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 -
The NYT also broke the story of the August 29, 2021 US air strike that killed 10 civilians during the Afghanistan withdrawal. And I don't think it's likely that they broke that story in order to sabotage Biden's diplomacy or his reputation. I see no more reason to believe that they are reporting the Korea story in order to damage Trump, other than that clearly they dislike Trump more than they dislike Biden. But even with that dislike, they do have a track record of breaking stories like this even when it does not suit their political lean, so I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they may actually just be doing honest journalism here.
Personally, I certainly appreciate knowing that this incident happened. Whatever the motives of the leakers are, and whatever the motives of the NYT are, I now know more than I did a couple days ago. So one way or another, and whatever the motives might be, in this case journalism has succeeded at its fundamental purpose of discovering and publicizing information.
The August 2021 airstrike was also the sort of the story that would have broken out soon after due to exceptional international visibility in Afghanistan, including substantial foreign media coverage. The NYT did not break the story as much as shape it's unfolding.
There are substantial differences between shaping an emerging media event, and instigating a media event yourself. When dealing with people attempting to shape discussion, what matters most is typically what they are trying to emphasize / lead the audience to and how. When dealing with instigated discussions, another distinct additional need is 'why now?'
I see no reason to think that the NYT tried to shape that story's unfolding in a way that would benefit the Biden administration. Here is the story: https://archive.is/TFvyH.
You're looking at this through a narrow partisan lens and I don't think that helps you. The NYT doesn't have to be completely aligned with the Biden administration for rokmonster's point to stand true, and certainly not for Dean's point to be true, either.
I think the general point is that the NYT holds the special privilege of receiving exclusive government leaks, and distributing them as they see fit in order to influence public opinion to the editorial desk's particular preferences. They are also a newspaper but they primarily occupy a political position much more powerful than just a newspaper.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed. Although they make a half-hearted attempt to pin it on 'Mr. Trump' for reducing the level of official deliberation required for these missions, this story is broadly:
Kudos to the NYT.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link