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 -
He wasn't a delivery boy.
He apparently worked not just for the navy, but more specifically, for naval intelligence. He first served as a comms officer at sea, and later directly
under "Chief of Naval Operations" which meant the boss of the entire navy. Where he was giving briefings at the White house to top officials on navy matters.
Yeah, absolutely typical junior navy officer. A dime a dozen of such.
During Watergate, Moorer served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 until 1974.
So, at the time of Watergate, the journalist involved with Watergate was a former aide of the then Chairman of JCS. Is Chairman of the JCS a purely ceremonial role with zero importance?
Interesting bit:
So, Navy was spying on the White House. @HlynkaCG .. this Watergate thing is getting better and better, really.
They're not even really trying.
Apparently Woodward on himself getting hired by the Post - he makes it look like fate:
Yeah. Maybe he should have mentioned he'd just left military service at the White House. Then it'd make sense, you want a reporter with good relationships with officials!
I get that you're playing Devil's Advocate, but you're not being very convincing tbh.
Devil's Advocate implies I am advocating a position I don't really believe for the sake of argument. This is false. I am stating things I know to be correct because while you apparently know no more about military service and security clearances than what you've skimmed off Wikipedia, I actually know what I am talking about.
I'm not trying to convince you, because you didn't actually arrive at your conclusion by evidentiary means. You are not the target audience.
You're still here, saying 'nothing to see here' in regards to a inexplicably hired rookie journalist with no relevant experience, who previously worked as an aide to the chief of naval operations and then went on to help bring down the president.
And yeah, the same president who had just then been targeted by DoD spies.
Mhmm. And how impartial may you then be? I'm starting to think you are under orders to be obtuse, because any other explanation is so uncharitable it'd probably break the rules were I to write it out.
Why is it inexplicable that a former Naval officer would go into journalism?
I'm honestly fascinated to hear what your theory is. Either I am an operative moderating a tiny niche forum under orders from the Deep State, or.... what? Please tell me it's something more interesting than "Or you're just too stupid to grasp the truth of my arguments."
Now it's hardly imaginable, and back then it was unusual.
He also himself noted in his memoirs that he was hired despite zero qualification or relevant experience.
And yeah, again, the whole thing. Not just 'a naval officer'. Someone in naval intelligence, who just finished working for the CNO.
Sorry - it was late'.
Any other explanation I have, if I spelled it out, would be breaking the rules.
No, it wasn't.
Barriers to entry in journalism were not that high, and former military officers have always been pretty desirable new hires.
You do what many people stitching together a conspiracy theory do, and ignore all the implausibilities in your narrative. So he was hired out of the Navy (note that he wasn't just hired on the spot, as you imply - he got a trial run at the Washington Post, wasn't hired, did some time at a smaller paper, and got hired a year later). And according to you, it was all part of some long term plan hatched to bring down Nixon. I mean, if I were running an operation to sabotage the POTUS and had the ability to pull strings everywhere from the FBI to the Washington Post, I can think of many better ways to do it.
All of this is also just based on the laughable presumption that Nixon did nothing wrong and was only disgraced because of those meddling kids.
Oh, go on - whisper it in my DMs. I'm honestly curious, and promise not to mod you for it.
Weren't you the same person who ridiculed me for suggesting people with careers in companies or institutions may have residual, unwarranted loyalties to these entities?
And then proceed to defend interests and quality of said institutions because acknowledging they fucked up by serving them and that they're no good would be bad for their self image. Classic ego defense.
That's quite a disingenuous characterization of that discussion, and since you're doing nothing but evading every point and dancing around every direct question put to you, I think we're done.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah. FBI deputy director is a 'meddling kid'. The JCS are 'meddling kids' - they were the one who spied on Nixon just before Watergate.
I'm tired of this, to be fair. I'll get back to this once my room is immaculately clean.
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