6 ms·

Did you know the background of unherd? If you did you might not have regard for this.

by tus89 5y ago

dbrueck 5y ago
I don't know the background - tell me more. Also, your comment comes across as an ad hominem attack, not sure if I'm just misreading it though.
- tus89 5y ago
  It was created to promulgate extremist Christian-right propaganda - the kind that is "un-heard" in the mainstream media in the UK apparently. There are a lot of such organizations that don't openly declare their ideological background, and funding sources.
  - Mediterraneo10 5y ago
    Can you cite that UnHerd was founded by and funded by “extremist Christian-right propaganda” forces? Considering that its executive editor has frequently featured commentators who are downright anti-religion (e.g. Richard Dawkins), and various commentators who subscribe to old-school 20th-century leftism including its antipathy to religion, that is a claim hard to believe.
    - tus89 5y ago
      So I search google for "undherd Richard Dawkins", first link: https://unherd.com/2021/04/why-the-atheists-turned-on-richard-dawkins/ https://unherd.com/2021/04/why-the-atheists-turned-on-richar... "Why the atheists turned on Dawkins - They care more about social justice than whether or not God exists" Written by: Ben Sixsmith is an English writer living in Poland. He has written for Quillette, Areo, The Catholic Herald....
      - Mediterraneo10 5y ago
        Yet at the same time, there is this [0] posted by a higher-ranking staff member. That you have found an article written by a contributor who has also written for a Catholic publication does not served as proof of your claim in the GP that UnHerd was founded to push “extremist Christian propaganda” – the whole point of UnHerd is that it draws on writers from a range of ideological outlooks. And FWIW, the idea mentioned in these links that early-millennium New Atheism eventually evolved into the current wave of social-justice activism, is something that has been often set forth by people here on HN and is not exclusive to any particular religious or anti-religious viewpoint. [0] https://unherd.com/thepost/richard-dawkins-scientism-is-a-dirty-word/ https://unherd.com/thepost/richard-dawkins-scientism-is-a-di...
        tus89 5y ago
        > the whole point of UnHerd is that it is includes people from a range of ideological outlooks. You keep saying that. Let's like at some random headlines from their "contributors" page: > Ideology should not trump children’s health (anti-trans) > France’s mega-mosque problem > The emptiness of ‘British values’ > The death of American patriotism > The problem with male feminists > Universities have destroyed feminism > Can Labour be saved from the hard Left? > Labour isn’t working > Why liberals are scared of football > Is Labour dead? > America attracts the wrong immigrants
        Mediterraneo10 5y ago
        Again, the whole point of UnHerd is that it includes people from a range of ideological outlooks, who ordinarily would be opposed to one another, because they share some concerns and can forge a common cause in publishing. None of the headlines that you cite are specific to “extremist Christian-right propaganda”, indeed these are themes are commonly discussed by those who identify as leftist and unreligious, but feel that certain things that are presently insisted on in leftism as de rigeur, are not part of the leftist tradition they recognize from a few decades back. For example, with regard to being “anti-trans”, there are a lot of soixante-huitards who find the current focus on trans activism on the left excessive and even problematic, because it was utterly foreign to their struggle against rightist forces. You have still not brought forth any proof of your claim above that UnHerd was founded and funded expressly for “extremist Christian-right propaganda” purposes. The gentlemanly thing to do would be to back up that claim, or retract it.
version_five 5y ago
The article isn't a study or something that needs institutional credibility, it's just an opinion piece. Anyone interested can just read it and decide what they think of it.
exolymph 5y ago
People are capable on judging an argument on its own merits. After all, if you don't think HN readers possess that capability, why bother associating with the commentariat on this website?
- defaultname 5y ago
  A sizable number are never going to read the article or judge its merits. Instead they'll click an arrow based on whether the title matches their biases. "Yup, people I don't like have psychological issues..." For the few that might it is generally worth knowing whether it's actually worth the time. If the writer is someone considered and knowledgeable, on a credible venue, for instance. I know nothing about this site/writer so I'm not commenting on that, but generally that is an input before one spends the time on an essay.
- anotherman554 5y ago
  I guess it'd argue you can't judge an argument on its own merits unless it's a philosophical argument. For example the best published scientific studies can't be judged on their own merits because you have to trust that the scientists actually conducted the studies and didn't fake the data. So you basically have to fall back to some assumption over whether the scientist is honest, not on the merits of what they wrote in the study.
jchw 5y ago
I Googled it and wasn’t able to find anything terribly interesting. From a brief look at the Wikipedia page I can’t find anything unusual, other than the most recent vandalism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1029634916 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/102963491... ... which isn’t exactly terribly substantiated on its own. Furthermore, unless this opinion piece is demonstrably in bad faith I dunno why that would detract from viewing it in a fair light.

