prev <-> next
[2020-11-12 01:05:44] - though then in my defense I didn't actually change my mind a ton after then doing those. -Daniel
[2020-11-12 01:05:25] - in my not defense I think these "don't be an asshole, think about what you say, do reasonable due diligence on a topic, and make it clear that you're listening to others" are probably mostly what got me in trouble in my original conversation. -Daniel
[2020-11-12 00:38:23] - daniel: yeah, there's no oracle that will give us the proper terminology for every audience. if you're discussing a tough topic in a public forum you might have to jump through extra hoops to avoid offending people, and you might end up offending them anyway. in that case it usually comes down to whether it's part of a pattern of being offensive/insensitive, and whether the quality of your point mitigates the problematic language. - pierce
[2020-11-12 00:27:59] - in my experience, if you're making good-faith efforts to that effect, and you listen and improve when people raise concerns, no one's going to hate you for the occasional fumble. - pierce
[2020-11-12 00:27:21] - (asking questions can also be a part of this, but it's nice if you try to look up answers yourself when possible, rather than making someone be your own personal google) - pierce
[2020-11-12 00:27:07] - and it's worth being careful. oftentimes "I don't know whether I'm using the right terminology" should be a hint that "maybe I'm not as informed about this topic as I thought I was." you'll be better off if you chase that feeling, doing additional research, or maybe leaving it to people who are already informed to make their points so that you can learn from them. - pierce
[2020-11-12 00:26:44] - I think it comes down to this: don't be an asshole, think about what you say, do reasonable due diligence on a topic, and make it clear that you're listening to others (especially to criticism, especially especially if someone's trying to point out a blind spot in your experiences). - pierce
[2020-11-12 00:26:38] - a: it's not about being allowed to use a particular phrase, and certainly not about getting someone to give you a pass on it. no one expects you to know every single problematic term and exactly how it's problematic and have up-to-the-second perfect awareness of "proper" language (as if there was consensus on that in the first place). - pierce
[2020-11-11 23:29:39] - So I think I'm willing to listen to "the community" and not a person but that also does feel like cheating because again who determines who "the community" is? Like someone could just continually pick some community such that it always gave the answer they want. Which maybe to some extent is what I'm already doing? But the flip side seems subject to the whims of the last invdividual that you talked to. -Daniel
[2020-11-11 23:26:31] - "people and groups" - of note in my head those are both plural terms and not referring to an individual. I mostly get your point (I think ) Pierce and don't largely disagree but if one person says something is racist and therefore anyone who isn't racist should avoid that phrase that seems to be a lot of power for any one person. -Daniel
[2020-11-11 21:49:53] - "you can come to your own conclusion based on the arguments" you can, but won't that lead to making the wrong decision? i'd never promote saying "legal votes", but if i stupidly ask a black dude if "legal votes" is allowed, and he says its allowed, and then i say it, won't i have some bad times ahead? ~a
[2020-11-11 21:48:01] - and if you're listening to multiple different people with these experiences, and they disagree with each other, that's fine! you can come to your own conclusion based on the arguments, but I feel like the debate usually isn't improved by hearing "actually, here's my take" from someone who's been lucky enough to never be hurt by these things personally. - pierce
[2020-11-11 21:47:34] - so listen to women when they say that "you're too confrontational" or "we don't know if you're prioritizing your career" are loaded with meaning that punishes women for being assertive or having a family. listen to black people when they say that things like "you speak so well", or calling someone sassy, or describing something as "urban", are often used as ways to launder stereotypes and denigrating/othering attitudes. - pierce
[2020-11-11 21:47:06] - and personally, my instinct is increasingly to listen to people who have experienced these patterns firsthand. occasionally you'll get someone on the supply side going rogue or saying the quiet part out loud (like Lee Atwater's 1981 interview), but usually the best sources for that experience are the people and groups targeted by those strategies. - pierce
[2020-11-11 21:46:29] - so taking your question in a different direction: rather than asking whether something's racist or who should determine which things are racist, we should be doing what Dr. Kendi did: try to recognize when rhetoric is falling into that same pattern, serving a racist agenda by framing an issue with language that oh, whoopsie, happens to put more people of color in the "bad"/"other" group. - pierce
[2020-11-11 21:46:12] - a: the point I'm making is that "who gets to decide what is racist?" is begging the question. we don't need to calculate the racism quotient of every controversial phrase. the people pushing "legal votes", "all lives matter", "super predator", etc. into the public discourse aren't going to stop doing so because we persuaded them they were being racist; the ambiguity is part of the point. - pierce
