It seems to me for a lot of people this war has become about Putin. It has become about a person, therefore personal, and therefore emotional. My impression is that this "personalization" happened intentionally by Western media to whip up enthousiasm for support of the war. — Tzeentch

There is a benefit in personalizing the war, first do not put the blame on an the Russians as a whole, and second incentivize political elites (also within his entourage) to replace Putin, use him as a scapegoat.

The idea of "Putin winning" is something that's hard to stomach, which is why people have become invested in a Ukrainian victory to a degree that is no longer rational, and, in my opinion, cannot be morally defended by people who do not bear the cost of war. — Tzeentch

The West bears significant economic, political, and security costs of course. Certainly, it's not as existential and gruesome as the Ukrainians though. But it might be one day.
Besides it's not necessarily the idea of "Putin winning" something hard to stomach, if it's limited to Russian public opinion, or the Western public opinion to some extent.
What's more hard to stomach is the idea of "Putin winning" among the most influential political elites and administrations worldwide.

The West needs to make up its mind. Either we are committed to a Ukrainian victory and we send our own troops to fight, or we make efforts towards a cease fire and peace negotiations as soon as possible. We shouldn't be in this questionable situation in which we cheer on the Ukrainians to sacrifice more lives for a lost cause. — Tzeentch

Not only the personalization of the war incentivizes an emotional response, but also personification does, which is always a risk in sentences like "The West needs to make up its mind". The West is constituted by a plurality of governments with a temporary democratic mandate and involved in non-democratic international relations, so their action can not be coordinated as if it was a single head's choice by an authoritarian dictator.

So my understanding of “propaganda” is not based on such broad understanding. And from my definition, I don’t do propaganda. You do. — neomac


It's remarkable that you think you can write this. Do you really read that back and think others would read it as anything other than self-serving delusion. You're literally saying you've chosen your own personal definition of 'propaganda' to make your argument right. — Isaac

Is there anything at all that is NOT self-serving in your view? There is nothing delusional in my choice nor fallacious in my notion of “propaganda”. Indeed my definition is more rational than your interpretation of Cambridge’s definition, and it doesn't contradict that definition either. I explained your broad understanding of that notion has overly poor contrastive meaning and it’s inapplicable. So it’s intellectual garbage. My definition is more specific and applicable. Besides you reported just one definition. Here is another one that is closer to mine:
Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda and the more you read the entire wikipedia entry the more you understand why mine is a pretty good definition: for political propaganda is important the propagation of the message over a collectivity and its mobilisation according to a political agenda, then there is the manipulative aspect of course which is however typical of the worse propaganda, if we want to make room for a neutral notion of “propaganda”).
So until you offer a better one, I’ll stick to mine. And by applying it, you do propaganda here, I don’t.

Second, the claim that neither intent nor one-sidedness can be proven is not part of the definition of “propaganda” you offered, and no argument has been offered to support such belief. — neomac


I didn't think one was required. Intentions are private thoughts and cannot be examined or identified by a third party because no-one can mind read. There. — Isaac

If my word “intention” refers to a private phenomenon and your word “intention” refers to a private phenomenon, since we can’t compare private phenomena, then how do we know we refer to the same thing with the word “intention“? So how could you even learn the word “intention” from others?

The problem is that if one-sidedness and intentions can not be proven, then how could anyone possibly understand and learn how to apply the notion of “one-sidedness” and “intentions”? — neomac


What? the notion of intentions doesn't require us to always, or even ever, know what those intentions actually are. I don't need to know your memories to know that you probably have some. — Isaac

But your conception doesn’t seem matter of “not always”, but of “never”. You simply and categorically wrote “Neither intent, nor one-sidedness can be proven, they are opinions”. So how do you know? What makes you think that is probable that I have some intentions (or memories) if they are private phenomena?

These notions must be shareable, reusable, and have contrastive value to be meaningful. — neomac


Of course they're shareable, but they're not determinable. You cannot determine what my intentions are. You can theorise about them, but then other competing theories will have equal plausibility and you have to choose between them, which is the interesting matter for discussion. — Isaac

How can you assess that they are equally plausible? If there is nothing that can be presented as supporting a theory since intentions are private phenomena, in what sense there is a plausible theory of intentions at all? Why aren’t they equally implausible instead of being equally plausible? The way you talk about such “theories” looks like talking about fantasies more than theories. Not surprisingly accusing others of having poor imagination looks a powerful objection to you.

if there are biases you see in my views you must be able to show them in concrete cases by using a notion of bias that is shareable, reusable and contrastive wrt what is not bias. I’m still waiting for you to do that though. — neomac


No. You're not 'waiting' you're ignoring. I've talked extensively about position which are held because of biases in fundamental beliefs that are unexamined. You then use this "Oh, you've never shown any" rhetorical trick any time you're stuck. It's like the other classic where people wait a few pages and then claim I've not provided any sources. Or to quote your good self on the matter... — Isaac

I’m not ignoring, I even enumerated all my counter arguments against your claims/arguments and asked you many questions about your “unexamined narrative” accusation. You didn’t address any of them, here.
You didn’t offer rational arguments showing my bias. Actually, given your beliefs, you are incapable of showing anything at all in any sense that is rationally compelling, since you question the nature of rational confrontation. For you, contradictorily, all narrative frames are equally valid in terms of truth or good, we do not share rational rules, there are no provable intentions to follow rational examination. So where is room for the notion of bias, other than an arbitrary attribution of bias?

I quoted and argued your claims considering what you actually said about them in past comments. And precisely because I did it already, I don’t need to repeat them again every time — neomac


...

if motives are “open topics for debate” why shouldn’t I speculate about them? And if intentions can’t be proven as you believe (but I don’t), what else can I do other than speculating about them? — neomac


Speculating about intentions is[not what I opposed. Read what I've written, it's in the quote you responded to.

Either our motives are open topics for debate, or they aren't. In the latter case, stop speculating on mine. In the former case, you've got to give me more than just your say so as evidence. — Isaac — Isaac

Why should I give you more? What difference would this make? Any evidence I might provide, won’t change the nature of my speculation as speculation, since intentions remain private phenomena. Besides you never specified what kind of evidence you might need, let aside we do not know for what. Asking for evidence is pointless since they are not used to prove anything. BTW you could use your fervid imagination instead.
As far as I’m concerned, I quoted you, argued against your fallacies and that’s enough evidence to me to apply my notion of “propaganda” to you. And “worse propaganda“.

it’s not enough to say that I’m biased and that I commit cognitive mistakes IN GENERAL, you need to show that to me in concrete cases by using shared, pertinent, reusable rational rules (e.g. fallacies) as much as I do when I rationally examine your claims/arguments. — neomac


Again ...

I quoted and argued your claims considering what you actually said about them in past comments. And precisely because I did it already, I don’t need to repeat them again every time — neomac


...

if you keep saying that we do not share the rules of such rational examination you are going to be unintelligible to me. You would take yourself by your own initiative out of the pool of potential rational interlocutors to me, no matter how many times you keep repeating I’m biased. There is no recovery from this. — neomac


Yes. That's why discussion on actual matters of fact are pointless if you disagree about how matters of fact are to be assessed. — Isaac

The irony is that you wish me to both acknowledge this fact and yet acknowledge equal plausibility/goodness of all other people’s narrative frames (even if I didn’t examine them, to call my narrative “examined”!). Which is absurd. The first goes along with the denial of the second.

What is the “unexamined narrative” in all what I said? — neomac


Your world-view. The things you take to be foundational. The beliefs at the centre of your web. whether you follow Collingwood, or Quine, or some other version, We all have to believe some things on faith. We can't 'rationally' work out the universe from first principles. We just believe some things to be the case without argument and build from there. Accepting that is an 'examined narrative' It's the best you can get since you've no grounds to go further. Denying that such foundational beliefs exists and maintaining that one is 'rational to the core' is an 'unexamined narrative’ . — Isaac

It’s really hard to understand what you write even charitably.
First, previously you were talking about my “unexamined narrative” and now you claim that ”denying that such foundational beliefs exists and maintaining that one is 'rational to the core' is an 'unexamined narrative’”. But can you quote where exactly I denied that “such foundational beliefs” exists and maintained that I’m 'rational to the core'? Or else quote what I wrote that logically implies or presupposes either? Because if you can’t, your claim that mine is an examined narrative is irrational.
Second, I get you are trying to say something meaningful and deep about the limits of rationality, yet your conceptual and argumentative elaboration is too sloppy to look compelling. The claim “we all have to believe some things on faith” has a very ordinary meaning that I certainly do not question: e.g. if my friend tells me that he declared all his revenues in his tax declarations, I would believe him on faith of course, I’m not going to hire a private investigator to make sure what he said is true. Sure, we all have such kind of ordinary beliefs based on faith of what other people say. The claim that “We just believe some things to be the case without argument and build from there” has a very ordinary meaning that I certainly do not question: perceptual beliefs typically stem from our perceptual experience of the world, they are not the result of arguments, and we can build on them in the sense that they become the base for certain empirical generalisations. Nothing of that looks even remotely as an objection to anything I said about the war or about rational examination.
Third, I suspect that what you are trying to say, is what I already said, much better than you though, when talking about epistemic reliability, which I won’t repeat. But if that is the case, then of course I do not deny epistemic reliability. I argued for it. And I take it to be presupposed by rational examination. So nothing of that looks even remotely as an objection to anything I said about the war or about rational examination.
Fourth, you set 2 different conditions for the notion of 'examined narrative’:
A) Examined narratives are those narratives where someone is aware that the frame through which they view events is one of many equally possible frames and that other frames will yield other equally valid positions
B) We all have to believe some things on faith[/b]. We can't 'rationally' work out the universe from first principles. We just believe some things to be the case without argument and build from there. Accepting that is an 'examined narrative’
Question: what happens if I believed on faith that other narrative frames however based on faith will NOT yield other equally valid positions? For example people from religious denomination X do not have a problem to accept that people from religious denomination Y believe certain things on faith, yet often they do not think that what other Xs believe on faith is equally valid to what Ys believe on faith. Would this narrative be considered examined according to B or unexamined according to A?
Another question: is A something you believe on faith? If so, what if I believed on faith non-A? Would you consider my position equally valid?

the fact that within both the mainstream and the independent media there is room for competing views. — neomac


A classic example of what I was just referring to. This is not a 'fact'. That the earth is round is a 'fact'. That 1+1=2 is a 'fact'. Things you happen to really strongly believe are not 'facts’. Look at the wording here. You've used the term "competing views", but what you determine to be "competing views" depends on that unexamined world-view of yours. If you are embedded in the modern political system, then support for (in America, say) the Democrats becomes a "competing view" with support for the Republicans. Outside of that particular world-view, however, things look different. How many anarchist news-pieces are published in mainstream media? How many communist opinions? How many radical ecologist perspectives? How many Nazi positions? How many UFO/5G/Lizardmen conspiracies?
If you unquestioningly accept the current Overton window as 'reality' then of course, the mainstream newspapers show a diverse range of competing opinions. But that's an unexamined narrative. There's no rational reason at all for thinking our current window of acceptability is the 'real' one. — Isaac

First, that there is a difference between “belief” or “strong belief” and “fact” (or “opinion” and “fact”) from a third-person point of view is clear, and it works as a general reminder to engage in epistemic prudence. Fine. However the relevance of such general distinction vanishes in the context of a first-person report. So if you wished you could use that distinction as an objection against me, it easily backfires: you really strongly believe that “the earth is round” is a fact, that doesn’t mean that “the earth is round” is a fact. What are you going go to do about it?
Second, pointing out the fact that not all competing views one can conceive of are equally represented on mainstream media is not a valid objection to the factually correct claim that mainstream media offer competing views. On the contrary, I would argue that’s expected also because there is no society in the past or present to my knowledge where all competing views one can conceive of are equally represented on mainstream media. So what might be more relevant for you to point out is what you believe you can infer from that fact.

I have some difficulty to imagine mainstream media which are not “in the thrall of” governments and corporate interests — neomac

It's quite simple.

Before Clinton’s radical legislation passed into law, approximately 50 companies controlled 90 percent of the media and entertainment industries; as of 2022, only five or six conglomerates control the same market share. With overlapping membership on corporate boards of directors and interconglomerate coordination and joint ventures, just a handful of giant corporations dominate everything from book and magazine publishing, to radio and cable and network TV, to movie studios, music companies, theme parks, and sports teams. In command of these goliaths is a small cadre of billionaires and multimillionaires12 who exert near-total control over today’s global media landscape. — https://www.currentaffairs.org/2023/03/how-deregulation-created-a-corporate-media-nightmare — Isaac

You mean that the problem is that five or six conglomerates are worst than 50 companies because it reduces the opportunity for a wider range of competing views to go mainstream? Do you have evidences that support it? E.g. when there were 50 companies, “how many anarchist news-pieces are published in mainstream media? How many communist opinions? How many radical ecologist perspectives? How many Nazi positions? How many UFO/5G/Lizardmen conspiracies?” compared to 5/6 conglomerates?
Let’s say, it’s the case, what do you want to do about it? What does that have to do with the war in Ukraine?

the bitter truth (whatever it is) is definitely worth to bipartisanly cover up, as long as possible, during war time. — neomac

... if you have faith in the good-will of your government. another unexamined assumption. — Isaac

That claim of mine doesn’t presuppose any good-will. It might be worth for the interest of exclusively 3 plutocrats or for the sake of the entire humanity. I suggest you to reason as if I do not give for granted good-will in anybody, including you, unless I expressly say otherwise.

The existence of battles indicates a belief in the state you describe. It doesn't prove the truth of it. — Isaac

And what would prove the truth of that to you? Can you state it clearly? Can you offer concrete examples of what such proof might look like? Because if you can’t, you are making a meaningless objection to me. — neomac

Why is an objection meaningless if it shows your view can't be proven, but your original view (the one which can't be proven) was apparently meaningful enough to make? — Isaac

Oh then your objection is worse than I thought. Previously I thought you were trying to raise the standards of an evidence-based reasoning beyond what I can afford, therefore I asked you to specify the standard I should apply otherwise the request for proof would be meaningless, obviously. If so then I might have countered that if it’s not within what I can epistemically afford so I must reason under uncertainty and through reliance on the available information to me (as usual?!).
Now I realise you wish to claim you showed me that my claim can’t be proven. But that’s evidently false. Notice that your initial objection was a non-modal claim “it doesn’t prove” and not a modal claim “it can’t be proven”. But even if the latter is what you meant to object, you most certainly didn’t “show me” the truth of such objection. What I take to be “showing” in this case would be to offer a rationally compelling argument that I MUST recognise as such through rules we MUST share, reuse and with pertinent and relevant discriminatory power. You didn’t offer any of such argument. You just made a claim.

your militant choice is perfectly compatible with the idea that: “ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats)”. — neomac


So? Your view is 'compatible' with the idea that you're a closet Nazi and are working undercover to gain influence before converting people to right-wing extremism by PM". A view being merely 'compatible' with some crazed notion is not sufficient grounds to accuse someone of holding it. — Isaac

Focus. I didn’t claim that compatibility suffices to prove my claims about your beliefs, I simply denied that your objection shows an incompatibility between what I claim you believe and what you claim you believe. Indeed, I was countering your objection “So, the dozen or more times that I and others here have repeated the notion that we argue against those agencies over which we have some responsibility…they've just fallen on deaf ears?” raised against certain beliefs I was attributing to you, as if this was evidently incompatible. In response, I was simply denying that there is such an incompatibility. It’s like X made the claim: “Y believes that it’s 15h37” and Y objected “so, all the times I told you I’m going to check my watch to establish what time it is… they've just fallen on deaf ears?”. This would be a pointless objection, because the fact that Y is checking his watch to establish what time it is, is perfectly compatible with the fact that Y might believe it’s 15h37.

