site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023

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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Did the US blow up the Nord Stream Pipeline?

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

That was linked to me and it appeals to my sense of - conspiracy? warmongering? ... But I also don't really understand if it could be true.

What's the consensus here about the pipeline?

(I don't really even care if we discuss the article, it's long and I don't know who the person is - just interested in all kinds of thoughts)

Overall, not impressed or compelled by the claims. People have already noted the singular anonymous source claiming, in an era where anonymous sourcing has been as disreputable as ever, but there are other elements that raise eyebrows.

-The claim it was done by the pure navy, as opposed to special forces, to avoid Congressional oversight really suggests someone who is not familiar with the other forms of oversight- and security vulnerabilities- of American military branches. There's a reason that the US black projects generally don't operate from the conventional forces, but in separate elements.

-The mind-reading/framing of motives is projection, or at least certainly not how the western military-security types would view items. I've yet to meet an American in a serious position of government responsibility who frames concerns over Nordstream in terms as abstract as 'threat to western dominance,' as opposed to the more concrete concerns of 'energy blackmail' or 'gas turnoffs.' This is arguing by connotation and pejorative rather than actual positions. If this is the author, that's on him, but if it's from the source, that's indicative.

-The discussion on the German political situation in May 21 is missing some rather significant context- such as the points that Merkel had just retired and there was a multi-month German political paralysis as the government formation negotiations were ongoing, the Russian military buildup adjacent to Ukraine had already started, the Belarusian migration crisis and Russian gas supply slowdown was already starting. The last three are generally now seen as pre-invasion shaping efforts by the Russian government before the invasion- which we know that the Biden administration was aware / observing in 2021. Instead of 'making a concession he knows will be invalidated', however, the author frames the motive as Biden's internal political floundering to war-criticisms.

-The 'planning' meeting that rests solely on the anonymous source is, ahem, silly. Just reverse the sentence order of the paragraph to see how so-

The CIA argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.” - The Navy proposed using a newly commissioned submarine to assault the pipeline directly. The Air Force discussed dropping bombs with delayed fuses that could be set off remotely.

The proposed plans, as described, don't pass muster in the context of their own paragraph, let alone broader realism. For one, submarines don't "assault". That's the sort of language of someone larping military insight. Similarly, the airforce plan of 'bombs with delayed fuses' makes no sense. Aircraft are incredibly visible, so you'd be guaranteeing a record trail, and either the aircraft would have to bomb land-based targets- which is to say, where timed fuse bombs would be found by the Germans in Germany- or a sea target. Now, this may surprise, but dropping bombs from a bomber entails the bomb hitting with terminal velocity. When very small things hit very big bodies of water at very high speeds, they do not penetrate and then become precision submersibles, they go splat.

This is something deserving of /r/credibledefense, but not credibility inspiring.

-The argument about no longer being a covert option because of the Biden Administration's public statements on Nordstream are nonsense.

"According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.”"

This is a red flag for credibility. Covert options aren't covert because you have a known capability, but rather the secrecy. When we read declassified / released examples of covert operations, they almost always involve known capabilities of the actors. It's the who/when/if they are actually doing it that's the secret item. This objection is just about the one part that wouldn't matter, precisely because the Navy diving programs are openly acknoweldged capabilities.

-The whole Norway angle is just comedic. The narrative flops between the need for operational and legal secrecy as needed, without actually explaining why informing the Norwegians is necessary to carry out the operation... except to tell the Americans, who have been reviewing the problem for months, where to hit the pipe. The operational simultaneously needs to be secret, but also incredibly expansive in people and organizations involved.

-The timeline is also all over the place. Biden is alleged to have committed to planning the attack on the pipeline as a result of domestic political pressure before the war, but with target selection only occuring in March after engagement with a foreign nation, with the exact timing being... one of the most observed military maneuverings in the region for the year. Except, now with an even later bomb-on-command requirement, late in the process... which indicates they didn't have a time intended to blow it up originally, even as they were engaging the Norwegians to place it.

And- despite all the effort in creating a command-detonated timing... no reason for the timing is apparent. The article tries to go with a citation to imply it had to be done eventually, but there's a roughly 3 month gap between the alleged emplacement and alleged trigger.

