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 -
List of alleged ex-FBI people working for Twitter.
Quite a lot of names. 16 directors or managers. All hired since the '16 debacle.
Reminds one of the Chinese demand for CPC members being in company management.
Is it random ? Or does this support the claim Twitter is uniquely important in the information landscape as a place where journalists get their stories and hang out.
same thing with fakebook. it's mainly for child exploitation, drugs, kidnapping, stuff like that. Given that twitter is 100% public, unless you make your profile private, just assume anything you tweet will be read by FBI
No. Facebook was good for creating a social network graph of much of the world.
I presume it can and does facilitate those things, but that could have hardly been the primary objective.
We hope so.
There's nothing more fun than dropping sinister, oblique hints about offline conspiracies when talking to people who are known to have an FBI file.
he's saying "trust and safety people at facebook are for combatting child exploitation, drugs, kidnapping", not "facebook is for that"
exactly
More options
Context Copy link
I was sure it was meant to be a joke.
Btw, to be a good catcher of %x% means you needs to understand %x% MO, become a %x%!
Also you can legally watch materials forbidden to others.
More options
Context Copy link
If 'trust and safety people at facebook' are anything like the trust and safety people over at twitter, it could go either way.
Takes one to know one situation.
/images/16708592693026352.webp
this clearly is not him saying anything about children being sexy. pedophiles might say things like "children are cute and independent and have personalities and deserve to make choices and love just as much as we do. oppressing them is bad". this is a statement about how a baby crying and exaggerated porn sounds, after being distorted by layers of walls, to him, sound similar. it is not the kind of thing you'd say because you're a pedophile or to signal pedophilia.
like, where in that message does it relate 'having sex' to 'with children'?
also just for context several motteposters (including me), often right-leaning, probably some that you like, have said much, much worse things than that on rdrama - as jokes!
To spell it out for people on the clock, sadistic porn featuring children might sound like a baby crying, for the reason that it's sadistic and involves harming small children, hence the crying.
2)
And what kind of thing is that?
What do pedophiles do to signal that they are what they are ?
Is it musing about how kids should have access to sex apps used by adults ?
Wondering aloud, in public, about the age of consent ? Advocating for a lower age of consent ?
3)
I'd be surprised. But you're free to dig some up.
No, he said that on his other account that he scrubbed apparently:
And yeah, apparently, that image can't be uploaded.
/images/16708666196986835.webp
More options
Context Copy link
Ah, here's the image file it won't upload in the first one:
/images/16708664599802046.webp
Chalk it up to your bias and/or blatant hostile misconstruction. To me he's clearly talking about the man being hotter because the man is demonstrating care.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agree I don’t think twitter hiring a lot of FBI is anything that weird. What’s weird is how color coded and blue tribe the FBI seems to be now. Red tribe seems the FBI as having declared war on them.
Now that the FBI is explicitly labeled a different tribe than Musks it seems as though their assumed to be against him.
yeah, pre-2008 the FBI was solidly red it seemed
They're cops. They're still gonna be solidly red.
The FBI are not police (except FBI Police, but that's a whole 'nother story).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Volunteer reddit moderators purged trump supporters from their subreddits with no institutional backing whatsoever! You'd expect - and did see - the same from progressive twitter moderators without FBI intervention. Most being hired after '16 is explained by most twitter hires as a whole being recently - if a company's exponentially growing employee count (including if it overhires), most employees are recent. Thinking the FBI is somehow a specific central organ that's dictatorially intervening isn't right - are there even any specific pieces of evidence for that - distributed consensus and pressure from all parts of civil society, including your leadership and employees is much more accurate. And 'pressure from leadership and employees' is just being part of it and agreeing!
Also, most of those employees are in 'security', as opposed to 'trust and safety' or similar, and ex-FBI hires make sense for that.
Of course it makes sense you put them in 'security'. They're ex-FBI, duh.
But are they doing actual security, or are they there to ensure compliance ?
The political editor over at Newsweek who got the half-Arab/half-Russian reporter fired was officially doing something related to sports.
His slack activity showed something else.
Because twitter is where marching orders for all the second-hand ideas dealers are handed out.
