6 ms·

> an explicit goal of destabilization. Please define the word destabilization. Does that mean changing the status quo? Would the NYT be guilty of destabiliza

> an explicit goal of destabilization. Please define the word destabilization. Does that mean changing the status quo? Would the NYT be guilty of destabilization if it published an expose revealing that officials in 20 US cities hid significant drinking water pollution from their citizens for years? Surely once published the article would destabilize politics in those cities significantly. Similarly, suppose the NYT published Donald Trump's taxes, revealing information that was likely to create a multi-year impeachment effort. Would that destabilize the US? It's hard to argue it would make things more stable. Did the NYT's publication of Judith Miller's reporting on Saddam's WMD that helped sell a war effort that killed and displaced millions of people and cost trillions of dollars cause "destabilization"? Newspapers are supposed to publish information that leads to political change. That is the point of having a free press, so that ideas can be shared that can be vetted by the public and acted upon to make society better.

CalChris 9y ago
Please define whataboutism.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > whataboutism Counter-factual scenarios that reveal your opinion to be illogical and cherry-picked for some emotional reason? OK I'm guilty.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    Nope. The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
    - grandalf 9y ago
      I'm asking you to clarify your view by presenting some scenarios that I consider relevant to the analysis of the main issue we are discussing. Your point would be a lot stronger if you are able to convey a consistent world view for analyzing those scenarios, or by explaining how the scenarios are different. I mention them because I think they are similar and ought to be analyzed similarly, but I'm open to persuasion.
      - CalChris 9y ago
        No, you are not. First, there is an accepted meaning for destabilization. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition and it certainly doesn't match your changing the status quo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destabilisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destabilisation Secondly, your whataboutism is an effort to change the subject away from the topic, a private company concluding that it didn't want RT+Sputnik's advertising money. It then ventures into not very good equivocation (Judith Miller was not the Times; indeed, she was forced to resign by the Times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller Given this, I accept no burden of proof. It is what it is.
        grandalf 9y ago
        If you read the Wikipedia definition you posted, the first definition is to undermine political power. That means the same thing as changing the status quo. Powerful interests by definition want the status quo to continue because it's what makes them powerful. When powerful interests talk of "change" it's not change that would endanger their power, hence it would not change the status quo in any significant way. Of course Judith was forced to resign once the sloppy reporting was fact checked by people who did not work at the NYT. The NYT had to let Judith go to save face after it helped defeat the anti-war activists and other people who were cautious to believe George W. Bush's claims about Saddam. Keep in mind that for a major company like the NYT firing one reporter is not a big deal at all. It should be shocking that simply firing one person is enough to make the journalistic scandal of the millennium go away.
        CalChris 9y ago
        You are still misreading the definition, intentionally it would appear. And again, this is a misdirection from the topic of the post.
        grandalf 9y ago
        It's actually not a misdirection, it's the main point. The crux of the issue is whether you define certain journalistic behaviors as being bad/wrong just because they threaten the status quo power structure of the US. If you think about it, your assertion that the alleged political motives of RT are inappropriate hinges upon your judgment that it is in Russia's national interest to undermine the legitimacy of powerful interests in the US, and (apparently) thus to weaken the US or put it at some sort of disadvantage. I realize you are convinced that my views and comments fit some schema you feel duty-bound to try to refute, but I think that if you examine your belief system on the matter you will find that you simply feel loyalty to the status quo power structure in the US, which is closely aligned with its government. Thus you oppose any sort of disruptive or revolutionary behavior or ideas that might threaten this status quo that you are fond of. Note that the status quo in the US is corporatism and militarism, and that there is really not a leftist movement of any stature in the US. HRC and Trump are both slight permutations of a more authoritarian version of Bush or Obama, since the nation has turned more toward authoritarianism as time has gone on. Only if you view this authoritarian, militaristic course of action as being strongly in the US national interest is it possible to believe with full