Objectively intelligent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Facebook is worse than useless as a means for doing anything other than keeping up with friends one hasn't seen for a while.

I know I'm not on ignore, because you replied to my post. But sometimes I wonder if you ever consider things not from your sweetheart leftie blogs. I ain't changing my behavior because of FB, since I'm preternaturally intelligent. You ain't changing yours, because you get your marching orders from those blogs.. But people, lots of them, do FB vote.

[Hank Chinaski]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1275160...NgKVc5DqBmUMh8

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Re Taibbi, this is the best stuff from that article:

The media in the last four years has devolved into a succession of moral manias. We are told the Most Important Thing Ever is happening for days or weeks at a time, until subjects are abruptly dropped and forgotten, but the tone of warlike emergency remains: from James Comey’s firing, to the deification of Robert Mueller, to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, to the democracy-imperiling threat to intelligence “whistleblowers,” all those interminable months of Ukrainegate hearings (while Covid-19 advanced), to fury at the death wish of lockdown violators, to the sudden reversal on that same issue, etc.

It’s been learned in these episodes we may freely misreport reality, so long as the political goal is righteous. It was okay to publish the now-discredited Steele dossier, because Trump is scum. MSNBC could put Michael Avenatti on live TV to air a gang rape allegation without vetting, because who cared about Brett Kavanaugh – except press airing of that wild story ended up being a crucial factor in convincing key swing voter Maine Senator Susan Collins the anti-Kavanaugh campaign was a political hit job (the allegation illustrated, “why the presumption of innocence is so important,” she said). Reporters who were anxious to prevent Kavanaugh’s appointment, in other words, ended up helping it happen through overzealousness.

There were no press calls for self-audits after those episodes, just as there won’t be a few weeks from now if Covid-19 cases spike, or a few months from now if Donald Trump wins re-election successfully painting the Democrats as supporters of violent protest who want to abolish police. No: press activism is limited to denouncing and shaming colleagues for insufficient fealty to the cheap knockoff of bullying campus Marxism that passes for leftist thought these days.

My sole criticism is use of "manias." Moral panics is the better term.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On the lack of editing, I agree with you. It is too lengthy and pulls in items best discussed in separate stand alone pieces.

But as one of the few people writing the critiques he does, I'll take what I can get. If Taibbi gets hit by a bus tomorrow, the criticism he's offering near entirely disappears from public view.

I can't figure out what his point is. What's the criticism? It's a bunch of drive-by shootings on separate topics that other people have done more with.

I'm still wondering, however, what is a "traditional" journalist?

Who are you quoting?

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you were suggesting there are now more enlightened newsrooms where objectivity cedes to the important narratives that progressive journalists want to emphasize, and anything that challenges them is potentially offensive.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, or what crazy ideas you attribute to me.

I think your "objectivity" is a charade, a pretense that is used to hide choices being made by journalists, editors and publishers. When the New York Times pretends that it published Cotton to present all sides, it avoids acknowledging why it published Cotton instead of, say, another GOP Senator who didn't go to Harvard and isn't close to Bill Kristol, or why it presented those views unedited on its op-ed page instead of reporting on them. More generally, political reporting is full of all sorts of conventions that are designed out of a pretense of objectivity that is more about not making either party unhappy, especially Republicans, who constantly work the refs. When CNN reports that Trump is lying, you call them biased, because how can they know what Trump is thinking? But when CNN similarly reports on what Trump is thinking about trade policy, neither you nor anyone complaint that they can't really know what he's thinking. Trump lies constantly, as well all know, but you and so many others have some concept of "objectivity" that stands in the way of simple reporting on that objective truth. Here's a good example. Another example that I'm sure you will agree with has to do with the contortions that reporters will go into in order to avoid saying that a cop hurt someone. Objectivity? Hardly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know I'm not on ignore, because you replied to my post. But sometimes I wonder if you ever consider things not from your sweetheart leftie blogs. I ain't changing my behavior because of FB, since I'm preternaturally intelligent. You ain't changing yours, because you get your marching orders from those blogs.. But people, lots of them, do FB vote.

