zlacker

that would indeed be uncharitable because witches don't exist

if you replace witch with "unreliable source", a thing that does exist, it would be a more intellectually honest rephrasing

>>ImPost+(OP)
I'm using it as a stand in for disfavored woman in society. I don't always or even generally agree with her, but there are some valid critiques of the CDC in the article, and that has nothing to do with anything she has or has not said in other places.

>>ch4s3+Hz
> I'm using it as a stand in for disfavored woman in society.

if you used it as a stand-in for "unreliable source", it would be a more intellectually honest rephrasing, as that is the actual objection here, and your attempt to reframe an unreliable source as "oh people just disfavor them" obviously disregards their unreliability, as well as ignores why the source is disfavored (because it is not reliable)

>>ImPost+yA
Most of the objection flowed from a snippet on Wikipedia about a tweet where she reposted an article by Glen Greenwald, that’s mostly stripped of context. She was arguing against vaccines, and to make that claim is unserious. So what’s really left? You don’t like her opinions on foreign policy? Me either, but that isn’t relevant.

>>ch4s3+CL
> Most of the objection flowed from a snippet on Wikipedia about a tweet where she reposted an article by Glen Greenwald, that’s mostly stripped of context.

no, it didn't. most of the objection flowed from the lack of reliability of the source.

>>ImPost+oP
Th comment I was replying to[1] cites this[2] wikipedia section that is irrelevant to the topic and further comments in the thread mention the Glen Greenwald tweet. But, she didn't write the article wasn't written by her, but rather Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H. and Tracy Beth Høeg M.D., Ph.D. Dr. Makary. The source is on background, but that's typical for government agency sources who aren't whistle blowers. Any professor of medicine at Hopkins definitely knows people at the CDC, as many people from the Hopkins MPH program end up there.

Criticizing the meat of the article is fine, or pointing out a particular ax the author might have to grind is valid too. I'm taking issue with the criticism that Bair Weiss is a bad woman therefore anything on her site is fake news.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32100018

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2017%E2%80%932020:_...

>>ch4s3+CW
the unreliable source in question is not a person, but a site

does the site have a track record of reliable fact checking from their editorial team which reviews submitted content?

>>ImPost+Hd1
It's a substack blog that publishes opinion pieces. They're mostly aimed at subscribers who intentionally seek out content she curates or solicits. YOu know, a substack newsletter.

You can judge this article on its own merits, it's essentially a one off. It cites some sources, is written by subject matter experts, and is making claims about publicly available data. Do you really need a fact checker to gate keep here? I fail to see how the place of publication has any bearing here on the correctness or soundness of the arguments in the article.