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 -
In my view, 50/50 he has committed criminal sexual acts. He posted a lot of very edgy jokes on Twitter.
And logic dictates when you put someone somewhere to censor content, you want someone who will be easy to handle, hence, a guy whom you know to be a nonce is the logical choice.
Meanwhile, FBI has about 16 ex* employees working at Twitter in various senior positions.
*I'm not sure people ever 'leave' such agencies, same way as people never really leave the Mob without disappearing entirely.
Yes, federal employees absolutely leave their former agencies and are no longer bound by anything but (in the case of those who held security clearances) their lifetime obligation not to disclose classified information. US federal agencies do not in any way "own" former employees, nor they do they make them "disappear."
No one is bound by anything and no one claims they are. The claim is that the employees, current and former, become an influence network where it is in the interest of the participants to prioritize their reputation within the network over their fiduciary duties.
Moreover, this stuff is generally handled via implicit escalation. "Ok I'll crack down on the beheading videos and build a connection with people still on the inside." "Ok, I guess advocating for beheading is pretty similar." ... "Advocating for Trump is basically the same as the previous step."
Indeed, @No_one claims they are.
It's an interesting claim, but where is the evidence for it?
It's no more true than the network of ex-military, ex-police officers, etc. They might feel a sense of affinity for others who worked for the same organization, which may manifest in hiring decisions and the like, but considering the size of the federal workforce, it's a much weaker "network" than, say, Yale grads.
When you say "this stuff is generally handled via implicit escalation," you appear to making a statement of fact, based on knowledge. Which you followed up with a very specific scenario. Do you have any knowledge this this is how "this stuff" is actually handled, or only conjecture? Because it sounds like you are building a conjecture around a statement you made with certainty but no actual knowledge. It sounds like "Well, it makes sense to me that this is how people would go from banning beheading videos to banning pro-Trump statements," but I think you are making this up and just assuming "that's how it works" because it fits your worldview.
I cannot reveal the anecdata on which I've based this without being either super vague or alternately revealing details which are likely traceable to a small set of people. The tl;dr; is that someone I trust was briefly involved in a situation of this sort on the periphery, hated it tremendously, but described the process to me.
Feel free to dismiss it as you see fit.
Given that I too have first-hand knowledge that I cannot reveal without doxxing myself to win an Internet argument, yes, I will dismiss your anecdata.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And you do believe this unironically ?
Yes. I have factual reason to believe this. What is your basis for believing otherwise?
It's generally not true in other countries. People get attached to the their classmates, former companies and so on.
Well, first of all, the United States has very different norms, and stricter regulations, about federal service.
Second, people getting attached to their classmates and former companies is not the argument you made. Of course ex-feds maintain a professional and social network that typically includes other current and former feds. But you were claiming something much different, that they constitute in effect a "Mob" that they not only do not but cannot really leave, and that their former agencies can still compel them to do work for them after they've left. This is flatly untrue.
Strict ? You have generals retiring and then getting cushy board or consultant positions at defence contractors.
There's the infamous 'revolving door' problem at all kinds of agencies.
I should've been more clear- what I had in mind was more that these are special jobs that confer life-long status by association, and that people who've gone through them typically have a specific outlook and set of contacts that make them unique.
However-
We know feds compel people who fucked up to serve them. They're called confidential informants.
Is this a practice that cannot be used on agents who messed up ? Say, some boss 'misplaces' a crucial piece of evidence, agent is exonerated.
Retires, but knows he'll be asked to do favors for feds, unless he wants that piece accidentally found during an unrelated investigation..
A different problem (and I agree it's a problem) but the coziness of the defense industry with the military, like the way in which former congressmen and senators exit to become highly paid lobbyists for the companies they used to legislate, is not related to what you were claiming.
Well yes, but how is that different from any other specialized job? Ex-military (especially in elite branches like special forces) also enjoy a unique outlook and set of contacts. Everyone knows having a security clearance (or having formerly held a security clearance) is itself a valuable thing to put on your resume. But again, not the thing you were claiming.
They're also called criminals. Not the same thing.