-The argument on Russian mine-detection technology is getting into the military spy-fiction, and not the good kind. Tom Clancy was at least good at not just hand-waving technology. You don't get to just allege that the Russians built an entire undersea surveillance network along the Nordstream pipeline to justify the Norwegians as the only people who can counteract it with their inherent anti-Russian traits.

-The regular appeals to the 1970s is less relevant and more argument by historical innuendo. This is a normal element of conspiracy building, to break down temporal relevance and start building connections between unconnected things while also obscuring temporal and contextual relevant information. This isn't the first part of the article to do this, but it's reocurring enough to note, especially since the 1970s Church hearings drove very significant changes in the American intelligence community... changes that are being implicitly covered over by the appeal to the 70s for narrative continuity.

-The air-dropped sonar bouy is yet another red flag. You could get a better engineer to discuss the dynamics of sound propagation through water, but the real item is the fixation on dropping it out of an aircraft.

There is literally no reason to use an aircraft to drop a sonar bouy if you're trying to have a secret signal. Aircraft are easily observable on a number of sensors or by regional naval traffic. Even if your broadcast device weren't detected by any/all systems in the broader area at the moment it signals- and remember the Norwegians are being involved on the basis of a Russian surveillance system for underwater threats, ie. sound-based detection- the aircraft flight for recote detoation would be easily observable...

...and unnecessary, because you could just sail a boat and drop it over the edge. Boats are far, far harder to monitor for unusual activity than aircraft.

I could go on, but that's kind of enough. There are a number of things in this story that are meant to sound vaguely informed and insightful, but with a pretty clear lack of understanding of the material or the alternatives. The way this is written, this is less written by someone who actually knows how governments work and reads far more like being written for the sort of people who don't.

Really, it's targeting ignorance with a hope of shaping your views without remembering how they were shaped. It hopes you don't remember that it's all based on a single anonymous source, that no motivation is provided for the source providing all this information, that you won't remember the argument by connotations in rhetorical lines not used by the people it claims to reflect the positions of, that you won't dwell on the communication role/purpose of the various time-skips in the narrative, or the omissions of 2021 and awkward time gaps, the mechanical alternative methods, and so on.

All told, I do not find it credible, and would lower my judgement of someone who found it compelling.

Overall, not impressed or compelled by the claims. People have already noted the singular anonymous source claiming, in an era where anonymous sourcing has been as disreputable as ever, but there are other elements that raise eyebrows.

Most importan stories are broken out with singular anonymous sources, and mainstream publications mention a single anonymous source all the time.

-The claim it was done by the pure navy, as opposed to special forces, to avoid Congressional oversight really suggests someone who is not familiar with the other forms of oversight- and security vulnerabilities- of American military branches.

It wasn't just the Navy, it was remote corner of the Navy.

There's a reason that the US black projects generally don't operate from the conventional forces, but in separate elements.

Yeah, and the reason may not have anything to do with oversight.

-The mind-reading/framing of motives is projection, or at least certainly not how the western military-security types would view items. I've yet to meet an American in a serious position of government responsibility who frames concerns over Nordstream in terms as abstract as 'threat to western dominance,' as opposed to the more concrete concerns of 'energy blackmail' or 'gas turnoffs.'

As if any politician is transparent about their true motives ever. As Noam Chomsky says: the stated motives of the government are never the true motives, therefore you can pretty much disregard the stated motives.

That being said, Condoleezza Rice did pretty much spell it out in 2014:

"But now we need to have tougher sanctions, and I am afraid at some point this is going to probably have to involve oil and gas. The Russian economy is vulnerable. 80% of the Russian exports are in oil, gas and minerals. People say that the Europeans will run out of energy. Well, the Russians will run out of cash before the Europeans run out of energy. And I understand that it is uncomfortable to have an effect on business ties in this way, but this is one of the few instruments that we have. Over the long run, you want to change the structure of energy dependence. You want to depend more on the North American energy platform, the tremendous bounty of oil and gas that we are finding"

The first thing she mentions is the Russian economy was vulnerable, suggesting they did want to attack the Russian economy.

There's also this 2019 Pentagon-funded study from the RAND Corporation: Extending Russia.

"Drawing on quantitative and qualitative data from Western and Russian sources, this report examines Russia's economic, political, and military vulnerabilities and anxieties."

They want to exploit all Russian vulnerabilities. How much spelled out do you need it to be?

It's clear USA has always been an enemy of Russia.

