FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2hr ago
If we have ships routinely paying tolls, and America does not resume bombing, will you score that as a loss for America?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
18hr ago
Ok so you also didn't read a single thing said then, because the free press does not cite Letters from Leo. TFP was first. You got the basic timeline wrong, you do not even understand even the simplest elements of this story and yet try to dismiss everything about it. That doesn't suggest you're participating in good faith, if anything it makes me doubt if you even tried to read the Letters from Leo piece to begin with cause even in the pre paywall section he makes it clear that TFP was first.
Having gotten off work and gotten the kids to bed, I read this and was gearing up to snipe back, but decided to double check first. And you are entirely correct, the TFP article did come first, the LFL article mentions this in several places, all of which I was too busy looking for names of actual sources to actually take in. Likewise, the LFL article is claiming corroboration from its own sources; and for an additional bonus, I see now that I have not even now read all the LFL article, since an unknown portion of it is also behind a pseudo-paywall.
There's much more I'd like to say, but it seems to me that the best move would be to note that my own priors have shifted significantly toward the report being basically accurate, and apologize for polluting the discussion with basic factual errors. I will attempt to be more careful when posting in the future.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
22hr ago
It was addressed to someone other than you, but I tagged you in it since I was discussing your previous post.
Actually, it is The Free Press and LettersFromLeo that are making such assertions.
You wrote:
It turns out Greenland/Denmark and Canada aren't the only friendly countries that the US has been threatening, the Vatican's ambassador to the US (according to The Free Press and Letters from Leo a Catholic focused blog) was given both explicit and coded threats of military force against the Holy See.
That reads to me like a person making a factual claim, and presenting evidence to back up their claim. The problem is that the evidence you've presented is "someone somewhere said it", and that you appear to be trying to frame the discussion as though you have no actual position to defend in it. The latter bit, in particular, I am very sure should not be tolerated here.
Bari Weiss is a pretty reliable centrist who is friendly to the Trump admin in many areas. I doubt she would be letting through blatant lies on her main journalism site right?
Bari Weiss is a journalist. Why would I conclude that she would not print blatant lies on her main journalism site? That is something that Journalists have been frequently doing since the invention of the profession. Further, whatever additional status Bari Weiss has for herself is attenuated by the fact that she did not write this piece, and I would be most surprised if she edited it in any meaningful way. Some guy I've never heard of wrote it, and Weiss's site published it.
I have just attempted to read the piece, but it is behind a paywall. Does the free press piece cite any sources other than the Letters from Leo blog? Has the Vatican confirmed the Blog's account? If not, my prior would be that this rumor was posted by the blogger, the Free Press journalist repeated it in his article with no further verification, and it proliferated from there through the rest of the press ecosystem. In which case, your attribution would be incorrect: if the Free Press got it entirely from LettersFromLeo, then it is just from LettersFromLeo, not from both them and the Free Press. Further, this exact method of laundering baseless allegations is the entire basis for the "journalists very rarely lie" meme.
Else Bari Weiss and her staff are risking all the good will they've built up for a relatively minor story in the grand scheme of things.
Show me an instance of a press outfit losing "all the goodwill they've built up" due to repeating someone else's lie uncritically. If this event turns out to not have happened, people such as yourself will simply say "well, they never said it happened, they only reported that someone else said it happened, which was entirely true!" I know this, because this is exactly what people like yourself have done in the many, many, many previous incidents where journalists were caught blatantly lying. Your apparent reluctance to stake a position for yourself on the claim's truth or falsity telegraphs the maneuver.
By making it "your assertions" like above, you hinge the entire credibility on me, an internet stranger. And not the established journalists who broke the story.
You, an internet stranger, have considerably more credibility than an "established journalist", in that I do not know for a fact that you earn your paycheck through professional dishonesty. Further, I can have a discussion with you about the facts of a matter, and I cannot do this with most journalists. Further, I can maintain a running tally of previous conversations with a person like you, which I generally cannot do with most journalists. You are part of the reputation economy here; you stand to lose much more from this being a lie than the journalist in question does. That makes direct conversation with you a much better filter than consuming journo-slop directly.
Sure but if they can't be bothered to even read what is there (like they missed a collective five references to the original story being from TFP)
In what sense does "the original story" belong to The Free Press? Did they investigate and present corroborating evidence? ...Have you yourself actually read TFP's article, or did you read one of the hundreds of free articles repeating the story uncritically, and attributing it to "The Free Press and Letters From Leo"? If you yourself aren't actually clear on where the "original story" actually came from, aren't @omw_68's questions warranted?
