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 -
Let's talk about the attack in New York.
Six Arrested After Explosive Devices Tossed Near Mamdani’s Home (Bloomberg)
6 arrested after homemade explosive devices at Gracie Mansion protest send people running for cover (New York Post)
This certainly seems concerning... wait... it looks like I got the news wrong. Let's check in with the newspaper of record:
Smoking Jars of Metal and Fuses Thrown at Protest Near Mayor’s House
This was no bomb. It was just a smoking jar of metal and fuses. A stunning and brave counterprotestor who just happened to have a smoking jar of metal and fuses took took the righteous and antiracist action of standing up to nazism by throwing that smoking jar of metal and fuses right into the middle of a crowd. This totally clears things up.
Wait... no.. it looks like that's not quite right. It was a bomb.
I thought the news media couldn't get worse than "firey but mostly peaceful protests." But somehow they've managed to reach a new low. At least with the "mostly peaceful" protests it's technically true. I'm sure >51% of the protests that day were peaceful and a minority set the place ablaze. But this is a clear cut case where a terrorist literally threw a bomb into a crowd, and the NYT rushes to blame the victims for causing unrest and smear them as "vile white supremacists"
I mean the "smoking jars" link quite literally says that the PD hadn't yet determined if it was a real bomb or just window dressing. I mean, yeah at some point you have to judge how to present uncertain information, and bias can creep in, but news is hard and often the desire of end-users for news outstrips the pace at which the highest-quality information can come out, much less be processed and contextualized appropriately by journalists.
Again, news is hard. Nothing new here. I don't get why this is suddenly "a new low", this is just ... how news works?? Savvy readers were provided plenty of information in the NYT article itself to make their own judgement.
And it's not like that's the only thing the NYT has produced. 3 minutes ago I see this (I think new, separate article) headline and its "dek" (I learned a new word! the summary thing) saying:
And to be fair, there's a bit of genuine ambiguity here: what do we call it? An IED? A grenade? A bomb? Some of these definitions strongly imply a certain amount of actual explosives, and that seemed to be the main sticking point/source of doubt, yes? You can "design something to be deadly" without, you know, successfully making it deadly. Obviously the device did NOT explode, so on a pedantic level "smoking device" is probably the most technically accurate term even if people with brains (you and I) obviously know that it's probably intended to be something like a grenade. I don't have a sub but I assume there's more, up to date info inside. Or are you bothered by a lack of an update on the OG article? Where it's positioned in relative terms to the other news?
Like sure, you can call it bias. That's fine. But I don't think it's this horror show of propaganda you're imagining.
It is contemptible primarily because there's more than enough video footage that documented the event. This includes the first bomb that the guy threw, as well as the second bomb which was dropped as he made his attempted escape. A variety of footage with different angles was available on X.com 4 hours before this article was first published.
This fact is not mentioned at all in this article. If I was reading the article I would have no idea that any of these events were recorded by a dozen different cameras. I wouldn't know if NYT reporters saw the footage, ignored it, or why they did so. We know the NYT is aware of X for a few reasons, but chief among them is they relay an FBI statement from the platform at the end of this very article.
According to footage I saw, one device was thrown in the direction towards the protestor group, but fell short landing in a barricade. Individual counter-protestors and media at the scene, confused, immediately can be heard asking things like "What was that?" and "Yo this nigga threw a bomb, bro?" The suspect was seen retreating from the crowd of counter-protestors down the sidewalk while police reacted to a smoking, suspicious device on the ground. Police then pursued the suspect down the sidewalk where a second suspicious device was passed between the suspect and a second individual, now identified as Emir Balat and Ibrahim Nikk, before igniting it and dropping on the ground.
There's a lot of ways NYT journalists could incorporate these apparent facts and others from video footage to better inform the public. They can do this without making dubious claims or reporting solely on the questionable veracity of edited (though not all are) video uploads. Journalists are more capable craftsmen than you give them credit for.
The "suspicious device" doesn't bother me. They did not know if it was a real bomb and neither did anyone else. What they have done is used that one uncertainty to apply more extensive ambiguity to the story than it deserves. They've done this in a way where you, experienced reader, will defend them as they deliberately attempt to mislead you with the bare minimum. Then, next week, we'll get slew of articles on on a story that is based on footage which includes "what appears like police brutality" or "a racist Wendy's employee." All the caution and credibility of the Grey Lady can get thrown to the wind when deliberation ends differently.
The device had the appearance of a real bomb. Police reacted to it as if it was a homemade bomb. Stupid photographers ran up to it to snap cool photos of the suspicious device on the ground like they would an unexploded bomb. The suspect can be heard crying "Allahu Akbar!" before throwing this smoky device over the heads of counter-protestors. He threw it over the heads of counter-protestors towards -- in the direction of -- the anti-Islam protestor guy. That's the guy whose protest had generated all this controversy, but the NYT newsroom has not independently confirmed he was the target of the device. Sources inside the NYPD tell the Times these are important facts.
The fact that few, if any, are reported suggest the NYT failed to inform the public by using its own suspicious devices. I would prefer to conveniently get my news dope from a single, esteemed NYT reporter. It's annoying that I can't do this, because they're bad at reporting events such as this. Yes, this is just how news works, but that's more of a condemnation than anything else.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link