I ignored such arguments not because “they just don't fit you preferred narrative” but for a very compelling reason: they are pointless objections. Here is why: wanting to “argue only against those agencies over which we have some responsibility” is part of YOUR (& others’) militant attitude and YOUR goal (& others’) of offering arguments to mobilise people accordingly. But I’m not militant nor I’m here to help you, I’m here to rationally scrutinise views on this war including related assumptions — neomac


What you're here do do has no bearing on the fact that you ascribed to me a view which is not one I hold. — Isaac

But why is that blow against US hegemony/imperialism desirable or the lesser evil? Because ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US). And why is that? As you summarised your militant views about this war: “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lends support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” — neomac

... another good example of your biases. You present this as if it were a rational argument, but you jump from a weighing exercise (US hegemony vs authoritarian regimes - in terms of harms) to "all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root". All evil.
This is because whilst weighing merits of two competing forces, you have very weak ground to stand on. The US's record on immiseration speaks for itself. Only by painting it as some 'irrational, militant hyperbole' can you hope to win ground.
In other words, you are deliberately distorting the presentation of the argument to suit your preferred political position. Propaganda, in other words. — Isaac

First, let’s go back to my full quote " I made many arguments over several pages since the beginning of our exchanges. And repeated them too. So I won’t repeat all of them again. But if I were to summarise in a few words why I find your (and others’) understanding of this war (and related disputes over media coverage) unilateral and simplistic is that ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats)."
Second, from my full quotation it’s clear that I was not making an argument but presenting a conclusion. And that conclusion was a summary in a few words of “your understanding of this war” not your understanding the universe from the beginning of time to its end. So “all evil“ must be obviously understood within the scope of what has been debated over the war in Ukraine in this thread by you (& others). Here is a schematic list of what is included in that “all evil”:
- the beginning of the war due to NATO enlargement, meddling in Ukrainian politics, training Ukrainians, making claims about Ukraine joining NATO, etc.
- the continuation of the war due to rejection of peace talks, talking about Ukrainian victory, drip-feeding weapons etc.
- the material and human damage suffered by the Ukrainians during the war
- the material and human damage suffered by the rest of the world during the war
- the American military-industrial-financial-energy plutocrats getting richer
- the risks of escalation of the war due to engaging with and keep poking in the eye a nuclear superpower
- the the risks of economic predation for Ukrainians after the end of the war
Third, the problem I see in your views and argued against on many occasions (scattered over many past exchanges about morality, international relations, power, the metrics of the war, the Russian threat, etc.) is absolutely NOT due to a hyperbolic understanding of “all evil” which I manipulatively attributed to you (and which most certainly would be enough to excuse all the times you did that in the past and will do that in the future), because on my side there was no intention to suggest such hyperbolic understanding of “all evil” to begin with, indeed I left indications to understand my summary, including the notion of “all evil“, wrt the context of our debate about the war in Ukraine. The problem I intended to point out is instead your simplistic and unilateral assessment and explanation of the above “all evil“ as a function of the US foreign policy or, more specifically, of a bunch of greedy/cynical American plutocrats.
Ironically, while you are accusing me of distorting your views due to your own misunderstanding of my summary “in a few words” (reason why you could have asked me for clarifications if “all evil“ sounded as an intolerable exaggeration to you), you yourself are once again insisting on the same unilateral and simplistic view of the US by widening the scope of “all evil” beyond the limits of the war in Ukraine (“The US's record on immiseration speaks for itself”).
Fourth, I didn’t present in a distorted way your views. That alleged distortion was the result of your misunderstanding, but even if I was doing “propaganda” according to your own understanding of that notion (not mine), yet you can not prove it applies to me by your own admission. While I can keep accusing you for spinning your propaganda according to your own definition, as easily.

To me political propaganda consists in an activity focused on mobilising people typically through evaluative/emotional arguments or direct solicitation into doing some political action wrt politicians or policies or the collectivity — neomac


Well, the dictionary has...

propaganda
noun [ U ]
mainly disapproving
uk
/ˌprɒp.əˈɡæn.də/ us
/ˌprɑː.pəˈɡæn.də/
C2
information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions — https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/propaganda


... so pretty much the definition comes down to intent, and one-sidedness. Neither intent, nor one-sidedness can be proven, they are opinions. As such, you cannot play your Dr Spock routine on it. Not only do I think your arguments are one-sided and intended to influence, but I think you dismiss the arguments of others on exactly those grounds (that they have missed some 'other side', and that they are intended to influence.

But your semantic pedantry doesn't progress the argument. It doesn't matter what we call it. the point of my comment that you are responding to is that your personal biases, beliefs, and goals colour the narratives that you use to understand events. Just like everyone else. The idea that anyone can form some kind of 'position from nowhere' is absurd.

That means the questions we can sensibly analyse are 1) why you choose the narrative you do, and 2) is your chosen narrative overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary - ie is it unsustainable.

That's what I'm trying to get you to see so that we can actually engage in productive discussion. all the while you're thinking this is some kind of chess game we'll get nowhere, because if it's a chess game, it's one in which we do not agree on the rules. — Isaac

First, dictionary definitions are a good starting point for a conceptual analysis/clarification they do not replace it, they certainly help convergence or standardisation in usage but usage is also dependant on the context. And you took just one dictionary definition. So if that’s the definition you want to rely on, fine, but I’m not committed to it because it’s still insufficiently determined. If unspecified one-sidedness and unspecified intention of influencing were enough to classify something as propaganda, “propaganda” would lose its contrastive meaning: indeed, nobody is capable of discussing about anything from all possible view points, for all sorts of constraints (including cognitive ones), and since our communicative acts presuppose motivation to communicate to interlocutors with some intended effect, then any expression of our opinion would be propaganda. Including the definition of “propaganda” itself! In other words “propaganda” would be useless to discriminate claims/arguments since it has no relevant contrastive value. So it wouldn’t be surprising if you take all expressions of opinions from anybody to be propaganda: mathematicians when proving a theorem are doing propaganda, scientists and all experts like Mearsheimer are doing propaganda, astrologists are doing propaganda, your beloved ones who express their affection to you are doing propaganda, anything anybody said here is propaganda, even the rules of this forum are propaganda, giving the time would be propaganda, etc. If understood this broad way, the definition of Cambridge would be garbage. So my understanding of “propaganda” is not based on such broad understanding. And from my definition, I don’t do propaganda. You do.
Second, the claim that neither intent nor one-sidedness can be proven is not part of the definition of “propaganda” you offered, and no argument has been offered to support such belief. The problem is that if one-sidedness and intentions can not be proven, then how could anyone possibly understand and learn how to apply the notion of “one-sidedness” and “intentions”? Of course one can have some doubts in certain exceptional or complex cases (e.g. when we want to identify the intentions of drunk guy or the intentions of the Biden’s administration) but that can’t possibly be the case in very ordinary circumstances. These notions must be shareable, reusable, and have contrastive value to be meaningful.
Third, the claim “your personal biases, beliefs, and goals colour the narratives that you use to understand events” is plausible in general, if it is plausible also in particular cases. So if there are biases you see in my views you must be able to show them in concrete cases by using a notion of bias that is shareable, reusable and contrastive wrt what is not bias. I’m still waiting for you to do that though. If the claim “The idea that anyone can form some kind of 'position from nowhere' is absurd” is meant to be an objection against me, then it’s off target because I never denied that idea and practicing rational scrutiny is perfectly compatible with the fact that personal biases, beliefs, and goals colour (if that means “determine”) the narratives that I use to understand events. Here an analogy to make you understand how pointless is your comment: your weight, height, health determine the way you play basketball, the idea that anyone can play basketball without a set of bodily features is absurd. Would this be an objection to somebody who claims to be playing basketball according to certain rules, or wanting to do so? Of course not.
Fourth, to answer those questions you find useful for a productive discussion I’d say in general: 1) I would choose narrative A over B if A looks more rationally compelling than B, 2) It depends on what “overwhelming evidence” is supposed to mean when we talk about events which we do not have direct experience, which look uncertain and/or incomplete. Yet I’ m afraid that if we do not agree on the rules of evidence-based reasoning you won’t be able to make me see anything you claim to be able to see.

I don’t participate in this forum to mobilise people into taking politician accountable or save people’s lives or fix the world, I’m here just to engage in rational scrutiny. — neomac


Look, you can't reasonably expect a situation where you are allowed to wax lyrical about my intentions, regardless of what I actually say about them, and then expect to be able to just declare what yours are and have them taken as gospel. Either our motives are open topics for debate, or they aren't. In the latter case, stop speculating on mine. In the former case, you've got to give me more than just your say so as evidence. — Isaac

First, I wasn’t talking only about your intentions but also about other people’s intentions, since in your previous objections you weren’t exclusively referring to yourself as opponent.
Besides I quoted and argued your claims considering what you actually said about them in past comments. And precisely because I did it already, I don’t need to repeat them again every time, as in that context, where I needed to simplify. I’m not speculating about your intentions. I’m asserting what I think they actually are. I might be wrong, but I don’t think I am. And you didn’t offer any alternative intentional explanation of those claims of yours so far.
Second, I don’t even understand what you are inviting me to do: if motives are “open topics for debate” why shouldn’t I speculate about them? And if intentions can’t be proven as you believe (but I don’t), what else can I do other than speculating about them?

if you want to meaningfully talk about being “biased”, “cognitive failings” and “unexamined narrative”, you yourself must have an idea of how to establish “biased” vs “unbiased”, “cognitive success” vs “cognitive failures“ and “unexamined narratives” vs “examined narratives”, and be able to illustrate such distinctions over concrete cases in a way that is sharable and reusable. — neomac


Of course. I don't see how that's not possible.

A biased view is one where one's conclusion is affected by factors other than those habits which have a track record of reaching truth (typically 'rational thinking’). Unless you're super-human, I can say with certainty that your thinking will be biased because everybody's is. We all engage in thinking practices which include factors other than those we can identify as being associated with a significantly increased chance of arriving at the truth of the matter.

Cognitive success is likewise a set of algorithms or heuristics which are demonstrably more likely to arrive at the truth of the matter than otherwise.

Examined narratives are those narratives where someone is aware that the frame through which they view events is one of many equally possible frames and that other frames will yield other equally valid positions. An unexamined narrative, such as yours, is one where the person thinks there's is the only (or the only 'true') way of looking at things and so their version of reality is better, or more 'real' than others’. — Isaac

Let’s say that the first 2 clarifications are fine as a general starting point. They also look related, because to identify biases, you would first need to identify beliefs that do not match what would typically result from rational thinking. In other words, you would need to identify actual irrational beliefs through actual rational examination, what exactly I’m also trying to do. So it’s not enough to say that I’m biased and that I commit cognitive mistakes IN GENERAL, you need to show that to me in concrete cases by using shared, pertinent, reusable rational rules (e.g. fallacies) as much as I do when I rationally examine your claims/arguments. To me you failed to do so, so far. But worse than this, if you keep saying that we do not share the rules of such rational examination you are going to be unintelligible to me. You would take yourself by your own initiative out of the pool of potential rational interlocutors to me, no matter how many times you keep repeating I’m biased. There is no recovery from this. And it’s also hypocritical that you keep saying that we all are biased because we are not super-human and expect me to agree, while at the same time you never admitted even once to have committed the clamorous cognitive failures I attributed to you.

The last clarification is puzzling for several reasons:
1 - What is a narrative frame wrt the narrative? Can you give examples illustrating what your narrative frame and mine are?
2 - By which standard one can come to believe that other narrative frames are “equally valid positions”? If it’s “truth” and “reality” as you seem to suggest then the standards is rational thinking I guess from your own claims (“those habits which have a track record of reaching truth (typically 'rational thinking’)” “a set of algorithms or heuristics[/b] which are demonstrably more likely to arrive at the truth of the matter than otherwise”). But according to rational thinking not all narratives are equally true or correspondent to what reality is. Were this the case one would be in the predicament of holding contradictory beliefs and that is not rational. If one narrative says “Ukraine is not part of Russia” and another “Ukraine is part of Russia”, one can’t possibly hold both claims unequivocally true rationally. If the standard is good or useful, it depends on the goal each of us has or is committed to, so all narrative frames that do not fulfill that goal can not be equally valid wrt the ones which do. So when can we rationally talk about “equally valid” incompatible alternatives in the practical or cognitive sense? The only cases I can think of is when either we can tolerate incompatibility (X thinks that Ukrainians and Russians are two different nations, Y doesn’t so the two beliefs are incompatible, yet X and Y can live with that incompatibility, those beliefs can not epistemically coexist but they can socially coexist in those who hold them) or we are equally uncertain about the alternatives prior or after examination (a Ukrainian soldier thinks that deserting is better for his life but worse for his country, and he is torn between these 2 alternatives because he doesn’t want to sacrifice his life and yet he doesn’t want to betray his country). In any case the notion of “examined narrative” presupposes an examination, so if you do not specify the criteria of such examination the qualification “examined” looks arbitrary.
3 - From your own reasoning, I would infer that also unexamined narratives must be valid positions according to all those who are aware that other narrative frames are equally valid, why? Because among the “other narrative frames” there are also unexamined narratives, of course. So they too must be equally valid position for all those with examined narratives. Or are you claiming that examined narratives are better than unexamined narratives? Besides, If all narrative frames are equally valid, equally true, equally good, why do we choose one over the other, instead of supporting all of them at the same time?

Never heard of the battles against fake news and conspiracies involving social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube? — neomac

The existence of battles indicates a belief in the state you describe. It doesn't prove the truth of it. — Isaac

And what would prove the truth of that to you? Can you state it clearly? Can you offer concrete examples of what such proof might look like? Because if you can’t, you are making a meaningless objection to me. And most certainly, as long as you don’t clarify this, I’m fine just with making plausible speculations reliant on how the media system works in the West in the current conditions.

ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats). — neomac

So, the dozen or more times that I and others here have repeated the notion that we argue against those agencies over which we have some responsibility…they've just fallen on deaf ears? You didn't understand them? Or, more likely, they just don't fit you preferred narrative, so you just ignore them. — Isaac

I ignored such arguments not because “they just don't fit you preferred narrative” but for a very compelling reason: they are pointless objections. Here is why: wanting to “argue only against those agencies over which we have some responsibility” is part of YOUR (& others’) militant attitude and YOUR goal (& others’) of offering arguments to mobilise people accordingly. But I’m not militant nor I’m here to help you, I’m here to rationally scrutinise views on this war including related assumptions, and your militant choice is perfectly compatible with the idea that: “ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats)”.
There is however another problem with this objection. It looks like an a priori political imperative which could have very dangerous consequences. If two wild boxers intensely fight also with blows under the belt, it would be utterly dumb for the coach of one of the 2 just complain about the punch under the belt of his boxer, or worse if the coach jumps on the ring to hold back his boxer in a way that would let his adversary keep punching him, just because the coach have authority over his boxer. So any critical attitude toward certain behaviour ON OUR SIDE may be more or less opportune depending on the circumstances and relative moral hazards wrt opposing side. Russian conscripted soldiers on the front in Donbass don’t not need to agree on Putin’s reasons to start this war nor feel personally compelled to participate in this war, yet they might feel personally compelled by the idea that Russia’s integrity, sovereignty and future prospects are anyway at stake now that they are at it. So even if they hate Putin for this mistaken war, they might still be determined to fight for Russia, because this would be the lesser evil. The same holds for the Westerners wrt the US in this war. One doesn’t need to sympathise with the American foreign policies. One doesn’t even need to sympathise with the American attitude toward Russia to the extant it contributed to the genesis of this war. One just needs to think that supporting the US would be the lesser evil, if the alternative is to empower and embolden authoritarian competitors like China/Russia (with the support of the Rest hostile toward the West) to become more aggressive at the expense not only of the US but also of its allies. That’s why one thing is to criticise/oppose the US over Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, another is to criticise/oppose the US when the US is indirectly engaging in a full conventional war started by Russia and backed by China, ultimately aiming at destroying the US-led world order as such. The moral hazards are arguably very different. Unless of course one thinks that criticising and opposing the US and Western involvement in this war just to reach peace as soon as possible would be the lesser evil NOT ONLY for the Ukrainians, why? Because it would be a big blow against US hegemony/imperialism no matter if that may benefit its authoritarian competitors or endanger the fate of the US allies. But why is that blow against US hegemony/imperialism desirable or the lesser evil? Because ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US). And why is that? As you summarised your militant views about this war: “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lends support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/681277”). Western capitalism entails, as an intrinsic part of it's approach, efforts to destroy or harm alternative systems. As such, systems compete, and are successful, not on a metric of human well-being, but on a metric of being able to survive that inter-system competition. The most sucessful systems are those which compete best in that fight. If that's a metric you're impressed by for some reason, that's your problem. The 'solution' such as it is, is to bring down capitalism so that it is not one of the competitors. That way alternative systems can compete on the grounds of their impact on human well-being rather than on the grounds of their ability to withstand the onslaught capitalism directs toward them.(https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/677420). Even your last intervention, was focusing on the same accusations against the US-leadership: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/792409

we are left with the doubt that either such mainstream news outlets are overly constraining at the expense of the investigative value of Hersh’s article (as Hersh suggests) or Hersh wants to be free to take greater risks at the expense of the investigative value of his article — neomac

Again, in your limited world-view, we are left with only those two options, yes. But not in the view of others. You are, again, confusing your personal belief system with the actual truth. Hersh simply doubts their integrity. You can't because it just doesn't fit the role they play in the story you have — Isaac

.