[2020-11-11 21:33:31] - a: I don't think its entered terrible / disaster territory yet. I think his lawsuits are dumb but also he has a right to try. However once the lawsuits are all promptly tossed out if he still refuses then I think it starts to get bad. -Daniel
[2020-11-11 20:47:35] - the lack of concession in this case seems dangerous and destabilizing. i don't think trump will coup, but even still, i think he's doing huge harm to our government. ~a
[2020-11-11 20:46:42] - what are you guys's thoughts on concession? if things were reversed, i'm sure i'd tell biden to not concede until december 14th: *** assuming things were close, and there was a chance of flipping the results ***. i feel like that's not the case here, right? ~a
[2020-11-11 19:17:35] - a: Maybe? Would require more thought / exploration. I agree with Pierce that the goal is to "delegitimize people who voted against him." but I don't think that is specifically POC so I think thats where the racist part comes into question for me. I'm on board with the bs narrative about voter fraud part of why its dumb though. -Daniel
[2020-11-11 19:08:22] - true. daniel would you feel differently if we somehow differentiate "functionally racist" from "racist"? i feel like its the difference between a microaggression and, like, a normal aggression? ~a
[2020-11-11 18:39:45] - ibram kendi wasn't directing that tweet at supporters of Trump's strategy to delegitimize Biden voters, they're a lost cause. it was directed at people who agree the votes should be counted but aren't recognizing the effect of the "legal votes" rhetoric. hence the comparison to phrases that are (now) more clearly recognized for their racist undertones and intents. - pierce
[2020-11-11 18:39:34] - a: "who gets to decide what is racist?" Oh man, this sounds like a conversation I would totally want to be involved in, but I gotta jet to deal with some other chores before returning a breast pump to the hospital. -Paul
[2020-11-11 18:38:30] - Pierce: So what might have looked like a normal editorial review to many journalists was actually a pretty unusual occurrence for The Intercept. Of course, this is all still pretty much one person's account, so it's imperfect, but I found his defense of what he did to be convincing. -Paul
[2020-11-11 18:38:02] - pierce: ahh, ok. so, then maybe more to daniel's point, who gets to decide what is racist? ~a
[2020-11-11 18:36:21] - Pierce: He provided a lot more context, which included (as I suspected) that his grievances went back further than this single instance and that also (oddly, but importantly) apparently it was very abnormal for the editors to proactively reach out to edit his work without him asking. -Paul
[2020-11-11 18:35:25] - Pierce: Another random drive-by by me: The Fifth Column had an interview with Glenn Greenwald just a day or two after his resignation. It's Patreon only, so I can't link to it, but if it gets a wide release I can share sometime. -Paul
[2020-11-11 18:35:03] - the sides being "it's being used as a racist expression" vs. "maybe it's not inherently a racist expression". - pierce
[2020-11-11 18:14:00] - pierce: "let's look at it from both sides" nobody is suggesting we "look at it from both sides". we all seem to agree the new strategy is bullshit. ~a
[2020-11-11 18:02:26] - people of color in this country have repeatedly seen and been hurt by the effectiveness of this strategy. so I understand why someone might push back on a new dogwhistle being incorporated into the lexicon, and might be impatient with white people who try to argue "well maybe this time it doesn't have a hidden agenda, let's look at it from both sides." - pierce
[2020-11-11 18:02:07] - but Trump isn't trying and failing to communicate something true when he refers to "legal votes". he doesn't feel obliged to use words responsibly. he's using it to serve his agenda: delegitimize people who voted against him. and while there were some demographic shifts, minority groups are the ones who voted against him most definitively. he'd win if only we disregarded those voters. - pierce
[2020-11-11 18:00:34] - pierce: so instead of words, you suggest we take action? i think i follow, but i'm not sure i understand your conclusion/alternative. ~a
[2020-11-11 17:59:34] - haggling over whether a phrase is racist, and what percent racist it is, and whether there are benefit-of-the-doubt interpretations that are less racist, is itself the white guy privilege. we believe in words, so our instinct is that we can figure out the truth if only we parse those words correctly. - pierce
[2020-11-11 16:47:04] - hah, interesting thought of having a body decide what is racist and what is not. agreed, one person doesn't get to decide what is racist and what is not. agreed, i think three white guys probably shouldn't decide.
but, i'm not sure who should decide. let's make the CBO do it. ~a[2020-11-11 16:41:12] - larger community opinion / understanding that is formed. I have also previously conceded in other conversations that as a white guy I'm probably not the best judge but I do think I would be able to find others making the same claim if it was a more widely agreed upon position. Specifically Abrams in this context since she is so plugged in for the GA vote though again I don't think its up to one person. -Daniel
[2020-11-11 16:39:15] - I would agree that adds to the racial subtext and context but I'm not sure I would be willing to label it a racist term yet. Part of my non msg board conversations went around the idea of who gets to decide that something is racist or not. Part of my contention is that it doesn't make sense to me for a single invididual to decide but also there isn't an official vote or anything so at some point there is some...