The proposed plans, as described, don't pass muster in the context of their own paragraph, let alone broader realism. For one, submarines don't "assault". That's the sort of language of someone larping military insight.

Why does the source have to have military insight? He could be part of the CIA, or any number of options.

This is something deserving of /r/credibledefense, but not credibility inspiring.

The fact that you don't see how something is possible doesn't mean it is impossible. That's an argument from incredulity fallacy.

-The argument about no longer being a covert option because of the Biden Administration's public statements on Nordstream are nonsense.

Is it? The exact moment I saw the clip of Joe Biden saying they would put an end to it after it was blown up I put two and two together, and so did many people.

This is a red flag for credibility. Covert options aren't covert because you have a known capability, but rather the secrecy.

But if everyone already suspects the USA did it--as it happened--then the secret would be much harder to keep, because people will not stop investigating--as it happened.

The more eyes, the harder to hide. How is that not obvious? Your desire to not see the obvious seems like motivated reasoning from you.

-The whole Norway angle is just comedic.

Once again this is a fallacy. The fact that you find something comedic doesn't imply that it didn't happen.

The narrative flops between the need for operational and legal secrecy as needed, without actually explaining why informing the Norwegians is necessary to carry out the operation...

It was explained that it wasn't necessary, but it would facilitate the operation. Plain and simple.

-The timeline is also all over the place.

Events unfold that way many times, so what? Things happen and plans change. That happens all the time.

-The argument on Russian mine-detection technology is getting into the military spy-fiction, and not the good kind.

Argument from incredulity fallacy.

This isn't the first part of the article to do this, but it's reocurring enough to note, especially since the 1970s Church hearings drove very significant changes in the American intelligence community... changes that are being implicitly covered over by the appeal to the 70s for narrative continuity.

It wasn't the intelligence community who ordered this, it was the neocon administration. The hatred for Russia runs deep, as anyone familiar with Victoria Nuland knows.

Aircraft are easily observable on a number of sensors or by regional naval traffic.

So? You just pick an aircraft that is going to travel that route anyway for whatever reason.

Once again: argument from incredulity fallacy.

All told, I do not find it credible, and would lower my judgement of someone who found it compelling.

I find all your arguments weak and relying precisely on what you accuse Seymour Hersh of doing: preying on the laziness of the reader. Many of your arguments boil down to "I don't see how this is possible", as if you were an semi-omniscient being. You may not see how X is possible, but I do. So what?

It's also a clear Gish gallop strategy: overwhelming an interlocutor with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. It's no surprise that your comment received zero replies. Who would sit down and read the entire thing, think about critically, and then reply. Well, I just did.


If you are trying to analyze this critically and actually give the article a fair shot, I would pick a single argument against it, your strongest argument, and defend it at depth, not throw dozens which in my opinion are weak.

Most importan stories are broken out with singular anonymous sources, and mainstream publications mention a single anonymous source all the time.

And we generally agree mainstream publications are bad in quality, and that a good indication of trash articles is when massive claims rest on singular anonymous sources. Bad practices don't stop being bad practices when they conform to your prejudices.

It wasn't just the Navy, it was remote corner of the Navy.

The statement still applies that there are still reporting requirements and oversight channels.

As if any politician is transparent about their true motives ever. As Noam Chomsky says: the stated motives of the government are never the true motives, therefore you can pretty much disregard the stated motives.

If Noam Chomsky is your guiding star on objectivity or insight into government thinking, you might as well take the government at face value. Likewise, if government motives were never true, you wouldn't be quoting government persons like Condoleezza Rice for motives.

That being said, Condoleezza Rice did pretty much spell it out in 2014:

   "But now we need to have tougher sanctions, and I am afraid at some point this is going to probably have to involve oil and gas. The Russian economy is vulnerable. 80% of the Russian exports are in oil, gas and minerals. People say that the Europeans will run out of energy. Well, the Russians will run out of cash before the Europeans run out of energy. And I understand that it is uncomfortable to have an effect on business ties in this way, but this is one of the few instruments that we have. Over the long run, you want to change the structure of energy dependence. You want to depend more on the North American energy platform, the tremendous bounty of oil and gas that we are finding"

The first thing she mentions is the Russian economy was vulnerable, suggesting they did want to attack the Russian economy.

Only if you want to project a specific interpretation of 'attack' to fit a quote approaching a decade ago well outside of the context of an alleged Nordstream attack.