If what I suggested is a false alternative, you should be able to show the other alternatives.
The claim that “Hersh simply doubts their integrity” if related to his choice of not going to mainstream news outlets (because otherwise it would be irrelevant) is not necessarily a third alternative,
indeed Hersh may question news media integrity PRECISELY BECAUSE mainstream news outlets are overly constraining at the expense of the investigative value of Hersh’s article (as Hersh suggests)
Besides it’s definitely false that I can’t doubt mainstream media integrity. Indeed I made nowhere an argument or claim supporting what you accuse me of, nor anything I said implies it. I can doubt mainstream media integrity AS WELL AS Hersh’s reliability.

that some editorial fact-checking for reputational and legal reasons are common practice for investigative journalism. And that if the journalist can self-publish, he is more free to take greater risks (e.g. by taking one anonymous source or leak as enough reliable by only his own judgement). — neomac

..without a shred of evidence to that effect. Where is your evidence that editorial fact-checking limits single anonymous sources? https://fair.org/home/anonymous-sources-are-newsworthy-when-they-talk-to-nyt-not-seymour-hersh/ https://fair.org/home/journalisms-dark-matter/
Again, you just assume, because it's part of your foundational narrative - it's unexamined. — Isaac

.

Another objection completely off target. I never claimed that “editorial fact-checking limits single anonymous sources”. I’m well aware that anonymous sources, or even single anonymous sources, are used by mainstream news outlets, because this is expressly stated by the mainstream news outlets themselves:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/reader-center/how-the-times-uses-anonymous-sources.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-do-you-use-an-anonymous-source-the-mysteries-of-journalism-everyone-should-know/2017/12/10/fa01863a-d9e4-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html
https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/telling-the-story/anonymous-sources
But sources need to be identified, scrutinised, and validated by dedicated figures from the news outlets and this is the reason why there might be divergences with the investigative journalist. Here I referred to the shred of evidence Hersh himself offers: In that interview (starting from 20min03), Hersh claims that he didn’t approach the Washington Post or NYT, because he thought they wouldn’t publish his article, because they want to know his source and he got burned once by revealing his source to an editor of NYT (but he doesn’t like to talk about that because “the NYT is still a good newspaper” and then he complains about 90% of editors). Yet it’s not clear what “being burned” is supposed to mean nor what that past experience has to do with Hersh’s belief the NYT and Washington Post wouldn’t publish his piece now (maybe Hersh used and is still using anonymous sources that the NYT or Washington Post would find unreliable?). . Acknowledging that Hersh has editorial issues, as I do, doesn’t imply AT ALL that I I’m siding with the mainstream news outlets. Indeed, precisely because I don’t need to side with the mainstream media, that I can write: we are left with the doubt that either such mainstream news outlets are overly constraining at the expense of the investigative value of Hersh’s article (as Hersh suggests) or Hersh wants to be free to take greater risks at the expense of the investigative value of his article (after all there have been OSINT people questioning Hersh’s articles accuracy in the past and present, like Oliver Alexander and Bellingcat who are also independent self-publishers like Hersh and also risk their lives for that: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/01/12/christo-grozev-russias-most-wanted-list-intv-ebof-intl-vpx.cnn).
The reason why it looks like I’m siding with the mainstream media vs Hersh, predictably depends on the assumption that mainstream news outlets are agents of the Western capitalism (the greatest evil according to your views) so whenever there is a clash with independent people like Hersh, it’s obvious to you that the problem is on mainstream news outlets’ side and claiming anything slightly different is serving their narrative, so it’s siding with them. But that’s a militant logic applied to our exchange in a philosophy forum (and the accusation can be easily retorted against you as I did in the past), which you embrace but I do not. I’m not militant, I prefer to leave militant logic to where it belongs, politics and wars, not bring it into our rational examination of such logics.

it’s not hard to offer a plausible argument to support the idea that Hersh could have published in some American mainstream outlet — neomac


...which is not that same as claiming it is a true claim which cannot be rationally challenged. — Isaac

You are insisting on an objection which already failed once. And now it is failing twice. Indeed, I don’t think the truth of “it’s not hard to offer a plausible argument to support the idea that Hersh could have published in some American mainstream outlet” can be rationally challenged, of course. That’s precisely what I argued for!

What’s harder to offer is a plausible argument to support the idea that, given very specific circumstances, Hersh was unable to publish his article other than by self-publishing on Substack or equivalent: — neomac


He didn't trust the mainstream media. It's not complicated. Mainstream media are owned by corporate interests who influence editorial policy. Hersh wanted to avoid that influence. you may not agree, that's normal, rational adults disagree sometimes. What's abnormal is you claiming that your opinion is literally the only rational view to hold and everyone else is dishonest. And you don't even get that that's weird. — Isaac

The claim you attribute to me is indeed very weird as much as it is wild fabrication. Indeed you can not quote me saying such a dumb thing. When I accused you for being intellectual dishonest it is not because e.g. you may agree with Hersh but it was for such kind of objections, where you ARBITRARILY and REPEATEDLY attribute to me claims or arguments I never expressed, implied or suggested, and despite all clarifications.

f one wants to self-publish, then he is expected to be the only one paying the consequences of potential legal/economic/political/reputational issues, if not even risking life. For that reason, he is more free to take greater risks by self-publishing, if he wishes so, than by publishing with a more risk-averse publisher. — neomac


You haven' given any reason why the publisher is more 'risk-averse'. You haven't given any reason why being the one who takes the brunt makes one 'more free' . A journalist writing for a newspaper can write an incendiary piece, be protected by the huge legal team and deep pockets of his paper, whilst his editor, if he's even fired, will walk out with a huge pension fund and a golden handshake. What exactly is the comparable risk you're imagining? — Isaac

The plausibility of my general assumption doesn’t depend on specifying any of that. The difference between working for somebody or be self-entrepreneur is evident practically in any professional domain: a self-entrepreneur is free to take certain decisions that he wouldn’t be free to take if he was working for somebody else, because in that case it’s somebody else who’s taking decisions. In investigative journalism anonymous sources may be certainly precious to discover scandalous truths but also a very risky thing. Why? Because they can have their own agenda (and in a period of domestic political polarisation and international tensions we can’t underestimate it), BUT they will not be held accountable for what they said, if wrong. For that reason, between the investigative journalist and his editor there may be divergences over the reliability of the anonymous source for all sorts of reasons. In that case, the divergence may lead to the rejection of the article by the editor, while the journalist would still be free to self-publish it. Notice that this reasoning assumes neither that anonymous source reliability is the only reason why the editor may have problems with investigative journalist’s article (other possibilities could be e.g. corruption or political interest, lack of adequate legal support against legal retortion from the target of the article, life-threatening blackmails from thugs, etc. might press the editor into rejecting a certain article), nor that whenever there are divergences about the anonymous source the editor must always be right. Given Hersh’s confessions and background history I have good reasons to believe he has editorial issues and such issues may concern his anonymous sources. And given the fact that non-mainstream OSINT people have questioned his reports based on anonymous sources, I have reasons independent from the mainstream coverage of Hersh’s article for being suspicious about Hersh too (however noble his intentions are).

I can as arbitrarily attribute to you the belief that “mainstream media must be wrong, because people not on the mainstream media are right because the people not on the mainstream media say so”) — neomac

You can't because I'm not arguing that the mainstream media are wrong. — Isaac

Really? Because I’m not arguing that “mainstream media must be right” either (indeed you can not quote me making such claim), yet that’s what you arbitrarily accused me of.

You paint all opposition as propaganda and fail to see your own biases. It's either monumentally naive or messianic. You're not some kind of zen master rationalist, no matter how much you'd love to see yourself that way. You're an ordinary human - biased, culturally embedded, and cognitively as limited as any human. Your hypothalamus steals control from your prefrontal cortex under stress the same as the rest of us. In short, you are biased, you succumb to the same cognitive failings, you defend beliefs on the basis of how well established they are, your assessment of truth is embedded in a narrative which itself is unexamined…just like everybody else. — Isaac

Terminology needs to be clarified because I too have been accused of spreading Western propaganda, by you and others, yet I don’t think we share the same notion of “propaganda”. For example, I still don’t understand, in your jargon, what kind of attitude, activity, beliefs or claims can the notion of “propaganda” be contrasted to, to get its distinctive meaning. As far as I am concerned, I can disagree with Tzeench’s “diversion hypothesis” to explain the starting of the War, Boethious’ explanation of the American/Western attitude in supporting Ukraine for fear of a “nuclear escalation”, and with the idea that mainstream media aligned with the government are purposefully ignoring or downplaying Hersh’s report because it goes against their interest. But that’s not a reason to call such arguments “propaganda”. If I find an argument or claim irrational or not enough rationally compelling and therefore I oppose it, that doesn’t mean I would consider it propaganda. So it’s false that I paint all opposition as propaganda. To me political propaganda consists in an activity focused on mobilising people typically through evaluative/emotional arguments or direct solicitation into doing some political action wrt politicians or policies or the collectivity (I use “militant” or “activist” to describe people engaged in political propaganda activities). I don’t have necessarily a problem with that but things turn bad when the arguments and counterarguments turn into repeated fallacious attempts to support ones’ views, misrepresent opposing views, and discrediting opponents. My problem is more with that part.
Now, in our past exchanges I might have been biased, instrumental to some political agenda, spread some propaganda memes, said things that offended you and others, nurture some deep desire to fix the world but it must be clear that I’m not militant in the sense I specified, I don’t participate in this forum to mobilise people into taking politician accountable or save people’s lives or fix the world, I’m here just to engage in rational scrutiny. That’s why, differently from you, I do not care if after 400 pages people didn’t change their mind (other than for the fact that they may become boring by repeating the same arguments) or if they don’t participate in spreading Hersh’s investigation (independently from its accuracy) for a powerful response against politicians or fight along with you against the capitalist imperialism. But I do care about how fallacious is the way people like me and you talk, argue, and counterargue. I do care to profit of any or almost any occasion to express my thoughts through consistent and plausible arguments, illustrative examples, terminological clarifications instead of outraged sarcasm.
Concerning your objection, I would counter that it looks pointless, self-defeating and self-delusional.
Pointless because a certain practice like rational scrutiny, zen, chess, jogging, etc. can be pursued and enjoyed even if one is not excelling at it. And the fact that me, a zen master, a chess player, and jogger are “ordinary human - biased, culturally embedded, and cognitively as limited as any human” doesn’t exclude that rational scrutiny, zen, chess playing and jogging are different activities, or that I must practice and enjoy them equally. So, “rational scrutiny” is not “doing propaganda”. They are two different activities. Here I practice rational scrutiny not propaganda as you do. I enjoy practicing rational scrutiny even if I do not excel at it. And all that doesn’t equate nor needs to equate to explicitly or implicitly denying that e.g. I am “an ordinary human - biased, culturally embedded, and cognitively as limited as any human” as you seem to suggest.
It’s self-defeating because if you want to meaningfully talk about being “biased”, “cognitive failings” and “unexamined narrative”, you yourself must have an idea of how to establish “biased” vs “unbiased”, “cognitive success” vs “cognitive failures“ and “unexamined narratives” vs “examined narratives”, and be able to illustrate such distinctions over concrete cases in a way that is sharable and reusable. Since to me those distinctions are essentially resulting from the practice of rational scrutiny, you yourself would need to practice rational scrutiny over my beliefs in a way that is pertinently similar to what I do when I actually illustrate your own intellectual failures through how you actually argue and talk in given circumstances. And look more rationally compelling than I am, at least, occasionally. But if you too need to practice rational scrutiny, and those pointless observations and accusations would constitute an objection against me practicing rational scrutiny, the same would hold for you.
It’s self-delusional because we both know how hard it is for you to practice rational scrutiny. Indeed you need to caricature my views, strawman me, opportunistically chop my quotations in order to identify my putative intellectual failures. In other words, you need to artificially fabricate or distort your opponents’ views to be able to sound rationally compelling. But that’s intellectually dishonest, that’s punching under the belt. Not to mention that the general and most certainly compelling assumption that I’m “an ordinary human - biased, culturally embedded, and cognitively as limited as any human” doesn’t replace the actual effort required to apply rational scrutiny to my claims in concrete cases.
Conclusion: your objection is not rationally compelling at all.

The difference with you, and a few others of similar ilk, is that part of that unexamined narrative is the idea that there is no unexamined narrative. When it's pushed (if it's pushed hard enough) it reaches this brick wall where there's no part in the story, there's no role. It's what you do then... that's the interesting bit. — Isaac

No idea what you are talking about. What is the “unexamined narrative” in all what I said? In what sense is “unexamined”? What did I say that makes you believe “that part of that unexamined narrative is the idea that there is no unexamined narrative”? If I believed “there is no unexamined narrative”, why would I need to engage in rational scrutiny at all?

which of the 2 Substack articles do you want me to rely on? — neomac


We're not talking about your reliance. You're free to do what you want. we're talking about the effect of having mainstream media in the thrall of governments and corporate interests. That's what this is about. Hersh's articles went against those interests and as such is was summarily either ignored or smeared. That treatment is a danger to freedom of thought because the implied authority of the mainstream media amplifies their voice. As such, if that voice is captured by minority interests, it harms debate - it skews public discourse in favour of those minorities artificially. Since independent journalists are manifold and (as you say) present a wide range of opinions with a low centre of authority, the issue is one-way. A handful of companies own virtually all mainstream media, and can be shown to directly influence it. That's the issue here. — Isaac

First, who is “we”? You accused me of “lauding” the mainstream media or making the following argument “mainstream media must be right because people not on the mainstream media are wrong because the mainstream media says so”, nobody else did in this thread, and I talked about reliance to clarify why claiming that I’m “lauding” the mainstream media is an exaggeration or that the circular argument you attributed to me is a strawman. That comment you quoted wasn’t meant to talk about my reliance but to suggest that the contrast you were highlighting between mainstream and independent media is emphasized at the expense of the fact that within both the mainstream and the independent media there is room for competing views.
Second, it’s Hersh’s article that went against those interests or Hersh himself that went against those interests? It’s been years that Hersh is publicly polemical about the major news outlets which he used to work for and rejected other past investigations of his (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/seymour-hersh-syria-report_n_4409674). Their reaction and Hersh complaining about it fit already into such rivlarous pattern independently from the content of Hersh’s current article.
Third, probably due to my limited imagination, I have some difficulty to imagine mainstream media which are not “in the thrall of” governments and corporate interests, if we are talking about news outlets, given the relevance of the news outlets to influence people, the available means and institutional role of such subjects. So if that would suffice to endanger freedom of thought, maybe it’s not independent journalists what we really need, but to remove government and corporations as such. Until then, the freedom of thought one can realistically expect is whatever one can get at best in a media system where mainstream news outlets are “in the thrall of” governments and corporate interests, and yet there are other independent sources of information, like we enjoy in the West. Indeed, even Hersh himself needs Western mainstream news outlets to spread his reports. as it happened in many past occasions. Wasn’t it the case Hersh didn’t have anything to complain about. But this suggests that the problem doesn’t need to be the fact that mainstream news outlets are “in the thrall of” governments and corporate interests, but in the specific conditions that enable or compromise independent investigative journalism to be published or get visible though mainstream news outlets. Like what conditions? Well in the case of Hersh e.g. antagonising his old publishers (to which one might add the choice of joining the company of anti-mainstream narratives on Substack plus a history of “editorial issues”), and refusing to go to other potentially interested mainstream publishers (the mainstream antagonists of Biden’s administration).
Fourth, I don’t want to dodge the issue of the newsworthiness of Hersh’s article (several mainstream outlets might have grabbed Hersh’ article just due to its newsworthiness, also because Hersh is/was one of the well-reputed investigative journalist after all), so what other condition might have weighed in and overshadowed Hersh’s article’ newsworthiness? I guess the war itself. After all, it’s said: truth is the first casualty in war. And this may be very well true also for Western democracies. By that I do not mean to specifically suggest that Hersh’s article is accurate in part or fully (possibility that I do not need to exclude a priori), but that the bitter truth (whatever it is) is definitely worth to bipartisanly cover up, as long as possible, during war time. Why? Because this truth might be big trouble for the US and its allies, and get in the way of their joined but still not fully-committed fight against Russia with problematic consequences that might survive Biden’s administration: e.g. if the responsible was Russia, it would be an attack on NATO soil, if it was a NATO country it would an attack from NATO to Russia, unless the Ukrainians did it with the help of Poland, etc. Indeed these scenarios might be A) offering an incentive to escalation with Russia B) nurturing political tensions within the American alliance system in the West (especially with Germany) and beyond (if the US had direct or indirect responsibilities for the sabotage), C) be another source of embarrassment with the Western/the Rest public opinions for the cover-up, D) not to mention that full account about that sabotage may reveal sensitive details which are still vital for the war against Russia. BTW, political tensions with Germany might be assuaged behind doors with a compensation (e.g. more generous gas supply) for the missed opportunity of resuming business with Russia through Nord Stream 2 immediately after the war. In the end, Nord Stream 2 was financed by the Russians (not the Germans), its usage was halted due to the war, Germany dependance from it was overwhelmingly reduced, and the missed opportunity is not irreversible (i.e. the damage can be repaired within months).

it’s matter of you deciding to bring here in this forum the worst propaganda style of arguing that anybody can easily find on partisan posts of popular social networks. You could be more rationally compelling just by removing all paraphernalia of the worst propaganda without distorting the content of what you want to express (including criticising the government), if there is any substance to it, of course. Unless this goes against your militant compulsion. — neomac