[2020-11-11 16:35:26] - i probably still wouldn't call it "racist", but this does change my feelings some. ~a
[2020-11-11 16:22:23] - ah yes i had forgotten about that. mmmm, daniel, does that change your mind any? ~a
[2020-11-11 16:21:47] - a: yep. and while "legal votes" has been used in a broader sense in this election, Trump's claims that illegal immigrants were a large source of Clinton's votes in the 2016 election give the phrase a racial context and history. - pierce
[2020-11-11 14:34:50] - pierce: yeah, agreed. i think we (the three liberal users of the message board) agree that "legal ballots" is generally used disingenuously, and without merit. i think we even mostly agree that people who are using it typically also enjoy disenfranchising minority voters? ~a
[2020-11-11 01:31:40] - and this is evidenced by their embarrassing showing in their court cases. when they might actually be held accountable for lying on the record, they've failed to show evidence to convince even lower-court Trump appointees that there was fraud. - pierce
[2020-11-11 01:28:19] - ...but that debate serves the people who don't care what "legal votes" actually means. they don't have an internally consistent definition, because they don't believe in words. it's a useful tool to prolong the debate, to keep people distracted arguing about the definitions until they can say "the time for argument is past". - pierce
[2020-11-11 01:28:07] - and thus, "legal votes" in this rhetorical context is being used by people who clearly don't care about the words. we can debate whether mail-in votes are problematic, whether pre-election day postmarked votes are valid, whether the convicted sex offender who spoke at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference should've been supervising the ballot counts in Pennsylvania... - pierce
[2020-11-11 01:18:09] - this is similar to my arguments about the supercifial text of "all lives matter" vs. "black lives matter". Taking time to debate the syntax is tempting to those who aren't affected by the semantics. I can't speak to your specific situation and I won't say that the people who criticized you would agree with what I just said. It's just a take. - pierce
[2020-11-11 01:17:38] - which is to say, we could load a lot of debate into the word "as" in the tweet you linked to, Daniel. Are all of those turns of phrase with various political or racial undertones equally "as" problematic? No. But that's not because there's a real measurable gradient among them... it's because you can't compare them. I think the point is that refusing to recognize the rhetorical power of those phrases is itself a privilege. - pierce
[2020-11-11 01:17:08] - "The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." - pierce
[2020-11-11 01:17:01] - Quoting Sartre: "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words." - pierce
[2020-11-10 16:45:35] - a: LIAR - yeah Fridays has generally not been the go to choice. -Daniel
[2020-11-10 16:44:54] - daniel: i lied, i can't do friday, but we rarely do fridays, right? ~a
[2020-11-10 16:44:13] - i'm free every day. lets do whatever day dewey can do
~a[2020-11-10 16:42:08] - a: I sent an sc2 email. You see it / have preference on day? -Daniel
[2020-11-10 16:28:40] - i guess i'm allowed to be inconsistent hah. ~a
[2020-11-10 16:28:02] - it is hard to tell without tone, you're right. but my statement went counter to everything i had said previously
~a[2020-11-10 16:25:26] - a: Hard to tell without tone. Just checking. -Daniel
[2020-11-10 16:25:12] - a: Partly the conversation pivots on things we've talked about before I think about how / what determines if something is racist. Like what determines that. So partly I think if it was definitely racist wouldn't people like Kamala / Obama / Abrams (especially since she is all about the GA vote) being calling it out as such? -Daniel
[2020-11-10 16:23:52] - joking. i was obviously undoing our entire conversation?
~a[2020-11-10 16:23:12] - a: Not sure if that is serious or joking. If serious I don't think its racist because I'm not sure the entire issue of voter fraud is a racist issue? I don't think Trump meant that POC's shouldn't get to have their votes counted. I think he meant just stop counting votes in places he was ahead and only count votes for him in places he was behind. -Daniel
[2020-11-10 16:19:07] - "I don't think of it as a racist term (yet?" its because you're white, daniel. ~a
[2020-11-10 16:16:46] - a: yeah I think I agree with that. I don't think I would use the term legal vote as it seems like a generally unneccesary descriptor like if I was going to say I'm going to drive to the store in my functional car. But if someone does say legal vote I don't think of it as a racist term (yet? I guess things could change). -Daniel
[2020-11-10 15:55:18] - (oops, bit of double negative there, but i think you know what i mean) ~a
[2020-11-10 15:54:45] - i agree. its not everyone, and its not always. and voter fraud is very rare, but it does happen. regardless, i doubt i would never say lets make sure to count the "legal votes". i'd probably just say, lets keep an eye out for voter fraud, even though we all know how rare it is. ~a
[2020-11-10 15:52:23] - a: Maybe? I'm not sure. I think the most prominent users yes but I don't know about everyone. There were journalists / D's / election officials were starting to use it some last week during all the count stories / news conferences. I think that was part of the point of the tweet in my head, was that the term was "gaining acceptance" to some degree and it was pushing back on that. -Daniel
[2020-11-10 15:44:39] - daniel: no, i probably wouldn't use the word "racist" (lots of reasons). instead i'd say that most people talking about "legal votes" also just so happen to be the same people trying to disenfranchise minority voters. ~a
[2020-11-10 15:41:38] - But does that all carry over so that any discussion of voter fraud is then inherently racist? -Daniel
[2020-11-10 15:41:04] - a: I can agree with subtext and agree they are trying to imply lots of illegal votes (which I would also agree I'm not aware of evidence showing this) but does implying illegal votes make it racist? Or just R framing / rhetoric to push the voter fraud issue? Is the voter fraud issue as a whole racist? Like I think there are systemtic issues with voter registration / obstacles / id laws and all that. -Daniel