It would be interesting to have a real conversation with you about Facebook, but it's hard if you want to smirk about sweetheart leftie blogs. I don't know any leftie blogs that have done a good job addressing what's wrong with Facebook, which to my mind is much more a function of platform economics and Zuckerberg's desire to make money and own the world. In the same way that newspapers in most places tried to be centrist and apolitical, Facebook tries to do the same, because it wants to engage with everyone to sell the advertisements. The things that make Facebook suck for politics are functions of decisions it has made to try to boost engagement. It shows you content to get you to comment and pass it on. The left-wing crap on Facebook is just as bad as the right-wing crap. Getting people agitated is a business plus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Re Taibbi, this is the best stuff from that article:

The media in the last four years has devolved into a succession of moral manias. We are told the Most Important Thing Ever is happening for days or weeks at a time, until subjects are abruptly dropped and forgotten, but the tone of warlike emergency remains: from James Comey’s firing, to the deification of Robert Mueller, to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, to the democracy-imperiling threat to intelligence “whistleblowers,” all those interminable months of Ukrainegate hearings (while Covid-19 advanced), to fury at the death wish of lockdown violators, to the sudden reversal on that same issue, etc.

It’s been learned in these episodes we may freely misreport reality, so long as the political goal is righteous. It was okay to publish the now-discredited Steele dossier, because Trump is scum. MSNBC could put Michael Avenatti on live TV to air a gang rape allegation without vetting, because who cared about Brett Kavanaugh – except press airing of that wild story ended up being a crucial factor in convincing key swing voter Maine Senator Susan Collins the anti-Kavanaugh campaign was a political hit job (the allegation illustrated, “why the presumption of innocence is so important,” she said). Reporters who were anxious to prevent Kavanaugh’s appointment, in other words, ended up helping it happen through overzealousness.

There were no press calls for self-audits after those episodes, just as there won’t be a few weeks from now if Covid-19 cases spike, or a few months from now if Donald Trump wins re-election successfully painting the Democrats as supporters of violent protest who want to abolish police. No: press activism is limited to denouncing and shaming colleagues for insufficient fealty to the cheap knockoff of bullying campus Marxism that passes for leftist thought these days.

My sole criticism is use of "manias." Moral panics is the better term.

He is so lazy. If you are going to do media criticism, name names. He has perfected a way of writing that makes it impossible to figure out who he is talking about -- his blog says he is reporting, but he "reports" nothing here. If he had to pay to use passive constructions, he'd be bankrupt. "The media has devolved." "We are told." "Subjects are abruptly dropped and forgotten." "The tone remains." "It's been learned." "We may freely misreport reality." "It was okay to publish." "MSNBC could put." And so on.

I can't figure out who he's talking about. TV, I think.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Who are you quoting?

Aw, does it hurt your little feelings when he “quotes” you about things you “didn’t say”??? Maybe if you didn’t admit to wanting to “suppress dangerous ideas” that did not “conform to [your] militant left wing ideology,” he wouldn’t have to use those tactics to engage you.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, or what crazy ideas you attribute to me.

Mods, can we set up a macro that automatically responds to any post that Sebastian directs to me with the above-quoted language? TIA!!!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Aw, does it hurt your little feelings when he “quotes” you about things you “didn’t say”??? Maybe if you didn’t admit to wanting to “suppress dangerous ideas” that did not “conform to [your] militant left wing ideology,” he wouldn’t have to use those tactics to engage you.

I apologize for saying "who" instead of "whom." Clearly, standards are in decline.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It would be interesting to have a real conversation with you about Facebook, but it's hard if you want to smirk about sweetheart leftie blogs. I don't know any leftie blogs that have done a good job addressing what's wrong with Facebook, which to my mind is much more a function of platform economics and Zuckerberg's desire to make money and own the world. In the same way that newspapers in most places tried to be centrist and apolitical, Facebook tries to do the same, because it wants to engage with everyone to sell the advertisements. The things that make Facebook suck for politics are functions of decisions it has made to try to boost engagement. It shows you content to get you to comment and pass it on. The left-wing crap on Facebook is just as bad as the right-wing crap. Getting people agitated is a business plus.

No mas. I was talking about dumb people get fooled. That’s all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

No mas. I was talking about dumb people get fooled. That’s all.

