Panama Papers

  On 4/9/2016 at 1:59 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Glen Greenwald, when asked by a fellow journalist why he appears slow to criticism Russia, said this

But there are a couple problems with what he says

 

1) Greenwald is not merely silent about Russia

he talks about Russia frequently, but always to defend it

the same cannot be said of the other offenses/offenders on his list

 

 

2) In it, Greenwald criticizes the journalist for "Whataboutism"

 

However, it seems to be his go-to technique when responding to criticisms of Russia/Putin.

 

regarding criticisms of Russia Today:

 

"There is apparently a rule that says it’s perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments (BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with long-standing ties to right-wing governments (Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government (Kaplan/The Washington Post), or by loyalists to one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it’s an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government."

 

the same "Whataboutism" appears in the first link in my previous post

again, where Greenwald brings up offenses of US in response to criticism of Russia

 

 

 

 

i'm gonna have another smoke

 

1) you'll have to provide some evidence that gg frequently talks about and defends russia. i follow his output with semi-regularity and i've never noticed such a phenomenon.

 

2) your point here is not being clearly made as far as i can see. at the very worst you're accusing gg of focusing on a myriad of crimes perpetrated by sundry governments that are not russia. that may be pernicious, i'm not sure. but it certainly does not amount to "pro-russian" sentiment.

 

are there any other examples you can provide of this journalistic tendency? or is gg the basic bug bear here?

actually, having read the initial link i have no idea what point you're trying to make about "whataboutism."

Fresh report: it's sunny as fuck here. I'm gonna bbq and drink beer.

 

Alco may I suggest that regardless of the weather where you are, you do the same?

very well chen. i feel somewhat offended that you seem to be telling me to chill out but i have nothing but respect for you so i will chill the fuck out.

Interesting summary on the panam papers, or rather the potentials of datajournalism

https://medium.com/@dan_leslie/data-journalism-is-changing-the-balance-of-power-panamapapers-5dffb3eb18b8#.dwpz66ew0

 

 

Also, the non-discussion on the supposed pro-putin/pro-snowden camp. I had been reading some tweets between snowden , greenwald and i believe it was ian bremmer. Where bremmer " pointed out" snowden being "pro-putin" even though snowden was actively tweeting about the panama leaks while stories unfolded ( including explicitly pointing towards russia in the tweet just before bremmer wanted to associate snowden with the pro-putin camp.

 

Makes it look like the whole idea of pro-putin journalists , outside russia, is mostly a hawkish/neo-con backlash towards the anti-amercican exceptionalism camp. Which is imo a way better description...

 

As some sort of proof: do a search on putin on theintercept (https://theintercept.com/search/?s=Putin) and see what comes up and how pro-putin it is. At first glance it simply isnt.

  On 4/9/2016 at 3:42 AM, Alcofribas said:

very well chen. i feel somewhat offended that you seem to be telling me to chill out but i have nothing but respect for you so i will chill the fuck out.

Just doing what the Put-meister orders

really bizarre that there's still no big usa news...

  On 4/9/2016 at 2:55 AM, Alcofribas said:

 

are there any other examples you can provide of this journalistic tendency? or is gg the basic bug bear here?

I think literally everyone (me, you, GG, RDJ, Bill Bellamy...everyone) exhibits this tendency. We develop an understanding of the world (a "narrative") and how we interpret new information depends on how it reflects our narrative.

 

I think this is called "motivated reasoning": when information supports our narrative, we look for excuses to believe it ("CAN I believe this?"), and when it contradicts our narrative we look for excuses To NOT believe it ("MUST I believe it?")

 

P.S. I don't think Chen was telling you to chill out, I think he was just implying that we'd all be having more fun if we were doing something besides these political debates.

Edited April 9, 2016 by LimpyLoo

  On 4/9/2016 at 4:09 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 4/9/2016 at 2:55 AM, Alcofribas said:

are there any other examples you can provide of this journalistic tendency? or is gg the basic bug bear here?

I think literally everyone (me, you, GG, RDJ, Bill Bellamy...everyone) exhibits this tendency. We develop an understanding of the world (a "narrative") and how we interpret new information depends on how it reflects our narrative.

I think this is called "motivated reasoning": when information supports our narrative, we look for excuses to believe it ("CAN I believe this?"), and when it contradicts our narrative we look for excuses To NOT believe it ("MUST I believe it?")

P.S. I don't think Chen was telling you to chill out, I think he was just implying that we'd all be having more fun if we were doing something besides these political debates.