Did you know the background of unherd? If you did you might not have regard for this.

by tus89 5y ago

Did you know the background of unherd? If you did you might not have regard for this.

I don't know the background - tell me more. Also, your comment comes across as an ad hominem attack, not sure if I'm just misreading it though.

tus89 5y ago
It was created to promulgate extremist Christian-right propaganda - the kind that is "un-heard" in the mainstream media in the UK apparently. There are a lot of such organizations that don't openly declare their ideological background, and funding sources.
- Mediterraneo10 5y ago
  Can you cite that UnHerd was founded by and funded by “extremist Christian-right propaganda” forces? Considering that its executive editor has frequently featured commentators who are downright anti-religion (e.g. Richard Dawkins), and various commentators who subscribe to old-school 20th-century leftism including its antipathy to religion, that is a claim hard to believe.
  - tus89 5y ago
    So I search google for "undherd Richard Dawkins", first link: https://unherd.com/2021/04/why-the-atheists-turned-on-richard-dawkins/ https://unherd.com/2021/04/why-the-atheists-turned-on-richar... "Why the atheists turned on Dawkins - They care more about social justice than whether or not God exists" Written by: Ben Sixsmith is an English writer living in Poland. He has written for Quillette, Areo, The Catholic Herald....
    - Mediterraneo10 5y ago
      Yet at the same time, there is this [0] posted by a higher-ranking staff member. That you have found an article written by a contributor who has also written for a Catholic publication does not served as proof of your claim in the GP that UnHerd was founded to push “extremist Christian propaganda” – the whole point of UnHerd is that it draws on writers from a range of ideological outlooks. And FWIW, the idea mentioned in these links that early-millennium New Atheism eventually evolved into the current wave of social-justice activism, is something that has been often set forth by people here on HN and is not exclusive to any particular religious or anti-religious viewpoint. [0] https://unherd.com/thepost/richard-dawkins-scientism-is-a-dirty-word/ https://unherd.com/thepost/richard-dawkins-scientism-is-a-di...
      - tus89 5y ago
        > the whole point of UnHerd is that it is includes people from a range of ideological outlooks. You keep saying that. Let's like at some random headlines from their "contributors" page: > Ideology should not trump children’s health (anti-trans) > France’s mega-mosque problem > The emptiness of ‘British values’ > The death of American patriotism > The problem with male feminists > Universities have destroyed feminism > Can Labour be saved from the hard Left? > Labour isn’t working > Why liberals are scared of football > Is Labour dead? > America attracts the wrong immigrants
        Mediterraneo10 5y ago
        Again, the whole point of UnHerd is that it includes people from a range of ideological outlooks, who ordinarily would be opposed to one another, because they share some concerns and can forge a common cause in publishing. None of the headlines that you cite are specific to “extremist Christian-right propaganda”, indeed these are themes are commonly discussed by those who identify as leftist and unreligious, but feel that certain things that are presently insisted on in leftism as de rigeur, are not part of the leftist tradition they recognize from a few decades back. For example, with regard to being “anti-trans”, there are a lot of soixante-huitards who find the current focus on trans activism on the left excessive and even problematic, because it was utterly foreign to their struggle against rightist forces. You have still not brought forth any proof of your claim above that UnHerd was founded and funded expressly for “extremist Christian-right propaganda” purposes. The gentlemanly thing to do would be to back up that claim, or retract it.

version_five 5y ago

The article isn't a study or something that needs institutional credibility, it's just an opinion piece. Anyone interested can just read it and decide what they think of it.

exolymph 5y ago

People are capable on judging an argument on its own merits. After all, if you don't think HN readers possess that capability, why bother associating with the commentariat on this website?

defaultname 5y ago
A sizable number are never going to read the article or judge its merits. Instead they'll click an arrow based on whether the title matches their biases. "Yup, people I don't like have psychological issues..." For the few that might it is generally worth knowing whether it's actually worth the time. If the writer is someone considered and knowledgeable, on a credible venue, for instance. I know nothing about this site/writer so I'm not commenting on that, but generally that is an input before one spends the time on an essay.
anotherman554 5y ago
I guess it'd argue you can't judge an argument on its own merits unless it's a philosophical argument. For example the best published scientific studies can't be judged on their own merits because you have to trust that the scientists actually conducted the studies and didn't fake the data. So you basically have to fall back to some assumption over whether the scientist is honest, not on the merits of what they wrote in the study.

jchw 5y ago

I Googled it and wasn’t able to find anything terribly interesting. From a brief look at the Wikipedia page I can’t find anything unusual, other than the most recent vandalism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1029634916 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/102963491... ... which isn’t exactly terribly substantiated on its own. Furthermore, unless this opinion piece is demonstrably in bad faith I dunno why that would detract from viewing it in a fair light.