They want to exploit all Russian vulnerabilities. How much spelled out do you need it to be?

Competently. People studying Russian vulnerabilities does not mean they are responsible for any perceived attack on a Russian vulnerability.

This is also where I'll note that this actually is an example of the incredulity fallacy. That you cannot see how others would interpret does not mean that others would not do it differently.

It's clear USA has always been an enemy of Russia.

Not really. Also, consensus building.

Why does the source have to have military insight? He could be part of the CIA, or any number of options.

Thus diminishing the credibility of the source, whose claimed insight into the military operational dynamic is the crux of the article.

The fact that you don't see how something is possible doesn't mean it is impossible. That's an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Only if I was arguing on the basis that I don't see how something is possible, as opposed to arguing on the basis of something not being possible on grounds X, Y, Z.

-The argument about no longer being a covert option because of the Biden Administration's public statements on Nordstream are nonsense.

Is it? The exact moment I saw the clip of Joe Biden saying they would put an end to it after it was blown up I put two and two together, and so did many people.

Yes, because many people are inclined to blame the US no matter who does something. The fact that you treat the Biden statement is a causal link is precisely the dynamic why it would work as a covert operation by anyone else- because, in lack of evidence, people will project.

And also because your response is irrelevant to how covert operations are categorized, which is the argument you are responding to- that the person claiming to be a government source is mis-using a government term in ways that it does not actually mean.

But if everyone already suspects the USA did it--as it happened--then the secret would be much harder to keep, because people will not stop investigating--as it happened.

If everyone already suspects the USA did it, it would be much easier for someone else to pull off a covert operation.

The more eyes, the harder to hide. How is that not obvious?

It is obvious. Hence why the lack of verifiable evidence despite all the eyes significantly undermines the claims of the story, as do some of the factual inaccuracies.

Also, argument by incredulity again.

Your desire to not see the obvious seems like motivated reasoning from you.

I'm sure it would seem so to someone operating from motivated reasoning.

Once again this is a fallacy. The fact that you find something comedic doesn't imply that it didn't happen.

This, again, assumes the characterization is the argument, as opposed to the other points.

It was explained that it wasn't necessary, but it would facilitate the operation. Plain and simple.

Counter-productive and against the earlier limitations that prioritized secrecy.

You can be secretive or you can facilitate with more actors, but you can't use both arguments simultaneously.

Events unfold that way many times, so what? Things happen and plans change. That happens all the time.

So do conspiracy theories, which regularly rely on inconsistent timelines to create context from unrelated events and then ignore related relevant context that inconveniences the theory.

The author of this article is a past conspiracy theorist. This is a matter of record, and does shape the level of scrutiny their reliance on various techniques might imply.

-The argument on Russian mine-detection technology is getting into the military spy-fiction, and not the good kind.

Argument from incredulity fallacy.

No, argument that the author doesn't know what he's talking about, and is bad at inventing capabilities.

"This isn't the first part of the article to do this, but it's reocurring enough to note, especially since the 1970s Church hearings drove very significant changes in the American intelligence community... changes that are being implicitly covered over by the appeal to the 70s for narrative continuity."

It wasn't the intelligence community who ordered this, it was the neocon administration. The hatred for Russia runs deep, as anyone familiar with Victoria Nuland knows.

I'll leave in my original text here in quotes just to emphasize that this is neither a counter-argument for the quote or relevant to what the quote was pointing at.

So? You just pick an aircraft that is going to travel that route anyway for whatever reason.

Then the aircraft's presence isn't a secret, which means it's proximity at the time of command detonation wouldn't be a secret, which defeats the purpose of a secret operation secretly placing explosives.

The theory simultaneously requires the US government to care about secrecy to go to exceptional lengths to maintain it, and not caring about it.

All told, I do not find it credible, and would lower my judgement of someone who found it compelling.

I find all your arguments weak and relying precisely on what you accuse Seymour Hersh of doing: preying on the laziness of the reader. Many of your arguments boil down to "I don't see how this is possible", as if you were an semi-omniscient being.

Strangely, no. Now, admittedly, it might look that way if you cut out the supporting arguments, but this is the sort of removal of context typical in conspiracy thinking.

You may not see how X is possible, but I do. So what?

Not much. You'll continue being wrong for the wrong reasons, continue to discredit your general position in the contrast, and continue to undermine your favored associates by contagion of ferverently pushing a weak conspiracy theory as stronger than the evidence supports. By contrast, I'll get a wry amusement.