Ehm, this discussion was mostly about making some generalist statement about a general group of people without actually taking the time to prove any of it. And seeing your last post, I can safely say you have a tendency to make general statements about arbritrairy groupes of people to create your own narrative. Without any regards wrt p-values or null-hypotheses.

 

 

XD

I wasn't done defending my thesis...I'll continue in the morning if you'd like

Are you being serious about the null-hypothesis thing? I'll give you my thoughts on that side of things if you are

(I would've expected Usagi to come in here and make fun of me by now...I hope he's okay)

You can defend it all you want (dont forget to try to defend the null-hypothesis). But please note this is not about your defence. It's already meta at this point.

It is about making posts with some general statements, without actually adding some type of proof within that post. Thats simply annoying because 1. Its a cheap way to make some general remarks (often directly involving some members on this board) , and 2.the so-called discussion which follows is a tiresome series of posts about the ideas of one person which often ends up being about the person itself.

 

This can be avoided by not making some generalist of the cuff remarks and instead make them to the point and with some facts to begin with. There will still be discussions, obvsy. But less meta and less ad hominem.

My original post was referring to a trend I noticed among a particular group of journalists. How am I generalizing or ad-hominem-ing?

 

I think maybe you're just nitpicking because you disagree with me.

This is about me being annoyed about this discussion. And since you havent defended your thesis, theres simply nothing to disagree about.

 

Are we having this discussion?

 

A trend is a form of generalisation btw. Or rather: your own narrative

Edited April 9, 2016 by goDel

"A trend is a form of generalization btw"

If pointing out trends in the world is "generalizing" then literally everything is "generalizing"

 

Let's talk about your narrative: "LimpyLoo is talking politics again, I guess I should show up and accuse him of 'ad hominem' and 'generalizing' (even if that requires broadening the latter word's definition to the point of meaninglessness)."

 

Anytime anyone says anything they are talking about trends in the world...the fact that this is suddenly problematic when I do it is kinda suspicious, no? Almost like you're grasping?

 

Where did I 'ad hominem' anyone BTW?

quote system totally fucked up, not gonna fix that burger. but basically, caze, don't ever work in public service.

Edited April 9, 2016 by usagi

  On 4/9/2016 at 5:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

"A trend is a form of generalization btw"

If pointing out trends in the world is "generalizing" then literally everything is "generalizing"

Let's talk about your narrative: "LimpyLoo is talking politics again, I guess I should show up and accuse him of 'ad hominem' and 'generalizing' (even if that requires broadening the latter word's definition to the point of meaninglessness)."

Anytime anyone says anything they are talking about trends in the world...the fact that this is suddenly problematic when I do it is kinda suspicious, no? Almost like you're grasping?

Where did I 'ad hominem' anyone BTW?

A 'quote' of stuff i havent said. Wow.

 

I feel like responding is literally repeating myself at this point. So please take this non response as evidence i'm grasping for something.

Welcome to the official Limpyloo thread where we can all enjoy and talk about his straw men, or lack thereof for page upon page.

  On 4/9/2016 at 4:09 AM, juiceciuj said:

really bizarre that there's still no big usa news...

 

200 people in the US exposed

 

Implications of leak for people who want to cheat the taxman

  On 4/9/2016 at 6:11 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 4/9/2016 at 5:24 AM, LimpyLoo said:

"A trend is a form of generalization btw"

If pointing out trends in the world is "generalizing" then literally everything is "generalizing"

Let's talk about your narrative: "LimpyLoo is talking politics again, I guess I should show up and accuse him of 'ad hominem' and 'generalizing' (even if that requires broadening the latter word's definition to the point of meaninglessness)."

Anytime anyone says anything they are talking about trends in the world...the fact that this is suddenly problematic when I do it is kinda suspicious, no? Almost like you're grasping?

Where did I 'ad hominem' anyone BTW?

A 'quote' of stuff i havent said. Wow.

 

I feel like responding is literally repeating myself at this point. So please take this non response as evidence i'm grasping for something.

You speculate about my "narrative" and then I speculate about yours and your offended that I put quotations marks around it? Like I'm trying to frame you or something?

Still waiting on you to back up your claims.

  On 4/9/2016 at 1:09 PM, azatoth said:

F to the LOL

  On 4/9/2016 at 1:24 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/9/2016 at 1:09 PM, azatoth said:

F to the LOL

.

 

lol

 

can we get this thread back on track and talk about van halen now?

  On 4/9/2016 at 2:43 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 4/9/2016 at 1:24 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/9/2016 at 1:09 PM, azatoth said:

F to the LOL

.

 

lol

 

can we get this thread back on track and talk about van halen now?

This is another deluded person drunk on popularity, you tried this joke 3 times buddy , it didn't land, time to move on.