Yeah, this is just an incredibly weak 'dispassionate rationalist' trope. Firstly, it's bollocks on its face. I’ve written plenty of dispassionate, well-sourced, rational arguments without a trace of 'militancy’. It makes fuck all difference. They are ignored, insulted or dismissed in equal measure with my most polemic rants. It's a common myth. I challenge you to find a single example from this thread, or any other, where a calm dispassionate expression of strongly anti-mainstream views has been met with respectful considered responses. It simply doesn't happen, because people are frightened of being challenged, whether that's a choleric fanatic or a Jain monk. Take a look at a figure like Jordan Peterson. Unpopular opinions (many of which I strongly disagree with), delivered always in a calm rational manner. Has it helped? Not in the slightest. He's as vilified as any load-mouthed preacher. — Isaac

I guess that you are talking about the reactions of your opponents, because my impression is that you have several people (I’m tempted to say the majority of people) sympathising with your views and sharing common opponents in this thread.
In this case, since I can’t speak for other opponents of yours, I’m tempted to accept the challenge if you could show me an example of what you take to be “dispassionate, well-sourced, rational arguments without a trace of 'militancy’” which I “ignored, insulted or dismissed in equal measure with my [your] most polemic rants” when you were exchanging with me. As far as I can remember, I’ve always argued my views and my objections against your views. And I remember you also complaining about my text walls, the pedantry of my rational(-ist?) approach, and often taking the initiative about polemic rants without evident provocation against your views.
On my side, the only insult I can remember at the beginning of our exchange is “preposterous” which doesn’t sound to me stronger than “it's bollocks on its face” nor an intolerably offensive thing to say if one identifies a putative clamorous mistake in his opponent’s views. If one player failed a very easy shot or worse made an own goal at football, that would look dumb and any euphemism, however literally accurate, might sound even more offensive to some. While accusing you of intellectual dishonesty or misery may be insulting and induce animosity, but that has nothing to do with your anti-mainstream views as a such, as I argued. Nor it prevents me from pursuing “rational arguments without a trace of ‘militancy’” contrary to what happens with you. And I really don’t see the point of dragging with polemic rants here other then for the fact that either you hope to change people’s minds about political matters that concern you, or you need to vent your frustration for failing to achieve that.
At least the good news is that you too seem to admit that there is a difference between “rational arguments without a trace of ‘militancy’” and “polemic rants”, and that you are not always engaged in “rational arguments without a trace of ‘militancy’”, as I claimed. Yet I’m not sure if we understand that difference in the same way, e.g. when I talk about “rational arguments” I’m not referring to the fact that they are expressed in a calm/dispassionate vs aggressive/passionate tone. I don’t mind insults and sarcasm as long as one can offer rational arguments, not as a replacement of them! Besides, it may sound oxymoronic to talk about “a calm dispassionate expression of strongly anti-mainstream views” because “strongly” may be understood in emotional terms i.e. as an equivalent of “passionate”. So probably you meant “extreme anti-mainstream views”.

given the clash between the US/NATO and Russia — neomac

What clash? I thought the US were barely involved and it was all about the Ukrainians? — Isaac

No you didn’t. Besides, your irony doesn’t apply to me. I never downplayed or overlooked the clash between US/NATO and Russia, I focused on it on several occasions. What I found questionable is downplaying or overlooking Russian responsibility and threat after it started this war, and the Ukrainian agency in legitimately pursuing self-defence.

your militant rhetoric and intellectually miserable tricks are manipulative, typical of the worst propaganda. This is a literally accurate description of your attitude in most, if not all, posts you addressed to me and not only. — neomac

Anyone who disagrees with you must be spreading propaganda. Saves you the bother of actually having to argue the case. — Isaac

The problem is not disagreement and not even propaganda itself. The problem is intellectual dishonesty. Some are pushed to such dishonesty by their intellectual self-esteem, others more by their urge to fix the world. Like in your case. That’s why I didn’t accuse you to just spread propaganda, but to talk and argue as the worst propaganda.
Besides I made my arguments and clarified them several times, and I’ve also been accused of writing text walls for that matter. Indeed, I’m here precisely because I’m interested in intellectually honest and rationally compelling arguments, not in fixing the world or persuading people through sophisms or by caricaturing their objections. So I don’t need to save myself from arguing. That’s the game I came to play here and welcome opponents’ arguments to the extent that they participate in the same game honestly and compellingly.

I’m relying on the Western media system for the simple reason that is free and pluralistic enough that any truth against the government has more chances to become mainstream than under any authoritarian regime media system. — neomac

That makes no sense at all. The choice is between mainstream media and independent media. No Russians need be involved. Substack is not (last I checked) attempting to annex California. — Isaac

First, I said I do not feel pressed to choose between Hersh’s article (as an example of independent media) and NYT/Washington Post’s treatment of Hersh’s article (as example of mainstream media). That’s the freedom of thought I wouldn’t enjoy in Russia or China. So I’ll enjoy it here and welcome its protection.
Second, I don’t find this choice generalisable the way you do: both independent and mainstream media can have people with their self-interested marketing or political agendas to pursue. Their competition would be physiological in a free market of information and potentially fruitful if it wasn’t exploited just to spin political polarisation (which Hersh apparently wanted to avoid, the irony).
Third, Russia (and other authoritarian regimes) can infiltrate and pollute the wells of both mainstream and independent media in Western democracies. Indeed, certain Western political polarisations may very well be instrumental to foreign powers at the expense of Western democracies, and so worth surreptitiously nurturing.
Fourth, I do not have any specific aversion to Substack whose editorial principles I find promising on the paper and therefore I welcome its being part of our media environment (as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc.). BTW there are also Substack articles criticising Hersh’s Substack article: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe (which of the 2 Substack articles do you want me to rely on?)

You repeatedly solicited interlocutors to take our politicians accountable for their blameworthy foreign policies about the war in Ukraine (and not only) and passionately made that as your main if not exclusive argumentative focus. That shows your militant urge. — neomac


I love this! It's now "militant" to hold one's government to account. "Just shut up and do as you're told". — Isaac

Yes it is, if you participate in this thread with the spirit of fighting for a just cause by whatever rhetoric means. And no it’s not matter of "Just shut up and do as you're told”, it’s matter of you deciding to bring here in this forum the worst propaganda style of arguing that anybody can easily find on partisan posts of popular social networks. You could be more rationally compelling just by removing all paraphernalia of the worst propaganda without distorting the content of what you want to express (including criticising the government), if there is any substance to it, of course. Unless this goes against your militant compulsion.

To make it more explicit: people that are fanatically opposing a regime (thanks to their putative superior imagination and noble intentions), more easily find support on alternative sources of information critical of the mainstream narratives which they too oppose, of course, no matter if such sources are questionable in turn, often for the same reasons such fanatics question certain mainstream narrative (spinning political propaganda to serve cynical, if not ideologically obtuse, interests). — neomac


The clarity wasn't the problem. I was quite clear on what you were claiming the first time you said it. What was lacking was any evidence whatsoever that your claim was actually the case. — Isaac

Evidence for what? Never heard of the battles against fake news and conspiracies involving social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube? I mentioned Substack too as a popular place for anti-mainstream narratives (remember you talking about Hersh’s article on Substack by any chance?). You are asking me for evidence as if you come from another planet.

reason why I rely on my speculations more than yours is that they are arguably less unilateral and simplistic than yours. — neomac

OK, crack on then. Make that argument — Isaac

.

I made many arguments over several pages since the beginning of our exchanges. And repeated them too. So I won’t repeat all of them again. But if I were to summarise in a few words why I find your (and others’) understanding of this war (and related disputes over media coverage) unilateral and simplistic is that ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats).

I didn’t infer “is not” from a “may”. In clarifying my assumption, I talked in hypothetical terms when the subject I was referring to was “news platforms” (e.g. “news platforms, mainstream and non-mainstream (like icij or propublica), may scrutinise…”). Then I talked in actual terms when the subject I was referring to was the assumption itself: it’s not just matter of selling newspapers and newsworthiness. — neomac

Right. so nothing more than speculation then. They may scrutinise more, or they may not. Good to know both possibilities exist. Thanks for clearing that mystery up — Isaac

.

We are reasoning under uncertainty, aren’t we? But my speculation is not the product of some fervid imagination (nurturing powerful simplistic and unilateral speculations like yours), but of very realistic circumstances. Indeed Hersh himself talked about issues with the editorial process of mainstream media like NYT and Washington Post. Besides my speculation is not about clearing mysteries but pointing at a specific one: since we don’t know what editorial issue Hersh has encountered with the NYT in the past or might have encountered if he had approached NYT or Washington Post to publish his article, we are left with the doubt that either such mainstream news outlets are overly constraining at the expense of the investigative value of Hersh’s article (as Hersh suggests) or Hersh wants to be free to take greater risks at the expense of the investigative value of his article (after all there have been OSINT people questioning Hersh’s articles accuracy in the past and present, like Oliver Alexander and Bellingcat who are also independent self-publishers like Hersh and also risk their lives for that: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/01/12/christo-grozev-russias-most-wanted-list-intv-ebof-intl-vpx.cnn).

the point is that mainstream publishers may choose editors and follow editorial guidelines to their liking not to Hersh’s liking. And if that’s the case, that’s a relevant difference. — neomac

Relevant how? You were claiming they had mechanism in place to better check sources. Now you're just saying they might choose editors Hersh doesn't like. How does 'Hersh not liking them' make them better at checking sources? — Isaac

Then you didn’t understand what I was saying. I wasn’t assuming or arguing that mainstream media have better fact-checkers than the independent ones. But that some editorial fact-checking for reputational and legal reasons are common practice for investigative journalism. And that if the journalist can self-publish, he is more free to take greater risks (e.g. by taking one anonymous source or leak as enough reliable by only his own judgement). And that’s not a problem only if one is already heavily relying on Hersh more than mainstream media. But I don’t, so I’m fine with keeping my doubts as long as it takes.

they all look too much like attempts (however self-defeating) to convince people, as political propaganda is supposed to do. Unfortunately trying to deny it may also be part of the job. — neomac


I know... fucking mastermind, aren't I? Although I'll deny that too (but only by repeating it sarcastically)...triple bluff... or is it?*

*(it isn't)** — Isaac

My imagination can’t go that far, I’m afraid.

I don’t think the truth of that claim can be rationally challenged, of course. — neomac


Wow. So you think it is literally impossible that Hersh could have been unable to sell his story to some Western mainstream news outlets. You think the claim "Hersh could have sold his piece to some Western mainstream news outlets" is impossible to be false. Western mainstream outlets are what... somehow compelled by the laws of physics to by Hersh's story? — Isaac

You got misled by the way you chopped the following line “Hersh could have sold his piece to some Western mainstream news outlets (not given his scoop to somebody else for free or without acknowledgment)”. That line was just the beginning of my argument, and the point I was making is that I was speculating over the possibility of selling Hersh’s piece to some Western mainstream news outlets, and not over the idea of Hersh giving his scoop to somebody else for free or without acknowledgement as you seemed to suggest (That decision having been made, he's hardly in a position to sacrifice it by giving the scoop to someone else). Again I’m not speculating over my own speculations.
Additionally, as a starting point, that possibility was definitely epistemically plausible given that, in the US, Biden’s administration has plenty of powerful enemies like Trump who is also against NATO, has already supported anti-Biden’s narratives (remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory ?) and is currently suffering from legal problems that could hinder his next year presidential campaign (so big troubles for Biden’s administration might be a big help, most of all if true!), and like the whole editorial world gravitating around Trump, starting with Murdoch whose mainstream outlets were very much interested in Hersh’s article. Not to mention the load of articles against Biden administration’s responsibility in this war and against NATO one can find in mainstream media. In other words, if means, motives, and hawkishness are factors that make the US an epistemically plausible suspect of the Nord Stream 2 sabotage, then the same holds for the epistemic plausibility that Hersh’s article could have been published by that part of the mainstream world that is adverse to Biden.
Conclusion: it’s not hard to offer a plausible argument to support the idea that Hersh could have published in some American mainstream outlet (and I’m just simplifying because I didn’t consider only American mainstream outlets, there are other platforms for independent investigative journalism, etc.) given the current American political and editorial environment. What’s harder to offer is a plausible argument to support the idea that, given very specific circumstances, Hersh was unable to publish his article other than by self-publishing on Substack or equivalent: in that interview, Hersh is explaining why he chose to self-publish on Substack, but he limits himself to talk about approaching NYT or Washington Post (but they are not the only mainstream outlets, and given their political leaning, less likely adverse to Biden), which he didn’t even try (why not? NYT or Washington Post even support op-ed pages where authors non affiliated with the publication's editorial board can publish, a and he could have also made a sensational case of his rejection as you are trying to do for him), because there might have been editorial issues related to his anonymous source (that’s all vaguely and anecdotally stated). Is Hersh's explanation enough compelling? Hell no.

if one is self-publishing, then he is more free to take greater risks, obviously. — neomac

How so? Are the self published immune from prosecution? Do they get some kind of special redundancy payouts if their projects fail? What is this safety net that independent journalists have which the mainstream outlets lack? — Isaac

Another objection that shows a very poor understanding of what I’m claiming. Unless you’re playing dumb, of course. If one wants to self-publish, then he is expected to be the only one paying the consequences of potential legal/economic/political/reputational issues, if not even risking life. For that reason, he is more free to take greater risks by self-publishing, if he wishes so, than by publishing with a more risk-averse publisher.

the fact that Substack (whose editorial principles sound promising on the papers) has become a haven for “anti-mainstream narrative” authors like him and posting a mainstream outlet denouncing substack articles is exactly illustrating the point I’m making. And, if you need it (coz I don't), similar accusations can be found elsewhere too: — neomac


So just repeating the same circular argument (sorry - I mean "self-defeating attempt to parody the very notion of epistemic reliance as I understand it.")? — Isaac

I didn’t make any circular argument. You clumsily attributed one to me (“mainstream media must be right because people not on the mainstream media are wrong because the mainstream media says so”) as if it was a compelling objection. In reality it’s not only completely off-target (because my claim was simply about Hersh being in good company of anti-mainstream narratives supporters on Substack, and if Substack can be used to criticize mainstream media the reciprocal holds as well) but it’s also easy to retort (indeed I can as arbitrarily attribute to you the belief that “mainstream media must be wrong, because people not on the mainstream media are right because the people not on the mainstream media say so”). Not to mention that I too rely on non-mainstream and self-published content in English (like Perun, B. L. Slantchev, Peter Zeihan ) and non-English language.
Concerning the links, I simply wanted to widen the options of critical views about Substack by citing also non American corporate mainstream news outlets. So e.g. Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) are non-profit NGOs. Mashable was a mistake though.

And if it was as Hersh says it was, it's really a panicky bad choice for Biden to make: Germany wasn't going to go for Nordstream gas anyway as there was no energy Armageddon or even one blackout in Germany this winter. — ssu


By that time Germany had already reduced its dependence on Russian gas from ~50% to ~9% and was on course to eliminate it entirely. And it wasn't getting any gas from Nord Stream anyway, since the Russians had already shut it down indefinitely in an apparent attempt to cause as much pain for Europe as they could before they lost their leverage entirely. — SophistiCat

If we want to focus on the US (but I don't think it is the only suspect), the problem is not only if they actually ordered/executed the sabotage, but also if it can be proven that they somehow knew about the operation but they didn't warn the Germans, or somehow enabled it.
Anyways, as long as there are proven Western responsibilities for that sabotage at the expense of Germany and whose importance is way more political than economical for the reasons SophistiCat explained, one may wonder if this predicament is such an own goal by the Westerners that it will severely destabilise if not end the Western alliance. I don't think that must be the case, Germany may leverage this predicament to demand and receive a convenient compensation for that, behind doors.

Claiming that Hersh’s article has not been suppressed having in mind how suppression of free press is actually practiced under authoritarian regimes is no rhetoric. It’s literally accurate. Your evoking the idea of “suppression” to comment the mainstream news outlets’ reception of Hersh’ article ...is meant to suggest an equivalence between such treatment and the actual suppression perpetrated by authoritarian regimes. That’s what your militant rhetoric is designed to achieve. — neomac


I don't know what to say. If your head is really so far up your own arse that you can't even contemplate the idea that your rhetoric is anything but "literally accurate" whilst that of anyone who disagrees is "propaganda", then it's clear why we are at such an impasse. But in case there's just a glimmer of light...