It has certainly has happened that a military or federal employee caught conducting espionage has been "turned" into a double agent under threat of prosecution. Other than that, I don't know what you mean by "agents who messed up." If they messed up badly enough to be prosecuted, they might be forced to cooperate in order to avoid or lighten their prosecution. If they simply got fired, then the government has no further leverage on them.
Your scenario - an agent "messes up" and rather than prosecuting them, their agency holds onto the evidence to extort them into doing favors for them in the future - sounds very unlikely. What kind of "evidence" do you imagine would fit this criteria? If it's espionage, that agent is not being given a pass so he can go work in the private sector as a secret "asset." Same deal if it's anything else seriously illegal like child porn or rape or murder. Assuming some lesser offense, what exactly would the agent's former employer have them do? Go work for Twitter and push moderation buttons for them? And the ex-fed is going to do this because... otherwise the evidence he could have been prosecuted for will resurface? Except he now has a lawyer who will raise awkward questions about why he's being prosecuted now, for some bullshit charge like soliciting or drug use or misappropriation or whatever else they have on him. Do you see how much this doesn't make sense?
Aren't you a criminal only after you've been convincted of a crime ?
I'm fairly sure a lot of CIs are people who haven't been convicted, but perhaps only charged with something, and the charges were dropped or suspended in exchange for a promise of cooperation.
Embezzlement, loss of expensive equipment, something criminal but not treasonous.
And how far will the lawyer get, given how FBI and other government agencies operate, with everything secret ?
How lucky would the guy have to be to get a lawyer who wants to get on the Feds' naughty list ?
Theoretically, because he'll get rewarded if he does it and punished if he doesn't.
And more likely, the ex-FBI people acting on FBI's behalf just do it out of their own sincerely held convictions about what's right.
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
More options
Context Copy link
"Edgy Twitter jokes" is not the same as "has sex with 14 year olds". If all of us were judged by everything we've ever said on social media, we'd be in a lot of trouble.
Is that necessarily a bad thing?
More options
Context Copy link
Edgy jokes that imply the person who made the joke is watching sadistic pornography featuring children ... are pretty weird.
Or is this some sort of 'typical minding' and I'm the only one who can't easily confuse usual porn sounds and infant crying ?
/images/16708706411712267.webp
The fucking joke is that it shouldn't be hard to tell the difference between porn and a baby crying! That's why it's an awkward moment, because nobody ever wants to be in a situation where they can't tell if their neighbour is watching a crying baby or watching porn that sounds like a crying baby.
You mean, the joke was supposed to be he can't tell whether his neighbor is watching child porn ?
Yeah sort of, but it is more like "there are some very strange noises coming from my neighbour's place, but they are too loud for me to ignore. But they are so strange that I can't tell if I should rap on the wall and tell them to turn down the volume of their porn or feel sympathy for them for the baby they are having trouble calming. I definitely don't want to rap on the wall and tell them to shut up their baby, nor feel sympathy for their loud and revolting sounding masturbation session, so I am in an awkward spot."
As you said elsewhere, it's edgy. It's supposed to be transgressive and shock you by breaking taboos. Assuming it is a sincere expression of interest in pedophilia is like assuming an edgy 14 year old is a nazi because he scrawled a swastika on the bathroom stall door.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, not to tell on myself or anything, but...haven't you ever come across excerpts from japanese AVs? Lots of high-pitched nasal squealing that, through a wall, could plausibly be confused with an infant. Or at least enough for comedic purposes.
That's about the only remotely innocuous explanation.
It's a reason why years ago I stopped trying to pirate Japanese porn; no matter how hot the actresses might be, the whole thing inevitably gets kind of rapey and also, the weird squealing.
But why would a gay man be familiar with how Japanese straight porn sounds?
Or is Japanese homosexual pornography also heavy on high-pitched nasal squealing ?
Probably for the same reason most people who watch YouTube videos know how a particular straight porn sounds (volume warning).
This isn't the only example, but it is the most infamous.