Facebook is happy to make money giving dumb people bad information just so long as it keeps them on the site and engaged. If people are motivated to share bad information in a forwarded meme, that's a win for Facebook.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Facebook is happy to make money giving dumb people bad information just so long as it keeps them on the site and engaged. If people are motivated to share bad information in a forwarded meme, that's a win for Facebook.

Are you worried for the country that 50% of the people that should vote Biden might be swayed by Russian nonsense? That People that should have Hil were swayed? My whole entire point is that people that have graduated college accept a FB meme if it meets with their preconceived notions. That is a very big problem. That FB will let it happen, I mean, how do you fix that? But to make otherwise, not intelligent maybe, but not not dull normal people, to question even if it sounds good? Ty, how did you learn to start fact checking after the first few times you were catfished?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He is so lazy. If you are going to do media criticism, name names. He has perfected a way of writing that makes it impossible to figure out who he is talking about -- his blog says he is reporting, but he "reports" nothing here. If he had to pay to use passive constructions, he'd be bankrupt. "The media has devolved." "We are told." "Subjects are abruptly dropped and forgotten." "The tone remains." "It's been learned." "We may freely misreport reality." "It was okay to publish." "MSNBC could put." And so on.

I can't figure out who he's talking about. TV, I think.

1. The names would fill volumes. But also, he does name names. And when he does, you assert he’s bringing too many disparate sources together.

But that’s how it works. A person like like PLF is peppered from various angles, like his counterpart Fox viewer.

2. The media has devolved. Right and left. It’s garbage all around. The right is just dumber. You seem to value the credulous who think they’re smart above the generally credulous. That’s understandable when they’re driving your Uber, but here?

3. Taibbi almost never uses the passive. He’s been driven to it. If you doubt me, there’s more than enough of his work to review. This is always your technique, by the way, and you complain about it as much as you use it.

If you’re cornered, you’ll demand an impossible quantum of empirical or specific proof. When slammed with empirical and specific proof, you’ll become petulant and dodge. Flower’s a child in many regards, but I’ll offer him this: He’ll admit when he’s wrong. Twenty years on, you’ll give Trump a run for his money. I’m not sure which of the two of you would do that first.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Are you worried for the country that 50% of the people that should vote Biden might be swayed by Russian nonsense? That People that should have Hil were swayed? My whole entire point is that people that have graduated college accept a FB meme if it meets with their preconceived notions. That is a very big problem. That FB will let it happen, I mean, how do you fix that? But to make otherwise, not intelligent maybe, but not not dull normal people to question whit even if it sounds good? Ty, how did you learn to start fat checking the first few times you were catfished?

If FB sways you, you deserve to be swayed.

I’m sure meth is delightful. I shall not intentionally do meth.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I can't figure out what his point is. What's the criticism? It's a bunch of drive-by shootings on separate topics that other people have done more with.



Who are you quoting?



I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, or what crazy ideas you attribute to me.

I think your "objectivity" is a charade, a pretense that is used to hide choices being made by journalists, editors and publishers. When the New York Times pretends that it published Cotton to present all sides, it avoids acknowledging why it published Cotton instead of, say, another GOP Senator who didn't go to Harvard and isn't close to Bill Kristol, or why it presented those views unedited on its op-ed page instead of reporting on them. More generally, political reporting is full of all sorts of conventions that are designed out of a pretense of objectivity that is more about not making either party unhappy, especially Republicans, who constantly work the refs. When CNN reports that Trump is lying, you call them biased, because how can they know what Trump is thinking? But when CNN similarly reports on what Trump is thinking about trade policy, neither you nor anyone complaint that they can't really know what he's thinking. Trump lies constantly, as well all know, but you and so many others have some concept of "objectivity" that stands in the way of simple reporting on that objective truth. Here's a good example. Another example that I'm sure you will agree with has to do with the contortions that reporters will go into in order to avoid saying that a cop hurt someone. Objectivity? Hardly.

Read Henry’s In Defense of Elitism. I don’t disagree with the concept of lack of objectivity. I disagree with who should be considered elite.

Trump should certainly not, and nor should his staunchest detractors.

The media holds a candle for a competing idiocy. If you give me two idiocies and demand I pick, I pick a drink, and not voting.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But that’s how it works. A person like like PLF is peppered from various angles, like his counterpart Fox viewer.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, or what crazy ideas you attribute to me.