• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

630 Years Ago Today at Kosovo

mariomike said:
Some of us also refer to The Media Bias Chart,
"Red Rectangle:  nonsense damaging to public discourse."  That's what I was trying to say.  ;D
 
>"Media Bias/Fact Check" regurgitation is basically ad hominem.

It's the regurgitation that is ad hominem, not necessarily the organization itself.  Clearer?

Example: when Alan Dershowitz is published by a right-leaning organization (which has been happening more often in the past few months), I don't infer that the organization's biases have much to do with whatever Dershowitz chose to write, and read Dershowitz on his own merits.
 
Clearly we're going in circles here... but one last attempt:

There are two aspects to Media Bias/Fact Check, and I've already acknowledged accepting media bias.  The second part, confirming facts, I thought I was also clear about, but was apparently mistaken.  If a source has a consistent record of publishing lies, regardless of whether the lying supports the left, right, or flying unicorns, it is a factor when assessing Dershowitz, Ibrahim, or whoever.  It's not remotely the only factor, but if posters understood that what they unthinkingly accept as gospel likely comes from a tainted source, then maybe.... just maybe… they might show more discretion in their reading material and any judgements they make.

Now, if someone consistently quoted The National Enquirer,  and the only response ever was to simply repeat "Media Bias/Fact Check says they're junk," then that would likely qualify as regurgitation.  If people quote different sources, but it's pointed out that they all fall into the category of 'extreme bias conspiracy lies' then it's more a case of the poster preferring the echo chamber life to the challenge of reading more widely and thinking.

Personally, I'd prefer people just refrain from posting bullshit, ill-informed drivel, or uncritical political cheerleading.  Clearer?
 
Journeyman said:
Clearly we're going in circles here... but one last attempt:

There are two aspects to Media Bias/Fact Check, and I've already acknowledged accepting media bias.  The second part, confirming facts, I thought I was also clear about, but was apparently mistaken.  If a source has a consistent record of publishing lies, regardless of whether the lying supports the left, right, or flying unicorns, it is a factor when assessing Dershowitz, Ibrahim, or whoever.  It's not remotely the only factor, but if posters understood that what they unthinkingly accept as gospel likely comes from a tainted source, then maybe.... just maybe… they might show more discretion in their reading material and any judgements they make.

Now, if someone consistently quoted The National Enquirer,  and the only response ever was to simply repeat "Media Bias/Fact Check says they're junk," then that would likely qualify as regurgitation.  If people quote different sources, but it's pointed out that they all fall into the category of 'extreme bias conspiracy lies' then it's more a case of the poster preferring the echo chamber life to the challenge of reading more widely and thinking.

Personally, I'd prefer people just refrain from posting bullshit, ill-informed drivel, or uncritical political cheerleading.  Clearer?

It's just easier to consign any history written about places like Ireland, or the parts of Europe between Britain and Russia, that doesn't appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica as 'crazy talk'
 
European countries like Poland and Hungary should be able to decide who they let into their country (and when). It shouldn't be up to the European union to decide, nor threaten consequences.
 
Jarnhamar said:
European countries like Poland and Hungary should be able to decide who they let into their country (and when). It shouldn't be up to the European union to decide, nor threaten consequences.

And that's one of the main reasons behind 'why Brexit'.
 
>If a source has a consistent record of publishing lies...

I don't think we're going in circles; I just start from a different position.  Mine is that the publisher's reputation is not the authors', and that authors are sources, and publishers are not.  Publisher bias determines what is selected for publication (ie. does it serve the preferred narrative), but an author stands on his own merits.  For me, the writer's name is everything and the publisher's is almost nothing.  I can't conceive skipping an article by someone I find interesting just because it appears in Mother Jones or American Greatness.
 
Brad Sallows said:
For me, the writer's name is everything and the publisher's is almost nothing. 

OK.

Regarding the writer,

The recent article by Raymond Ibrahim is in this author's opinion well-researched, factual in places but whose interpretation of taqiyya is ultimately misleading. It focuses on a very narrow use of the term taqiyya, which is sometimes used to refer to dissimulation allowed to Shias to preserve their own lives and the lives of others. It appears to be a polemical piece interspersed with cherry-picked citations from the Quran, the sayings of the Prophet and secondary works.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110811212138/http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Islamic-Affairs-Analyst-2008/Interpreting-Taqiyya.html

Islam is a universal religion that spans millennia of history and covers much of the earth's population. Islam, however, does not have a central canon, a pope, or a single body that can set doctrine. So, it is extremely difficult to generalise about what Islam as a religion believes except in its core beliefs. One can always find Muslim jurists who offer opinions about matters of doctrine such as taqiyya, but it is also possible to find other respected jurists who disagree. So any assertion about doctrine needs to be carefully circumscribed.


 
Congratulations.  You've discovered that historians disagree on interpretations, but are not necessarily liars.  Next up: "Montgomery: Genius or Buffoon"?

Who is the author ("in this author's opinion") who wrote the opinion for Jane's?  I could not identify one at the link.

[Add: So I suppose it is the "Michael Ryan" identified in Ibrahim's response.  And that still leaves the original article posted - essentially a recitation of events and quotations - substantially unchallenged.]
 
Brad Sallows said:
You've discovered that historians disagree on interpretations, but are not necessarily liars. 

The word used in Jane's was "misleading".

Full version,

Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst

Key Points

■ Islam does not have a central canon, a pope, or
a single body that can set doctrine.

■ It is extremely difficult, therefore, to generalise
about issues such as taqiyya.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2ecd/8c1b76847693ba00d7efec4a9c43ae00cf58.pdf


 
You're still using (one) different article and round of discussion as a proxy for the one linked in this topic, for which the subject is clear and limited and the stated facts are easily verified.

And, the fact that Ryan disagrees with Ibrahim on matters of interpretation - what to interpret, and how representative it is - does not mean either of them is "misleading" or "wrong".

And, there's no general principle of "diffuse-therefore-inscrutable".  It doesn't necessarily follow that generalities can not be drawn from something that lacks a canonical point of reference.  And the Koran, at least, is widely represented by Muslims as essentially canonical.

So three things: a difference of opinions is not proof of being misleading or any other disreputable characterization; one item (or even a handful) does not establish a pattern; and - above all - if you want to take on an argument, the "best practice" is still and always to tackle it on its own terms.

And to be clear: since there is no apparent general policy of attaching "reputation assessments" to links as a comprehensive service to readers, I am left wondering what is the point of throwing them in occasionally if they are not intended as exactly what I suspect: a quick drive-by ad hominem/guilt-by-association attack.
 
Brad Sallows said:
And to be clear: since there is no apparent general policy of attaching "reputation assessments" to links as a comprehensive service to readers, I am left wondering what is the point of throwing them in occasionally if they are not intended as exactly what I suspect: a quick drive-by ad hominem/guilt-by-association attack.

Clearly we are going in circles. One last attempt. This goes for me, too,

Journeyman said:
Rather than an ad hominem attack, it's an effort to encourage people to read more widely and more legitimate sources (ie - beyond a self-reaffirming echo chamber), especially when a go-to media has a lengthy track record of false data and unsubstantiated conspiracies.

 
Back
Top