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 exactly is your prior here when you say it's a psyop? That no one actually came and shot people? That the shooter was a government agent?
As I said, I simply start at “Fake and Gay” and wait until it becomes undeniably clear it happened as stated. It may seem perverse but it serves me well in this hyperrealistic world. The default position is: “I don’t believe you. Prove it to me.” If they satisfy the demands of proof they then have to tell me what it has to do with anything I care about.
Sometimes the whole thing proves to be a sham and sometimes only
parts seem to be.
Are you claiming here that Sandy Hook was a sham? Do you mean that no children actually died, or that it was a government op, or what?
"I believe all mass shootings are fake and gay until proven otherwise" is a bit of a low-effort hot take, but if you are going to make specific claims about specific incidents which run counter to available evidence, you definitely need to provide evidence in proportion to how inflammatory the claim is.
If you have evidence that Sandy Hook was a fraud, I'm sure Alex Jones would like to have it.
The first link posted in the message you replied to is “evidence in proportion to how inflammatory the claim is” — it’s a 90 minute presentation that completely changed my mind about the veracity of the Sandy Hook shootings.
Edit: you might have better luck with this link (can’t get bitchute to load): Unravelling Sandy Hook
Can you summarize the most salient points? I’m two minutes in and so far there’s nothing substantial.
Yeah. Sure.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, No one died at Sandy Hook. No bodies have been recovered. No medical reports have been released.
In news footage taken on the day of the alleged event, the coroner has no knowledge of the bodies he’s just worked on. He cryptically says: “let’s hope the people of Newtown don’t have this come crashing down on their heads later.”
Robbie Parker is hot mic’d walking up to a podium, laughing, smiling and saying “I’ve never done this before should we just start?” a day after his daughter was shot. He then approaches the mic and gives the performance of a very bad actor — not only not crying (for those who “grieve differently”) but fake crying.
A Sandy Hook Elementary student is interviewed on “Dr. Oz”. Having no knowledge that his classmates and teachers were killed, he says the class was having a drill and is very happy that his teachers “help him a lot of the time.”
Sounds like nothing substantial right? That’s why you need to see the actual footage shown in the presentation.
There’s about a dozen equally telling anomalies. Taken one at a time they’re nothing, taken together it’s inescapable: Sandy Hook did not happen as reported. Watch the video.
Too bad none of that holds up in a court of law.
As a matter of fact, none of this was presented in that court of law. Odd thing that.
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