It's where likes and retweets can be used to reward worthy causes and sink unworthy causes.
The entire plot against Trump was very heavy on FBI people.
FBI apparently orchestrated the J6 farce.
You know, when it comes to you, I can't decide whether you're a reflexive contrarian or something else entirely.
We can read their "experience" tab on linkedin (most of them aren't visible logged out, cba to make a throwaway):
--
To illustrate the point with some hyperbole - If, hypothetically, I was a dark elf silently plotting to dismantle the USG, execute Plan Moldbug, and install BAP as Emperor, it'd still be (if I was talking to other live players who too might take action) worth contesting confused claims about how the Cathedral works and uses power - lest my allies box shadows and spend years on based political projects that accomplish nothing.
You expect Intelligence people to put things like "* And oversees compliance with government directives and assorted 1st Amendment violations" in their LinkedIn?
twitter has "trust and safety" people whose job it is to censor threats, cp, racism, extremism, etc. there are a lot of people who explicitly that. the people that OP linked whose profiles I could view and get information from very clearly laid out security (computer or physical) roles instead.
rewording my question: do you expect them to put a smoking gun in their Linked in profiles?
Them working for T&S isn't a smoking gun though, it'd just be twitter hiring people to do a task they explicitly claim they are doing and intend to do. If an ex-FBI person is 'preventing extremism on twitter', they're just one of a hundred twitter employees doing that, it isn't illegal or anything. Most 'normal' people, and especially the 'cathedral', will just read that as 'fbi person who works at twitter now', and not infer any "government directives" or "1st amendment violations". Despite that, the linked individuals are just twitter hiring people with security skillsets for security roles.
Nobody said that it is, why are you fixated on it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's the evidence for this?
Evidence in addition of proven FBI SOP of infiltrating, manipulating and inciting all kinds of "right wing" "racist" "extremist" groups?
What standard of evidence? You are not going to see evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" until documents are declassified (wait few decades) or fall of the regime and opening of archives (good luck waiting for this).
But, for starter, see this twitter thread listing interesting events around this event (sourced from impeccable mainstream sources).
https://twitter.com/BoltzmannBooty/status/1422298278188748802
You got me wrong. That was not an adversarial comment. I actually know next to nothing about this whole thing.
From a (very cursory) reading of that twitter thread (God I hate twitter, I hope Elon sinks it soon), it seems as if there were a handful of FBI undercover agents among the Proud Boys, one of the many groups involved in Jan 6. Then there is some far-fetched speculation that they may or may not have been among those people giving orders? Unless I am missing quite a lot, that's fishy, but a far cry from "the FBI orchestrated J6".
Not only FBI, Secret Service and DHS were also informed in advance that Trumpers will spontaneously decide to desecrate the temple of freedom and democracy.
Some non-Twitter links from non-respectable sources digging deep into this rabbit hole.
Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears To Have Led The Very First 1/6 Attack On The U.S. Capitol
Meet Ray Epps, Part 2
Article is one year old, what happened to Ray Epps since then? Arrested and tortured like the rank and file rioters?
Nothing. NYT debunked all crazy conspiracy theories, there is no need to do anything.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"the fbi has informants in right wing groups and sometimes encourages lone wolf terrorist attacks to pad their arrest and conviction numbers" isn't evidence for "the FBI orchestrated a bunch of people showing up on Jan 6". That there were some informants at Jan 6th doesn't prove much - if J6 was fully organic, the FBI would still want their informants there to inform, and even if those Proud Boy people weren't used as informants at all, they'd still show up to the protest considering they're proudboys.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
if you avoid politics, reddit can be tolerable...sometimes.
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like every message board has had purges since 2016. Whoever moderates anything has had to decide if their Trump or not Trump. It’s a weird world that things that had a great deal of bipartisanship for decades suddenly found themselves needing to choose a political party. It always felt like it was coming more from blue tribe spaces, but perhaps red tribe has down it too. I feel like any blue tribe tilted space has had full moderation of anyone Trumpy since atleast 2020 (which includes non-Trump lovers who weren’t full on board with every narrative).
Many of the purges occurred BEFORE 2016; it was Gamergate that revealed how deep the rabbithole went.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link