...having in mind... — neomac


...is rhetoric. What you "have in mind", the context in which you express opposition, the language game in which you determine the meaning of terms... that's rhetoric. — Isaac

And the context that gives meaning to the term “suppression” the way you used it, is exactly the one I previously described, namely one that given the clash between the US/NATO and Russia tries to blur the differences between news suppression under authoritarian regimes and “news suppression” under democratic regimes by surreptitiously stretching and deforming the meaning of the words like “suppression” (to the point of making such clumsy claim “That's a ridiculously low standard for what qualifies as a lack of suppression "if you're not banned of in jail, you're fine”, as if not being fine is enough to talk about being suppressed). Not surprisingly you are in good company with such militant terminology:
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202303/1287409.shtml
https://tass.com/world/1584753

And no, you do not get to decide for me what “rhetoric” means:

a: skill in the effective use of speech
b: a type or mode of language or speech
also : insincere or grandiloquent language

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric

speech or writing that is intended to influence or impress people, but which is often insincere or lacking in meaningful content

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-french/rhetoric

(formal, often disapproving) speech or writing that is intended to influence people, but that is not completely honest or sincere
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/rhetoric?q=rhetoric

I’m not lauding mainstream news media. That’s another example of exaggeration, caricature, distortion of what the reality is. — neomac

As opposed to...

militant rhetoric — neomac

manipulative, typical of the worst propaganda — neomac

intellectually miserable tricks — neomac

...which I suppose you'll hold to be "literally accurate"? — Isaac

You supposed right. Let me repeat it once more: your militant rhetoric and intellectually miserable tricks are manipulative, typical of the worst propaganda. This is a literally accurate description of your attitude in most, if not all, posts you addressed to me and not only.

I use the word 'lauding' to express your apparent sense of trustworthiness and that's a "exaggeration, caricature, distortion of what the reality is", but painting me a a militant wanting to bring about a return to some Putin-led authoritarianism is apparently "literally accurate"? — Isaac

Again I didn't "laud" the mainstream media in general, nor in particular for ignoring Hersh's article (which neither got suppressed by the government nor rejected by mainstream outlets, as far as I know). That's an exaggeration. I’m relying on the Western media system for the simple reason that is free and pluralistic enough that any truth against the government has more chances to become mainstream than under any authoritarian regime media system. I don't feel pressed to take a position wrt Hersh's article, nor I need Hersh’s article to suspect about the American involvement in Nord Stream 2 sabotage.
And I'm not painting you something you are not. I find literally correct to call you militant and your arguments propaganda based on what you actually said and how you said it. Indeed I always quoted you and argued my understanding of your questionable arguments. You repeatedly solicited interlocutors to take our politicians accountable for their blameworthy foreign policies about the war in Ukraine (and not only) and passionately made that as your main if not exclusive argumentative focus. That shows your militant urge. Satisfying it with simplistic and poorly argued assumptions over moral, politics, and geopolitics, spreading views critical toward the government (independently from their accuracy), fallacious counterarguments, and mostly profusion of discrediting remarks and dishonest rhetoric tricks are exactly illustrations of what I literally take to be the worst propaganda. No need to attribute to you nor suggest any "wanting to bring about a return to some Putin-led authoritarianism” (however I think your claims literally instrumental to Putin-led authoritarianism and authoritarian regimes’ propaganda, indeed most of the arguments you made are the ones that the Russian propaganda supports). After all it’s hard to guess the endgame supported by somebody like you. Too limited imagination here, I’m afraid.

the latter might more easily nurture the fanaticism of certain people trying to convince the less fanatics that they know better or they could do better because they have a more fervid imagination or more morally noble intentions. — neomac

Why? What mechanisms are in place in mainstream media to prevent people writing in those outlets from "trying to convince the less fanatics that they know better or they could do better because they have a more fervid imagination or more morally noble intentions”? — Isaac

Your question doesn’t make much sense, if you understand my objection. To make it more explicit: people that are fanatically opposing a regime (thanks to their putative superior imagination and noble intentions), more easily find support on alternative sources of information critical of the mainstream narratives which they too oppose, of course, no matter if such sources are questionable in turn, often for the same reasons such fanatics question certain mainstream narrative (spinning political propaganda to serve cynical, if not ideologically obtuse, interests). That’s the mindset of fanatic people like you.

we might have ended up having more evidences to assess Hersh’s article credibility vs mainstream media credibility: maybe the Washington Post or NYT would have accepted to publish his article, or maybe they would have rejected it because they fact-checked the article or identified his anonymous source and in either case his article was questionable, or maybe they would have rejected it without further comments but this might have been suspicious, etc. — neomac

Why? What mechanisms are in place in mainstream media to ensure, or promote the discovery/use of "more evidences" if a story is published there than if one is self-published?


News platforms, mainstream and non-mainstream (like icij or propublica), may scrutinise more or less rigorously the pieces they publish in terms of fact checking, identification/assessment of the sources of information (like anonymous sources), and legal counseling/vetting (in case of legal consequences), especially in the case of controversial content. — neomac


Yep. Or they may not. Do you have anything beyond idle speculation? — Isaac

Not sure you understood the point I’m making. When we are uncertain about the accuracy of an investigative piece against the American government, we can wonder about the reliability of the source. The problem is when we have plausible reasons to doubt the reliability of the source too, and reciprocal avoidance (Hersh didn’t go to mainstream news publisher, many mainstream news publisher ignored Hersh’s article) doesn’t offer more useful contextual evidences to clarify the reasons of such reciprocal avoidance and use them to assess reliability. So one can speculate about direct political interference, political interest of involved parties or other reasons (marketing/reputational reasons). In any case, my assumption is that at some point the bitter truth about the American government (if there is one) will come out roughly with the same likelihood as it came out other times (also thanks to the kind of findings Hersh’s investigations could offer).
If my speculations are idle, they are not more idle than your speculations (about political reasons and interference behind the treatment Hersh’s article received from mainstream/governmental sources). And the reason why I rely on my speculations more than yours is that they are arguably less unilateral and simplistic than yours.

So it’s not just matter of selling newspapers and newsworthiness — neomac

No. Your evidence says "may", you can't conclude an "is not" from a "may". Pretty basic stuff. It "may not" be just a matter of selling newspapers... or it may be, depending on the outcome of any evidence that this "scrutinising" that you tell us "may" happen actually is, you know... happening. — Isaac

I didn’t infer “is not” from a “may”. In clarifying my assumption, I talked in hypothetical terms when the subject I was referring to was “news platforms” (e.g. “news platforms, mainstream and non-mainstream (like icij or propublica), may scrutinise…”). Then I talked in actual terms when the subject I was referring to was the assumption itself: it’s not just matter of selling newspapers and newsworthiness. Roughly speaking, speculating is fine, but speculating over one’s own speculations would be a bit too much for this thread, I guess.

Hersh himself claims that for his self-published article he worked with a team of editors, fact-checkers, and at-that-time “known” anonymous sources to address the interviewers’ concerns about the reliability of his piece — neomac


So... the mainstream would have done what differently?


the claim “they have no special insight, no tools to get at the truth denied ordinary folk. They're just people, like Hersh” is obviously false: investigative journalism no matter if independent or not, is a specialised profession often relying on conditions (like special permissions granted only to professional journalists) and a network of informers (like anonymous inside witness and leakers), normally not available to ordinary folks. — neomac


Hersh is an investigative journalist — Isaac

.


In that interview (starting from 20min03), Hersh claims that he didn’t approach the Washington Post or NYT, because he thought they wouldn’t publish his article, because they want to know his source and he got burned once by revealing his source to an editor of NYT (but he doesn’t like to talk about that because “the NYT is still a good newspaper” and then he complains about 90% of editors). Yet it’s not clear what “being burned” is supposed to mean nor what that past experience has to do with Hersh’s belief the NYT and Washington Post wouldn’t publish his piece now (maybe Hersh used and is still using anonymous sources that the NYT or Washington Post would find unreliable?).
In other words, we are left to assume that there are some unspecified editorial issues with certain mainstream outlets behind Hersh’s decision of self-publishing. So the point is that mainstream publishers may choose editors and follow editorial guidelines to their liking not to Hersh’s liking. And if that’s the case, that’s a relevant difference.

What you failed to do so far however, is to convince me that spreading anti-mainstream narratives no matter if they are accurate because it’s an emergency is the best way to improve the system. Actually I suspect this is part of the problem, more likely so if insults, sarcasm, caricatures are the best counterarguments you can offer. — neomac


I'm not trying to convince you — Isaac

.

Yet, reiterating in several occasions claims like “the US and it's allies are our governments. It is they who we must hold to account and they to whose electorate we are speaking” (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/787564), marketing the narrative you support with rhetoric tricks, and giving advice to people on how spin a counter-narrative (no matter if accurate) for a powerful response under emergency, as you did with me, they all look too much like attempts (however self-defeating) to convince people, as political propaganda is supposed to do. Unfortunately trying to deny it may also be part of the job. Unless, of course, you lack self-awareness.

I’ll repeat it once more. Hersh could have sold his piece to some Western mainstream news outlets — neomac

It doesn't get more true the more you repeat it — Isaac

.

I don’t think the truth of that claim can be rationally challenged, of course. The reason why I repeated it is to avoid further objections based on a misunderstanding of my full argument which that claim is part of.

there are also platforms for independent investigative journalism. The reputed ones apply some internal reviewing of the piece before publication — neomac

Do they? Using what methods? — Isaac

Haruspex?

there might be reputational and legal hazards at the expense of the publisher to be assessed and addressed — neomac

Are self-published authors immune from prosecution? That's news to me. — Isaac

I wrote “publisher” which applies to both mainstream publishers and self-publishers. On the other side, if one is self-publishing, then he is more free to take greater risks, obviously. Is that news to you?

not to mention that he seems to be in good company on this “amazing” Substack — neomac


Brilliant. The mainstream media must be right because people not on the mainstream media are wrong because the mainstream media says so. Got to hand it to you guys, you come up with the very best in utter bullshit. — Isaac

First, your intellectually cringey understanding of what would make your arguments more rationally compelling reflects on your intellectually cringey understanding of your opponents’ claims. The argument you are clumsily attributing to me is in the end a self-defeating attempt to parody the very notion of epistemic reliance as I understand it. Indeed relying on a source of information (be it from your sense organs, memory, reasoning, instruments for observation and measurement, witnesses, professionals, experts) consists in a certain disposition to accept as plausibly true what the source of information presents as being the case, unless there are compelling reasons or evidences to the contrary (being all of them, in principle fallible). And we normally do not rely on a single source of information, but on an environment of sources of information that we learn to use and crosscheck depending on epistemic needs, background assumptions, and circumstances. That’s also how we can develop a critical non-naive understanding of media, mainstream or not, and therefore form opinions with greater caution. And that’s also the reason why wrote: “I’m relying on the Western media system for the simple reason that is free and pluralistic enough that any truth against the government has more chances to become mainstream than under any authoritarian regime media system.”
Second, concerning Hersh’s article, I argued that I’m not pressed to dismiss it as unreliable, just because it didn’t make headlines in major news outlets. And this shows I do not automatically align with mainstream attitudes and views just as if mainstream news outlets are always right (BTW mainstream news can even contradict one another).
Third, my comment wasn’t even about who is right or wrong, but about the fact that Substack (whose editorial principles sound promising on the papers) has become a haven for “anti-mainstream narrative” authors like him and posting a mainstream outlet denouncing substack articles is exactly illustrating the point I’m making. And, if you need it (coz I don't), similar accusations can be found elsewhere too:
https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/anti-vaxxers-qanon-influencers-and-white-nationalists-flocking-to-substack/
https://act.counterhate.com/page/98112/petition/1?locale=en-GB
https://mashable.com/article/substack-writers-leaving-misinformation
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2000220227551
https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/campaign-group-chief-says-substack-profiting-from-misinformation-deaths/

I'm not 'dishonestly' framing things the way it suits me. I'm doing so openly and honestl. The only difference between us is your dishonesty in pretending that you're doing otherwise. You defend the status quo and your rhetoric is designed to do that, just as mine is designed to oppose it. — Isaac

Yes you are framing things the way it suits you. And you did again in this comment. Claiming that Hersh’s article has not been suppressed having in mind how suppression of free press is actually practiced under authoritarian regimes is no rhetoric. It’s literally accurate. Your evoking the idea of “suppression” to comment the mainstream news outlets’ reception of Hersh’ article is a rhetoric trick (which I should “tolerate” to not sound “pedantic”) and is meant to suggest an equivalence between such treatment and the actual suppression perpetrated by authoritarian regimes. That’s what your militant rhetoric is designed to achieve. This associative talking and thinking is manipulative, typical of the worst propaganda. I don’t need such intellectually miserable tricks to make my point about Hersh’s article as you do. And that’s the key difference between me and you.

Ignored, avoided, dismissed? Even if political interference might have obstructed Hersh’s publication in Western media (which doesn’t automatically imply that the article is accurate though), yet I see another problem: Hersh preferred self-publishing over going to mainstream media. So he might have been served the same cold treatment he himself served to the mainstream media. — neomac

Might he? And what would posses mainstream media to act like a bunch of teenage girls in that respect? Is this the credible institution you laud? One which does not investigate serious allegations against the government because they came from someone who turned them down as a publication route? What are they, twelve?


In the end, he could have always tried to sell his article to mainstream publishers, and after rejection he could have still self-published his article plus take revenge against mainstream publishers by publicly denouncing their refusal to publish his extraordinary piece. — neomac

Yep, could have. Or, could not have. What difference does that make?

I was making a general point. Here is a list of American media outlets with different political bias: — neomac

I was asking you which of those had power? Which of those can cause the US government to act in a way it wouldn't otherwise?

The same mainstream news outlets publishing experts and academics criticising Nato enlargement, American military aid to Ukraine, American refusing to negotiate with Russia, etc. could have published Hersh’s article as well. And take credit for it, if Hersh’s article turns out to be accurate. — neomac


Yep. they could have. Or, again, they could not have. I don't see where this line of enquiry is going. What does it matter that Hersh could have not self-published? Editorial oversight is not the same as peer review. It's not like a scientific journal. Editors publish stories they think will sell papers, their decision is based on that and that alone, they're not Gods, there's no Secret Society of Editors dedicated to Truth. They have no special insight, no tools to get at the truth denied ordinary folk. They're just people, like Hersh. — Isaac

1 - I’m not lauding mainstream news media. That’s another example of exaggeration, caricature, distortion of what the reality is. The fact that I’m relying on them as many do out of necessity, and as a default entry point also for all news alternative sources may find contentious, it doesn’t mean that I do not have a critical understanding of their function and limits, nor it means that I’m ready to replace Western mainstream news with Hersh, substack, jacobin.com, or Tass. The latter too may misinform, run political agendas, and suffer from conflicts of interests. What’s worse is that the latter might more easily nurture the fanaticism of certain people trying to convince the less fanatics that they know better or they could do better because they have a more fervid imagination or more morally noble intentions. And their outraged sarcasm, caricaturing, insults against their opponents should prove it beyond any doubt, especially if their targets show intolerance and childishness by daring to protest against such an unfair treatment.
2 - I already explained the difference. “The inconvenient upshot of such a counterfactual [trying to sell and then being rejected] might have been to solicit a public report on the reasons why his article got rejected by the mainstream publishers, something Hersh might have been interested to avoid”. In other words, we might have ended up having more evidences to assess Hersh’s article credibility vs mainstream media credibility: maybe the Washington Post or NYT would have accepted to publish his article, or maybe they would have rejected it because they fact-checked the article or identified his anonymous source and in either case his article was questionable, or maybe they would have rejected it without further comments but this might have been suspicious, etc.
3 - I can’t nor need to predict under what conditions Western mainstream news media can influence any specific American policy. Lamenting the treatment Hersh’s self-published article received by the American mainstream news media must pertinently presuppose the belief that such news media have a certain capacity of shaping the general consensus around the American government foreign policies and influence it accordingly.
4 - News platforms, mainstream and non-mainstream (like icij or propublica), may scrutinise more or less rigorously the pieces they publish in terms of fact checking, identification/assessment of the sources of information (like anonymous sources), and legal counseling/vetting (in case of legal consequences), especially in the case of controversial content. So it’s not just matter of selling newspapers and newsworthiness (was this the case, Hersh’s article is arguably very much newsworthy). Indeed, in that very interview I linked previously, Hersh himself claims that for his self-published article he worked with a team of editors, fact-checkers, and at-that-time “known” anonymous sources to address the interviewers’ concerns about the reliability of his piece (in addition to self-promoting remarks, I mean).
Besides the claim “they have no special insight, no tools to get at the truth denied ordinary folk. They're just people, like Hersh” is obviously false: investigative journalism no matter if independent or not, is a specialised profession often relying on conditions (like special permissions granted only to professional journalists) and a network of informers (like anonymous inside witness and leakers), normally not available to ordinary folks.

a pluralistic media and political environment may constrain news agencies’ misinformation more likely than under authoritarian regimes. — neomac

Yes. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. Are you suggesting the only two choices we have are Western corporate-infused media as we have it now, or authoritarianism? Is that really the limit of your imagination? — Isaac