It's also a clear Gish gallop strategy: overwhelming an interlocutor with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.

When there are many weak elements in an article that demonstrate a trend, the volume is the point.

Also, irony.

It's no surprise that your comment received zero replies.

Certainly. I wrote it days after the initial posting, when it was no longer in the automatically expanded part of the browser, when new sub-topics had already buried it.

Thanks to your re-post trying to put it back on visibility, some might actually be curious enough to follow a link. No promises, since you were buried pretty quickly.

Who would sit down and read the entire thing, think about critically, and then reply. Well, I just did.

Yes, well no. You certainly did reply. If it weren't for you also re-posting this, I wouldn't have a reason to link to it either.

If you are trying to analyze this critically and actually give the article a fair shot, I would pick a single argument against it, your strongest argument, and defend it at depth, not throw dozens which in my opinion are weak.

The argument remains that in addition to the issues that other people have pointed, it retains the characteristics of being source by someone someone unfamiliar with how governments work and with inconsistent claims of the level of secrecy entailed, of which many examples were raised, which undermines the validity of the single claimed source who is supposed to be a highly placed person in the US government who stated that secrecy was a priority.

And we generally agree mainstream publications are bad in quality,

Yes, but not because of that.

and that a good indication of trash articles is when massive claims rest on singular anonymous sources.

I don't think you do understand how journalism works.

The story is the story. If the story has a single source, that's the story. What is a journalist supposed to do in that case? Extort a source? Betray him? If nobody wants to talk, then nobody wants to talk. A journalist reports on what can be reported.

If Noam Chomsky is your guiding star on objectivity or insight into government thinking

He has been right since I have been alive, and everything historical I've checked.

Or do you honestly believe USA went into Iraq to liberate the country and fight terrorism?

Only if you want to project a specific interpretation of 'attack' to fit a quote approaching a decade ago well outside of the context of an alleged Nordstream attack.

You are throwing a smokescreen. You said you haven't met an American in government framing the concern in terms of "threat to western dominance", and I showed you one. If USA wasn't worried about Russian influence in Europe, why would they want to attack Russia economically?

I'm not talking about the explosion, I'm talking about your claim about the motive. No mind-reading is necessary to show that USA has always been an enemy of Russia. I can give you many more examples.

And BTW, in 2014 Nord Stream 2 already had 3 years in the making.

People studying Russian vulnerabilities does not mean they are responsible for any perceived attack on a Russian vulnerability.

Straw man.

This is also where I'll note that this actually is an example of the incredulity fallacy. That you cannot see how others would interpret does not mean that others would not do it differently.

Another straw man. I never said I don't see how others could interpret this.

It's clear USA has always been an enemy of Russia.

Not really. Also, consensus building.

How many examples do you need of American bureaucrats interested in hurting Russia do you need? Would 10 do the trick?

Or are you going to dismiss every one of them? Then the claim is falsifiable, isn't it?

Thus diminishing the credibility of the source, whose claimed insight into the military operational dynamic is the crux of the article.

False. The article never stated that.

Only if I was arguing on the basis that I don't see how something is possible, as opposed to arguing on the basis of something not being possible on grounds X, Y, Z.

No. The fallacy applies regardless of how many grounds you have.

Yes, because many people are inclined to blame the US no matter who does something.

Hasty generalization fallacy. The fact that many people did that doesn't mean that all people did that, and in particular doesn't mean that I did that.

The fact that you treat the Biden statement is a causal link

Straw man. I never said I treated it as a causal link.


That's as far as I go. I'm not going to chase hundreds of week arguments on top of dozens of weak arguments.

If you wanted to seriously defend your position you would have picked your strongest argument and defend that instead of keeping up this Gish gallop strategy.

Yes, but not because of that.

Well that's a shame, because I do criticize the western media for running shakey and often wrong stories on singular anonymous sources. If you do not, that's on you.

I don't think you do understand how journalism works.

The story is the story. If the story has a single source, that's the story. What is a journalist supposed to do in that case? Extort a source? Betray him? If nobody wants to talk, then nobody wants to talk. A journalist reports on what can be reported.

Simple- find corresponding evidence to support the claims. A single person making claims is not news to report, it is rumor-mongering. More importantly, it's a known type of journalistic failure that's prone to confirmation bias where reporters report the things they want to be true in order to impact the world, as opposed to questioning things that might undercut the narrative.

