site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35775 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 2023

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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But the basic complaint doesn’t really ding Taibbi’s credibility (ie unless you denounce Musk over X — which you have limited knowledge about — we will assume you are in his pocket and therefore can disregard everything you published). It was a blatantly disingenuous attack and should be seen as such.

Do you believe the same thing about the Uyghur question posed to TikTok executives?

I don’t know. I haven’t followed the TikTok drama at all.

But the reason MSNBC guy said anything was an attempt to discredit reporting on a wholly ancillary point. Taibbi’s “failure” to engage with the disingenuous attack says nothing about his credibility. Indeed, even if Taibbi is hypocritical here, it doesn’t change the reporting (which once again shows why MSNBC guy was so disingenuous — it was an attempt to poison the well).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but I can't tell what the foundation for your assertion is. You're just labeling the question to be a disingenuous attack (how?) that says nothing about his credibility (why?). Looking at my conclusion below, can you be specific about which part of it you take issue with?

So with that in mind, I think the best conclusion one can draw from the evidence above is that Taibbi feels constrained from criticizing Musk because Musk is too valuable a source. That on its own does not negate or render false the Twitter reporting he has already done, but it seems obvious that he's not playing with a free hand. Journalism is especially reliant on credibility and trust because so much of it happens behind curtains. For whatever cannot be corroborated by outside sources, we have to trust that a journalist is engaging in enough due diligence in vetting sources and investigating claims. Taibbi is seriously jeopardizing his credibility here, and I can't see how the pay-off is worth it.

Your conclusion is exactly the problem. The whole point of the question by MSNBC guy was to talk about a specific issue that isn’t central to the American debate that probably involves material detailed knowledge that Taibbi doesn’t have.

If Taibbi doesn’t respond, the mainstream media is able to make this absurd claim that Taibbi isn’t willing to criticize Musk and because of that unwillingness Taibbi’s story is bullshit.

This is of course pure ad hominem. Let’s assume ad arguendo that Taibbi feels gratitude towards Musk and therefore doesn’t want to criticize Musk (as opposed to Taibbi simply being unaware of the particulars). Taibbi failure to criticize Musk doesn’t change the merits of the story (which by and large no one has been able to refute outside of some nitpicking that has turned out to be itself not exactly correct).

But focusing on this sideshow is a way that MSNBC guy has gotten people to buy this dumb idea that Taibbi isn’t being honest and instead is pushing Musk’s narrative (why Musk has a supposed narrative is left unstated and how that narrative fails to corroborate with reality is left unstated).

That is, MSNBC is using arguments as soldiers. He doesn’t really care what Taibbi thinks about some obscure Indian-Twitter issue. He cares about casting aspersions on the Twitter Files by any means necessary. He tried to using this Indian issue as the means.

Me:

That on its own does not negate or render false the Twitter reporting he has already done

You:

If Taibbi doesn’t respond, the mainstream media is able to make this absurd claim that Taibbi isn’t willing to criticize Musk and because of that unwillingness Taibbi’s story is bullshit.

Taibbi failure to criticize Musk doesn’t change the merits of the story

I never claimed that Taibbi's story is bullshit or that his unwillingness to criticize Musk changes the merits of the story, I said the opposite. You said my conclusion is exactly the problem but I'm not seeing where we actually disagree here. Most of your post is about what MSNBC, Hasan Mehdi, and the mainstream media believe but I'm none of those people and unless I actually endorsed their opinions/arguments as my own, they're not my responsibility.

I'll try again. Here's my conclusion again, but with each clause numbered. Can you please just reply with which number you take issue with?

So with that in mind, I think the best conclusion one can draw from the evidence above is that 1 Taibbi feels constrained from criticizing Musk because Musk is too valuable a source. 2 That on its own does not negate or render false the Twitter reporting he has already done, but 3 it seems obvious that he's not playing with a free hand. 4 Journalism is especially reliant on credibility and trust because so much of it happens behind curtains. 5 For whatever cannot be corroborated by outside sources, we have to trust that a journalist is engaging in enough due diligence in vetting sources and investigating claims. 6 Taibbi is seriously jeopardizing his credibility here, and I can't see how the pay-off is worth it.

You throw a causal couple liner disclaimer out there and then go on and on about how yes it does affect the credibility of Taibbi and his story. It is the equivalent of “just asking questions.”

And yes, my major beef is with the MSNBC guys but you are in effect either falling for it or signal boosting it.

Let me say this unambiguously since you don’t address.

Your post is largely built on a disingenuous MSNBC reporter coupled with darkly hinting at “credibility” problems without really doing the work to show why failure to criticize Musk makes Taibbi’s reporting less credible outside of asserting that he isn’t playing with a free hand because he doesn’t want to criticize Musk over a bullshit Indian story (when in fact one of his compatriots did criticize Musk over a different story. What you left out is that Taibbi under oath (which was backed up by Michael S. also) stated that they received a massive trove of info that would’ve been hard to pre-select, there was zero limitations on what they could write, and whenever they asked for more info they got it. Moreover, Taibbi provided receipts. Do you think he made them up? Do you think Musk made them up? To date, people with knowledge have only challenged the context (unsuccessfully in my opinion).

So hear we have the very unique situation where a reporter was willing to state his methods

under oath, subjects haven’t claimed “he is lying (though one has claimed he misunderstood the facts),” there has been independent validation, it is consistent with what certain state AGs have also found, but your are casting aspersions because a bullshit MSNBC attempt at a gotcha related to an Indian Twitter squabble? Really? Really?

darkly hinting at “credibility” problems without really doing the work to show why failure to criticize Musk makes Taibbi’s reporting less credible outside of asserting that he isn’t playing with a free hand because he doesn’t want to criticize Musk over a bullshit Indian story

I'm not "darkly" hinting at anything, I said my conclusion outright. You're just asserting that I'm not doing the work without explaining how exactly the approach I laid out is deficient. Here's the relevant part of my conclusion again:

4 Journalism is especially reliant on credibility and trust because so much of it happens behind curtains. 5 For whatever cannot be corroborated by outside sources, we have to trust that a journalist is engaging in enough due diligence in vetting sources and investigating claims.

Ignore Taibbi for a second, is there anything you disagree with there as a general principle? Maybe you do agree with the premises but disagree that they apply to Taibbi? It would be helpful if you specified because I can't tell.

What you left out is that Taibbi under oath (which was backed up by Michael S. also) stated that they received a massive trove of info that would’ve been hard to pre-select, there was zero limitations on what they could write, and whenever they asked for more info they got it.

I'm assuming you're talking about the congressional hearings? I didn't watch those hearings so I have no idea what they said in it. I laid out my arguments why I believe Taibbi is being so evasive and "but he said under oath" doesn't address what I actually said.

Moreover, Taibbi provided receipts. Do you think he made them up? Do you think Musk made them up? To date, people with knowledge have only challenged the context (unsuccessfully in my opinion).

What receipts? What context? Are you talking about the Twitter Files? I don't have any basis to doubt the veracity or authenticity of the Twitter Files.

As best as I can tell, you seem to be under the impression that I have a hidden argument buried within my post. I believe what I wrote is clear enough but if there's any confusion on your end you can just ask me to clarify. It would be more helpful to keep the conversation focused on what I actually wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

Why do you think Indian Twitter situation was brought up?

How does Taibbi’s “unwillingness” to attack Musk affect his Taibbi’s credibility? Is it his general credibility or Twitter specific? If Twitter specific, then any story in particular?

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats