|
Probably Magic posted:What I saw was essentially you complaining that you specifically weren't the target audience for the article, but I will also admit to not having read the article (and not having much desire to). It's irritating to read someone demand impartiality of others though when they're obviously not showing much impartiality themselves, and I didn't really understand what possible connections your exercise you posted underneath had with your critique either. This was admittedly weeks ago, though, so apologies for essentially necromancing a topic, but it's something that's been rankling my nerves since. So you haven't actually read or understood this thread or even some of the articles being discussed, and instead are blind-firing your own opinions about what you think is being discussed?
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
I'm actually going to read that Frank article now and try to come up with something a bit more effortful, there's a reason I didn't post about it before, but I brought it up and now I'm obligated to follow up on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:What I saw was essentially you complaining that you specifically weren't the target audience for the article, but I will also admit to not having read the article (and not having much desire to). It's irritating to read someone demand impartiality of others though when they're obviously not showing much impartiality themselves, and I didn't really understand what possible connections your exercise you posted underneath had with your critique either. This was admittedly weeks ago, though, so apologies for essentially necromancing a topic, but it's something that's been rankling my nerves since. You're saying that my post about a thing wasn't connected to that thing, when you hadn't read that thing. You should really, really reconsider that approach. Probably Magic posted:You did try to dismiss me saying there's a connection between the military-industrial complex and the media writ large (which gets generalized all the time in this forum, don't get pedantic now, the literal thread title is generalizing, do you mean actual types of medium or press journalism, you mean journalism, let's move on), The OP material is really explicit that "media" is not a synonym for "journalism". Hell, the primary example used to explain the mediation phenomenon is an SA post. Probably Magic posted:and that is just an ahistorical presumption that there isn't influence. Again, the publication that's been bandied about has been Forbes, I'm not going to give automatic good faith to a publication run by a rich Republican when it comes to foreign policy. The claim is not about Forbes, you're making a claim about, apparently, all US journalism, which is still too broad to be accurate or informative in the interpretation of individual messages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
After reading that article, your response to it is way funnier and also baseless than I ever imagined. First of all, it's an op-ed obviously by its tone and relative brevity of detail, so treating this as a serious piece of propaganda is like doing a huge point-by-point breakdown of some old Charles Krauthammer oped back in the day that says effectively, "Uh, Obamacare will lead to authoritiarianism," not only is it sandblasting an ant but it's misreading the audience and message. It's not a serious discussion of policy, it's just venting. Let's go over your post.Discendo Vox posted:It's bizarre to claim that Trump's activities were so equivalent to past administrations, or that, for example, the press landscape consisted solely of "bombshell" Trump "outrage stories," "each of them turning out to be misleading in some way". I...don't think it turned out that all press coverage of Trump was a series of false statements about activities that past administrations have conducted. It's not bizarre because Frank posted specific examples of what he was talking about, you just pretended he didn't. quote:Frank is less than minimizing when he provides evidence; he raises specific, extreme examples and then presents the entirety of critical press coverage as if they are representative. In doing so, he gets remarkably equivocal about the quality of all press sources and all critical coverage of Trump. I have a lot of trouble with anyone saying that members of the public were equally radicalized by Fox News and CNN, or that press coverage that motivates its audience to action against the rise of right-wing authoritarianism represents the suppression of independent thought. You have a lot of trouble?! Then actually show how CNN doesn't radicalize people just the same as Fox News with studies not showing that other than your own, apparently objective authority. This annoyed me the first time I read it, and it still just feels like an utterly baseless whine. quote:Why does Frank find it strange to compare Trump to a Nazi? Why is this a "cheap political slur"? Is it not possible for a comparison to Nazis to be accurate? Nice convenient leaving out of the context of that quote where he'd just provided examples of a journalist doing insane stretches comparing Trump's Reaganesque rhetoric to Hitler's. You're leaving out context to make your strawman point, literally what you've been complaining about in this thread! quote:Frank generally accomplishes his rhetorical goals by a combination of just loading his assumptions into his language ("hysteria-mongers", "dictatorship of the expertariat", etc) and by eliding contrary information. It's an op-ed! Did you just discover what an op-ed is? quote:The "elites" opposing Bryan and Roosevelt and Trump were different in each case, and each leader also had significant constituencies of support- and not just populistic ones, either. Frank literally makes this point. Thomas Frank posted:Donald Trump is obviously no Franklin Roosevelt, and it’s hard to believe he even speaks the same language as William Jennings Bryan, a deeply religious man who despised vulgarity and held a very low opinion of New York real-estate barons. quote:The phenomena that Frank attributes to the US aren't some new dysfunction or elite pushback to populism; it's also populism: popular responses to an especially monstrously terrible president, with the usual incentives for media involved. Oh come on, by this incredibly poor definition of populism, every president who ever won was a populist. Both times Donald Trump was running for president, establishment money was being leveled against him. Notice, by the way, in how many outlets, journalists will often equivocate Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump together in terms of enthusiastic supporters and anti-establishment narratives, despite them ideologically being far apart, almost like the mainstream media makes no bones that it's specifically an enemy of populism versus fascism necessarily since they put up absolutely no resistance to the passing of the Patriot Act and the like. quote:By its conclusion, this article offers no specific conclusion or tool for reading media other than denouncing criticism of/deplatforming the right wing as "liberal authoritarianism"- and there, the embedded line of reasoning is difficult to distinguish from the right wing "liberal social media censorship" canard. Jonah Goldberg could have written this; it should give the reader pause that they're finding common cause with the alt-right in this regard. Reading this the first time around, absolutely galled by you equivocating any attack on liberalism automatically with conservatism, and considering how many different concessions Frank makes to liberalism, both with leading off his article with a repudiation of Trump and conceding (on a point I do not agree with him on) that Joe Biden is leaps and bounds a better president than Donald Trump, and you think that's a Goldberg article? God forbid you ever read Chris Hedges, you'd think he was Rod Dreher. quote:I'm tackling the issue of how this sort of function results in discussion-ending arguments for the next effortpost, on Hirschman's reactionary (and progressive) rhetorics. Yeah, still absolutely don't see how your homework assignment has anything to do with your complaints, which is that you don't like that Thomas Frank doesn't like media establishment liberals. You never address the grift functions that Frank brings up, you never address the electoral incentives that Frank brings up, you just insist on a rather histrionic view of Trump that's ahistorical. One thing I would agree with you on Frank that makes me cringe is he does downplay Trump's reaction to the summer riots, he absolutely did more than complain to the media. There's some forced downplaying there in that entire paragraph really. It's not a perfect op-ed by any stretch of the imagination. It is better sourced though than your counterarguments against it, which for an op-ed is pretty funny, and its central conceit, that reactionary politics against populism is not going to solve the systemic issues in this country, is a point he's been making his entire career to considerable acclaim. But I don't consider my disagreements to qualify him as a "bad faith actor" like you do in the next post. This effort post of yours never had much effort, but it's also just embarrassing. Your complaint about the selective examples of an op-ed could only be made by selective examples. I'm glad I read that so I could "appreciate" your post more. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:After reading that article, your response to it is way funnier and also baseless than I ever imagined. First of all, it's an op-ed obviously by its tone and relative brevity of detail, so treating this as a serious piece of propaganda is like doing a huge point-by-point breakdown of some old Charles Krauthammer oped back in the day that says effectively, "Uh, Obamacare will lead to authoritiarianism," not only is it sandblasting an ant but it's misreading the audience and message. It's not a serious discussion of policy, it's just venting. Let's go over your post. I don't care whether it's an editorial. I don't refer to it as propaganda. I'm responding to it being cited as a useful source and as a piece of media, which belies trying to defend it as "venting", and ignores the manner in which it's being actually used and defended by others in the thread. Probably Magic posted:It's not bizarre because Frank posted specific examples of what he was talking about, you just pretended he didn't. My complaint, as per the very language you are quoting, is that Frank makes a categorical assertion based on limited, selective, nonrepresentative evidence. Probably Magic posted:You have a lot of trouble?! Then actually show how CNN doesn't radicalize people just the same as Fox News with studies not showing that other than your own, apparently objective authority. This annoyed me the first time I read it, and it still just feels like an utterly baseless whine. The burden is not on me to cite studies to refute a broad and unsupported claim that all press coverage critical of Trump is categorically suppression of independent thought. Probably Magic posted:Nice convenient leaving out of the context of that quote where he'd just provided examples of a journalist doing insane stretches comparing Trump's Reaganesque rhetoric to Hitler's. You're leaving out context to make your strawman point, literally what you've been complaining about in this thread! I actively cite the element of the article in question. Unlike you, I'm writing with the assumption, shared by everyone else in the thread at that point, that they are also actually reading the article. It is not, in fact, invalid to compare Trump's rhetoric to Hitler's, much as it's not invalid to compare Reagan's rhetoric to Hitler's. Both Trump and Hitler (and Reagan) share an embrace of populistic ahistorical revanchism, that's the underlying point of the references Snyder is making. Probably Magic posted:It's an op-ed! Did you just discover what an op-ed is? I don't understand why you think this is a defense. Would you apply this reasoning to, for example, Tucker Carlson? Would we be less obliged to apply critical scrutiny to its methods and contents? Probably Magic posted:Frank literally makes this point. You're eliding the next sentence after your quote. Frank makes that caveat so that he can discard any of the substantive distinctions between the three to make an unsupported and overbroad thesis assertion about "elites", which is what I'm identifying as the apparent thesis. Probably Magic posted:Oh come on, by this incredibly poor definition of populism, every president who ever won was a populist. Both times Donald Trump was running for president, establishment money was being leveled against him. I've not proposed a definition of populism, however it is accurate that there are populistic movements in favor of and in opposition to Donald Trump. "Populism" and the idea of an opposed, antagonistic elite is an overly simplistic moral framing of how media and political conflict operate. Probably Magic posted:Notice, by the way, in how many outlets, journalists will often equivocate Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump together in terms of enthusiastic supporters and anti-establishment narratives, despite them ideologically being far apart, almost like the mainstream media makes no bones that it's specifically an enemy of populism versus fascism necessarily since they put up absolutely no resistance to the passing of the Patriot Act and the like. This sentence is difficult to parse, but it can in fact be simultaneously true that a) Sanders and Trump are both users of populist rhetoric, b) entities referred to as the "establishment" can contain multiple constituencies which are not fully in alignment and may use populism to their benefit, including in conflict. I appreciate that you've now slipped to "mainstream media" as a squishy ill-defined term for sources of information you dislike. Probably Magic posted:Reading this the first time around, absolutely galled by you equivocating any attack on liberalism automatically with conservatism, and considering how many different concessions Frank makes to liberalism, both with leading off his article with a repudiation of Trump and conceding (on a point I do not agree with him on) that Joe Biden is leaps and bounds a better president than Donald Trump, and you think that's a Goldberg article? God forbid you ever read Chris Hedges, you'd think he was Rod Dreher. I don't think I am "equivocating any attack on liberalism automatically with conservatism"; I don't think I make any categorical assertions about attacks on liberalism generally. I compare Frank to Goldberg specifically for his tendency to conflate "liberals", "educated", "elites" and "experts" as an interchangeable antagonistic force. That's not a defense of liberalism; it's about an anti-intellectual pseudo-argument masking itself through a lack of specificity. Probably Magic posted:Yeah, still absolutely don't see how your homework assignment has anything to do with your complaints, which is that you don't like that Thomas Frank doesn't like media establishment liberals. You never address the grift functions that Frank brings up, you never address the electoral incentives that Frank brings up, you just insist on a rather histrionic view of Trump that's ahistorical. I don't actually see anything about a "homework assignment" in my post; I was already working up the Hirschman's rhetorics post, the Frank discussion just made it more urgent. Frank still doesn't consistently define or differentiate what you refer to as "media establishment liberals". Frank doesn't refer to "grift functions" anywhere, but if you're talking about the profit incentives involved in riding the popular backlash against Trump in the public and press, then, well, again, that's not meaningfully attributable to the "liberal media" in a categorical way because Frank is only providing selective examples. I'm not sure what you're referring to with "electoral incentives", but if it involves a specific example out of the norm, then it has the same problem: Frank doesn't really demonstrate why it applies to "liberal media" as a category. Instead, it's an underlying ideological assumption. I'm not clear on how my view of Trump is "histironic" and "ahistorical". There haven't been too many other cases where the president tries to get the DOJ to overturn their losing election. Probably Magic posted:One thing I would agree with you on Frank that makes me cringe is he does downplay Trump's reaction to the summer riots, he absolutely did more than complain to the media. There's some forced downplaying there in that entire paragraph really. It's not a perfect op-ed by any stretch of the imagination. It is better sourced though than your counterarguments against it, which for an op-ed is pretty funny, and its central conceit, that reactionary politics against populism is not going to solve the systemic issues in this country, is a point he's been making his entire career to considerable acclaim. But I don't consider my disagreements to qualify him as a "bad faith actor" like you do in the next post. Again, you seem not to have read my post, or the OP materials, or the posts following my post about Frank too closely. I am not alone in my issues with how he approaches these matters. I also don't directly call Frank a bad faith actor, but his behavior in the article does match the general issue. I'll dig deeper into bad faith at some point, but part of the point of the post on Hirschman's rhetorics is how ideologically guided assumptions can lead speakers to make arguments that are nonsensical or unfalsifiable because they bury the connection between evidence and claim. This is related to how Frank makes a general claim about "news media" and "elites" by citing non-representative, specific examples. People who have internalized these assumptions make discussion very difficult, even when they aren't hiding their assumptions deliberately, because they enter discussion with a belief system which renders them unable to identify and question their assumptions - in other words, they lose the ability to participate in good faith. Probably Magic posted:This effort post of yours never had much effort, but it's also just embarrassing. Your complaint about the selective examples of an op-ed could only be made by selective examples. I'm glad I read that so I could "appreciate" your post more. Thank you. My complaint was not exclusively about selective examples in the op-ed, and the quotations I provided were not examples so much as specific arguments I went over in greater detail. Again, the general assumption we're trying to work from here is that people actually read and think about things, then respond to the full content of what they read. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Oct 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Genre is part of medium, and you're demonstrating a lot of genre blindness in terms of the goals of the editorial genre, which, to be fair, I initially defined poorly, so let me do so more carefully. Editorials are persuasive by nature and therefore are under little obligation to provide the opposing point of view since it is not an informative piece but rather a persuasive piece. If I were criticizing Tucker Carlson, I would not be complaining about him not bringing up the liberal perspective on immigration because I wouldn't expect him to, I would be criticizing his actual stance. If you disagree with Frank, that's one thing, but saying he's being manipulative because he's being persuasive instead of informative is just poor genre awareness on your part. The emotional language is not manipulation but signifier of tone. Le Monde Diplomatique from what I can gather seems to pride themselves on their heavy editorial bent, and Frank provides it. You're complaining the article isn't what you want it to be, and that seems like poor consumption habit, the equivalent of a Marvel film fan moaning there weren't more explosions in Minari. You bring up that Frank frequently extrapolates trends from specific anecdotes, which, true, especially with the Amy Siskind bit (remember, I didn't say it was a perfect editorial) but that does put the onus on you to show a trend that would show his anecdotes as irregularities. Which you don't do and don't want to do. But also, you're allowing your own personal editorial bent to blind you on the relevancy of the sources, and also, you are using absolutely the strangest and most obtuse definition of populism I've ever seen. It's not hard to define populism, things the general public wants that corporation and the state resist on for their own reasons. There were populist backlashes against Trump, sure, but I'm not sure you're meaning with your examples Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz fans. Are you? Because that runs against Frank's point about the Russiagate concerns, because in the 21st century, the populist stance is isolationism and pacifism, and Russiagate was always propagated under the ideology of American hegemony and world influence. It's difficult to get accurate polling because concerns about Russia are so uniquely defined by party affiliation, but independent voters generally cared about the Russia investigation only slightly more than Republicans did and not even close to as much as Democrats did. Considering Democrats were polled as giving way, way more legitimacy to media than their counterparts (and don't harangue me for calling it mainstream media, that was specificity I only did to appease you and differentiate it from independent media, I would consider Fox News and OAN mainstream as well), then Franks' use of media personalities' positions is very relevant. And your line about the DoJ is a very poor gotchya: Nixon fired the heads of his DoJ multiple times in one night as you may recall and Bush Jr. actually did get an election overturned his way. Your attempts to make Trump out as a fascist also just deflates on the simple fact that fascism has a close relationship with the military, and Trump, between insulting the military, firing the military guys he hired all the time, and general (comparative to his predecessors) gunshyness absolutely alienated the military which I think played no small part in the brevity of his administration. I did glance over your post in the first page, it was interesting, though I have questions about your definition of media because I've always held the conservative definition of media as being television, radio, graphic novel, and the like, but it's very likely I'm not informed enough. But I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat me as entirely uninformed. You've had a bad habit in the past of reading some kind of bad faith intent into posts that were by no means that in other threads I've ran into you in, and I'd just ignore that, but if this thread is going to be based around your specific observations as if you're grand maestro then (a) that's not a thread I'm that interested in reading, which is a shame because I like talking about media, framing, rhetoric, and the like, and (b) you should know I'm not a total neophyte to these type of studies and have my own background to them and I'm responding in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Yeah I think we should generally try to avoid accusations of bad faith unless it's something egregious. This is a good conversation at the moment, imho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Genre is part of medium, and you're demonstrating a lot of genre blindness in terms of the goals of the editorial genre, which, to be fair, I initially defined poorly, so let me do so more carefully. Editorials are persuasive by nature and therefore are under little obligation to provide the opposing point of view since it is not an informative piece but rather a persuasive piece. Again, the article was cited for its informative value. Again, it is media. It being "persuasive" or an op-ed does not make its logic or claims more valid, or its polemic nature more informative. You don't get to scrutinize it lessbecause it does so. Its genre, which you are just...asserting, does not actually justify its failure to support its claims. Probably Magic posted:If I were criticizing Tucker Carlson, I would not be complaining about him not bringing up the liberal perspective on immigration because I wouldn't expect him to, I would be criticizing his actual stance. If you disagree with Frank, that's one thing, but saying he's being manipulative because he's being persuasive instead of informative is just poor genre awareness on your part. Then you have already hosed up because you are applying less scrutiny to someone because they are telling you what you want to hear. Probably Magic posted:The emotional language is not manipulation but signifier of tone. Tone as a product of language is part of the content of a message. Tone and language exist and are used because they have an effect. Probably Magic posted:You bring up that Frank frequently extrapolates trends from specific anecdotes, which, true, especially with the Amy Siskind bit (remember, I didn't say it was a perfect editorial) but that does put the onus on you to show a trend that would show his anecdotes as irregularities. Which you don't do and don't want to do. No. I don't. It makes an absurdly overbroad claim about "media" and "media elites". It fails to support the claim. I demonstrate how it substitutes invective for evidence. We do not have to bear the millstone around our necks. quote:But also, you're allowing your own personal editorial bent to blind you on the relevancy of the sources, and also, you are using absolutely the strangest and most obtuse definition of populism I've ever seen. It's not hard to define populism, things the general public wants that corporation and the state resist on for their own reasons. No, opposition to the intentions of corporations or the state is not a necessary element of populism. Corporations and the state are not monoliths, and populists are not defined by their actual opposition to these groups either as categories or as individuals. Populist rhetoric makes the appeal against such entities in its text. That is not the same as the text being true or accurate in its characterization of the populist position or what it opposes. "Elites" and "corporations" and "the state" are fully capable of using and expressing populist sentiments. Again, there is not a moral axis dividing two monolithic forces here. It is Frank's abuse of language and evidence in service of the assumption of this simple moral delineation that makes his argument so poor. It's why he blends "elites", "liberals", and the "media" into a common entity. It's an assumed ideological framing that makes it appealing to those who already believe it, and limits their ability to consider the underlying assumptions. Probably Magic posted:There were populist backlashes against Trump, sure, but I'm not sure you're meaning with your examples Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz fans. I don't even refer to Ted Cruz at any point in my post. Probably Magic posted:Are you? Because that runs against Frank's point about the Russiagate concerns, because in the 21st century, the populist stance is isolationism and pacifism, and Russiagate was always propagated under the ideology of American hegemony and world influence. There is not a single populist position, let alone one for an entire century. The question of whether or not Russia attempted or succeeded in attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election is an empirical question that can be interrogated with facts. Probably Magic posted:(and don't harangue me for calling it mainstream media, that was specificity I only did to appease you and differentiate it from independent media, I would consider Fox News and OAN mainstream as well), Then you need to reevaluate a much broader set of your assumptions. The whole reason the term "mainstream media" lacks value is that it lacks specificity and does not clarify the actual mechanism in question. It's a term of abuse no more informative than "elites". quote:And your line about the DoJ is a very poor gotchya: Nixon fired the heads of his DoJ multiple times in one night as you may recall and Bush Jr. actually did get an election overturned his way. Neither Nixon nor George W Bush are actually comparable to the president attempting to overturn their losing election. Stop. Think about how you have found yourself in the position of minimizing what actually happened here. Probably Magic posted:Your attempts to make Trump out as a fascist also just deflates on the simple fact that fascism has a close relationship with the military, and Trump, between insulting the military, firing the military guys he hired all the time, and general (comparative to his predecessors) gunshyness absolutely alienated the military which I think played no small part in the brevity of his administration. Your criteria for fascism again ignores the original context from the article, to compare Trump to Nazis specifically in the use of revanchist rhetoric (Frank fails to actually identify other sources calling Trump fascist, it's another thing he just asserts). That Trump was ineffective at courting the military over time does not in any way make the things that he actually did, that the press actually commented on, that he article you've now read actually cites, not fascist. quote:I did glance over your post in the first page, it was interesting, though I have questions about your definition of media because I've always held the conservative definition of media as being television, radio, graphic novel, and the like, but it's very likely I'm not informed enough. But I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat me as entirely uninformed. You have had to be dragged into reading every single piece of information in the thread after opining on it. quote:You've had a bad habit in the past of reading some kind of bad faith intent into posts that were by no means that in other threads I've ran into you in, and I'd just ignore that, but if this thread is going to be based around your specific observations as if you're grand maestro then (a) that's not a thread I'm that interested in reading, which is a shame because I like talking about media, framing, rhetoric, and the like, and (b) you should know I'm not a total neophyte to these type of studies and have my own background to them and I'm responding in good faith. Bad faith is not a matter of pure deliberate intent. It's not a matter of nefarious trolling, and it's any conflict of beliefs. You've approached the conversation convinced and opposed to the idea of being educated or corrected, not by me (because god knows I don't have a monopoly on truth), but by anyone. You came into a discussion and attacked my post without even reading what it was referring to, and without reading the OP, or reading what anyone else had to say about the subject. You have continuously mistaken what has been said for what you wanted to believe. The result is that I'm having to go through every post a clause at a time to point out all these gaps so that you can recognize the distance between your assumptions about the subject and what the subject actually is. The structure of these gaps, the difference between the information you have and know to be true, and what you represent in discussion, is the space between good faith and bad faith. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Oct 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