In the Western-like pluralistic system one can find e.g. mainstream news outlets, independent investigative platforms (like propublica and icij), self-publishing platforms (like Substack), OSINT sources, academic papers platforms, etc. and different political orientations. That’s pluralistic and free enough compared to what one can get in authoritarian regimes like Russia, China, Iran, Nord Korea. And for that reason worth preserving.
Said that, you shouldn’t convince me that is generically possible or desirable to improve the Western information system we currently have, if that’s what you’re trying to do with your pretentious questions. That’s easy to concede: between preserving and improving, I’d prefer improving of course. What you failed to do so far however, is to convince me that spreading anti-mainstream narratives no matter if they are accurate because it’s an emergency is the best way to improve the system. Actually I suspect this is part of the problem, more likely so if insults, sarcasm, caricatures are the best counterarguments you can offer.

in the specific case of Hersh’s article about Nord Stream 2, why exactly couldn’t he? — neomac

Simply put, all mainstream media is either directly owned by, or relies on revenue from, large corporations whose interests drive the editorial agenda. If it's in no corporate interest to publish a highly speculative story about US involvement in the Nord Stream bombings, then none will. Hersh seems to have concluded that to be the case sufficiently often to choose to rely on his own income stream. That decision having been made, he's hardly in a position to sacrifice it by giving the scoop to someone else. Self-employment isn't nefarious, it's not some oddity in need of explanation. — Isaac

I’ll repeat it once more. Hersh could have sold his piece to some Western mainstream news outlets (not given his scoop to somebody else for free or without acknowledgment). There are several, inside and outside the US , with different political orientations, and some critical toward Biden’s administration and his foreign policy (there are plenty of articles in mainstream outlets against NATO enlargement, military aid to Ukraine, refusal of peace negotiations, etc.). Besides there are also platforms for independent investigative journalism. The reputed ones apply some internal reviewing of the piece before publication, understandably so because no matter what economic and political reasons can distort such process, yet there might be reputational and legal hazards at the expense of the publisher to be assessed and addressed. Self-publishing spares the author such process imposed by another publisher.
The kind of argument Hersh himself offered in that interview sound overly vague, erratic and colloquial to me, so there is room for speculation about his reasons for self-publishing (and relying on his actual statements would be more persuasive than guessing Hersh’s reasons out of your understanding of how mainstream media work) but we can not speculate about the reasons why his article got rejected by mainstream outlets such as Washington Post and NYT, because according to Hersh this didn’t happen (so his article neither got suppressed by the government nor rejected by mainstream news outlets). As he himself indirectly suggested, the combination of new technologies for self-publishing (like this “amazing” Substack) and polarised politics (which we are left to assume Hersh is averse to), created the conditions enabling (self-promoting?) independent journalists to compete with mainstream media for audience and reputation. His self-interested remarks plus innuendoes at the expense of the NYT (one might wonder if he ever got burned by one of his anonymous sources though) or lamenting the “doom for good reporting on newspapers” are pointing in that direction “in the long run” (not to mention that he seems to be in good company on this “amazing” Substack https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/27/substack-misinformation-anti-vaccine/). But if we are talking about competition, then it’s in the corporate interest of the publisher to minimise the impact of the competitor, certainly not to promote it (this is something also people older than 12 can understand, I guess), especially if the mainstream outlets had reasons to suspect that Hersh self-published because his article couldn’t pass a stricter review, or if the mainstream outlets were warned about a line of investigation more plausible (or more convenient?) than Hersh’s by their own anonymous insiders, because in this case they also had pretexts along with motives.

Sy Hersh no longer confines his lies to talks. His latest "blockbuster" has been fact-checked using OSINT and found to be lacking in some crucial details. — SophistiCat

Maybe he is not lying just making false claims. Anyways, talking about OSINT, I was aware of Oliver Alexander's review of Hersh's article: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe

Or are you referring to somebody else?

In the past Bellingcat was critical about Hersh's claims: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/06/25/will-get-fooled-seymour-hersh-welt-khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack/
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/07/28/khan-sheikhoun-seymour-hersh-learned-just-write-know-move/

Well perhaps consider a little more tolerance and a little less childish pedantry. We're talking about the treatment of the article by the mainstream media on a public discussion forum. I don't think there's any chance of me accidentally starting the next Marxist revolution here so you can probably rest easy about my "militant rhetoric”. — Isaac

It’s not about pedantry or Marxist revolutions, it’s about you dishonestly framing things the way it suits you so that e.g. you can flatten relevant differences concerning how independent journalists are treated in Western-like democracies (not suppressing their independent journalists’ pieces against the government) vs Chinese/Russian style authoritarian regimes (suppressing their independent journalists’ pieces against the government). Protecting such kind of differences is what may justify Western democratic regimes' policies against authoritarian regimes’ threats, so I have a good reason to insist on it. Your way of questioning and arguing is highly manipulative and I don’t see why I should “tolerate” such militant rhetoric also in the context of a philosophy forum. I find it intellectually dishonest and deserving to be treated as such.

Then what did they do to it? What's the word you'd prefer we use to describe their smearing and studious avoidance? What word could we put in place of "suppression" which carries a lower risk of inciting the proletariat? — Isaac

Ignored, avoided, dismissed? Even if political interference might have obstructed Hersh’s publication in Western media (which doesn’t automatically imply that the article is accurate though), yet I see another problem: Hersh preferred self-publishing over going to mainstream media. So he might have been served the same cold treatment he himself served to the mainstream media. In the end, he could have always tried to sell his article to mainstream publishers, and after rejection he could have still self-published his article plus take revenge against mainstream publishers by publicly denouncing their refusal to publish his extraordinary piece. Unless, the inconvenient upshot of such a counterfactual might have been to solicit a public report on the reasons why his article got rejected by the mainstream publishers, something Hersh might have been interested to avoid.

I’m simply questioning the idea that Hersh’s story would earn greater credibility by being sponsored by Russian propaganda outlets like TASS relative to alternatives like the BBC. — neomac

An idea nobody espoused. — Isaac

I didn’t assume otherwise. You misunderstood part of my claims when I was considering Hersh’s article credibility wrt his editorial fortune. So I clarified that to you.

I just don’t feel pressed to question a Western government’s deeds when there are so many powerful agents readily doing so — neomac

I must have missed those. Could you provide a couple of links to these 'powerful' agents (a primer on the concept of 'power' in international relations, if you need one - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2151022)? — Isaac

I was making a general point. Here is a list of American media outlets with different political bias: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
Not all of them are supportive of Biden’s administration right?
The same mainstream news outlets publishing experts and academics criticising Nato enlargement, American military aid to Ukraine, American refusing to negotiate with Russia, etc. could have published Hersh’s article as well. And take credit for it, if Hersh’s article turns out to be accurate.

the Russian government is... far from being vocally challenged by competitors internal or external to the government — neomac

...one of the more ridiculous things said today... If only more people would speak out against Russian actions... — Isaac

My point wasn’t about how many people speak out against Russia. But how a pluralistic media and political environment may constrain news agencies’ misinformation more likely than under authoritarian regimes.

If an independent journalist wants to be read by many, he could sell his articles denouncing a government’s misdeeds to a mainstream outlets. If he doesn’t trust any mainstream outlets, he could still publish in some well reputed independent platform like https://www.icij.org/about/ — neomac

Could he? You just assume this on faith, yes? — Isaac

I was making a general argument there, so in the specific case of Hersh’s article about Nord Stream 2, why exactly couldn’t he? Did he try and get rejected by all mainstream news outlets? All the biggest ones? All the ones critical of Biden’s administration too? All the European outlets too? How about icij or propublica? As far as I can tell, there are no evidences of such attempts and rejections (e.g. at 20min03 of this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUTwLiuiNh0 Hersh claims he never thought to approach the mainstream news papers he used to write for, the Washington Post or the NYT, because he never thought they would publish his article about the Nord Stream 2 sabotage). But if you have evidences to the contrary, post them here.

I can keep my doubts in either case and suspend my judgement. — neomac — Isaac

No. Your 'suspended judgement' is just consent to whatever the US (or your own country) are doing. Because they're doing it now. If you don't stop them, you consent. There's no 'suspended judgement' the situation is happening in front of you, right now and you have to decide one way or the other.[/quote]

So there is no third option now? Just either or? So in your case if you don’t support the Ukrainian fight against Russian invasion, then you consent to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because that is what your attitude performatively equates to?
Anyways, my “suspended judgement” about Hersh’s article credibility, is not consent to whatever the US has done in Nord Stream 2 because, contrary to what we already know about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I still ignore if Hersh’s accusations are accurate. But I get the implied risks of my position and am fine with it. We are reasoning under uncertainties, so risks are part of the game.

It's like seeing a man with a gun about to shoot another. You can't 'suspend judgement' about who's guilty, who's attacking whom. You either act (and protect the one being shot at) or you don't act (and let him get shot). 'Suspending judgement' is just performatively identical to the latter. — Isaac

Or it's like seeing Russia invading Ukraine. You can't 'suspend judgement' about who's guilty, who's attacking whom. You either act (and protect the one being invaded) or you don't act (and let him get invaded). 'Suspending judgement' is just performatively identical to the latter.

:up:

My arguments have been to illuminate Gert’s moral insights rather than contradict them. That illumination starts with understanding the ten rules as advocacy for initiating or maintaining reciprocity strategies which are powerful means for solving cooperation problems. Solving cooperation problems is the default behavior most likely both to lessen harms (Gert’s and negative utilitarianism’s goal) and, as I argue, positive utilitarianism as well. The same 10 moral rules support both positive and negative utilitarianism equally well because the same cooperation problems must be solved.

Imagine you have 2 parents with 10 kids, they can afford to provide each of them with minimal means of subsistence or kill five of them to let the other five have more than just minimal means of subsistence. Now consider 3 scenarios:
(A) Both parents agree on providing each kid with just minimal means of subsistence
(B) Both parents agree on killing 5 kids to let the other five have more than just minimal means of subsistence
(C) Parents disagree
In case A and B we do not have a cooperation problem between parents while in C we do, right? — neomac


As you describe it, the cooperation problem is just between the parents. But alternatives A), B), and C) could each be ‘rational’ (depending on the parents' values) ONLY if the kids have no independent moral worth. If the kids have independent moral worth, then any of the options would be a cooperation problem for the kids plus the parents. — Mark S

Talking about Gert’s views, I think that the label of “utilitarianism” is misleading. “Utilitarianism” to me implies a notion of good/harm as measurable parameters, ways to verify their increase/decrease, and the goal of maximise good or minimise harm over a collectivity. I don’t think that is what Gert’s has in mind because he argued against utilitarianism. I think that Gert’s assumption that morality is for biased and non-omniscient beings suggests that good/bad may not be unbiasedly established nor predicted. Yet some default behaviour may exclude the worse for all rational individuals somehow logically. If all rational individuals intentionally act in a certain way by default, harm can not possibly result as intentional outcome by default. What will happen in concrete cases however it depends on the actual circumstances, and certain exceptional circumstances may be such that individuals can not act according to those default ways.
So wrt the case I suggested, the rationality of the parents’ dispositions shouldn’t be assessed as a function of their actual and inevitably “biased” values nor as a function of future outcomes but as a function of default moral rules. Moral rules should dispense individuals from being guided by default by their biased preferences and predictive skills. This is my understanding of Gert’s argument and 10 rules, although I’m not sure it’s accurate.

"Lack of suppression" doesn't mean "being fine" — neomac

So you're not fine with how Sy Hersh's story has been treated. Good. We agree on that. — Isaac

I wasn’t talking about not being fine with how Sy Hersh's story has been treated.
I’m not fine with you talking about "suppression" in reference to Hersh's article.
It’s a rhetoric exaggeration, a caricature, due to your militant mindset.

I didn't ask you where one can read about Sy Hersh's story. If you don't want to answer my questions just don't. There's no need to answer a different one. — Isaac

Well, then if you do not want to question my actual claims, just don’t. There is no need to question claims I never made. Mainstream media didn’t suppress Hersh’s article. And mainstream readers can read about that Hersh’s article from mainstream press however corrupted and politically biased you think they are.

If there is a relevant delta of credibility between BBC and TASS in favor of the former, and Hersh gets mentioned only by the latter, this is not a boost of Hersh's credibility. I guess. Unless one assumes that Hersh is the relevant meter by which one can assess BBC vs TASS credibility. — neomac


This is either deliberately obtuse or childishly naive. A broadcaster like TASS will give its eye teeth to publish a story which reflects badly on the US. Their doing so, therefore, has no bearing whatsoever on its credibility. Do you think they'd avoid anti-US stories because they're true. I mean its just dumbfoundingly stupid. A non-credible news agency like TASS doesn't actively seek out fake news. They publish news which promotes their agenda, true or not. So a news article appearing in TASS doesn't indicate it's false. It indicates that it's good for Russia. I hate to blow your tiny mind, but some things are both true and good for Russia, and Russian propaganda will publish those thing with no less enthusiasm than they publish flashhoods. — Isaac

But that’s irrelevant to counter my argument. I’m not questioning the possibility that TASS is right in supporting Hersh’s story about Nord Stream 2 sabotage, I’m simply questioning the idea that Hersh’s story would earn greater credibility by being sponsored by Russian propaganda outlets like TASS relative to alternatives like the BBC.

The agencies whose investigations you claim are relevant fall into two camps; governments and journalists. Governments will not report honestly their own collusion so you cannot trust a government to report on its own behaviour. You yourself pointed to the untrustworthiness of TASS.
So you're left with journalists. But you've said that independent journalists lack sufficient credibility to be taken seriously. So who's left? Mainstream media. You're saying that if the mainstream media don't report it, it doesn't deserve any credibility. So I asked, if the.mainstream media have a problem, how do we hear about it? — Isaac

First, to me the main problem with TASS is not that is a state-owned news agency , but that the Russian government is remarkably authoritarian (in the middle of a conventional war which Russia itself started), yet far from being vocally challenged by competitors internal or external to the government as democratic Western governments would be. I just don’t feel pressed to question a Western government’s deeds when there are so many powerful agents readily doing so (even more so if such agents opposing the current government can as well be suspected of equal corruption and political bias, if not more).
Second, I never claimed “independent journalists lack sufficient credibility to be taken seriously” nor that “if the mainstream media don't report it, it doesn't deserve any credibility”. In Western-like democracies one can find mainstream outlets with different political leanings, also in favour or against any given government. If an independent journalist wants to be read by many, he could sell his articles denouncing a government’s misdeeds to a mainstream outlets. If he doesn’t trust any mainstream outlets, he could still publish in some well reputed independent platform like https://www.icij.org/about/ (this may be also a big promotion for independent journalism if the article turns out to be enough accurate). But if he doesn’t do any of that, and prefers to self-publish, that’s his choice, not necessarily a problem of the mainstream outlets “suppressing” Hersh’s article (indeed many mainstream outlets talked about Hersh’s article anyways and if he couldn’t rely on the American media on this, he could also publish on European news papers) or the credibility of independent journalism in general.
Third, self-publishing leaves people like me with the doubt that either Hersh requires max freedom because he is fucking Hersh (yet he earned his reputation by actually working in the past for mainstream outlets reviewing/fact-checking/vetting his articles), or Hersh requires some serious reviewing/fact-checking/vetting even if he is fucking Hersh (also because he self-admittedly can lie). So as long as I see one version from the American government (which may sound suspicious independently from Hersh’s article accuracy) and another version from Hersh (which may sound suspicious independently from Hersh’s article accuracy), I can keep my doubts in either case and suspend my judgement. The fact that the Germans are supporting another investigative line could now give more weight on doubts against Hersh’s version, not overwhelmingly so though.
And that’s basically all I find reasonable to say about Hersh’s article credibility vs mainstream media credibility so far.

That's a ridiculously low standard for what qualifies as a lack of suppression "if you're not banned of in jail, you're fine" — Isaac

"Lack of suppression" doesn't mean "being fine", it means "lack of suppression". You were talking about "suppression" and that's a caricature.

If visibility in the mainstream dictates credibility, what happens if the mainstream become corrupt? Who points that out and to whom? Who holds mainstream media to account? Or are they Gods? — Isaac

Hersh made his point in a substack article but anybody in the West could learn of its existence through mainstream outlets, like:
https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/nord-stream-2-un-journaliste-americain-accuse-washington-du-sabotage-20230213
https://www.zeit.de/zustimmung?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de%2Fpolitik%2Fausland%2F2023-02%2Fseymour-hersh-nord-stream-pipeline-anschlag-usa
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11760473/As-Pultizer-prize-winning-journalist-points-CIA-DID-blow-Nord-Stream-pipeline.html
https://www.corriere.it/esteri/23_febbraio_09/nord-stream-hersch-usa-esplosione-gasdotto-fc3f320a-a88b-11ed-b9c4-8c4ac5be6a91.shtml
https://elpais.com/ideas/2023-02-25/seymour-hersh-el-periodista-legendario-cuestionado-por-su-investigacion-del-sabotaje-del-gasoducto.html

the Western news platform credibility — neomac

...oh, turns out they are gods. Well, that answers that question. — Isaac

If there is a relevant delta of credibility between BBC and TASS in favor of the former, and Hersh gets mentioned only by the latter, this is not a boost of Hersh's credibility. I guess. Unless one assumes that Hersh is the relevant meter by which one can assess BBC vs TASS credibility.

