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 -
Just that there has been a satanic panic once doesn't mean there can't be a pedophile-using organisation that uses allegations of a satanic panic, or directly whips up a satanic panic as cover for its operations.
The more low-IQ conspiracy theorists are around some topic, the worse is the signal to noise ratio.
A frequent ways spies recruit people to do things is ask them to do something relatively innocuous for them. Once you have done that, you're forced to cooperate, because they can threaten you with revealing the cooperation.
Pedophiles are ideal; once they find out someone is a pedophile, they can get them to cooperate just by asking.
No need to get them to do them a favor, thus implicating them.
They don't even have to spell it out.
"Why are you asking me to risk so much for you?"
"You damn well know why. Now be a good boy and get to it. We'll pay you, don't worry."
It's interesting how this particular manner of writing is common among people who are vaguely "conspiracy theorists", or who are vaguely but ominously musing about dark, shadowy conspiracies.
Very frequent line breaks, jumping from topic to topic, a narrative/story-like flow, vague hints.
[not saying this as evidence your points are wrong, good points are sometimes made with weird modes of speaking, but association is strong]
Where am I being "vague" ? The existence of pedophiles wasn't invalidated by there having been a panic about them.
Neither does panic about a non-existent nonsensical conspiracy make actual conspiracies less likely.
There's been at least two elite pedophile conspiracies that have come to light that are rather .. solid- the Dutroux affair, and the Pedophile Information Exchange / MI6 thing.
The former is well known, and seeing as secret service leadership is 'elite'. In the 1970s, the deputy head of MI6 being a pedophile is significant.. During the same time frame, the head of MI6 was Oldfield, who in late 1980s admitted to having had sex with 'houseboys' in the 40s and 50s.
In retrospect, the leadership of MI6 during the 1970s included a pedophile deputy director, and at least a homosexual director.
As pedophilia and homosexuality are both rather rare, it seems very unlikely that they did not know about each other, and got into these position by complete accident.
There's nothing 'vague' about saying people on whom blackmail material exists are more easily influenced either.
sure. but 'some elites are pedophiles' isn't surprising. there are a lot of elites. hundreds of thousands at least, certainly if we can look to the past and any area of significance in any significant country. There's gonna be some pedophile rings in any randomly selected group of 200k people. I mean, there have been "12,421 individuals" in the US Congress since the US's founding! that's just one specific very important institution!
this is vague. "unlikely got into position by accident". it's not actually saying anything. it's vaguely implied pedophilia somehow makes one elite.
yes, that is very vague and ambiguous! "people on whom [what] blackmail material exists are [how much] more easily influenced [by whom, to what, for what purpose]"
pedophilia and homosexuality aren't independent here, for actual pedophiles (in the sense of 'wanting to molest 12yos) 95% aren't "straight". Also, yoyoel's thesis is discussing "16yos using grindr", which is very different than "i want to molest 12yos".
The people in question were director (certainly homosexual, possibly a pedophile) and deputy director of MI6 (almost certainly).
Positions to which people are not appointed without having undergone serious vetting.
Positions that have perhaps seen, during the entire 20th century been held by only 20-30 different people.
So these people have either kept their homosexuality completely secret, despite being in a position, where they were supposedly vetted, or they were part of some homosexual conspiracy in the secret service. The former seems rather less likely than the latter.
Nonsensical objection. Having covert influence over a person in an influential position is of interest to every conspiracy out there, from simple criminal organisation, to foreign spies, etc.
Head of secret service is one maybe top 10 most important posts in a nation.
One of the people in question, Hayman, was investigated because he lost a large amount of pornographic pedophilic material and it was traced back to him.
the idea is that there's lots of different positions, and if instead of MI5 director as pedo the DCCC chair or army general were pedos that'd be your evidence instead
you swapped 'homosexual' for 'pedophile'? homosexuality isn't illegal in current_year, and in the '50s you could keep it secret by just not telling anyone. How is 'not telling anyone you're gay' less plausible than 'secret service homo conspiracy'
your claim is a "pedophile secret service conspiracy". there's a profound difference between 'one secret agency head was a pedo' and 'there is a world-spanning pedo conspiracy enforced by blackmail'. If head of "secret service" is '10 most important positions in a nation' ... and there are 10 nations ... 10x10 is 100, 1 in 100 people are pedos, nothing to explain!
The secrets "weren't really kept", if you were to read the links, at least one of these people had nasty rumors swirling all around him. And iirc, the British counter-intelligence service filed on Hayman all but concluded he was a pedophile.
You're making the unwarranted assumption we know about all of these conspiracies. It's far more likely most of such networks are never exposed, so we only ever know about few of them..
With Dutroux, we don't even know who was in on it, though given the cover-up it must have been someone important.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This was the UK though; that vetting consisted of asking his Oxford/Cambridge schoolmates if he was a good chap. Which backfired on them quite often when all the guy's buddies and professors were fellow members of the communist-homopaedo/theatre club who were all working for the Soviets too.
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