You don't have to do anything, Discendo Vox. Have a nice thread. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The structure of these gaps, the difference between the information you have and know to be true, and what you represent in discussion, is the space between good faith and bad faith. If a poster sincerely 'knows something to be true' and misrepresents it, then that is intentional bad faith. Having a different interpretation of some facts, that Probably Magic has supported with effortful arguments, is a valid avenue of discussion and I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from declaring some sort of crypto-bad-faith when a poster doesn't immediately accept the facts and interpretations of those facts as you have presented them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Having a different interpretation of some facts, that Probably Magic has supported with effortful arguments, Effortful? Seriously? They've admitted they didn't read an article that was being discussed, but that didn't stop them from telling something they were wrong about it. EDIT: Having said that, I have no doubt they're posting in what they see as good faith. Others might disagree. That's the problem with trying to divine the "faith" of posts on the internet, it's isn't as if there's a unit of measurement or a formula to determine if someone is arguing in "good" or "bad" faith. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Oct 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 00:20
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Effortful? Seriously? They've admitted they didn't read an article that was being discussed, but that didn't stop them from telling something they were wrong about it. Yeah all I saw were him creating strawmen and claiming people were xenophobic for not trusting leaked information from Russia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:If a poster sincerely 'knows something to be true' and misrepresents it, then that is intentional bad faith. Having a different interpretation of some facts, that Probably Magic has supported with effortful arguments, is a valid avenue of discussion and I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from declaring some sort of crypto-bad-faith when a poster doesn't immediately accept the facts and interpretations of those facts as you have presented them. Well, I listed a bunch. They repeatedly misrepresented the article and misrepresented specific, factual elements of my posts in objectively identifiable ways. The whole thing about bad faith (and why I'm going to have to dig through some Sartre when I write it up): if grounded in ideological frameworks or assumptions, it can be unknowing. It still has the same effect of paralyzing discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, I listed a bunch. They repeatedly misrepresented the article and misrepresented specific, factual elements of my posts in objectively identifiable ways. The whole thing about bad faith (and why I'm going to have to dig through some Sartre when I write it up): if grounded in ideological frameworks or assumptions, it can be unknowing. It still has the same effect of paralyzing discussion. I understand your position, and I don't think you were acting in bad faith either. I'm just asking you to refrain from arguing that another poster is operating in bad faith in thread; send a report or if you feel more context is needed, a PM, to whichever mod you prefer instead please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR still has not demonstrated which documents from WikiLeaks contains doctored information. If they don't care enough to point it out, that's fine, simply refraining from future claims to the same will suffice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:CommieGIR still has not demonstrated which documents from WikiLeaks contains doctored information. If they don't care enough to point it out, that's fine, simply refraining from future claims to the same will suffice. I'll get with the FSB and let you know, since they were the source of the leak. Or are we ignoring that it was largely a political hit job to help push Russian disinformation to help swing an election. Are you really just taking FSB leaks at face value, would you do that with a CIA leak about Russia? https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 02:05
|
|
|
Have we talked about Audience construction? Theres a rich vein of theory that I've always been pretty keen on relating to how the media constructs audiences that can have a strong impact on how we reproduce class relations and ideology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 03:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'll get with the FSB and let you know, since they were the source of the leak. Or are we ignoring that it was largely a political hit job to help push Russian disinformation to help swing an election. This article seems like a whole lot of nothing. No definitive proof of doctoring, and the one thing they chose to devote half the article to they determined was authentic, but maybe not actually true - but only because the person sending the authentic email likely didn't know (although no one but Kaine opted to go on the record about it). Thats not the same thing as 'the FSB made it up'. Has there ever been actual proof that anything from wikileaks was made up by the Russians, or is it all 'well, we can't prove it *wasn't* made up by the Russians, so I choose to believe Russia did it'?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 03:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'll get with the FSB and let you know, since they were the source of the leak. Or are we ignoring that it was largely a political hit job to help push Russian disinformation to help swing an election. If a top Putin advisor named Boris Podestov types his password into an obvious phishing scam from the CIA, who then publish thousands of emails on Wikileaks, and the only denial is as weak as the one in that article then yes, absolutely I'd believe them. They give the Clinton strategy right in your article: quote:So why doesn’t the Clinton campaign provide some evidence that emails have been doctored, like publishing original emails? Experts pointed to political calculation. By saying the emails may be inaccurate generally, the campaign can plausibly deny certain facts that the emails reveal. If they offer proof that a particular leaked email is fake, however, that risks giving the impression that any emails they do not refute are accurate." Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. I live in the USA, it is far more valuable to me to know what the woman who wants to be president is up to than to be on the lookout for some nebulous plan from the perfidious Russian Bear. If Clinton doesn't want to issue proof that even a single one is wrong then I will assume they are all right, and I'd do the same if the CIA did it to Putin and he said "believe me, they can't be trusted, no I don't have any proof."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 04:05