As the author has in the past engaged in conspiracy theory publication, such as the OBL raid, this isn't just a hypothetical concern, but a known weakness.

He has been right since I have been alive, and everything historical I've checked.

This suggests you are either very young, or very modest checking skills, when it comes to Chomsky.

Or do you honestly believe USA went into Iraq to liberate the country and fight terrorism?

I absolutely believe that many American government people who advocated the Iraq War thought they were, in fact liberating the Iraq War. I think they were incompetent and arrogant, but not insincere that they thought that the Iraqis would be better without a tyrannical dictator who suppressed a majority of his own populace.

I have met other people whose frank assessment was that they fully expected radical islamic group attention to re-focus onto Iraq and not on AQ-style projection attacks into the US.

I also find credible that the neocons thought Iraq was but the first step in a broader campaign to topple multiple regimes in the middle east, especially Iran, which was and is a state-supporter of terrorism, and that while incredibly condemnable it was a sincere interest to go after past and present state sponsors of terrorism.

I also believe the USA had many overlapping interests to go into Iraq, in addition to its views on Iraqi liberation and the war on terror plans of the neocons.

You are throwing a smokescreen. You said you haven't met an American in government framing the concern in terms of "threat to western dominance", and I showed you one.

You didn't. Your own quote didn't frame it terms of "threat to western dominance." This is precisely the sort of 'unable to use their own terminology' I accused the article of lacking.

If USA wasn't worried about Russian influence in Europe, why would they want to attack Russia economically?

And this is a shift in claims to a strawman. The claim isn't that the USA wasn't worried about Russian influence in Europe. The claim is that the Americans in the American government don't frame the implications of Russian influence in Europe as "threat to western dominance." Government bureaucracies have their own sub-cultures on how they view and describe the world, but characterizations like "threat to western dominance" are how people outside of, and generally opposed to, the US government frame the US government concern, not how the US government views its own position.

Thus, an alleged highly placed US government person who uses turns of phrases and sub-cultural memes typical of outside critics of the US government lowers the credibility of the claim that they are a highly placed US government person.

I'm not talking about the explosion, I'm talking about your claim about the motive. No mind-reading is necessary to show that USA has always been an enemy of Russia. I can give you many more examples.

And many examples would not support a totality argument, or a how the US government viewed the Russian government. As open for criticism as the Clinton administration was, characterizing its Russian policy as viewing Russia as an enemy is more than a stretch, and even the Bush 2 government had more than a little internal debate on how to approach Putin, hence the criticism of Bush by members of his own party.

How many examples do you need of American bureaucrats interested in hurting Russia do you need? Would 10 do the trick?

The fact that you think 10 examples could represent the totality of American government of perspectives on Russia over thirty years is rather indicative of your lack of understanding of the US government.

Different Administrations over the post-Cold War period had different perceptions and prescriptions for Russia policy. The Clintons thought neoliberal reforms and supporting Yeltsin would help Russia. He may have been wrong- but the failure of neoliberal reforms with Russia is not evidence of ill-will as opposed to part of the general critque of the Clinton-era neoliberalism. Bush II was pre-occupied by the Iraq War, and governed over internal party splits between old-guard Cold Warriors who were suspicious, the religious right which was more interested in domestic items and the war on terror, and the then-nascant base rebellion that would manifest in the Tea Party and later trump that doesn't really care about Russia. Obama tried his own anything-but-his-predecessor, and infamously sent Hillary Clinton for an attempted 'reset' and reframing. Trump was infamously not a NATO-Atlanticist, and both he and his faction of the Republican party regularly accused of being soft on Russia.

Or are you going to dismiss every one of them? Then the claim is falsifiable, isn't it?

The claim is falsifiable because it claims a totality that doesn't exist no matter how many examples are provided, because totalities are disproven by the existence of counter-examples, not proven by supporting examples.

That different people in the US government had different views of how hard (or soft) Russia policy should be, and what is or is not an anti-Russia action, just means there is dispute, not that the people who wanted a hardline were somehow the consensus of the US government.

Thus diminishing the credibility of the source, whose claimed insight into the military operational dynamic is the crux of the article.

False. The article never stated that.

The article sites the source for a number of military operational dynamics that serve as demonstration of both the source's access into the conspiracy and to explain claimed means and requirements of the conspiracy over time.

