site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31616 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

None of this disproves your theory that Bob Woodward was some sort of operative doing a hit job on Nixon at the behest of his Deep State puppet masters, but "OMG he had a Top Secret security clearance!" is not any kind of evidence for it.

Trusted enough to handle comms for an admiral is something else from 'trusted enough to maintain aircraft and read top secret manuals'.

Trusted enough to handle comms for an admiral is something else from 'trusted enough to maintain aircraft and read top secret manuals'.

That's just a function of his rank. "Delivering messages to admirals" is about the job you'd expect to be assigned to a Lieutenant. You're saying "He was a mid-level officer doing mid-level officer things, with a security clearance. This is evidence that he was a minion of the Deep State even after leaving the military."

He wasn't a delivery boy.

He apparently worked not just for the navy, but more specifically, for naval intelligence. He first served as a comms officer at sea, and later directly

under "Chief of Naval Operations" which meant the boss of the entire navy. Where he was giving briefings at the White house to top officials on navy matters.

Yeah, absolutely typical junior navy officer. A dime a dozen of such.

During Watergate, Moorer served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 until 1974.

So, at the time of Watergate, the journalist involved with Watergate was a former aide of the then Chairman of JCS. Is Chairman of the JCS a purely ceremonial role with zero importance?

Interesting bit:

Yeoman Charles E. Radford, a young Navy stenographer who had been working with Kissinger and his staff, had confessed to a Department of Defense interrogator that for more than a year he had been passing thousands of top-secret Nixon-Kissinger documents to his superiors at the Pentagon. Radford had obtained the documents by systematically rifling through burn bags, interoffice envelopes, and even the briefcases of Kissinger and Kissinger's then-deputy, Brigadier General Alexander Haig. According to Radford, his supervisors -- first Rear Admiral Rembrandt C. Robinson and then Rear Admiral Robert O. Welander -- had routinely passed the ill-gotten documents to Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

So, Navy was spying on the White House. @HlynkaCG .. this Watergate thing is getting better and better, really.

They're not even really trying.

Apparently Woodward on himself getting hired by the Post - he makes it look like fate:

During my scramble and search for a future, I had sent a letter to The Post asking for a job as a reporter. Somehow -- I don't remember exactly how -- Harry Rosenfeld, the metropolitan editor, agreed to see me.... Why, he wondered, would I want to be a reporter? I had zero -- zero! -- experience. Why, he said, would The Washington Post want to hire someone with no experience? But this is just crazy enough, Rosenfeld finally said, that we ought to try it. [Emphases mine.]

Yeah. Maybe he should have mentioned he'd just left military service at the White House. Then it'd make sense, you want a reporter with good relationships with officials!

I get that you're playing Devil's Advocate, but you're not being very convincing tbh.

I get that you're playing Devil's Advocate, but you're not being very convincing tbh.

Devil's Advocate implies I am advocating a position I don't really believe for the sake of argument. This is false. I am stating things I know to be correct because while you apparently know no more about military service and security clearances than what you've skimmed off Wikipedia, I actually know what I am talking about.

I'm not trying to convince you, because you didn't actually arrive at your conclusion by evidentiary means. You are not the target audience.

I actually know what I am talking about.

You're still here, saying 'nothing to see here' in regards to a inexplicably hired rookie journalist with no relevant experience, who previously worked as an aide to the chief of naval operations and then went on to help bring down the president.

And yeah, the same president who had just then been targeted by DoD spies.

Mhmm. And how impartial may you then be? I'm starting to think you are under orders to be obtuse, because any other explanation is so uncharitable it'd probably break the rules were I to write it out.

You're still here, saying 'nothing to see here' in regards to a inexplicably hired rookie journalist with no relevant experience

Why is it inexplicable that a former Naval officer would go into journalism?

Mhmm. And how impartial may you then be? I'm starting to think you are under orders to be obtuse, because any other explanation is so uncharitable it'd probably break the rules were I to write it out.

I'm honestly fascinated to hear what your theory is. Either I am an operative moderating a tiny niche forum under orders from the Deep State, or.... what? Please tell me it's something more interesting than "Or you're just too stupid to grasp the truth of my arguments."

Why is it inexplicable that a former Naval officer would go into journalism?

Now it's hardly imaginable, and back then it was unusual.

He also himself noted in his memoirs that he was hired despite zero qualification or relevant experience.

And yeah, again, the whole thing. Not just 'a naval officer'. Someone in naval intelligence, who just finished working for the CNO.

is. Either I am an operative moderating a tiny niche forum under orders from the Deep State, or.... what?

Sorry - it was late'.

Any other explanation I have, if I spelled it out, would be breaking the rules.

Now it's hardly imaginable, and back then it was unusual.

No, it wasn't.

He also himself noted in his memoirs that he was hired despite zero qualification or relevant experience.

Barriers to entry in journalism were not that high, and former military officers have always been pretty desirable new hires.

You do what many people stitching together a conspiracy theory do, and ignore all the implausibilities in your narrative. So he was hired out of the Navy (note that he wasn't just hired on the spot, as you imply - he got a trial run at the Washington Post, wasn't hired, did some time at a smaller paper, and got hired a year later). And according to you, it was all part of some long term plan hatched to bring down Nixon. I mean, if I were running an operation to sabotage the POTUS and had the ability to pull strings everywhere from the FBI to the Washington Post, I can think of many better ways to do it.

All of this is also just based on the laughable presumption that Nixon did nothing wrong and was only disgraced because of those meddling kids.

Any other explanation I have, if I spelled it out, would be breaking the rules.

Oh, go on - whisper it in my DMs. I'm honestly curious, and promise not to mod you for it.

Either I am an operative moderating a tiny niche forum under orders from the Deep State, or.... what?

Weren't you the same person who ridiculed me for suggesting people with careers in companies or institutions may have residual, unwarranted loyalties to these entities?

And then proceed to defend interests and quality of said institutions because acknowledging they fucked up by serving them and that they're no good would be bad for their self image. Classic ego defense.

More comments

was only disgraced because of those meddling kids.

Yeah. FBI deputy director is a 'meddling kid'. The JCS are 'meddling kids' - they were the one who spied on Nixon just before Watergate.

I'm tired of this, to be fair. I'll get back to this once my room is immaculately clean.

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