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Has there ever been actual proof that anything from wikileaks was made up by the Russians, or is it all 'well, we can't prove it *wasn't* made up by the Russians, so I choose to believe Russia did it'? I don't speak for CommieGIR but I think your reasoning here is backwards. The main reason mediators such as Wikileaks are difficult to trust is that, unlike with whistleblowers, it is usually impossible to verify the authenticity of the information and materials they are leaking, especially if there is a chance that foreign actors may be involved. And even if you could verify authenticity, there's virtually no way to tell if they may have selectively omitted other materials that came into their possession that didn't fit their general agenda and specific narrative. If you are believing Wikileaks on the basis that there is no definitive proof that they doctored materials, at that point you're presupposing their veracity, and the most likely reason is that it is what you want to hear. (This also holds true in other contexts, such as when an alt-right source leaks a video clip of Biden. Even if the video clip itself has not been doctored, that doesn't make it not propaganda.) Whereas if we turn the tables and put you in a situation where someone is showing you something that you don't want to hear (e.g. evidence of Uyghur genocide), you'll immediately assume the opposite stance by asking questions like "how can we trust these people who are claiming to be an Uyghur refugees?" or "do we have any actual proof that these materials are genuine, and have not been doctored if not outright fabricated by the CIA?" At the end of the day, I think media literacy is about the ability to put aside your own existing beliefs when consuming information. Only then can you gain the ability to tell if you're being manipulated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
Ok, but why are you presupposing they were elaborate Russian plants? Surely discounting the emails as just disinformation out of hand comes from a place of falling back on your own existing beliefs when consuming information as much as the alternative
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 04:23
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Ok, but why are you presupposing they were elaborate Russian plants? I'm... not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:I'm... not? Ok, fine, allow me to rephrase Nix Panicus posted:Ok, but why is GENERIC POSTER presupposing they were elaborate Russian plants? Surely discounting the emails as just disinformation out of hand comes from a place of falling back on GENERIC POSTER'S existing beliefs when consuming information as much as the alternative
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 04:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'll get with the FSB and let you know, since they were the source of the leak. Or are we ignoring that it was largely a political hit job to help push Russian disinformation to help swing an election. Still no supporting evidence. You only get away with this because of your star.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 04:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Again, the article was cited for its informative value. Again, it is media. It being "persuasive" or an op-ed does not make its logic or claims more valid, or its polemic nature more informative. You don't get to scrutinize it lessbecause it does so. Its genre, which you are just...asserting, does not actually justify its failure to support its claims. I was a server for two tours and this is the kind of greasy nonsense that gets passed around in school? You wouldn’t last one shift at Olive Garden. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 10:10
|
|
|
If the FSB fabricated the emails, wouldn't they have put something newsworthy in them?Discendo Vox posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 12:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'll get with the FSB and let you know, since they were the source of the leak. Or are we ignoring that it was largely a political hit job to help push Russian disinformation to help swing an election. Hey so if you can't support your claims, maybe don't make those claims as strongly as you did.  The correct phrasing you were looking here is "I can't prove this but I strongly believe" HTH
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Hey so if you can't support your claims, maybe don't make those claims as strongly as you did. You are right, hence I'm backing off the discussion because I was obviously wrong. I still believe, personally in this case, that given Assange's history anything he 'leaks' needs to be treated as suspect or taken in context.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You are right, hence I'm backing off the discussion because I was obviously wrong. I still believe, personally in this case, that given Assange's history anything he 'leaks' needs to be treated as suspect or taken in context. I mean, undoubtedly the leaks were released in a publicized manner because they hurt the democrats. If they didn't hurt the democrats they would have been sat on or discarded. The leak was absolutely political and should be subjected to scrutiny. But theres no real reason to believe the *contents* of the leaks were doctored. From the little I've read they look like exactly the kind of documents the DNC and democrat leadership would produce. They were even defended as such at the time by party diehards, i.e. 'this is just how the sausage is made, the republicans do the same'. They were embarrassing because the democrats claimed to be better, which is the problem with trying to claim the moral high ground. I half suspect that might be part of the reason the democrats have retreated from Obama's soaring rhetoric into 'well, have you seen the other guys?'