Do you think the mainstream press doesn't have a politics? Over 90% of Washington Post readers are Democrats. You're suggesting that's a coincidence? They're reporting the news unbiasedly and just happen to be liked overwhelmingly by one side? — Isaac

Why do you think I think the mainstream press doesn't have a politics?
Where did I suggest that is a coincidence that over 90% of Washington Post readers are Democrats?
Or that they're reporting the news unbiasedly and just happen to be liked overwhelmingly by one side?
This way of questioning my claims is just random, because they are neither addressing what I actually wrote, nor the assumptions behind it.
Talking randomly about politics and bias, I guess also Hersh, Mearsheimer, and Chomsky are pretty popular among jacobins like you, aren’t they? And is Hersh’s news report completely unbiased?

the Nord Stream 2 blasts are object of a wide investigation involving several countries, related governments, intelligence services, news outlets — neomac

You've given a list which involves only two independant agents - governments and news agencies. You've dismissed results of half of the news agencies, and governments are not going to incriminate themselves, so you're basically saying the mainstream media are inviolable and we need never concern ourselves with the possibility that they may be biased. — Isaac

No idea how you can possibly infer such conclusions from the claim of mine you quoted. Anyways I don’t need to take a strong position against Hersh’s version of the Nord Stream 2 story, because I do not have a strong position in favour of what is reported on the mainstream media, either. I’m simply relying on the assumption that the Western media systems give more room to dissenting voices than authoritarian regimes like Russia or China, so one way or the other a truth that is against the government’s narrative has more chances to be shared at some point in Western-like democratic regimes. Indeed, cases like Watergate, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction were all covered/investigated by mainstream Western press. What’s more is that in the case of Nord Stream 2 Western interested parties are many, more directly involved and badly impacted so I would expect less complacency from the Europeans (starting with the Germans) toward the Americans, if there were serious evidences about the US being involved in such sabotage with abusive intentions.
The other point is that I don’t expect Western democracy and media to work during war time with exactly the same transparency and pluralism I would expect during peace time. But I find this predicament physiological and tolerable to the extant there is a non-negligeable threat to the world order from authoritarian regimes like Russia and China, if not a more direct threat to the national integrity and sovereignty. For the simple reason that there might be sensible security information available to decision makers that can’t be readily exposed to the wider public lest national and international enemies exploit it to their benefit. And as you suggested, emergency requires fast and powerful responses that can’t be slowed down by due diligence (having in mind procedures in non-emergency time), even if that might more likely lead to abuses. Once the emergence is over we can review what has been done. BTW Hersh too candidly admits to lie in his profession whenever he thinks he has a good reason to (https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/).

Take Seymour Hersh's article for example. It blames the US government for the pipeline sabotage. So the US government will want to suppress that story (note we haven't even got to whether it's true or not yet).

They will use their enormous power to rapidly put it down. If, therefore, you think you might not want that story put down, you have to amplify it quickly and with force. You have to resist that suppression. — Isaac

“Suppressing” is a strong word. As far as I can tell, Hersh’s article is not subject to censorship nor is Hersh prosecuted/jailed because of that.
Maybe Hersh’s article doesn’t enjoy as much visibility in the mainstream outlets as one could find desirable. Yet this is also part of Hersh’s article credibility problem.
When I, as an avg dude, read a self-published investigative journalist referring to a single anonymous source, I can not rely on the Western news platform credibility (which implies other people involved in reviewing and vetting the article’s content). On the other side, Rupert Murdoch’s channels, and pro-regime news outlets from China, Russian and India, which can give more visibility to Hersh’s article, don’t improve Hersh’ article credibility since I believe that those sources can be fake news dispenser more likely than the Western outlets for political reasons. Besides the Nord Stream 2 blasts are object of a wide investigation involving several countries, related governments, intelligence services, news outlets, for a case that primarily concerns Germany as a victim (among the Western countries) not Yemen, Vietnam or Djibouti so if they (Germany above all) do not seem much compelled by Hersh’s report, and instead follow another line of investigation, I don’t see why I should feel more compelled to take Hersh’s article as relevant (even if there was some truth to it, mind you).

don’t get what you mean by “more epistemic than moral notions”. — Mark S

I didn't think this objection through. The point is that rules of thumbs and heuristics are meant to spare us cognitive load in our decision making. When a problem is too complicated for us to process an optimal solution, then we rely on rules of thumbs and heuristics to approximate that solution. So we have to be able to define the decision problem before talking about heuristics and rules of thumbs. Gert’s rules (https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/006.htm) may be seen as an answer to the question: what is default behavior that would more likely lessen the harms of all those who commit to them? In this case those rules would be more rule of thumbs. Gert's assumption that "morality is for fallible biased people" could support that reading. My impression however is that Gert's argument is stronger because he wants to talk in terms of rationality and not just make an empirical general claim approximately true.
Anyways, I think that Gert is having in mind a different problem from yours: he is not formulating his notion of morality as a function of solving cooperation problems, and related heuristics as you suggested (partnership, domination, marker principles).

I do know, empirically and independently of any of Gert’s claims, that the ten moral norms are fallible heuristics for reciprocity strategies. — Mark S

“Do not kill”, “do not cause pain”, “do not disable” (https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/006.htm) can be considered fallible in a practical sense if they are seen as instrumental to some further goal. You may want to say that they are instrumental to solve or support the solution of cooperation problems. If that’s the case, there are 4 issues with that:
1 - maybe you explained that in your past posts and I missed it, but so far you didn’t offer to me a concrete example where a cooperation problem would likely have no (suboptimal if not optimal) solutionunless we adopted Gert’s moral rules.
2 - most importantly, cooperation is itself instrumental to some goals, which goals? If the answer is: reducing death, pain, disabilities, etc. of some people by some people engaged in the cooperation then we are back to Gert’s rules. The payoff of the cooperative strategies will be defined as a function of death, pain, disabilities, liberties, etc. reducing the evils and/or increase the goods
3 - Gerts’ “descriptive” definition of morality suggests that also the “normative” definition of morality is focused on reducing evils (“lessening of harms”) and not increasing the goods (indeed “do cause pleasure” is missing among the rules). While the notion of “cooperation” is not focused on lessening the evils.
4 - I’m not sure that Gert’s 10 moral rules are necessary and sufficient conditions for a “normative” definition of morality. Indeed, Gert concedes that there are reasons for disagreement even if we accepted the 10 rules (https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/010.htm). So Gert’s 10 rules may not suffice to support the solution of cooperation problems.

But if they are not moral absolutes, in what circumstances would following them be immoral? The heuristics for solving cooperation problems perspective provides a simple answer. It would be immoral to follow them when doing so is more likely to create rather than solve cooperation problems. — Mark S

Imagine you have 2 parents with 10 kids, they can afford to provide each of them with minimal means of subsistence or kill five of them to let the other five have more than just minimal means of subsistence. Now consider 3 scenarios:
(A) Both parents agree on providing each kid with just minimal means of subsistence
(B) Both parents agree on killing 5 kids to let the other five have more than just minimal means of subsistence
(C) Parents disagree
In case A and B we do not have a cooperation problem between parents while in C we do, right? Yet I don’t think A and B would be considered indifferently equally moral by Gert’s standards, because in case B killing 5 kids would breach one of the first moral rules to increase the goods for the other 5. So in case C, those parents would find Gert’s rules helpful in solving the disagreement they had prior to being exposed to Gert’s rules. This kind of examples shows how Gert’s rules contribute to the solution of cooperation games. Yet, if that is the case, Gert’s rules will determine the strategy exposed in B as morally problematic where there is no cooperation problem.
Besides case C may be the consequence of exposing otherwise agreeing parents to Gert’s rules. So Gert’s rules can also cause cooperation problems like breaking a partnership that was given for granted (in real life compare to the moral implications in cases of religious/political conversion). Maybe we can say that Gert's rules may solve or contribute to solve cooperation problems, if Gert's rules are embraced by all actors involved in the cooperation problem.

But that is because they are moral norms about behaviors (moral means), not moral ends (goals). — Mark S

I’m not yet sure if the distinction means/ends can really help us here. Can you give examples that illustrate the distinction between moral means and moral ends?

P.S. I'm giving answers based on a charitable understanding of Gert's position. I don't assume that my understanding is accurate nor I'm committed to Gert's position as I understand it.

it's mainly about raising, or maintaining, a movement of voters opposed to the abuses of power — Isaac

Are you talking about being militant in some political movement or party that are against
one's Western country's involvement in this war? Can you list a couple of such movements/parties that you find definitely trustworthy?

fight back hard enough and quickly enough to stop it — Isaac

And how would you "fight back hard enough and quickly enough to stop it" in more detail?

When events are moving powerfully and with speed, responses have to match both or else fail. — Isaac

That sounds enlightening to me. Yet "power" and "speed" (like in "emergency" talks about the Russian threat) are often claimed to be at the root of abusive behavior by political authorities. So I don't understand how much confidence you can put in the idea that you or a mass of individual Isaacs would be able to provide a powerful fast response (as any effective political action would require) against the abuses of the evil people that govern us (like with a revolution? a capitol hill riot? a demonstration where you remove your hijab in defiance of the morality police? a terrorist attack? or chatting over a philosophy forum is enough?), and yet without being as abusive or worse than them.

You are projecting so hard I could point you at a wall to show off a PowerPoint presentation. — Tzeentch

It's enough to quote me, with or without PowerPoint.

I don't see need absolute certainty to be sure of something. Absolute certainty doesn't exist, and the pretention that such is necessary to take a strong stance towards something, that is intellectually dishonest, especially when that standard is applied one-sidedly to the narrative you happen to disagree with. — Tzeentch

There is no intellectual dishonesty. I quoted you, and exactly your way of talking about Nord Stream 2 and not mine is expression of a strong stance to me (it doesn't matter if it is not necessary to have one). Talking about "being sure of something" (so sure that you just can go on talking about your stance in terms "hard facts", "painful reality" vs others cheerleading and American bombing Nord Stream 2) is still more than what I could be about the Nord Stream 2 case. Indeed, I never talked in these terms about Nord Stream 2 case and yet I have been accused of “unwavering faith” or “unreserved faith” (despite you claiming that "absolute certainty doesn't exist", go figure).

Moreover, outside of philosophical debate this type of approach to worldly affairs is, in one word, weak. We're dealing with actors that will take every opportunity to bullshit you, and here we are waiting for that distant moment when we arrive at crystalline certainty (a pipe dream) to call out said bullshit. That's crippling insecurity masquerading as intellectual rigor. — Tzeentch

Well, we are in a philosophy forum, so I'm fine with engaging in "philosophical debates" over world affairs even if they seem "weak" to you. BTW that there is some inherent weakness in such debates is one of my assumptions [1], but that's not enough to make them look boring or useless [2]
I don't use intellectual rigor to "masquerade" "crippling insecurity" (assumed "crippling insecurity" exists), but at best to cope with uncertainty over divisive facts as an alternative to Isaac's style of tribal fighting. It's also striking that on one side you are dismissing "crystalline certainty" but then you seem as dismissive of "crippling insecurity". You might think you have found the right balance between "security" and "insecurity", also thanks to your "relevant academic background to develop my own general picture..." [3] which maybe others do not have, so they might need to rely on expert source. On my side, as long as I don't know you enough, you can bullshit me as much as Biden, Putin, Scott Ritter, Hersh can do. Also about your "relevant academic background", mind you.


[1]
Concerning my “bit of self-awareness”, is the following enough?

I’m an avg dude (not en expert), we are reasoning under uncertainties of many relevant facts, and exchange in a philosophy forum from our armchair during leisure time. Didn’t we explicitly factor in all that in our claims many times already? Yet I care about the clarity/logic of my arguments and the evidences available to me to assess them (including the input from all sorts of news/stats/reports/experts of course). Since I take such arguments and evidence assessment to be affordable also by other avg dudes in a philosophy forum post format, I expect such avg dudes to reciprocate in intellectually honest and challenging ways — neomac


as an avg dude, I’m far from assuming to know better or enough how to play the game to “propose” or “recommend” anything to anybody about geopolitical issues, or to have any significant impact on this war directly or indirectly through my posts here — neomac


nobody and certainly not avg dudes like me and you can figure out a reliable plan to grant an optimal military victory — neomac


As an avg dude, I would rely more on geopolitical speculation and historical analogies for guidance. — neomac
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/776424


[2]

However the fun part to me is mainly to play by argumentative rules that make one’s views rationally compelling to opponents’ views. Besides since this is a philosophy forum and not a science forum, we can more easily end up discussing our conceptual frameworks, our terminology, our beliefs’ inferential or explanatory power, etc. and this in turn can help not fix the world, but fix (clarify/reorder/clean up) one self’s ideas about the world. — neomac

[3]

I do have the relevant academic background to develop my own general picture based on rudimentary data like troop numbers, movements, etc. That's good enough for me. — Tzeentch

"

Good job we're avoiding loaded terms and caricature — Isaac

The US and it's allies are our governments. It is they who we must hold to account and they to whose electorate we are speaking. As such it is their faults and strategies which are our primary concern. — Isaac

I don't feel compelled to refrain from sarcasm, caricature and insults against my opponents if my opponents persist with their intellectually dishonesty as you are. Besides I don't think it was much of a caricature, unless you are a caricature of yourself. Indeed, as long as "primary concern" leads you and your new sidekick to believe that the genesis of this war, the failure of peace talks, and now the bombing of Nord Stream 2 is primarily US responsibility because of some alleged "hard facts" and anti-system expert source, and to insult, caricature, or paint as gaslighted by Western propaganda whoever disagrees with you because you have anger management issues, that objection of mine against your attitude is not much of an exaggeration.

An odd response, but I appreciate the honesty. — Isaac

There is something to appreciate in its own merits though. To the extent I don't trust the judgement of people like you, you are not part of the solution, but more likely part of the problem. Indeed, all your beliefs and arguments can be instrumental to Russian ambitions, as much as mine can be instrumental to the American ambitions. So if I trust Russia less than America and your judgement on the topic less than mine, then I see you just as a vector of pro-Russian toxic memes.

If you assume people are generally rational, then it collapses into historicism, i.e., conventional morality at time X was rational given the information constraints of the era. If you don't allow information constraints to play a central role it becomes deontological morality with less punch. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Gert's assumption is somehow different from what you suggest: "This is where it is important to recognize that morality is for fallible biased people. Failure to realize this is what is responsible for many of the weird views about morality that have been put forward by philosophers. The only weird view that I will mention is what is known as act utilitarianism or act consequentialism. I mention this view because it is a view that initially sounds very plausible and that many people claim to accept because they fail to realize that morality governs behavior between fallible biased beings. Morality is not for impartial omniscient beings". Source: https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/006.htm

Right, but referring to “normative systems” rather than something like “cultural moralities” could lead to confusion about when a system is normative – “when it would be advocated by all rational people”. — Mark S

This only becomes normative if it is what all rational people would advocate as I understand Gert’s arguments — Mark S

.

All right, we can distinguish “cultural moralities” from “normative system” in Gert’s sense to avoid terminological confusions. But my point was really about the fact that “cultural moralities” and the “normative system” in Gert’s sense are both “normative” in the sense of being standards for guiding and assessing practical behaviour.

But Gert is not advocating these 10 rules as moral absolutes. Rather, they are heuristics (usually reliable, but fallible rules of thumb) for the goal of “lessening of harms suffered by those protected by the system”. And “human sacrifice or slavery” would violate that moral behavior goal. — Mark S

Right and I didn’t affirm anywhere that those 10 rules are absolute as opposed to conditional. Indeed, when Gert’s talk about “rationality” in the moral context he’s always specifying a “unless” condition (“Insofar as people are acting rationally, they all avoid the harms unless they have an adequate reason not to avoid them.” https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/003.htm). Here Gert is even more explicit about this “it is important to use these rules as moral guides, it would be disastrous to regard them as absolute, that is, to hold that it is always immoral to break any of these rules no matter what the circumstances were. ” (https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/006.htm)
Yet I wouldn’t call them “heuristics” or “fallible rules of thumb” because these are more epistemic than moral notions. I prefer to talk about them in terms of “default” social norms, that may be exceptionally reconsidered depending on some compelling circumstances.