[2020-11-10 15:09:39] - daniel: hmmm. i could see that argument getting unproductive quickly (either side of the argument). at its heart, though, i think i disagree with you: when trump/mcconnell/etc say "legal votes" they have a huge heap of subtext. "legal votes" are supposed to conjure up something specific (about how there's obviously lots of illegal votes, which there are not). or otherwise they'd just call them "votes". ~a
[2020-11-10 15:05:36] - a: Which having gone around with it a fair amount in the last day and half I mostly still disagree with though do think it could be used as such and should probably be paid attention to / kept an eye on. -Daniel
[2020-11-10 15:04:05] - a: Nah its fine. https://twitter.com/DrIbram/status/1325078740746035202 That tweet was brought up in a group chat and I disagreed with it. -Daniel
[2020-11-10 14:50:20] - daniel: what was the non-meta-argument? are there details on the argument you can reveal? or no? ~a
[2020-11-10 14:50:10] - daniel: i understand the meta-argument. and its definitely where many leftists don't "get it". you can decide your opponent is racist or privileged too quickly. and calling out privilige is usually counterproductive, but people love to do it anyways. otoh, i feel some arguments/discussions are unpalatable to some people. i'll bite my tongue if i foresee an argument not going well. ~a
[2020-11-10 14:22:24] - It did make me a little sad on a meta level cause its my faith overall in the left's ability to make arguments to the right if I'm too 'white guy' to get it then like how in the world is a less predisposed to the left "white guy" going to ever get it. That said one example doesn't speak for an entire political side of a spectrum but was still hard not to be a little disheartened. -Daniel
[2020-11-10 14:19:15] - On a different note I had a argument where my white guy ness and privilege was called out as being reasons I wasn't getting something. It was different. Interesting in some capacity to see very stereotypical scenario play out where I disagreed with something and it was pretty quickly blamed on me being a white guy. -Daniel
[2020-11-09 18:43:32] - yikes, that's terrible. i'm very sorry to hear that, daniel. i dearly hope things go well. ~a
[2020-11-09 18:42:33] - My sister & brother in law tested positive for covid. Mild so far and hopefully stays that way. -Daniel
[2020-11-09 14:46:39] - lol, all the tech stocks are down. ~a
[2020-11-09 13:50:06] - 90% efficacy is kinda crazy high. the margin for success is 50%. the markets have spoken: +4% (+3% change when the news was reported). i'm sure people will incorrectly conflate this with the biden win. ~a
[2020-11-08 21:13:40] - mig: who said that? ~a
[2020-11-08 19:20:34] - a: it's ok to mass gather as long as you believe in the correct political causes, apparently. - mig
[2020-11-08 17:36:29] - snl was so good yesterday. you can ignore all the trump/biden shit, the nonpolitical skits were so good. waiting to exhale, super mario's 35th anniversary, the porn actor/addict, the temperature of kate mckinnon's testicles, dc local news, so many hits. i even kinda liked the hail skit. wtf, music guest was a tj alumni. how the host "set up" one of the skits seemed like it might be a nod to the chappelle show? ~a
[2020-11-08 14:51:11] - videogame combats political misinformation by letting players undermine democracy, hah. i played it, it's not at all fun. still, interesting i guess. ~a
[2020-11-08 11:19:41] - let's not. i was in dc yesterday after noon . . . it was quite the scene. i was never near anyone though. those scenes of blm plaza look dumb: too many people, too close together. ~a
[2020-11-08 07:34:37] - Correct. Let's all mass gather in celebration. Not like there's a highly contagious disease happening right now. - mig
[2020-11-08 01:29:47] - IT'S OVERRRRR
[2020-11-06 16:29:55] - also important is that it looks like Biden will win PA even without needing the votes postmarked by election day but received afterwards, which was a pending issue they would've escalated. - pierce
[2020-11-06 16:28:32] - I think it's important that there's no single point of failure, if Trump could win by flipping a single state they'd throw everything they can at dragging it to the supreme court. - pierce
[2020-11-06 14:46:50] - mig: hah, good point. assuming we don't consider arizona as called, pa is the only thing that gets him to 270 on its own. if we consider arizona as called, then any state by itself is the ball game. its interesting that georgia by itself is "ball game tie" even without arizon
~a[2020-11-06 14:44:13] - PA by itself is ball game. - mig
[2020-11-06 14:44:07] - a: yeah it's over. - mig
[2020-11-06 14:36:33] - I agree that on one hand its impossible to know how Sanders would have done I think in my head I'd lean towards Miguel - maybe not crushed but my guess is lose to Trump. I think given the turnout I wouldn't expect a ton more people to have been energized by candidate Sanders. -Daniel
[2020-11-06 14:07:57] - wow, pennsylvania flipped. (and georgia if you missed that). i doubt pennsylivania, and georgia, and nevada will all flip back now. i guess this is unofficially over unless trump pulls some seriously treasonous shit. ~a
[2020-11-06 13:39:15] - well when you make such a large change as bernie vs biden, you change so much, that you get a different set of people that come out to vote. my point isn't that anything specific would happen, but that we just can't know. ~a
[2020-11-06 13:37:35] - I'd maybe buy this take of "dems should have gone further left" if turnout was abnormally lower. But as it stands, voters have clearly rejected Trump, but haven't really embraced democrats. Republicans look likely to hold a senate majority, made gains in the house, and did well on a local level (democrats were unable to flip any state legislature). I'm having a really hard time reconciling this with "dem should have gone more left." - mig
[2020-11-06 13:09:42] - i'm of the opinion biden almost lost this primarily by being the vanilla guy.