No. The fallacy applies regardless of how many grounds you have.

This is not true, and is an extension of the fallacy of fallacies.

Yes, because many people are inclined to blame the US no matter who does something.

Hasty generalization fallacy. The fact that many people did that doesn't mean that all people did that, and in particular doesn't mean that I did that.

The fact that you have cited events without causal relationships to the Nord Stream pipeline as evidence of a causal relationship indicates that yes, you did do that.

The fact that you treat the Biden statement is a causal link

Straw man. I never said I treated it as a causal link.

I did not say that you said you treated it as a causal link. I said that you treated it as a causal link. Your stated position on the manner is irrelevant.

That's as far as I go. I'm not going to chase hundreds of week arguments on top of dozens of weak arguments.

Aside from the lack of hundreds, I rather suspect you will, so that you can get the last word once again.

If you wanted to seriously defend your position you would have picked your strongest argument and defend that instead of keeping up this Gish gallop strategy.

The argument- which you once again avoided addressing by this attempted gish-gallop, remains as stated:

The argument remains that in addition to the issues that other people have pointed, it retains the characteristics of being source by someone someone unfamiliar with how governments work and with inconsistent claims of the level of secrecy entailed, of which many examples were raised, which undermines the validity of the single claimed source who is supposed to be a highly placed person in the US government who stated that secrecy was a priority.

Though there is one last thing before I leave you to get the last word once again, just to revist your earlier counter-argument.

It's no surprise that your comment received zero replies. Who would sit down and read the entire thing, think about critically, and then reply. Well, I just did.

Thank you for raising interest in the original posting. The streisand effect says hello, and it has received far more engagement than it would have had you not posted.

Simple- find corresponding evidence to support the claims.

I would love for you to try to find the "evidence" of whatever claims you are supposed to be making about Nord Stream 2.

Journalists don't make claims, they simply report the evidence they managed to find.

As the author has in the past engaged in conspiracy theory publication, such as the OBL raid

That's a hallucination. Hersh has never engaged in conspiracy theories, the Osama bin Laden information was confirmed by Obama. Hersh was vindicated, as he usually is.

It is you the one that has a motivated reasoning to distrust Hersh's reporting.

This suggests you are either very young, or very modest checking skills, when it comes to Chomsky.

Neither of which can be falsifiable. Right?

The fact that you have cited events without causal relationships to the Nord Stream pipeline as evidence of a causal relationship indicates that yes, you did do that.

Converse error fallacy.

I said that you treated it as a causal link.

And you are wrong. You are mind-reading based on a converse error fallacy.

Aside from the lack of hundreds, I rather suspect you will, so that you can get the last word once again.

You are wrong again. I said I was done with that particular subthread, I didn't say I was done with all subthreads.

You may notice I didn't address every single weak argument you've put forward in this subthread either.


The argument remains that in addition to the issues that other people have pointed, it retains the characteristics of being source by someone someone unfamiliar with how governments work

False. You have never established that. All your arguments point towards someone who doesn't know how the military works, which I already addressed.

who is supposed to be a highly placed person in the US government

The article never mentioned anything remotely close to that. How many people do you think hold a top-secret clearance in USA?


The streisand effect says hello

Once again I don't think you know what you are talking about. The premise of the Streisand effect is someone trying to hide information. What information do you think I'm trying to "hide"?

I would love for you to try to find the "evidence" of whatever claims you are supposed to be making about Nord Stream 2.

Journalists don't make claims, they simply report the evidence they managed to find.

The 'evidence' in this report is a series of claim made by an alleged anonymous source with access. Moreover, the claims of the anonymous source are unsupported by corroborating evidence (hence the reliance on argument by narrative), and contradicted by available evidence (flight data that doesn't match the claimed trigger mechanism).

That's a hallucination. Hersh has never engaged in conspiracy theories, the Osama bin Laden information was confirmed by Obama. Hersh was vindicated, as he usually is.

This now begs what you think is a hallucation, as well as what specific information you think was verified versus what wasn't.

It is you the one that has a motivated reasoning to distrust Hersh's reporting.

Repeating the claim from a position of motivated reasoning neither makes it motivated reasoning or disarms the stated basis of skepticism.

This suggests you are either very young, or very modest checking skills, when it comes to Chomsky.

Neither of which can be falsifiable. Right?