certainty that RT publishing stories that might appeal to the American far left or the most disempowered Americans is a bad thing. For only then does the amplification of those ideas/movements, etc., threaten anything that is a force of good. In my view, the biggest weakness in the US is that there is very little dissent and we put far too much trust in our leaders, and apply far too little scrutiny to our institutions (public and private), allowing significant diversion of resources to various groups who benefit from the status quo. Politicians should fear journalists and should fear the public finding out about their excesses, their side deals, and the true stories of how they became millionaires on $150K public servant salaries. If RT helps expose these fraudulent people for what they are, the US will be far better off for it. And yes, a consequence of some toppling of the existing power structures would probably be less global militarism, but I think it's hard to argue that our laying waste to so many countries abroad is remotely in the US national interest, but no disrespect intended if you do feel strongly that Trump's action in Yemen, etc., is bold and necessary to the world order.
  - DonHopkins 9y ago
    I think you missed the joke: a Jeopardy reference, where you, Alex Trebek, just presented a textbook example of whataboutism, and CalChris was playing the role of the contestant by identifying what you just did in the form of a question. To further ruin the joke by over-explaining it, he wasn't literally asking you to define whataboutism, because you'd just given an excellent example of it, so his question was rhetorical, and your answer was not only redundant but also incorrect.
    - grandalf 9y ago
      Well, labeling someone’s comment with a buzzword is not really a counter-argument. Your and his arguments could be labeled as “Tory” but it would be useless for me to point that out; id rather attempt to reach common ground or understanding.
      - DonHopkins 9y ago
        You seem to have again missed the point that whataboutism isn't a valid counter argument. You've also proven you don't know what the definition of whataboutism is. The fact that you don't happen to know the definition doesn't mean it's a "buzzword". It's a logical fallacy particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda (which is the main point of this discussion). Please look up the real definition before trying to incorrectly define it and confess to being guilty of it, because you don't even understand what you're confessing to. The definition you gave was wrong, even though you are guilty of doing it yourself, and what you're doing is logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest.
        grandalf 9y ago
        I think rather than using a silly made-up word like whataboutism you should simply call out someone's views or comment specifically for whatever logical error you think it contains. I looked at the definition of whataboutism on Wikipedia, and now I think I understand what you are attempting to argue. If person A says "Russia treats political enemies badly" and then person B replies "Well, the US puts its political enemies in Gitmo", you would call that a scenario where person B should have said something specifically to refute person A's statement, but instead made a parallel assertion that does not have any direct relation to the statement made by person A. In your view, in order to refute the claim made by person A, someone would have to provide evidence that in fact Russia does not treat political enemies badly. When someone is heavily partisan and makes the comment of person B above, the intent might be to deflect attention from person A's point. If you view person A and B as adversaries each trying to be objectively right in some highly logical world, then only a strict logical refutation of person A's point would suffice. The definition of whataboutism descries it as a logical fallacy, which is quite telling. The truth is, both claims may be true. Person B's statement does not refute person A's statement, but it is not meant to. In reading through the comments that you and the other person claimed were whataboutism, I think your interpretation was that I was asking rhetorical questions that I thought had an obvious answer which should logically refute your assertion. In fact, I was simply introducing a few scenarios that seem similar to me so that I could better understand how it was so easy for you both to make very broad (and seemingly impulsive) statements with strong implications about the "appropriate" political consequences of journalism. I was hoping that one of you would explain to me some method of analysis that offered insight into all of those scenarios in addition to this Russia stuff. It seems that you did not mean to make broad statements about journalism, only about RT specifically because RT is obviously guilty by virtue of its association with the Russian government. To me that is not obvious, and so when I hear words used like "destabilization" or "terrorism" (these are both propaganda words and I heavily discount any statement containing either one) I have to wonder if perhaps the person making the argument has more of a persuasive motive than a desire to understand the situation or phenomenon in question.