he's geriatric (all three of them are, but biden has consistently had trouble making normal speeches). nobody is excited about biden. seriously nobody. i'm not positive bernie would have won, but i'm not positive he would have gotten crushed. ~a[2020-11-06 13:06:04] - a: sanders would have gotten crushed. I'm of the opinion Biden has won this primarily by being the "normal guy". Republicans would be wiling to cross for him (and probably did). For Sanders, no way. Keep in mind down ballot this is looking like a banner night for republicans. - mig
[2020-11-06 13:00:08] - pierce: i have no idea if sanders would have won against trump. sanders seems to be losing his edge less-so than biden (they're about the same age). sure, sanders would have sucked in florida, i agree there, but there are 49 other states he might have done WAY better in. like you said about "going further left", i agree there too, and bernie is certainly that. ~a
[2020-11-06 03:24:29] - now, I don't really want progressives to fuck around with strongman tactics, they just make for bad leaders overall. but I do think it's a problem that needs to be solved for the dems. - pierce
[2020-11-06 03:18:17] - so if you think of a candidate like sanders, he would've probably tanked among the miami cuban community because socialism is such a strong label there. superficially, we could look at the 2020 results and say bernie would've been a worse candidate than biden. but bernie has an ideological purity that might help resist attacks like that among other demographics. so maybe in aggregate he'd have been a better candidate. - pierce
[2020-11-06 03:14:38] - but there's a difference between biden being too left wing, and biden being vulnerable to accusations of being too left wing. in a sense that's one of trump's strengths: by his refusing to acknowledge criticism, some people perceive him as strong. - pierce
[2020-11-06 03:05:09] - my guess is that this is going to hurt among more progressive groups. I doubt there's a strong argument that progressives undervoted, my gut is that we largely held our noses and biden would've have gained much by going further left. meanwhile, there's a case to be made that attacks on biden as being "socialist" (e.g. among the miami cuban community) were effective. - pierce
[2020-11-06 02:55:53] - the postmortems on this election are going to be epic. the existing weaknesses in traditional polling (e.g. the move away from landlines) are impossible to ignore anymore. exit polling as a way to determine demographic trends was completely screwed by covid. on top of which are trump's deviance from political norms, the changes in media consumption, etc. - pierce
[2020-11-05 20:31:04] - mig: Good article. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 20:21:41] - https://www.vox.com/2020/11/5/21548677/trump-hispanic-vote-latinx some more thoughts on the Trump/hispanic thing. - mig
[2020-11-05 20:04:49] - mig: ah, yeah i gotcha. yeah, uhhh, i don't know how/when they decide to call stuff, but they'll definitely need to "call" nevada and arizona to make that happen and nobody seems to want to call nevada because of how many votes are uncounted. ~a
[2020-11-05 20:02:20] - a: yeah but it would have still been maybe premature to call it then. I think right now, if the networks wanted to call it now, they probably have good reason to. - mig
[2020-11-05 19:42:08] - uhh yeah after michigan and wisconson were called for biden, i thought things were looking really up. that was almost 24 hours ago. ~a
[2020-11-05 19:41:09] - fwiw things are looking really up for Biden right now. - mig
[2020-11-05 16:14:53] - They can't really ignore the inroads he's been making with minorities. - mig
[2020-11-05 16:13:58] - a: maybe, but i do think Trumpiness is going to factor into the GOP, at least attempting to take the appealing Trumpiness vs. the ugly Trumpiness. Maybe such a thing isn't possible, but I'm sure they'll try. - mig
[2020-11-05 16:05:45] - I'm curious about post Trump politics for R's. (Whether that is soon or post 2024). They didn't seem to want to be on board but so many did get on board with Trump. Do they stay on board or start to bail. And if they do bail does the base get unhappy? Who knows! -Daniel
[2020-11-05 16:03:40] - mig: voting for trump != voting for gop. trump isn't a mainstream republican. (~9 years before his presidency started, he was registered as a democrat, among other things). i get that the gop is 100% behind him today, but i think things will slowly change once he's out of power. ~a
[2020-11-05 16:01:45] - mig: Currently it looks like just ~3 or 4% of voters would need to switch. Which isn't a small number but could happen. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 15:59:37] - mig: I haven't looked at depth at anything so can't offer much in terms of specifics but I think its still somewhat possible given that its been shifting slowly that direction over time. But not a certainty or anything. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 15:58:06] - daniel: as an aside, looking at the Latino #s for Trump in Texas, I have serious doubts the "Texas gonna be blue eventually" is ever going to come to pass. - mig
[2020-11-05 15:54:09] - mig: That was an interesting article. That author seems hostile towards pretty much everyone which is kind of interesting to read. But yeah I think Latino voters fall under the same umbrella. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 15:44:20] - pierce: "i don't have to prove this incident beyond a shadow of a doubt". no of course you don't. but you aren't going to win any battles talking with middle-americans about how trump is racist. they won't buy it. i do buy it. trump is a racist piece of shit, but i also clearly see that it's not cut and dry, so i don't ever use racism as "evidence" for why i hate trump. ~a
[2020-11-05 15:44:04] - pierce: absolutely you can, but generally when these statements about republicans are thrown around, the scope of it is usually white people, so i just wanted some verification. - mig
[2020-11-05 15:42:45] - mig: do you think people of color can't be okay with racism? - pierce
