site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   32426 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

While I agree that there is some strangeness about the entire story, I think the “gay escort” theory is highly unlikely, for the very simple reason: people like Pelosis can afford and procure services of higher quality providers than crazy hobos.

people like Pelosis can afford and procure services of higher quality providers than crazy hobos.

Come on man, if I win the lottery, I'm still gonna love 100$ footjobs.

Nt

I've heard this said a lot and it doesn't make sense to me. I'm not at Pelosi's level, but I'm rich. I have no idea how to hire an escort. People think that when your net worth crosses some line, they send you a packet with ways to hire an escort, hire a hitman, not pay taxes, etc... The level of fantasy about wealth than exists in the minds of non-wealthy people is often absurd.

Perhaps the idea is that, as you approach the kind of wealth that allows you to sip ridiculously-expensive champagne in some restaurant, you'll gain the connections and networking that allow you to get a seat at said restaurant. Find-and-replace for any other rich-people thing.

The idea is wrong, then. More often it's the other way around; the social ability to get you those connections and a seat at that restaurant also get you the wealth/

You might not know to pay less taxes now, but if you actually cared to learn, you’d start out with some obvious steps, like, for example, asking people who you think might have better idea than you do. Rich people typically are good at figuring out how to get things done, as this is typically how they got rich in the first place. Your last line about “the level of fantasy” is bad, and you should be able to do better than that.

I feel like there's a level of rich where you have a home office and someone who manages your staff, who probably has a career history of managing rich guys' household staff, and presumably they can field requests like that and discreetly figure out how to execute them. No? This probably isn't like $10M rich, though, it's probably like $150M+. Not that every rich person lives that way, but makes sense to hire people to handle all of the effort in managing your houses, your social schedule, your philanthropies, etc., and I assume that people who do that for a living end up either fielding weird requests like this themselves from time to time or at least developing a network that would help them figure it out.

I heavily agree with this. It’s not as easy as people think. There’s also a serious vetting issue if you don’t have experience. Even a place like has Eros has as many scammers as real. It’s a lot of work to find escorts even if your willing to pay up. And men want variety so their likely to play a lot of hands which increases risks.

Even if I were to assume that Paul Pelosi likes having illicit affairs with seedy male prostitutes, I find it hard to believe he'd be stupid enough to use his real name or let the guy know where he lives.

not pay taxes

This is code for reducing tax burden through generally legal means that some people may believe to be unfair, against the spirit of tax regimes. Everything from an H&R block tax preparer finding one weird trick deductions for you to a personal wealth manager doing all kinds of interesting work falls under this category. Quality of the services provided and what options are available scale relative to wealth. As does the general feeling of unfairness. Sticking with retail banking/investment/tax preparation with something on the order of 10m USD in assets may be a suboptimal life choice.

I have no idea how to hire an escort.

I mean, if you were so inclined, it wouldn't be hard to find out. You can literally Google it

Man, that was a wild ride. I don't think I will ever be able to use the knowledge, but I now know a ton about the business side of prostitution that I never really even considered.

There are definitely gay guys who are more into crazy hobos than handsome escorts.

Counter point: rest stops.

People like Pelosis can afford and procure services of higher quality providers than crazy hobos.

So can Hugh Grant and Eddie Murphy, and yet they were famously caught with Hollywood Boulevard hookers. There is a precedent for "slumming" for sex among the rich and famous. Probably moreso for San Francisco gays as the Castro District culture and history there is rich. I wouldn't be surprised if it was somewhat similar to how upper-or-middle-class Black celebrities will affect street dialect: faking authenticity is big in some subcultures.

The basis of the escort theory is, essentially: How did he get into the house? How does a house owned by one of the richest couples in America in one the most crime-ridden cities in America, not have a security system that can defend against a lone crazy person making a semi-spontaneous attack? And how is a lone crazy person disordered enough to think this crime is a worthwhile endeavor and yet ordered enough to find his way through the Pelosis' security apparatus?

This "fetish for hobos" theory does not sound entirely absurd and incoherent, especially considering the examples you give, but...

The basis of the escort theory is, essentially: How did he get into the house? How does a house owned by one of the richest couples in America in one the most crime-ridden cities in America, not have a security system that can defend against a lone crazy person making a semi-spontaneous attack?

I mean, does "Paul Pelosi has a fetish for gay hobos" is really the first thing that comes to your mind given this evidence? Is this really simplest theory filling available facts?

Look, I'll propose something much simpler: DePape ringed the bell, someone (maybe even mister Pelosi) answered the door, and DePape said something that was misinterpreted, resulting in the person letting him in, thinking that he was expected. It could have even been something as simple as him saying "hey, I have something for Nancy". Does that really sound less plausible than "Paul Pelosi has a secret fetish for gay hobos"? Or, check this out: DePape rings the bell, Pelosi answers the door, and DePape just shoves the octogenarian and barges in? I'm not saying that either of those is what actually happened, but that these are simply way more a priori plausible than the "fetish for gay hobos" theory, they depend on fewer assumptions and inferential steps.

Look, I'll propose something much simpler: DePape ringed the bell, someone (maybe even mister Pelosi) answered the door, and DePape said something that was misinterpreted, resulting in the person letting him in, thinking that he was expected.

Sure, but if it happened in the way you speculate, it's what would be reported. However, I doubt anyone can simply walk up and ring the Pelolsi's doorbell (in the middle of the night). Unless the Pelosi's themselves don't take seriously all of her public hand-wringing about right-wing violence, they surely have active measures in place to protect themselves from it, right?

Maybe a long-standing relationship? IDK.

Maybe he's a pathological penny pincher like Robert Kraft.

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