  3. Regarding alleged CIA plans against him: "CIA director Pompeo launched a secret war against WikiLeaks, including plans to kidnap and to assassinate me within the United Kingdom."

  4. On surveillance: "The CIA had agents permanently assigned to track my wife and newborn child."

  5. About former CIA officer Joshua Schulte: "Former CIA officer Joshua Schulte was convicted for providing information to WikiLeaks and is now held in isolation. A radio and a white noise machine plays 24 hours a day to disorient him."

  6. On potential CIA actions in Europe: "Europe is vulnerable to having its sovereignty violated by CIA operations on European soil, violating human rights and European law."

  7. Regarding Michael Pompeo's memoirs: "Europe in Michael Pompeo's memoirs, which were published this year, brags about how the CIA reopened the investigation against me in Sweden."

  8. On the broader implications of his case: "The criminalization of journalists in the United States for asking for, receiving, or publishing classified information prevents Russia or indeed any other state from doing the same thing."

  9. "In 2017 the landscape changed dramatically. President Trump had been elected. He appointed two wolves in MAGA hats: Mike Pompeo, a Kansas congressman and former arms industry executive as CIA director, and William Barr, a former CIA officer as [Attorney General]."

Great to see. We need more of his energy.

It's a shame that the libertarian anti-authoritarian anti-government strain of U.S. politics got totally co-opted by Trump and MAGA. I wish that the grey tribe still had a voice in the broader political discussions.

Also I wonder if Assange likes bitcoin?

It's interesting to see that Assange slams the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations for their appointment of CIA directors that repressed free speech. He has a lot to say about Trump

However, in February 2017, the landscape changed dramatically. President Trump had been elected, and he appointed two wolves in MAGA hats, Mike Pompeo, a Kansas congressman and former arms industry executive, as CIA director, and William Bar, a former CIA officer, as US Attorney General. By March 2017, WikiLeaks had exposed the CIA's infiltration of French political parties, spying on French and German leaders, spying on the European Central Bank, European economics Ministries, and its standing orders to spy on French industry as a whole. We also revealed the CIA's vast production of malware and viruses, its subversion of supply chains, its subversion of antivirus software, Cars, Smart TVs, and iPhones.

CIA Director Pompeo launched a campaign of retribution. It is now a matter of public record that, under Pompeo's explicit direction, the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and to assassinate me within the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and authorized going after my European colleagues, subjecting us to theft, hacking attacks, and the planning of false information. My wife and my infant son were also targeted. A CIA asset was permanently assigned to track my wife, and instructions were given to obtain DNA from a six-month-old son's nappy. This is the testimony of more than 30 current and former US intelligence officials speaking to the US press, which has been corroborated by records seized in a prosecution brought against some of the CIA agents involved. The CIA's targeting of myself, my family, and my associates through

And this is him limiting himself to only the public records: e.g court records and Pomeo's bragging in his book. You can only imagine what else is going on. We obviously can't trust any politician, but we can look at their past actions, and Trumps past actions are terrible. He doesn't even express any regrets for breaking campaign promises and siding with the CIA over the promised JFK files. He only says, "next time I will, you can be sure". Right....

I want to be totally clear. I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today because after years of incarceration I pleaded guilty to journalism.

Tiny reminder that there are loads of people who will nod their head yes, agree that it is totally possible for someone to plead guilty to a non-crime, yet not be willing to keep that thought in their head while thinking about other cases.

Which other cases are you referring to?

From the linked comment:

...which, of course, brings us back to where everything ultimately brings us back to - Donald Trump. I can't pass up incredible hypotheticals that cut to the crux of things and make all the partisans want to switch sides. Suppose Trump made what could have been argued to be a false business record in the state of New York with the intent to conceal something about Assange's actions related to this guilty plea. Would the NYT still think the true reality is that Assange actually pled guilty to a non-crime? Would they say that Trump could have an appeal to the courts of law, not the courts of fact, by saying, "No dawg, that's not a crime"? Or would they say that Assange's plea deal settles the matter, thoroughly establishing the fact that such actions absolutely are a crime, with no First Amendment defense?

The search/replace is "Assange" and "Cohen". So many people are perfectly happy saying that Cohen's guilty plea settles the matter that a campaign finance violation actually occurred and that there is no First Amendment defense against it. I think it's entirely reasonable to think that both Assange and Cohen actually pleaded guilty to non-crimes.

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