[2020-11-05 15:42:24] - a: again, I don't have to prove this incident beyond a shadow of a doubt. it is one part of the totality of the evidence. if you give benefit of the doubt to trump at every point in this incident it may technically not be racist. is it reasonable that one should do that for every detail of every incident? - pierce
[2020-11-05 15:42:03] - daniel: Does "at a minimum, being ok with racism" apply to the Latinos and blacks who voted for Trump. - mig
[2020-11-05 15:39:00] - daniel: yes please. ~a
[2020-11-05 15:38:50] - a: 9pm tonight for sc2? -Daniel
[2020-11-05 15:38:14] - (and simply taking down the video isn't enough to counter that, because he knows people would have seen it before it was taken down) - pierce
[2020-11-05 15:37:53] - pierce: "failing to correct the record is racist" mmm, i have a second response to this in case you don't like it. the record was corrected actually. my guilty pleasure is watching the white house press briefings. kayleigh mcenany did correct the record (she said he didn't know that "white power" was in the video). you may hate that trump didn't correct it himself, but that's how it went down. ~a
[2020-11-05 15:37:20] - a: assuming he was eventually aware of the content of the video, failing to correct the record is an active decision that reinforces the belief that the president endorses "white power" rhetoric. - pierce
[2020-11-05 15:35:51] - a: Thats why I said I agree with you about the burden of proof in general. For Trump specifically I'm starting from a different place and was curious if there was a case to move me from it. But maybe the only way would be to dispute every instance. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 15:34:16] - "the only way to assert someone isn't racist is to dispute every alleged instance?" well i guess i'll ask you your larger point? how do we determine if someone is or isn't racist? how do we argue that daniel isn't racist? ~a
[2020-11-05 15:33:18] - a: Maybe your larger point is that the only way to assert someone isn't racist is to dispute every alleged instance? In my head I was thinking of something else but I'm not entirely sure what and maybe you are right that that doesn't exist? Hmm -Daniel
[2020-11-05 15:32:50] - "failing to correct the record is racist". mmmm, i don't know if i follow. why? ~a
[2020-11-05 15:32:30] - pierce: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized" "white power" (assuming you believe it was a mistake, which i definitely do) definitely fits. ~a
[2020-11-05 15:31:43] - a: what's the definition of "racist" you're using? - pierce
[2020-11-05 15:31:01] - unless you're saying it's plausible that the video was taken down but he was never made aware of its content, then I would say failing to correct the record is racist. some level of racist. contributes to the totality of the evidence that trump is racist to some degree. - pierce
[2020-11-05 15:30:46] - so where do i start exactly then? i was going to do "send her back" next. should i do a different one? ~a
[2020-11-05 15:30:13] - You could look at the stuff he did? Again I'm confused - I, you, and the article would agree that he didn't say it so why are you referring to it as evidence? -Daniel
[2020-11-05 15:29:04] - daniel: so, i shouldn't try to refute the totality of evidence?
~a[2020-11-05 15:28:28] - Yeah I said the USA today one had stuff he didn't do. It was just an easy list that showed up that had stuff he did say later on. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 15:27:29] - pierce/daniel: "looking at the totality of evidence" ughhhh, fine. i'll start at the top, but i doubt you'll like it. from the usatoday story. "white power", clearly this was a mistake. (i honestly believe this, in this *one* case, i'm definitely saying what i actually believe). the right move here would have been to correct the record, and he didn't do that, but that DOESN'T make him racist. you guys agree here right?! ~a
[2020-11-05 15:24:40] - daniel: still you're trying to reverse the burden of proof. "If that case sole depends on disputing all the 'alleged' instances of racism" yes, that's my plan. that's how it should be. lets take you as an example. i'd say you're not racist, for sure. but the burden of proof is on the person saying that daniel is racist, not the other way around. ~a
[2020-11-05 15:24:21] - a: seems like you're asking for unassailable evidence, which isn't an appropriate standard of proof for a situation like this (see my lie detector comment). looking at the totality of the evidence is a valid approach. - pierce
[2020-11-05 15:22:53] - a: I 100% get what you are saying and no one has to play my thought game but the thought game I was curious about was if there was a case for Trump not being racist. If that case sole depends on disputing all the 'alleged' instances of racism then thats probably enough for me to know no one here actually wants to make the case. (Which is fine) -Daniel
[2020-11-05 15:19:35] - pierce: "at some point you do have to look at the sheer quantity of incidents and ask whether it's reasonable that they all deserve that benefit of the doubt" you can, but i'm not sure you must. ignoring border-line cases of your own guy, and pointing out border-line cases of the other guy is quintessential american politics. ~a
[2020-11-05 15:16:16] - daniel: i'll offer the case that trump isn't racist, sure. but you're trying to reverse the burden of proof and i don't think that's fair. ~a
[2020-11-05 15:16:03] - at some point you do have to look at the sheer quantity of incidents and ask whether it's reasonable that they all deserve that benefit of the doubt. - pierce
[2020-11-05 15:14:44] - a: I get the burden of proof concept but I was really hoping the other way. If no one is interested in offering a case that Trump isn't racist that fine ( I wouldn't want to do that either) but I was just curious. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 15:14:36] - short of trump saying "I am racist" while strapped to a lie detector, it will always be possible to massage any particular incident such that, with extreme benefit of the doubt, it might technically not be racist. - pierce
[2020-11-05 15:09:51] - yes. ~a
[2020-11-05 15:09:43] - a: uh, "can you prove trump is racist using less evidence, please?" that's what you're going with?
- pierce[2020-11-05 15:04:16] - "those voters are okay with some amount of racism" basing that on what exactly? i understand that there are a lot of examples, but can we pick a small subset to discuss? i don't think it'll be as clear cut as you want. ~a
[2020-11-05 15:03:12] - "its obvious that Trump promotes racism". can you point to a smaller list of examples? i think your usatoday link is great, but i'd like to respond to maybe your favorite few of them instead of all 28. ~a
[2020-11-05 15:02:41] - a: that's a circular argument. daniel is saying that those voters are okay with some amount of racism (one metric trumpload, to be precise) if it gets them some amount of other policies they want. - pierce
[2020-11-05 15:02:13] - I guess my point is that in my head by definition those voters are ok with racism because its obvious that Trump promotes racism. So the way to show they aren't racist is to show that Trump isn't / doesn't promote it. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 15:01:10] - a: I'm confused. You made a statement but I don't think its true. I think the way to show its true is to show that Trump isn't racist and doesn't promote racism which I'm not sure is possible. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 14:55:17] - "L"="?" ~a
[2020-11-05 14:54:49] - "if you voted for Trump you are at minimum ok with racism" yeah i'll argue that is false. tons of people that are not ok with racism voted for trump. so proof by counterexampleL
~a[2020-11-05 14:53:46] - daniel: central park 5 was before inauguration, they're bringing drugs (true fact, before inauguration), they're bringing crime (true fact, before inauguration), they're rapists (kinda racist i guess, if he had said "some of them are rapists", it'd be a fact. before inauguration). ~a
[2020-11-05 14:53:30] - a: I'm saying I think I agree with the statement that if you voted for Trump you are at minimum ok with racism. I was curious if anyone could argue that was false not just argue to make me prove Trump was racist. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 14:51:29] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/30/fact-check-12-28-trump-comments-deemed-racist-direct-speech/6062530002/ That has things he didn't say as well as some he did. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 14:51:17] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/video-donald-trump-racist-barack-obama-central-park-five-us-election-2020-b1426977.html as a start. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comments/588067/ -Daniel
[2020-11-05 14:50:41] - paul, i also wanted to talk about cars hitting houses, since you brought that up during sc2 for some reason
which reminds me, daniel, is sc2 happening tonight? ~a[2020-11-05 14:49:31] - yay, paul is here !!! how's the fam? ~a
[2020-11-05 14:48:13] - daniel: "you're okay with racism as long as you get the policies you want out of it" "That isn't really contending he isn't racist" huh? you're "okay with racism", implies something about the man or his policies that are racist. if not, what does the statement contending exactly? ~a
[2020-11-05 14:47:16] - Literally only read a handful on comments that I missed and saw some speculation about the stock market. My running theory is that the market saw the Republicans were going to keep the senate and THAT is what it was reacting to (not a clean democratic sweep... divided government) rather than presidential results. -Paul
[2020-11-05 14:46:28] - a: Thats just asking for a burden of proof, lol -Daniel
[2020-11-05 14:46:12] - a: That isn't really contending he isn't racist
I was curious if anyone could make the case he wasn't. -Daniel[2020-11-05 14:41:56] - daniel: ok i'll argue that trump isn't racist. (just for the fun of it, though, not because i actually believe it!) since his inauguration, what has trump done that is racist? for the sake of my crazy arguments i don't actually believe, facts (like, true facts) can't be racist, and stating facts can't be racist, even if it may seem that way. ~a
[2020-11-05 14:35:52] - It seems that the only way to do so would be to somehow contend that Trump isn't racist or doesn't actively promote racism which I think isn't possible. -Daniel
[2020-11-05 14:35:14] - I know there is a lot of crap being spewed at Trump voters and I don't know that I agree with all of it but is it really possible to argue with this statement, "If you vote for him, maybe you don't see yourself as racist. But a vote for Trump is a statement that, at the bare minimum, you're okay with racism as long as you get the policies you want out of it." I don't think I can disagree with that part. Can anyone here? -Daniel
[2020-11-05 13:21:34] - thoughts? seems like team-trump needs to coordinate their messaging? ~a
[2020-11-05 03:30:50] - pierce: i wonder how much of that silk road money was marijuana. i mean, i get it. even in alaska, arizona, california, colorado, illinois, maine, massachusetts, michigan, nevada, new jersey, oregon, south dakota, vermont, washington, and dc, if you want to sell weed you can't just sell it though the mail, without license or taxes. but man, a lot of that silk road money could have been taxed and paid for schools and shit. what a waste. ~a
[2020-11-05 03:18:13] - about $1B transferred out of the fourth-largest bitcoin wallet, dormant for years and thought to be associated with silk road. - pierce
[2020-11-04 18:51:43] - a: You're assuming stocks are rational in the short term
-Daniel[2020-11-04 18:46:27] - a: probably conceded because there was no reason to believe that the remaining ballots would tilt the result. Also, notable Maine was using ranked choice voting, which in theory would have given Gideon a chance. Most of the remaining ballots i guess were from red areas. - mig
[2020-11-04 18:38:04] - i guess you could argue that november 3rd and november 4th were both good for wall-st. meh, stocks are hard. ~a
[2020-11-04 18:36:46] - yeah, agreed. i guess i'm still confused why november 3rd was way-up (+2%) *and* november 4th was way-up (+3%). november 4th (4:30pm) is looking to be very different from november 3rd (4:30pm). ~a