Am I correct in taking your understanding of
“An informal public system applicable to all moral agents that has lessening of harms suffered by those protected by the system as its goal.”
to be the claimed negative-utilitarianism goal of moral behavior? — Mark S

No, that’s not my understanding. Gert’s made his point against utilitarianism in his slides (https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/006.htm): This is where it is important to recognize that morality is for fallible biased people. Failure to realize this is what is responsible for many of the weird views about morality that have been put forward by philosophers. The only weird view that I will mention is what is known as act utilitarianism or act consequentialism. I mention this view because it is a view that initially sounds very plausible and that many people claim to accept because they fail to realize that morality governs behavior between fallible biased beings. Morality is not for impartial omniscient beings. Taking act utilitarianism or act consequentialism as a moral guide would require people to do that act which they regard as having the best overall consequences, that is, what they regard the best balance of less harms and more benefits than any other act. (Of course, other people may have a different view of what counts as the best overall consequences.) On this view, moral rules have no significance, people should simply act to achieve the best consequences and pay no attention to whether their actions involve deception, breaking a promise, cheating, disobeying a law or neglecting their duty. Just imagine what life would be like if everyone did what they thought was best and paid no attention to whether they were violating any of the moral rules. It would be a disaster.

In this case, I agree that adding the phrase “increasing the benefits of cooperation and” does not make sense.
I have been thinking of Gert’s above claim as a claim about moral ‘’means’ (lessening of harms) not moral ‘ends’ (the negative-utilitarianism goal of moral behavior). Your interpretation seems more likely. — Mark S

Even though I don’t think we can take Gert’s 10 rules as a case of “utilitarianism”, yet I think they are more about “collective” ends than means to achieve them.

You, SophistiCat, @neomac... What have your governments done recently to deserve such unreserved faith? I just can't fathom it. What, over the last decade, say, has lead you to believe that US intelligence agencies are trustworthy, that government sources tell you the truth, that the official version of events is pretty much how things are... I'd love to know what string of successes has given you all such unwavering faith in the system. — Isaac

As usual “unwavering faith” or “unreserved faith” are ways to caricature my views (and others’, I’d say). The one who is pretty much categorically sure about what happened in the Nord Stream 2 case and related Western propaganda is your new sidekick [1], not me. Indeed, I didn’t dismiss Hersh’s report, nor argued against Hersh’s credibility.
Where I deeply disagree with you both, is your helpless craving for pinning roughly everything bad is happening primarily on the US. And to me this has to do more with our assumptions about power struggles in politics and geopolitics than on circumstantial “hard facts” (most of which we may be uncertain about). Your and Tzeentch’s frustration to present your reasons in a persuasive way to your opponents leads you both to caricature your opponents’ views. This attitude is intellectually dishonest and repulsive to me.
Ironically, your attempts to discredit the US is what makes people like me feel like sympathising with the US leadership more than our brains would recommend.


[1]

The reality is, when the US bombed Nord Stream 2, a piece of major infrastructure critical to the German economy, all Scholz asked was how many tanks the US wanted him to send. He's an absolute tool. — Tzeentch

As Hersh said himself about his report on Nord Stream: all he did was dissect the obvious. And the only reason obvious things aren't said out loud is because of deafening US propaganda basically gas lighting the entire western world. — Tzeentch

The only reason these things aren't yet part of the western common sense is because of a relentless propaganda campaign.

For example, the defense on Kiev has been framed as a heroic Ukrainian defense and a huge failure of the Russian armed forces. However, the order of battle on the Ukrainian side was never disclosed which means it's hard to tell what exactly happened.
Recently, Seymour Hersh gave an interview in which he named the figure of 60,000 Ukrainian defenders at the battle of Kiev. Assuming that's true, and I suspect that it is (and probably the reason why the order of battle remains undisclosed), this means the defense of Kiev was a successful Russian attempt at diverting forces away from the east. The Russians attacked Kiev with ~21,000 troops. This is a small amount for a city as large as Kiev, but against a defending force of 60,000 there's simply no way this force was meant to capture the capital. One would have expected the Russians to aim for a local numerical advantage of at least 3:1, especially for the type of urban fighting the capture would have involved. This would have required roughly 180,000 troops - basically the entire Russian invading force.

In other words, the western media spin was pure bullshit to influence the public perception of Ukraine's chances in this war.

Let me end by saying, I find no pleasure in these hard facts. — "Tzeentch

All of what I said is supported by hard facts and expert opinions (which I will happily share if you're interested).


I'm laying out the painful reality of the situation, because cheerleading and sugar coating aren't going to change it, and the price of ignorance is paid every day by the young men dying on the frontline, and civilians suffering under the war. — Tzeentch

And Russia is the only player (that I know of) that has actually done this before. Possibly more than once. But those Georgia incidents made a lot more sense at the time. With Nord Stream it's not obvious. — SophistiCat

Russians might have been also behind explosions/sabotage attempts against the Ukrainian gas pipelines: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/17/323011294/pipeline-explosion-in-ukraine-could-be-act-of-terrorism
https://geostrategy.org.ua/en/media/articles/putins-streams-perpetuum-mobile-of-state-terrorism-how-girkin-and-malofeev-contributed-to-the-nord-stream-2

Use your brains guts, people. — Tzeentch

I corrected it for you. For people like you and many others here, the US is the right kind of supervillain whom anybody can ultimately blame for anything in this war. And there is no doubt that the US had motives, means, background history of covert operations, and the good amount of hawkishness to directly or indirectly support such operation.
The point is that this operation didn’t “end” Nord Stream 2 (it can be repaired within months) and most of all we shouldn’t forget other players. Russia too has means, the right amount of hawkishness and a history of false flag operations to directly or indirectly support such operation. Ukraine, Poland, the UK, other nordic states have means and motives to directly or indirectly support such operation.
Here some Russian predictions (or potential alibi?) since October 2021:
https://en.topwar.ru/188140-vozmozhna-li-podvodnaja-diversija-na-gazoprovode-severnyj-potok-2.html

He goes around proclaiming Putin to be a great man and Russia being "on the right side of history", etc. I don't trust such a person's judgement. If you do, good for you. — Tzeentch

Those statements express some personal opinion that go beyond hard facts and what they might imply. Number of land troops and land movements do not falsify the Western narrative of the earliest phases of the war and grounded on the Russian intelligence failures. That's all.

He also gave the figure of 60,000 Ukrainian defenders, which supports the hypothesis. — Tzeentch

No it doesn't. Indeed, again Scott Ritter in that article gives similar figures: The fact of the matter remains, however, that a force of 40 000 men, no matter how aggressively employed, cannot take, and hold, a city of some three million inhabitants defended by a mix of 60 000 regular, reserve, and territorial soldiers.
Yet he doesn't think that the number of troops or their movements of Kiev are enough evidence to automatically exclude the possibility that in the earliest phases of the war the Russians were hoping for a quick Ukrainian capitulation due to wrong belief that the Ukrainian military and population would have not resisted.

Couldn't be further from the truth. I don't take Scott Ritter very seriously. — Tzeentch

Then which other expert is explicitly supporting the "diversion hypothesis" as you do?

Do you? — Tzeentch

Scott Ritter is a controversial commentator but his article is interesting because despite his expertise ("United States Marine Corps intelligence officer, former United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter), having many times taken issue with the western narrative (at the point of being accused of spreading pro-Russia propaganda https://russiavsworld.org/scott-ritter-how-former-sex-offender-and-us-marine-works-for-russian-propaganda/), and being supporter of the "diversion hypothesis", yet he doesn't find outlandish the idea that there was a Russian intelligence failure about an easy capitulation by Kiev which might explain the weird behavior of the Russian military around Kiev at the beginning of the war. He didn't claim this was a piece of Western fabricated narrative (60K Ukrainian troops do not prove that either!). Yet this is not incompatible with a "diversion" strategy as a plan B.

Assuming that's true, and I suspect that it is (and probably the reason why the order of battle remains undisclosed), this means the defense of Kiev was a successful Russian attempt at diverting forces away from the east. — Tzeentch

Logic jump [1].

If we are to believe Hersh's sources, it turns out the idea of the advance on Kiev being a binding operation and not an attempt at capturing and occupying Kiev - an idea that I have posited multiple times in this thread - wasn't so far-fetched after all. In fact, it might've been exactly what took place. — Tzeentch

In other words, the western media spin was pure bullshit to influence the public perception of Ukraine's chances in this war.

Let me end by saying, I find no pleasure in these hard facts. — Tzeentch

Rhetoric jump.


[1]
BTW Scott Ritter, a "diversion theory" supporter (I suspect it's him your first expert source), also claims:
Moscow had opted not to employ its forces according to standard doctrine, opting instead to take a light approach, which appeared to be born from a concerted effort to minimise civilian casualties and harm to civilian infrastructure that itself was derived from a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of the situation on the ground in Ukraine.
The reported purging of 150 officers from the 5th Department of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), responsible for operations in the so-called ‘near abroad’ (which includes Ukraine), along with the
arrest of Sergei Beseda, the former head of the department, suggests that Russia had suffered a failure of intelligence the likes of which has not been seen since the Israeli failure to predict the Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal during the Yom Kippur War of October 1973.
While the Russian government has remained characteristically tight-lipped about any possible shortcomings regarding the work of the 5th Department prior to the start of the military operation, the statements by Russian leadership suggesting that the Ukrainian military might remain in its barracks and that civilian leadership would not interfere with Russia military operations suggest that these assumptions were made using intelligence provided by the 5th Department.
That such assumptions, if indeed they were made, proved to be so fundamentally off target, when combined with the preparedness of the Ukrainian military to engage the initial columns of Russian forces, suggests that the work of the 5th Department had been disrupted by Ukrainian security services, who took control of Russian human networks and fed false reports back to the Russian leadership.
The fact is that columns of Russian troops, advancing boldly into Ukraine without the kind of attention to route security and flank protection that would normally accompany offensive operations, found themselves cut off and annihilated by well-prepared Ukrainian ambushes. It was, to use an American colloquialism, a Turkey shoot, and the Ukrainian government made effective use of combat footage obtained from such encounters to great effect in shaping global public opinion about the effectiveness of Ukraine’s defences. However, the limitations of the Ukrainian armed forces did not allow it to turn its impressive tactical victories into positive operational and strategic outcomes.
https://www.herald.co.zw/ukraine-winning-battle-on-twitter-on-the-ground-kiev-is-losing-fight/

↪neomac
So you agree that a European security cooperation that does not involve primarily the United States and the United Kingdom would be beneficial to Europe, and it's just the practical aspects that you are worried about? — Tzeentch

Yes if it was feasible and sustainable. In the shitty situation we are I simply don't see how we can get there. Even less, safely (or "democratically" for that matter).

Obviously the practical implementation of this is a whole other story. The European Union is a non-democratic abomination that needs to be replaced with something that is actually functional before this could ever happen, but lets leave that aside for now. — Tzeentch

Yet that's practically the whole point whatever one might think of the EU. It's more easy to agree on what is desirable, than on what is feasible. Outside the EU (or some other form of federation) Europeans might go back to compete one another not only economically but also for security. And outside the US sphere of influence, we might compete not only with Russia, and China and other regional or global competitors, but also with the US. Good luck with that.

This is where I see the "no true Scotsman," 20/20 hindsight problem coming in. It's easy to say now that all sorts of prior norms were irrational. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But I'm not denying the possibility of rationally justifying some past practice in certain circumstances, yet such possibility doesn't imply that the rational justification was what led people to adopt that practice. Many behavioral dispositions are acquired by individuals since they were children before any actual pros/cons calculation rationally justifying that behavior could take place. And also in our adult life we may show a significant degree of gregarious behavior that encourages conformity to some common pattern of behavior without there being any conscious calculation of pros/cons at the origin of that collective behavior (which is also what could explain social reluctance to change behavior as soon as circumstances rationally require it). All I'm saying is that we shouldn't confuse rationality with a posteriori rationalizations. Said that, I didn't mean to exclude that certain now morally questionable practices (like the alleged practice of infanticide in ancient Greece) were grounded on plausible reasons and widely accepted for those reasons.

we can posit and idealized world where agents agree to follow moral principles before they enter the world, perhaps from behind some "viel of ignorance." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think this would be a more charitable understanding of what Gert's normative definition of morality might assume. However "idealized" Gert's assumptions are, yet they may explain why we might be inclined to consider those 10 moral rules as plausibly universally acceptable by rational individuals. Besides those practices like infanticide or human sacrifices do not necessarily question Gert's normative definition of morality, instead they simply suggest the existence of extreme social or environmental conditions that would allow individual to exceptionally but rationally derogate to default rational moral rules.

Do you mean include rules about human sacrifice and slavery? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I was referring to Gert's 10 rules that all moral agents would follow (it looks like the first 5 should be taken to be the most evident to him): https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/006.htm
Plus 5 five ideals (which however are supererogatory): https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/008.htm
As I understand them, they would exclude slavery and human sacrifice at least by default, because all rational human beings would find unacceptable a moral system where human sacrifice or slavery would be permitted. I guess that this conclusion follows from assuming that rational people want to avoid harm by default (https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/002.htm, https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/003.htm) and impartiality (https://sites.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec42951/007.htm). Rational people wouldn’t find acceptable a moral system that would permit anybody to enslave or sacrifice them by default. However there might be ad hoc social rules that may specify under which exceptional circumstances moral rules would need to be rationally integrated with other rules.

If you really thought human sacrifice meant the difference between famine and a good harvest, isn't human sacrifice rational? There it is merely an information constraint that changes the nature of such a behavior.
We might abhor slavery, but military conscription, a form of temporary bondage, is seen as essential to virtually all states. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Two comments:
1. As far as I understand Gert’s normative definition of morality, only a subset of social rules can be considered rationally moral and such rules apply to the default behaviour (which doesn’t exclude exceptions). The acceptability of “human sacrifice” practices can not be dictated by rational moral rules in that sense. Maybe there are religious or pagan social rules that govern human behaviour in exceptional cases but it's not up to morality to determine such cases and their rationality remains to be established depending on the circumstances. On the other side “prostitution” as a free choice is not excluded by default by those 10 moral rules. Other religious or legal rules might however exclude it as an unacceptable behavior.
2. As far as I’m concerned, I wouldn’t be so quick in calling some behaviour “rational” just because it may look functional to the survival of the individual or the community. I don’t know enough relevant details about human sacrifice practices but I’m not sure that human beings adopted or preserved such practices as the result of some conscious effective calculation that would make look their behaviour rational (e.g. addressing the problem of famines which may be more plausible in case the ritual increased the availability of food by reducing the demand of food within the community and/or by allowing cannibalism) and not just an evolutionary unintended consequence of some traditionalist cultural imprint.

What do you understand descriptively moral and normatively moral to refer to? — Mark S

As I understand it, Gert's "descriptive" notion of morality tries to capture what would characterize normative systems as "moral" cross-culturally, independently from the geographic or historical latitude, in short rules/ideals protecting a group from harm is what counts as moral [1].
Gert's “normative” notion of morality requires that these rules/ideals be acceptable by all rational agents. He identified 10 rules (and 4 ideals, if I remember correctly) that satisfy this normative constraint (they do not seem to include e.g. rules against cannibalism or prostitution but they seem to exclude rules about human sacrifice or slavery).
Gert’s doesn’t need to talk about cooperation strategies (domination, partnership, marker) because he is not interested in classifying systems that satisfy his descriptive definition of morality. This classificatory task belongs to a lower level of analysis (which I guess would be a preliminary step to morally profile societies of different geographic and historical latitude and correlate such profiles with other social/natural factors).
The reference to cooperative strategies is not only a further classificatory task wrt the general “descriptive” definition of morality offered by Gert, but it suggests a whole different research program, namely one that tries to connect pre-human pro-social behaviour and human morality. Indeed the cooperative behaviour is present in some “natural” form also in certain non-human animals. So morality would be an upgrade of these pro-social animal dispositions. The problem is again if this is just matter of degrees or there is something emergent in the moral dimension. In both cases one might take morality as an improvement of such pro-social animal dispositions, yet one would need to specify in what sense morality constitutes an improvement (e.g. in what sense circumcision - which animals do not have - is a marker rule that improves the benefits of cooperation?)
Conclusion, even if I see why you might be interested in integrating Gert’s definition with a reference to cooperative strategies, I don’t think it would be an improvement, because Gert’s definition belongs to a greater level of abstraction (once again compare “rational animal” and “rational animal with genital organs“) and results from a philosophical investigation about the notion of human morality (independently from its continuity wrt animal behaviour).

[1] notice that the notion of "moral agents" in Gert's descriptive definition of morality risks to make the definition circular.

Morality descriptively is NOT simply lessening harm as Gert’s version implies. Morality descriptively is lessening harm by increasing the benefits of cooperation. — Mark S

Yet I didn't see how you can prove that the definition you suggest is an improvement. You are simply making claims not proving a point. For example, is it possible to have an informal public system applicable to human beings that has lessening of harms suffered by those protected by the system as its goal, but it decreases the benefits of cooperation? If it's not possible, then you definition is just redundant.
Besides the more I think of your definition and the less I find it clear. I think cooperative behavior can be found also in animals. The partnership, dominance and marker proto-rules (or patterns of behavior) can be found also in the animal world. Am I wrong? If so and animals showing cooperative behavior are not moral agents, then cooperative behavior must be conceptually decoupled from morality. Now, if morality increases the benefits of cooperation, there must be something in "morality" that can not be reduced to those patterns of behavior constituting cooperation the increases the benefits from such patterns.