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 -
What's the source of this story? I mean, who are the links in the chain between Christopher Hale (the blogger you link to) and the Papal Ambassador? And how many links are there? The blog post only makes a vague reference to "sources."
The reason I ask is that for many years now, there is been a pattern where (1) in real life or online, someone makes a claim which puts the Trump Administration in a bad light; (2) I scrutinize the claim; and (3) it turns out to be some combination of baseless, unsupported by any evidence, based on wild twistings of peoples' words, or simply fabricated.
This claim has the same sort of feel to it and therefore I am extremely skeptical.
Hmm let's see what I wrote again and what you quoted.
You literally had your answer right there, and even if you didn't notice that, and just read Letters from Leo up to the paywall, that post also links The Free Press article twice, and mentions it four different times up to that point.
IDK how you could have missed this.
Ok, let's.
Somehow I didn't notice that those were links. But in any event, my question essentially stands:
What is the chain between the Papal Ambassador and Mattia Ferraresi? Was it a direct interview? If not, who was between them and how many steps were there?
No need to get snippy, it's a reasonable question.
What's the chain between the Papal Ambassador and Mattia Ferraresi? Was it a direct interview? If not, who was between them and how many steps were there?
That is a different question than what you asked. Similar, but not the same. The one you had actually asked was answered simply by reading what was written multiple times.
The main information we have is in the article. Perhaps Ferraresi and the rest of the TFP team have shared more details elsewhere, but I'll leave that to you to scour their social media if you want to know.
That's not true at all. My original question asked for the entire chain. Apparently information as to one link in the chain was easily available, but I asked about the ENTIRE CHAIN.
Here's what I had asked:
IDK how you could have missed this.
I've had enough experience with TDS that I'm not going to bother. The chances that it will lead to anything other than vague "sources" are just too low.
What's more important is that you don't even know yourself. In other words, this is another example of someone encountering information that's "too good to check."
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link