Honest J

Applied epistemology.

to be blunt you need to develop a theory of mind that doesn't rely upon finding the first brown person who agrees with you.

Media Matters analyzed a year of NYT coverage of anti-trans bills and found that 66% of the time the paper didn't quote a trans person. Further, it found that the paper often quoted right wing sources without mentioning their histories of anti-trans rhetoric.
So "right-wing rag" is pretty accurate.

Well, it is a joint op with Israel.

Came here to say this.

The old Bill Kristol is still in there.

Lol. Lmao.

"This is not a red book, it's a blue book." [Speaking about a red chair.]

Don't print lies in the newspaper. That doesn't just mean in the news section. The opinion section, which benefits from less urgency, demands *more* stringent honesty in both making sure the authors are saying what they actually mean and telling the truth about factual assertions.

This is a widely accepted norm journalists are taught to convince themselves they believe in, but it's not at all obvious why a publication should have to publish an op-ed merely because it represents the president's point of view. That's a media market and branding decision major papers have made.

Winner.

Let me remind that in the run up to Iraq 2003, 'realist' scholars who opposed the war, some of whom had been regular oped contributors before, couldnt place in the NYT or WaPo at all, eventually paying to run an oped as an advertisement.

been on this for awhile but its neat to see actual journalists just come out and say “we are epistemic nihilists who’s greatest aspiration is to propagate the ideas of the powerful”

i would call this perspective “postmodern” but that would be offensive to the postmodernist who still believed that the deconstruction of subjective reality would result in a more emancipated world. i do not think these people believe anything at all

🤌

When the people in power cannot be bothered to present anything like a plausible line of argument for their actions, it is emphatically NOT the job a national newspaper to make one up for them. Nor should they make space in their pages for freelance propagandists.

Definitely not the hill I'd pick to die on.

Lol

My tax dollars blowing up my great grandmother’s tax dollars:

I genuinely believe that WSJ is making up the part about 'accomplishing a mission'. We should take this reporting to be telling us that 'the bombing will stop when the allocated ammo runs out.'

ISIS?

I promise I will never post as if I believe that you, dear reader, are that dumb.

They probably represent a strong plurality or maybe majority of the diaspora, but have no support in the country.

Sorry, didn't mean to blow up your subtweet, but the timeline conspired.

Disagree about Lebanon. That's actually a great example of an existing political structure muddling it's way through. Hezbollah political wing still part of the governing coalition! Probably the closest historical example that's applicable to Iran right now.

Erik Prince, welcome to the r- Nope.Nope.Nope. Let's try this again...

Let them fight.

Not convinced that Iran not having air defense is the same as 'unable to effect any kind of state level defense strategy'. (Saddam Hussein held on in that situation for over a decade.) The track record for airstrikes alone effecting internal political change is zero, so far. Time will tell.

I feel like the messaging could just say 'we oppose this war like 80% of our fellow Americans do' and not have to try to have a singular theory about why that is the case.

(Of course not a real answer to you question, but...)

Reading about Jimmy Carter vis a vis MENA and then reading about Trump and the dissent to Trump really does highlight just how much we've decayed on an institutional, political, and ideological basis.