No, you could certainly identify your age and the depth of your checking to Chomsky's more contentious claims which have been critiqued over time.

The fact that you have cited events without causal relationships to the Nord Stream pipeline as evidence of a causal relationship indicates that yes, you did do that.

Converse error fallacy.

Misuse of converse fallacy.

I said that you treated it as a causal link.

And you are wrong. You are mind-reading based on a converse error fallacy.

Still misuse. The criticism was a characterization. Your rebuttal was that it was false as you never claimed the characterization. The rebuttal to your rebuttal is that it was never claimed you claimed the characterization. This is not a converse error fallacy, this is basic strawman fallacy being rejected.

Aside from the lack of hundreds, I rather suspect you will, so that you can get the last word once again.

You are wrong again. I said I was done with that particular subthread, I didn't say I was done with all subthreads.

I am quite correct that you lack hundreds, and remain vindicated in my expectation that you will continue to strive for the last word despite multiple claims you are done.

I note you are also still on the same subthread, and expect you to continue to do so for reasons of predictability and ego.

You may notice I didn't address every single weak argument you've put forward in this subthread either.

No, I'm well aware you're not addressing them, but my viewpoint is that you're abandoning weak positions that your deflections could not resolve.

The argument remains that in addition to the issues that other people have pointed, it retains the characteristics of being source by someone someone unfamiliar with how governments work

False.

True. This is and remains my argument.

You have never established that.

I have made my argument on multiple points. Whether you accept it as established is irrelevant.

All your arguments point towards someone who doesn't know how the military works, which I already addressed.

All of my arguments were not restricted to the military, nor did your addressing actually resolve or mitigate the criticism. 'Address' does not mean 'defeated,' and you have consistently dropped threads that remained contested, even if you claim to do so because they are weak.

who is supposed to be a highly placed person in the US government

The article never mentioned anything remotely close to that. How many people do you think hold a top-secret clearance in USA?

With access to covert operations planning at the White House level for black operations specifically designed to avoid oversight? Very, very, very, very few, and only at high levels of the US government where alleged meetings were taking place with people who constitute highly placed members of the current administration.

This, again, is indicative of someone who doesn't understand the workings of the US government.

The streisand effect says hello

Once again I don't think you know what you are talking about. The premise of the Streisand effect is someone trying to hide information. What information do you think I'm trying to "hide"?

Hiding is only one of the causes of the streisand effect. Trying to otherwise draw attention away from information is another form. By placing your particular rebuttal well below the current topic of the day- below the fold in American media parlance- even as you created a new subthread, you engaged in a way to minimize attention to standing counter-arguments.

However, your attempt to re-raise the topic in a different space, and let the previous thread die in obscurity with your rebuttal as the last word in any future review, only drew more attention to the counter-argument... even though you attempted to use a lack of attention as a basis of criticism in the lower thread.

That argument seems to be a little humorous in retrospect, given the unmasked voting ratios in periods where anyone likely read it, but the obvious argument on appeal to the majority is obvious, even as it would be wrong here.

However, as we're sufficiently meta here to note that the scope of discussion is narrowing, and I've made clear my perception of why, I'll let any future reviewers make their judgement as to who is correct. You can have the last word if it will help you feel better, but this exchange has drawn it's expected pattern, and I doubt you'll find any vindication in being predicted.

The 'evidence' in this report is a series of claim made by an alleged anonymous source with access.

That is evidence.

contradicted by available evidence (flight data that doesn't match the claimed trigger mechanism).

Prove it.

No, you could certainly identify your age and the depth of your checking to Chomsky's more contentious claims which have been critiqued over time.

I am 40. And you pick a controversial Chomsky "claim".

Misuse of converse fallacy.

No, it's not a misuse. You are literally saying because I appear to have done something, therefore I did it. If it glitters, then it's gold. That's a fallacy.

my viewpoint is that you're abandoning weak positions that your deflections could not resolve.

Your viewpoint is wrong. If you want me to address your "strongest" positions, then only mention those.

True. This is and remains my argument.

Simply saying "true" does nothing, you have to substantiate your claim, which you haven't done so far. Therefore your claim is dismissed.

With access to covert operations planning at the White House level for black operations specifically designed to avoid oversight?

This is a probabilistic fallacy. You are talking about P(X), we are talking about P(X|O). Yet another example of motivated reasoning.