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 -
They also first tried to get it in the Daily Mail and TheBlaze which should really be quite telling on its own if even some of the lowest evidentary standards imaginable tabloids aren't willing to touch it.
How low quality must your "evidence" be for the daily mail legal team to reject it as too risky of libel?
But it's really important to note here that among the influencer right truth does not matter. It simply does not. They do not give a rat's ass if the story is real, they just want to put Talarico's name next to "mental health crisis". They are the demons from Frieren, words to the influencer right are merely a tool to trick with.
Sometimes if you catch the demons among their group, you'll find they even admit to it.
Agreed. They could hardly sink lower in this regard.
Only mainstream respected journalists from major media outlets are a more debased group with less respect for truth.
More options
Context Copy link
First Time?
From The Washington Post; Harry Reid lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes. He’s still not sorry.
If both the wokes and MAGA converged on using minors as suicide bombers to attack the other side, that would not make it okay to do so simply because the other side does it.
Someone who would willfully lie to the public merely to prevent a Romney presidency is clearly a piece of shit. That does not mean that Trump is not also a piece of shit for lying about Obama's place of birth.
Despite what the culture war feels like, we are not actually in the middle of a civil war where the left wants to string up all the SUV drivers and the right wants to string up all the LGBT* folks. Even if Trump had a plan to seize power on Jan 6, trying to prevent his election through lies would backfire and further erode civil norms.
Scott has made this point better than I ever could.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How do they have lower evidentiary standards than the average media outlet? All I know from the Blaze is their commentary channels, so evaluating evidence doesn't enter the question, but the Daily Mail in particular is definitely one of the world's top performers on this matter, and anyone who says otherwise can only do so because of blinding tribal hatred.
I would be interested in seeing someone argue that this is worse on an evidentiary basis than the Israeli rape dogs story.
The Israeli rape dogs story had a quoted source who attested that they personally were raped by a dog. In the Ohio mental hospital story I have seen vague assertions of anonymous tips, but no one has reported (as far as I have seen) that a source told them that they personally saw Talarico at the facility.
More options
Context Copy link
If the Israeli rape dog story had been published as news, it would have been a scandal. The NYT's response was, correctly according to the rules of conventional journalism, "We don't fact check opinion pieces and are not responsible for Kristof's use of lying sources".
English libel law does not distinguish between false defamatory statements in news and opinion articles, so a newspaper like the Daily Mail whose standards are roughly "we will publish anything that won't get us sued" is going to refuse to publish something that a US paper would relegate to the "opinion" section due to a lack of fact-checking.
Under English law, republishing defamatory gossip and speculation without checking it is one of the main things reporters have to be taught not to do - there is a whole family of legal jokes about various ways of saying "I didn't say it was true, I just said other people were saying it" - none of which hold up in court if the defamatory statement turns out to be false. The 2013 Defamation Act which codified British libel law and removed most of the objectionable aspects did not change this.
Has any American journalist ever suffered legal consequences (criminal or civil) for false statements made under the guise of "sources say"? AI search overview provides a handful of journalists from the early 00's who were fired.
My understanding of American defamation law is that if you attribute remarks to a sufficiently identifiable source then you are deemed to be saying "other people are saying it", not "it is true".
We are talking about statements like "A source close to the Bishop told be that Iconochasm stole a statue of the Virgin Mary from Phoenix Cathedral and threw it into the Grand Canyon." In the UK, the newspaper* is legally liable unless you did, in fact, toss the statue. I think the newspaper is legally OK in the US as long as the cathedral security guard said it.
To report serious allegations based on a single pseudonymous source with no additional evidence is generally considered journalistic malpractice, so it doesn't surprise me that journalists have been fired for it.
* Like all civil liability, the employer and not the employee is on the hook.
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
I talk a lot of crap about the other side (and sometimes MKC when I think he's being a dip), but the reason I feel justified in doing so is a willingness to call fair strikes.
MKC is completely right here. There is a large swath of that group that is just utterly truth-indifferent. They'll say, boost, retweet, any insane shit as long as it gets engagement and clicks and ElonBucks. Candace Owens is the poster child here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link