CalChris 9y ago

Please define whataboutism.

grandalf 9y ago
> whataboutism Counter-factual scenarios that reveal your opinion to be illogical and cherry-picked for some emotional reason? OK I'm guilty.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Nope. The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
  - grandalf 9y ago
    I'm asking you to clarify your view by presenting some scenarios that I consider relevant to the analysis of the main issue we are discussing. Your point would be a lot stronger if you are able to convey a consistent world view for analyzing those scenarios, or by explaining how the scenarios are different. I mention them because I think they are similar and ought to be analyzed similarly, but I'm open to persuasion.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      No, you are not. First, there is an accepted meaning for destabilization. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition and it certainly doesn't match your changing the status quo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destabilisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destabilisation Secondly, your whataboutism is an effort to change the subject away from the topic, a private company concluding that it didn't want RT+Sputnik's advertising money. It then ventures into not very good equivocation (Judith Miller was not the Times; indeed, she was forced to resign by the Times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller Given this, I accept no burden of proof. It is what it is.
      - grandalf 9y ago
        If you read the Wikipedia definition you posted, the first definition is to undermine political power. That means the same thing as changing the status quo. Powerful interests by definition want the status quo to continue because it's what makes them powerful. When powerful interests talk of "change" it's not change that would endanger their power, hence it would not change the status quo in any significant way. Of course Judith was forced to resign once the sloppy reporting was fact checked by people who did not work at the NYT. The NYT had to let Judith go to save face after it helped defeat the anti-war activists and other people who were cautious to believe George W. Bush's claims about Saddam. Keep in mind that for a major company like the NYT firing one reporter is not a big deal at all. It should be shocking that simply firing one person is enough to make the journalistic scandal of the millennium go away.
        CalChris 9y ago
        You are still misreading the definition, intentionally it would appear. And again, this is a misdirection from the topic of the post.
        grandalf 9y ago
        It's actually not a misdirection, it's the main point. The crux of the issue is whether you define certain journalistic behaviors as being bad/wrong just because they threaten the status quo power structure of the US. If you think about it, your assertion that the alleged political motives of RT are inappropriate hinges upon your judgment that it is in Russia's national interest to undermine the legitimacy of powerful interests in the US, and (apparently) thus to weaken the US or put it at some sort of disadvantage. I realize you are convinced that my views and comments fit some schema you feel duty-bound to try to refute, but I think that if you examine your belief system on the matter you will find that you simply feel loyalty to the status quo power structure in the US, which is closely aligned with its government. Thus you oppose any sort of disruptive or revolutionary behavior or ideas that might threaten this status quo that you are fond of. Note that the status quo in the US is corporatism and militarism, and that there is really not a leftist movement of any stature in the US. HRC and Trump are both slight permutations of a more authoritarian version of Bush or Obama, since the nation has turned more toward authoritarianism as time has gone on. Only if you view this authoritarian, militaristic course of action as being strongly in the US national interest is it possible to believe with full certainty that RT publishing stories that might appeal to the American far left or the most disempowered Americans is a bad thing. For only then does the amplification of those ideas/movements, etc., threaten anything that is a force of good. In my view, the biggest weakness in the US is that there is very little dissent and we put far too much trust in our leaders, and apply far too little scrutiny to our institutions (public and private), allowing significant diversion of resources to various groups who benefit from the status quo. Politicians should fear journalists and should fear the public finding out about their excesses, their side deals, and the true stories of how they became millionaires on $150K public servant salaries. If RT helps expose these fraudulent people for what they are, the US will be far better off for it. And yes, a consequence of some toppling of the existing power structures would probably be less global militarism, but I think it's hard to argue that our laying waste to so many countries abroad is remotely in the US national interest, but no disrespect intended if you do feel strongly that Trump's action in Yemen, etc., is bold and necessary to the world order.
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  I think you missed the joke: a Jeopardy reference, where you, Alex Trebek, just presented a textbook example of whataboutism, and CalChris was playing the role of the contestant by identifying what you just did in the form of a question. To further ruin the joke by over-explaining it, he wasn't literally asking you to define whataboutism, because you'd just given an excellent example of it, so his question was rhetorical, and your answer was not only redundant but also incorrect.
  - grandalf 9y ago
    Well, labeling someone’s comment with a buzzword is not really a counter-argument. Your and his arguments could be labeled as “Tory” but it would be useless for me to point that out; id rather attempt to reach common ground or understanding.
    - DonHopkins 9y ago
      You seem to have again missed the point that whataboutism isn't a valid counter argument. You've also proven you don't know what the definition of whataboutism is. The fact that you don't happen to know the definition doesn't mean it's a "buzzword". It's a logical fallacy particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda (which is the main point of this discussion). Please look up the real definition before trying to incorrectly define it and confess to being guilty of it, because you don't even understand what you're confessing to. The definition you gave was wrong, even though you are guilty of doing it yourself, and what you're doing is logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest.
      - grandalf 9y ago
        I think rather than using a silly made-up word like whataboutism you should simply call out someone's views or comment specifically for whatever logical error you think it contains. I looked at the definition of whataboutism on Wikipedia, and now I think I understand what you are attempting to argue. If person A says "Russia treats political enemies badly" and then person B replies "Well, the US puts its political enemies in Gitmo", you would call that a scenario where person B should have said something specifically to refute person A's statement, but instead made a parallel assertion that does not have any direct relation to the statement made by person A. In your view, in order to refute the claim made by person A, someone would have to provide evidence that in fact Russia does not treat political enemies badly. When someone is heavily partisan and makes the comment of person B above, the intent might be to deflect attention from person A's point. If you view person A and B as adversaries each trying to be objectively right in some highly logical world, then only a strict logical refutation of person A's point would suffice. The definition of whataboutism descries it as a logical fallacy, which is quite telling. The truth is, both claims may be true. Person B's statement does not refute person A's statement, but it is not meant to. In reading through the comments that you and the other person claimed were whataboutism, I think your interpretation was that I was asking rhetorical questions that I thought had an obvious answer which should logically refute your assertion. In fact, I was simply introducing a few scenarios that seem similar to me so that I could better understand how it was so easy for you both to make very broad (and seemingly impulsive) statements with strong implications about the "appropriate" political consequences of journalism. I was hoping that one of you would explain to me some method of analysis that offered insight into all of those scenarios in addition to this Russia stuff. It seems that you did not mean to make broad statements about journalism, only about RT specifically because RT is obviously guilty by virtue of its association with the Russian government. To me that is not obvious, and so when I hear words used like "destabilization" or "terrorism" (these are both propaganda words and I heavily discount any statement containing either one) I have to wonder if perhaps the person making the argument has more of a persuasive motive than a desire to understand the situation or phenomenon in question.