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 -
What do we know so far? I mean do we even have the list of people who went to the island?
Yeah this is plausible I suppose... but dude if the intelligence agencies are covering up for huge pedophilia rings like... what the hell?!
mmf good point. Didn't think of this one, but you know it does make sense. Sigh. I wish Trump wasn't so morally degenerate.
I mean, they generally don't have to; they had a few running in Afghanistan and that was relatively public knowledge at the time.
Of course, because in that case they were foreign brown boys, and in this case they're domestic white women at peak female insecurity age, so the difference in the public's level of care is trivially predictable- one is routine/character-building, the other is a sacrilege/high blasphemy.
My null hypothesis is that the intelligence agencies aren't covering for huge pedophilia rings (and by that I mean "actual little kids", not physically mature teenagers) because there aren't enough sufficiently powerful [male] pedophiles for them to be viable in the first place. The traits that predict 'obligate' pedophilia are likely statistically underrepresented in that group anyway given the most prominent examples are researchers and other academic-types.
I think people’s priors for this are higher because of high profile cases like the Catholic Church where a huge bureaucracy was indeed subverted to protect the interests of paedophiles.
More options
Context Copy link
I think that, much as with homosexuality, you err in assuming that a propensity for child abuse is primarily an aberrant genetic mutation that affects desire, as opposed to a willful choice to perform a transgressive evil for the sake of it. I think that the people running American society won't allow anyone into their club - they won't allow anyone else to have any of their power - until they've proven that they really are completely soulless, empty, and evil. Anything we'd recognize as sexual - the whole limited hangout archetype everyone's rambling about here, with an entrapment sex party featuring jailbait - is essentially incidental. You have to be on the record participating in the sadistic torture and execution of a few innocent people before they let you into the big leagues, and you need to seem to enjoy it, too. They're Satanists, and they only want to share the halls of power with fellow Satanists. Those are the people who made America. Freemasons. Those fuckers.
What the hell?
I guess I should tap the evidence, specific groups and maybe speak plainly signs. Somehow, I don't feel like that's sufficient. This is not a place to vent about how much you hate "those fuckers."
Fair; I felt the need to emotionally underline my point, but it felt un-The-Motte-ish as I did it, a feeling I should have paid more attention to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you're onto something, but there is an element of reeling people in with these sorts of evil initiations. I think the jailbait entrapment is the first step. Then they either get girls that are progressively younger, or they encourage the mark to act progressively rougher, or both. There's probably some level of drug use to facilitate this. Something like cocaine or amphetamine would decrease inhibitions, increase aggression and sexual desire, and numb feelings of empathy.
I agree with you that there's a cabal of ghouls operating high up in the realms of power. But I think this cabal is better modeled as a self perpetuating group of evil elites actively seeking out other elites to corrupt and blackmail into joining. I don't think it makes sense as a "you must be this evil to join" club.
Regarding taste... I think there are a lot of evil appetites that increase as they feast. Many of the people strung along or blackmailed into extreme sadism or pedophilia may come to like it over time. Then they go on to perpetuate the cabal.
More options
Context Copy link
Ah, so that's why they call government agents G-Men!
I don't actually think [the former], and as such should have chosen my words more carefully; this is all molestation, not pedophilia, since the details are (as you mentioned) completely incidental and [from the supplemental videos linked in other comments] it's all about who presents the easiest target of opportunity. Though, I will point out that of all the things you could get up to, "fucking a willing 16 year old of the opposite sex" is probably the least actually destructive one (and the stupidest "transgression", since the social opprobrium over it is fake and gay anyway) you could ask for in a shadowy elite.
They generally have established patterns of that behavior beforehand so I'm not sure "being willing to do that, except with a slightly cuter human being" is really helping them. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility, but these are already bad dudes.
lol
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I keep meaning to read Chaos about how the CIA "created" the Manson Cult. Supposedly it's very well researched, and if it's somehow all smoke and no fire, I'd be amazed.
I just re-listened to that book on audible. It's very good, but it's very convincing in like seven different directions so it's at least mostly smoke.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link