More options
Context Copy link
Not just present there, not as constant, and both Japanese 'normal' gay porn and yaoi's got a slightly different form of obnoxious vocalisms, but yes. Both the obnoxious bottoms overselling how hard they're taking it, and the tops either have a kink or a script for aaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
More options
Context Copy link
No, I suspect it's more along the lines of OH MY SHOULDER
More options
Context Copy link
Because he read about it on internet? I know quite a lot about a lot of stuff that I never personally experienced or seen first hand, for start I never visited Venus. (not that visiting it would allow me to survive long enough to learn about it)
More options
Context Copy link
For the same or similar reason that I know what some gay porn clips look like - if you spent any time on 4chan or similar borderline internet sites during the past couple decades, you were gonna see all kinds of weird shit regardless of whether or not you, personally, are into it.
But would brief exposure create the kind of familiarity that leads you to confuse a common sound - crying infant, with an uncommon sound -something you heard once or twice online and didn't care for it at all ?
Who tf knows, man. People remember all sorts of weird shit they run into. It's not that logical.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People posted JAVs to 4chan? TIL. Wouldn't that be on the straight board though, which it's not likely a gay guy would be hanging out on?
No, that shit would be on /b/ all the time.
Or any, I mean, I've gleaned knowledge of tonnes of sexual shit I'm not into just from shitposting subreddits and the like. Most normal men (gay men are still men) have some level of fascination with weird gross shit, just because.
I mean I know what "docking" is, and I can tell you it's not my cup of tea. For God's sake you'd pick half this stuff up from like South Park.
How can you possibly be on an obscure message board for non-heterodox niche political/cultural stuff and then act like you've never seen weird shit online?
It got to me because I've specifically never seen a JAV, despite knowing what they are, seeing screenshots and covers, knowing all the jokes about censoring blurs and weird excuse-plots, etc. I hang out with people who mention collecting terabytes of them for some reason, but they don't, like, post random videos in chat.
It seems weird that a gay would have that much engagement with straight porn.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For pornographic videos, 4chan has only /gif/ (anything goes) and /hc/ (heterosexual hardcore). Users also will post off-topic pornographic videos on other boards when they can get away with it.
More options
Context Copy link
No, 4chan boards are not gay/straight segregated.
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
I covered this I think here the other day. The problem with the FBI (or CIA etc) being at twitter is the alphabets have become extremely color coded. They are viewed as blue tribe captured.
I have no problem with fbi guys taking their pension and finding a $250k twitter job focused on child porn or all the actions that most of society still disagrees with. It’s their training. The issue happens if their doing moderating tribal speech battles.
All of these agencies very heavily employ ex-military. Also, Mormons for some reason gravitate to the three-letter agencies.
Is there a lot of blue-tribe HR bullshit in all federal agencies? Yes, but it's not as "captured" as you think.
Bc. Mormons have compulsory missionareeing (ah, my English, fix it), often in another countries, so which has a lot overlap with what three-letters do. Also Mormons missionaries work in pair and each reports to superiors on the other one. Perfect!
More options
Context Copy link
Sounds right to me and I said below I bet lower levels are more mixed. Since the 50 agents thing and Hunter Laptop interference the alphabets at the top have lost any red tribe respect.
More options
Context Copy link
You have to realize to a segment of online people, "Blue Tribe" means being opposed to anything Trump or anything adjacent anti-woke people do. At this point, Mike Pence is 'Blue Tribe' is some because of his actions on 1/6.
Nah, blue tribe means "laptop class" and adjacent. the sort of person who pays more attention to what's trending on twitter than what's going on with their next-door neighbor
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
With reason, no ? As I understand most of the people who have been tied to the Trump dossier scandal were FBI alumni.
Similarly, FBI seems heavily involved in J6, with the person who was in charge of investigation retiring recently., perhaps to make it less likely that he could be asked awkward questions such as why Ray Epps was not arrested or investigated despite there being videos of him organising the event and urging people to enter the capitol.
I believe so for reason but didn’t want to state it that way. I assume the FBI at lower to medium levels still has some red tribe members and their not completely extinct yet.
I've seen rumors of bad morale and people bitching about being re-directed from investigating criminals into investigating "online hate", but nothing substantial.
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