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 -
Well thank you for admitting that you failed to do the bare minimum of knowledge seeking and not read the original article or this. Of course you don't know if you actively chose not to.
What's the point of a discussion if "I won't read" is the starting point?
For example you so very much did not read that you don't understand that Hale claims to have independently verified from The Free Press, so they aren't in the same chain to begin with. It's not Hale > TFP > sources, it's Hale > Hale Sources and TFP > TFP sources.
If you read LettersFromLeo, his verification comes in the preface he added after the blog post so you would also know, if you had done the bare minimum, that he hasn't gone into depth revealing his sources in that blog because the verification was done after his writeup of the TFP post.
I fixed your question for you. And the answer is simple: You bear the burden of proof, not me.
I'm a little confused. Are you claiming that LettersfromLeo supplies the chain that I originally requested?
If so, please QUOTE him where he does so. If not, please admit that he failed to do so.
Anyway, do you admit that from the outset, I requested the ENTIRE CHAIN?
And do you admit that you have failed to provide the same, instead trying to assign the burden to me to go search for it?
If you're not even willing to go read the primary source on the topic, what "burden of proof" can even be fulfilled there? You can't just go "nuh uh, I'm not gonna read it" to discount everything.
I'll give you the information I have on his verification right at the top of the article, that you seem to have not bothered reading even a little of.
Yes, he doesn't provide what sources he used here, I never said he did. What I am saying however is that if you want to know more about what they are basing it off of beyond what their respective articles include, you can go ask them. I am not a part of The Free Press and I don't have any relation to Christopher Hale of LFL, I do not have any non public info as to who or what their sources are. In fact I have less than that given I do not desire to scour all their social media pages to see if they've revealed anything there.
You started with the chain for Christopher Hale, and then switched to the chain for Ferraresi. Issue is, they are independently verified from each other, they are not the same chain to begin with, something you would know if you had clicked on the link and read the very first paragraph!
Umm, here's what you said:
It's hard to see this as anything other than an intentional misrepresentation on your part.
Nonsense, I asked for the ENTIRE CHAIN from the very beginning. If you disagree, please QUOTE me. Failing that, please apologize for having misrepresented my position.
Yes that was about the parts where you clearly didn't read the primary source and messed up basic details. When you asked "What's the source of this story? I mean, who are the links in the chain between Christopher Hale (the blogger you link to)", you messed up that the original reporting (TFP) and LFL (Hale) are in different chains to begin with, and that you did even not read the first paragraph of LFL with the edit (and yes, it was already there when I posted the article). The original source of this story is The Free Press reporters sources, unlucky for you if you hadn't tried to clarify it as "I mean between Christopher Hale" you wouldn't have exposed that lack of knowledge.
Yes that was me following up that I'm not aware of who their specific sources are (as they're not in the articles) and maybe you can find them on social media or by emailing them. I doubt it, journalists typically keep anonymous sources anonymous (or else no one would ever leak to them) but you can give it a shot.
Nope, that's not how it went. The exchange was as follows:
You:
My response:
Your response:
Your accusation of my not being willing to read and of failing to do the bare minimum was clearly in response to my post declining to "scour" "social media"
In short, you are misrepresenting our exchange. Moreover, when I pointed it out, instead of apologizing you doubled down.
Not only that, I clearly requested the ENTIRE CHAIN from the very beginning. In other words I didn't "switch" as you falsely claimed. I gave you the opportunity to either back up your claim or apologize, and you simply ignored me.
In any event, I'm not interested in engaging with someone who intentionally misrepresents my position.
This exchange is concluded. Please feel free to have the last word -- I will not be reading or responding.
(Side note for any lurkers: I have screen-shotted the entire exchange so that @magicalkittycat will be discouraged from making strategic edits after the fact. If it seems like I am misrepresenting things myself, feel free to message me privately.)
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
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:
and they decline:
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?
Actually, it is The Free Press and LettersFromLeo that are making such assertions.
Well yeah, if they don't want to actually bother and go to the writers to find an answer to the question they apparently have, they don't have to. But their choice is their choice! "I don't want to" isn't the same as "therefore you must be wrong". If they want to go question it, it's not hard to shoot The Free Press team an email or something.
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? Maybe you have different ideas on how trustworthy her and her staff are, but there's probably something behind these accusations. 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. And if it was completely fake, the Vatican might denounce it too and the story would fade away into nothingness while damaging their credibility in the long term. I see no reason to believe Weiss would be doing that.
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.
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), what's the point? 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.
You wrote:
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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:
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.
I think this response was intended for someone other than me.
It was addressed to someone other than you, but I tagged you in it since I was discussing your previous post.
I see, thanks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Someone somewhere said it" is an interesting way to describe something being reported on by a journalist from an established centrist (and often Trump friendly) media organization.
Bari Weiss is in charge of it, and what goes on would have been approved by either her or people she put in charge of approvals. As for if they lied, I invite you to this ACX post. It's possible it's fabricated from whole cloth, but that would be odd. And for what purpose?
Trump has already openly threatened both Canada and Denmark, certainly no one would think "Ah, an undersecretary vaguely threatening the Vatican behind closed doors will hurt him significantly" right? That behavior is less unhinged and damaging than what Trump has already done on multiple occasions to what might be even stronger and important allies (our regional neighbors and NATO).
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.
I don't want to accuse you of lying here, but it is questionable when the fourth sentence is "That scene, broken this week by Mattia Ferraresi in an extraordinary piece of journalism for The Free Press, may be the most remarkable moment in the long and knotted history of the American republic’s relationship with the Catholic Church." and the literal subheading is "The Free Press has documented a closed-door Pentagon meeting in which a senior Trump official lectured Pope Leo XIV’s ambassador on American military supremacy.". If you aren't lying and actually tried to read it, how did you not see either of those?
Because they're the ones who first reported on it! You also don't seem to understand the basics of journalism here either.
If the point of the place is "don't read a single thing, don't even understand the most basic timeline of what order things were published in, and just cast doubt on anything that could make the government look bad" then yeah, I didn't understand it. But I thought it was for intelligent and meaningful discussion, so if anything my bar of "at least know the most basic details and actually read the words" is incredibly low.
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.
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