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 -
[man, this is long, but it seems about as long as yours]
@ the wapo article you link, while that is bad and woke, that postmodern wokeness stuff is not the cause of journalistic bias. Bias and incorrect reporting were just as present in print news 100 and 200 years ago. And avoidance of 'white objectivity' are not at the root of e.g. 'media bias' in climate or race today (seeing as the media was similarly biased on race and IQ many years ago). Some of the quotes from it suggest this isn't a universal phenomenon in the media either:
This isn't universal media abandonment of 'objectivity'. And it's arguably better than john reed. The pattern is that they genuinely believe in antiracist and similar things for poor reasons, and write stories to 'help those hurt by racism'. They (in the NYT) do not think they are lying, any more than Fox thinks they're lying. (Compare this to something like a political campaign, where "crafting messages to appeal to audiences" is a lot closer to "explicitly and intentionally lying").
Know and suspect are different, in this context! It's one thing for a few journalists to have suspicions they can't really follow up on due to political pressures. It's another thing for a majority of writers on the topic to be aware they are lying and write it anyway. The former is clearly true, and happens in many progressive spaces about it. The latter isn't! If you have an example of something woke that was published where people involved knew it was false, that'd be useful.
The softer parts were thoroughly rotten a century or more ago. Psychology today has a veneer of empiricism that was then entirely lacking. The replication crisis wouldn't matter with no data to replicate! Age-regression hypnosis research got published in Science! Marxism was a strong intellectual current! And despite all of that, the hard sciences plowed onwards, as they do today.
Well, medicine and biology still seem to be advancing rapidly. Yet-higher-resolution imaging techniques continue to be developed, new mechanisms discovered, new drugs released. So I don't see it. Elaborate on why?
On libraries, I went to my local library yesterday, and there were a bunch of people looking at books, nobody was talking. Some signs were on the wall for book clubs and reading events for children. Nothing about drag queens. Vaguely remember a few left-leaning flyers, but nothing about trans. This isn't a conservative place. Same for schools - there are gay/trans clubs, but there are lots of clubs, and most of the resources at schools go towards poorly teaching stuff.
I didn't say 'seek out', I said 'exposure'. I looked at the top 100 of /r/all for me, and this post was in the 50-75 place. ... it's not like this was forced on anyone, or had its upvotes manipulated or anything. So if you're a random kid who reads reddit, you're seeing that. Tiktok or snapchat aren't better. Twenty videos of scrolling in (browser, no account) gave me this, a guy doing his nails and makeup. Exposure to it is everywhere! It's "organic", this guy just likes doing that, and millions of people decided to watch it. Sure, it's a confused simulacra that has nothing to do with 'the female appearance' anymore, but it's not forced on anyone.
Er, I wasn't saying "the media isn't part of a bad tendency among people", I was saying "the media isn't the machine - if something is a machine, it's the entirety of progressive culture, not the media specifically, the media is a meaningful but small part".
WEFReports.com is a redirect to Rebel News's WEF section. They are lying and misleading about all sorts of things - The Great Reset, Covid as a conspiracy, the vaccines not working, digital identity and tracking as a globalist plot, etc. (not that any of digital identity / vaccines / WEF aren't bad in some ways, that's a separate issue). They're doing the same thing the NYT is - just saying a bunch of stuff to push readers in a certain direction without too much care for what's accurate. This video, 145k likes on twitter involves them screaming at the pfizer CEO for three minutes, incorrectly conflating 'the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission' and 'the vaccine is ineffective', bringing up the dumb 'died suddenly' theory, etc. If I'm taking that or the NYT... And that's what prompted hanania's article. He's seeing a lot of conservatives lambast the lying, useless media, and smoothly transition into promoting equally biased RW media, talking about schools transing our children and people dying suddenly. This isn't an improvement, and it won't lead to significant cultural change because smart libs just bounce off the 'obviously wrong' stuff.
In a consequentialist sense, yes, progressives and NYT contribute to a set of ideas that goes against beauty, will, understanding, and life. But '[the media] are an enemy and are at war with me' isn't a useful way to oppose this, because every progressive and conservative are doing the same thing. If you bring up "black people are, genetically, lower iq than white people" (or "being a is bad") at the dinner table and you get disapproval, that's the same thing the NYT is doing, borne of the same beliefs. And you'd get kicked off Fox for saying the former! If everyone's an enemy, fighting them like you would an enemy isn't going to work.
We're not talking about "bias". We're so far beyond that we don't see "bias" in the rear window anymore. We're talking about deliberate - and, according to authors of that screed, open and conscious - coordinated propaganda effort to distort the worldview of the society in order to subvert it to the goals that the media handlers think is necessary to achieve. And they openly admit they can not achieve it by just giving us truthful information and letting the best angels of our nature to do the rest of the job. They need to manipulate us and to suppress the information that hurts their cause. And also, evidently, lie.
Joseph Kahn is lying here. They do throw labels like "racist" and "lying" around willy-nilly, as long at it serves their purposes and promotes their agenda. And since it also serves their purposes, they then turn around and claim that they do it only in the most proven cases, where the proof is stacked sky-high - despite knowing perfectly well it's not the case.
And yet, not only you can but many "journalists" are exactly that. Maybe for some of them their activism is now on Twitter but on other venues, but honestly, who cares? I'd prefer a journalist that is Antifa-lover on Twitter but strictly objective in her professional life (if that were ever possible), to one that is silent on Twitter but puts all her activism into her articles.
It's way beyond that. They believe it so much that they think the whole society needs a fundamental overhaul, the whole societal system is hopelessly tainted and needs to be dismantled and rebuilt according to their ideology, and that should happen by any means necessary. So all niceties of the olden days, like objectivity, civility, neutrality and so on, should be abandoned and anything that serves the cause is good.
It's not about helping people affected by racism, it's more about rebuilding the society that made it possible, along the lines that they see correct by their ideology.
Not really, not for a journalist. If you say "X is true" while you reasonably suspect it is false, you are a liar. If you say "I had information that X is true, but for reasons A and B I suspect it is not actually true", then it'd be honest reporting.
That's what has been happening again and again recently. On Russian collusion, on Biden laptop, on Covid, on many other topics. Of course, I can't conclusively prove they knew - that'd require access to their inner thoughts and private communications - I mean, maybe they are complete idiots, on the "Omg, Nigerian prince just promised me a billion dollars, I have to run to the bank" level, but I don't believe they are. I believe they are smart, and are liars. But I may note, then we do get access to private communications (see Twitter files, or Alfabank hoax, or Durham revelations) - then we do find out, that everyone involved knew what they are doing, and did it anyway. And why not - they are The Army Of Light, who fights the dark forces. Why limit themselves by some patriarchal rules?
Is it actually true? Did you hear about the Eroom's law? Do we know the cause of COVID - and will we able to ever find it out without politicians meddling? Can we prepare for the next COVID if the researches are prohibited from freely discussing the genesis, qualities and consequences of this one? There are many proposals where scientists and practitioners that voice opinions not approved by the state are going to be excluded from further scientific pursuits and practice, for "misinformation" and "causing harm". Do you think it's possible to search for the truth this way?
Sure, with combined efforts of the Reddit team, and other woke Big Tech teams, there would be some exposure. Which - for everyone except 0.01% of kids suffering from dysphoria or similar conditions - would be thoroughly ignored. Just "exposure" does nothing. They need to be convinced by multiple authority figures that this is not some weird things among many weird things adults do, but actually laudable, stunning and brave thing that elevates them above the mundane masses.
Well, if there was any other way to talk to Pfizer CEO beyond screaming at him, that'd be preferable, but we all realize there's no such way - he would never submit to the interview with an unfriendly outlet without having all questions and answers per-vetted by the legal and PR teams. And the media like CNN or NYT - who has more power to pressure Pfizer CEO than Rebel News does, to agree to such engagement - would never do that. So this is the only way there is some engagement possible. Or maybe the only way of reminding our reptilian overlords that we plebes do exist.
As for conflating on the vaccine matter - I am not sure why you are laying this on RN's lap. This confusion has been pushed on us for two years on all levels from the President down. The President himself told us, by his very own lying lips moving, that the vaccine prevents infection and transmission, and that only taking it may rescue us from gruesome death. If he was wrong - did Pfizer CEO - or any of the legacy media - correct him? Did they call him out and force him to correct and admit the truth? Nope. They repeated and amplified these claims. Then, when they proved to be false, they turn around and claim it's not that they lied (or, charitably, were mistaken and very undeservedly overconfident) - it's that the rest of us were "confused", but not to fear - they'll be happy to explain the truth to us!
Ad then when people are not inclined to believe them anymore, it must be because they are dumb and Rebel News is misinforming them with their dumb stuff.
Actually it is. They are asking questions that nobody else dares to ask. They may be wrong in their conclusions (or not?) but at least they are asking. If other "journalists" were willing to ask such questions and report conclusions, whatever they would be, without preconceived agenda or prejudice - then we could judge, who is doing it best, and if RN turns out doing it wrong, we can ignore them. But if they are playing alone on this field and the rest is screaming government-supplied propaganda in unison and demand the government to shut down all dissent - then yes, one flawed player on the field is better than no players at all.
I don't think so. I think Rebel News want to find out the truth and inform me about it - even though they may be very well wrong about what the truth is (or not?), and even though they may not have better means than confronting Pfitzer CEO and screaming at him. But I think NYT and others want to cause me to behave in a way that they think I should behave, for their reasons that have nothing to do with me - and with that purpose, they feed me any information or any lies that they think may cause me to behave as such. That is not the same thing at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link