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
A few posts ago I told the Media Criticism thread Wikileaks was an FSB plot. My heart and my best intentions tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Remember when Wikileaks declared that Panama Papers were a hitjob aimed against Putin? The ones that showed he has billions stuffed in offshores through his old buddies? Right here: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352 Really appreciate these forums full of big brained politics understanders who know that everyone around is a CIA asset, but requiring some standards of evidence and decency for for the megalomaniac rape guy
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Cut the petty sniping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Somaen posted:the megalomaniac rape guy Which rapist are you referring to here? Biden? Trump? Putin? Help me out. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Which rapist are you referring to here? Biden? Trump? Putin? Help me out. I'm also curious which rapist it was referring to because in a media analysis discussion it would help for there to be exact terms used and probating this post was bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm also curious which rapist it was referring to because in a media analysis discussion it would help for there to be exact terms used and probating this post was bad. It's actually incredibly obvious from the context who they are referring to. You literally only need to read the post to figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:It's actually incredibly obvious from the context who they are referring to. You literally only need to read the post to figure it out. That post was so vague and snipey as to merit a moderator warning, but no action. I agree that rapist is sadly too broad a term to be specific in world politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That post was so vague and snipey as to merit a moderator warning, but no action. The post was anything but vague. It cited a Wikileaks tweet, then wondered why people are rushing to the defense of a megalomaniac rapist. From that context alone, it should be obvious to anyone who has more than two brain cells that it was referring to Assange, who is both a megalomaniac and a rapist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Ok, fine, allow me to rephrase I said I don't speak for CommieGIR, and I don't speak for "generic poster' either. Regardless, I've thought about it a bit more. I think what is reasonable to presuppose depends at least to some extent on whether you believe Wikileaks when they say they publish any and all information given to them without vetting it, no matter who and where it comes from. If you believe that, that means Wikileaks is as credible and trustworthy as the source they are acting as mediators for, i.e. the GRU. Can the GRU reasonably be described as credible and trustworthy? My impression is that most people, even staunch leftists with gang tags, will admit that the answer is no. (But if you think the answer is yes, we probably don't have any common ground and you can skip the rest of this post.) If you don't believe Wikileaks when they say they publish anything and everything without vetting it, then the questions become: what parts of the hacked trove of emails they got from GRU did they try to vet, and how? Are there parts of the trove they may have left out because it didn't align with Assange's hatred of and agenda against Hillary Clinton? How can we even tell? Wikileaks purportedly subscribes to a philosophy of "radical transparency" but apparently that only serves as justification to shame and embarrass entities they don't like (which, for some odd reason, does not include the likes of Putin), and is not something that they apply to themselves and their internal processes. Whatever your answers are to the questions above, I believe it is fair to say that, at the very least, Wikileaks willingly and knowingly aided and abetted Russian efforts to undermine the United States government and elections generally. That should not be a controversial claim at this juncture. f you have a strong dislike towards America and/or Democrats, you might find what they did acceptable, perhaps even applaud it as noble, and that is fine. But in terms of judging the credibility and trustworthiness of Wikileaks as a mediator, I think their opportunistic willingness to work with the likes of GRU alone is sufficient reason to conclude that they (or any other mediator in a similar position) don't deserve our unshakable trust and faith in every context, especially ones where the founder is quite obviously ethically compromised and is willing to sacrifice his own integrity to pursue a personal vendetta (much to the dismay and disgust of his own employees, I might add).
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Whatever your answers are to the questions above, I believe it is fair to say that, at the very least, Wikileaks willingly and knowingly aided and abetted Russian efforts to undermine the United States government and elections generally. That should not be a controversial claim at this juncture. f you have a strong dislike towards America and/or Democrats, you might find what they did acceptable, perhaps even applaud it as noble, and that is fine. But in terms of judging the credibility and trustworthiness of Wikileaks as a mediator, I think their opportunistic willingness to work with the likes of GRU alone is sufficient reason to conclude that they (or any other mediator in a similar position) don't deserve our unshakable trust and faith in every context, especially ones where the founder is quite obviously ethically compromised and is willing to sacrifice his own integrity to pursue a personal vendetta (much to the dismay and disgust of his own employees, I might add). Who is honestly arguing that we give Wikileaks “our unshakable trust and faith in every context . . .”?Wikileaks is good when it accurately leaks confidential documents and correspondence. If Wikileaks also does bad things then those bad things shouldn’t color your perspective on the good stuff (accurate leaks) unless you are trying to make a normative determination about the Wikileaks as an entity; and why would you do that? If you are saying that we should evaluate the veracity of Wikileaks on a case-by-case basis, then I probably agree. But I think the consensus is that Wikileaks documents are typically accurate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Who is honestly arguing that we give Wikileaks “our unshakable trust and faith in every context . . .”?Wikileaks is good when it accurately leaks confidential documents and correspondence. If Wikileaks also does bad things then those bad things shouldn’t color your perspective on the good stuff (accurate leaks) unless you are trying to make a normative determination about the Wikileaks as an entity; and why would you do that? If you are saying that we should evaluate the veracity of Wikileaks on a case-by-case basis, then I probably agree. But I think the consensus is that Wikileaks documents are typically accurate? Again, the question: How do you know they are? And if we're going to bat for Wikileaks, why does Assange's personal and very open biases not color those leaks including refusing to leak certain groups that directly benefit him? Why do Assange's character traits get handwaved in this one case? I admitted I was wrong to push that far, but you are telling me a source can pass through a tainted, known biased source and be without issue? That's a bold amount of faith. This isn't even like Snowden level "This stuff is bad so I leaked it", its "This stuff might be enough to achieve my goals, which I've openly defined and declared."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 22:08
|
|