In any case, I would say that the point is to discuss what we believe and why. Hence my previous questions, and I think they're pretty good ones given your responses so far.
There has to be some sort of baseline before meaningful discussion occurs. I think "read the words that are on your screen and in the link" is the bare minimum.
There does indeed need to be some sort of baseline. One part of that baseline is to speak plainly, and a major part of that is to take an actual, personal position in the matters you discuss. Likewise, from the introduction at the top of the thread:
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win.
I aim to understand what you think and why. Digging in to how you evaluate evidence on an issue is part of that. On the other hand, neither your OP here nor your subsequent replies nor your previous participation here that I've noted indicates to me that you have a good grasp on what the point of this place is. Certainly it does not seem like you make a habit of arguing to understand, which is a shame.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
What's the point of a discussion if "I won't read" is the starting point?
You appear to be making assertions of fact. People ask you for your evidence behind these assertions. You say that they can look for evidence if they want to:
Perhaps Ferraresi and the rest of the TFP team have shared more details elsewhere, but I'll leave that to you to scour their social media if you want to know.
and they decline:
I've had enough experience with TDS that I'm not going to bother. The chances that it will lead to anything other than vague "sources" are just too low.
They do not appear to be declining to read. You do appear to be declining to back up your assertion beyond "these people said a thing".
These people did indeed say a thing. Do you believe them? If so, why? That is a discussion. If you believe you have good reasons to believe them, or other people have poor reasons to not believe them, than taking a position and explaining your reasoning behind it produces good discussion. Even if someone else is dismissive of your reasoning, making a solid argument is persuasive to onlookers, and this forum exists precisely to facilitate that sort of discussion.
I've asked you whether you personally believe this report, and if so, why. Do you think that question is a good basis for discussion? if not, why not?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
Do you, personally, believe the event in question happened? What evidence leads you to your conclusion? Is your assessment of that evidence derived from general principles, or is this a case of any stick being sufficient to beat a dog?
Which alleged event do you think has a stronger evidentiary basis: Trump's underlings threatening the Vatican, or Biden raping Tara Reade?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
If America stops bombing Iran, and then six or even three months from now announces that we need to start bombing Iran again because otherwise they'll get a nuke, does your confident prediction commit you to arguing that they're lying and no bombing is necessary?
I care a lot about the idea of a "confident prediction". I would really, really like all of your predictions to be correct. But what is, is.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3d ago
It is true that Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones have large audiences, and that most of these audiences are Red Tribe.
It is also true that they are opposed to the war with Iran, and yet we are having a war with Iran, and at least to date that war is overwhelmingly popular with Red Tribe.
I do not see how it is possible to claim that Red Tribe is both taking Owens, Carlson, and Jones' arguments as authoritative, and also overwhelmingly supporting a way they vehemently oppose.
So let us speak plainly here: is it your argument that Red Tribe should be taking Owens, Carlson, and Jones' arguments as authoritative? If so, why do you, yourself, personally, think that would be a good idea?
Bonus Question: One of your more notable posts, in my opinion, was your extensive arguments that Red Tribe is increasingly converging on anti-semitism of the Fuentes/groyper variety. I believe I've previously noted that I consider this one of the worst arguments I've seen on this forum in quite some time, but have not yet had the time for engaging with the substance of your arguments in detail (or indeed with most other arguments, sadly.) Still, pursuant to such engagement, could you elaborate on your personal understanding of the nexus between Israeli government influence and Trump's decision to go to war with Iran?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
How can you be “wrong” about gay marriage? You can be for or against gay marriage, but it’s not a fact that you can be empirically right or wrong about, unlike global warming.
Briefly, gay marriage is a policy. Proposed policies have predicted positive and negative consequences, and supporters of proposed policies are staking a position that the positive consequences will outweigh the negative consequences. People are wrong on a policy if, when the policy is enacted, their prediction is falsified because the positive effects end up being outweighed by the negative effects. You can be empirically right or wrong about the consequences of a policy, including gay marriage.
Time Braid is a controversial Naruto fanfic that tends to have a fairly polarizing effect in the social justice era. no idea what KuroBaraHime is, googling indicates possibly some sort of e-girl?
More options
Context Copy link