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 -
Look, I’d be happier with an equilibrium where Twitter shitposters aren’t given any more credence than a tabloid.
That's because you try to pretend that the things she documents aren't happening, and want any excuse to dismiss the evidence in front of you.
TW's trick was a godsend for "head in the sand" libs.
Uh…no.
It’s because Twitter journalism is even more decoupled from consequences than regular journalism.
If every single thing she reported was a lie, how would you know?
I always go and check the original source before linking them to people. It helps (somewhat) with instant dismissal as enemy propaganda, but you know how certain types of people manage to ignore and forget any evidence you present to them, so you're forced to prove the same thing over and over again.
More options
Context Copy link
She's reposting stuff. You can check the original source.
Yeah, it would be reasonable for a normal person to check the original sources before believing and broadcasting them.
Yeah, that's what she did...
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
"We live in a world where Twitter shitposters provide more information about what's really going on with CW issues than credentialed journalists" does not particularly imply to me that it is sensible to expect the shitposters to live up to the standards expected of credentialed journalists -- if they had wanted to be credential journalists they could have done that!
Shitposting is quite fun however.
Why are credentialed journalists held to a higher standard? It’s not out of respect for the credential.
LoTT has clearly been assigned more resources and more influence than random shitposters. It’s sensible to expect higher standards for the same reasons.
Isn't it mostly that... credentialed journalists are expected to have the resources to do this stuff? I know LoTT has a lot of followers, but I don't believe that this has been monetized to the extent of (say) the NYT, or that she has a newsroom full of fact checkers or suchlike.
When I picture LoTT, it's 'suburban mom sitting in her basement laughing her ass of at all the dumb stuff people are doing' with maybe a side order of 'I hate these people and want them to suffer' -- neither of which I imagine would change much with increased follower counts.
The other thing about journalists is that they like to at least maintain some sort of pretense of 'professional ethics' -- I would expect a credentialed journalist to have taken multiple courses on this, and be aware of pitfalls and procedures. No such course exists for Twitter users at any level, up to and including the owner of the place. Probably it would be good if it did, but that ain't where we're at here.
I don't know where you're drawing the line.
Her Twitter bio proudly claims to be a "Media/News Company," and the testimonials on her About page includes a glowing review of her journalism by Matt Walsh. Wait, does he count as a journalist?
There are talk show appearances and shout outs from the former President. Chats with other culture war luminaries. Honorary school board appointments (?!). Those aren't normal suburban-mom activities. She is clearly running a brand.
But that's kind of beside the point. I can't believe that one needs credentials or courses to ask "is what I'm about to say true?" I also don't believe for a moment that's the main motive for TW critics. He certainly doesn't get to deploy a similar defense!
I dunno either really -- is Joe Rogan a Journalist? I would say not.
But the place you are drawing the line most certainly includes T.W. at the time of this incident -- so if LoTT is getting held to journalistic ethics, then so should he.
Yes! Yes, and as far as I know, he has met this bar. If someone bothered to hoax him, and he took the bait, I think that would look badly on him. I certainly wouldn't say, "way to go, you hoaxed a shitposter."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's out of respect for the function they are holding. Even if I don't hold a lot of respect for the credential of a doctor, if you present yourself as one, I will be expecting that your health advice is based on a higher standard than that of a random's youtuber, and that you will be taking some amount of responsibility for it.
Shitposters can get quite popular, and that will mean influence and resources. That doesn't mean they're presenting themselves as rigorous truth-seekers.
But the best part of the whole affair is that she actually did do more due diligence than a lot of mainstream journalists, it's just that Tracing put a lot of effort into faking the evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link