[2020-11-04 18:34:59] - a: If we're going under the assumption that Biden will pursue policies that wall st won't like, then this yeah that's there preferred outcome. - mig
[2020-11-04 18:34:21] - jeeze, why. almost a quarter of the votes (mostly mail in, i assume) haven't been counted. what idiot would concede in that situation? ~a
[2020-11-04 18:32:21] - Susan Collin's opponent just conceded. Republican controlled senate looking far more likely now. - mig
[2020-11-04 18:21:57] - a: much ado about nothing?. - mig
[2020-11-04 18:09:07] - dejoy broke the law yesterday? ~a
[2020-11-04 18:06:21] - the governments being split (which was looking unlikely yesterday at 4:30) is a good thing for wall st? ~a
[2020-11-04 18:03:52] - why . . . is the stock market up 3% today? i thought the markets hated uncertainty, so the markets are certain about something good happening. ~a
[2020-11-04 17:59:39] - agreed. ~a
[2020-11-04 17:58:38] - yeah even though we will probably have a really good idea what the final results will be tonight, it's probably going to drag out for quite a while. - mig
[2020-11-04 17:48:05] - well, if both candidates win what they're projected to win, biden will have 270 exactly and trump will have 268. i'm like 100% sure there will be a long legal battle. oh fun. ~a
[2020-11-04 15:26:33] - but i sort of prefer the story of "the president is sort of trying to get people on board and some americans are obstinate" versus "the president is ignoring the virus and some americans are on board", even if it has the same outcome. for some reason the former story is more comforting to me - aaron
[2020-11-04 15:25:37] - daniel: yeah that's basically the boat i'm in as well. i'm not convinced the past year would have played out much differently with a democrat in the whitehouse, or that anti-maskers in Arkansas or whatever would think "oh we have a democratic president, let's take this virus seriously" - aaron
[2020-11-04 14:17:19] - daniel: agreed. my tune changed in the past 8 hours. we counted a lot of votes, and things do still look much closer than i was expecting based on what i thought i knew about trump and the electorate. fivethirtyeight said this could happen, and it's happening, so i'm not surprised, just disappointed, like you said. ~a
[2020-11-04 14:13:55] - Even if Biden still wins. -Daniel
[2020-11-04 14:13:26] - For me I think its one of those I'm not angry I'm disappointed things. 2016 after Obama I was willing to chalk up to some level of reaction some level of Trump being an unknown etc but at this point its hard to not accept to some degree that this is who America is and thats disappointing. -Daniel
[2020-11-04 12:59:43] - Looking ahead to maybe 2022 and 2024, even if Biden wins the way this played out doesn't bode very well for Democrats. I'm just imagining what this would look like if Trump wasn't a massively incompetent boob. Honestly, Trump losing might be doing the GOP a favor long term. - mig
[2020-11-04 05:23:28] - for not being terribly invested in the result this has been fascinating to watch. - mig
[2020-11-04 05:11:37] - "seems a completly plausible path" completely plausible of course, but its too early to know either way. ~a
[2020-11-04 05:08:51] - https://www.270towin.com/map-images/br1DB seems a completly plausible path still so I don't think its decided at all but I was definitely pulling for a different outcome tonight. -Daniel
[2020-11-04 04:51:16] - daniel: "i was hoping for the biden landslide as a rejection of trump but nope" mmmmm, nah. we don't know that yet. almost all of the states have counted about half of the votes. and most of the counted votes are election-day in person votes. we've been told that most of the mail-in ballots are democrats. you could end up being right, in the end, but its too early to know either way. ~a
[2020-11-04 04:46:15] - a: Just how many have already voted. I was hoping for the Biden landslide as a rejection of trump but nope! I mean yeah just like of them seems like to many. I mean I knew he would still get vote obviously but so many. Just oof. -Daniel
[2020-11-04 04:42:23] - "so many" how many though? you might be right, you might be right. but its too early to know if its "so many" or "not many". it seems close now, but i'm holding out hope that it only seems that way. ~a
[2020-11-04 04:40:59] - At this point even if Biden wins I'm kinda sad / baffled that so many choose another four years of Trump. Big oof for our country. -Daniel
[2020-11-04 03:26:30] - well . . . it lasted a few hours . . . ~a
[2020-11-04 03:26:14] - yah. ~a
[2020-11-04 03:26:03] - a: that didn't last long. - mig
[2020-11-04 01:48:00] - daniel: biden leading in texas. wow wow wow. ~a
[2020-11-03 23:28:02] - so it begins...
[2020-11-03 17:44:38] - Happy Birthday Cora! ( a day late~)
[2020-11-02 20:13:58] - paul: it's monday! ~a
[2020-11-02 15:45:23] - other unlikely scenarios . . . there could be an electoral tie. ~a
[2020-11-02 15:44:53] - mig: its from the fivethirtyeight link. there are a lot of other explanations. 10% is strictly greater than 0, but also other very unlikely scenarios, like trump could claim victory illegitimately, or refuse to accept the results of the election. this is, of course, unlikely, but he has basically said this is what he will do. ~a
[2020-11-02 15:42:04] - title: probably true based on data. But, if Trump wins I'm not sure there's really any other explanation for it other than the "shy" trump voters. - mig
[2020-11-02 13:36:42] - but there is also this . . . a 10 percent chance isn’t zero ~a
[2020-11-02 13:34:44] - this morning fivethirtyeight changed their election prediction from "biden is favored to win the election" to "biden is clearly favored to win the election" (emphasis theirs). i'm guessing the prediction wording changed because trump now has less than a 10% chance? ~a
[2020-11-01 13:05:12] - Pierce: But I guess I'm still holding out hope that "new shit will come to light" as the dude might say that gives us a better indication of what might have been going on that led to this. -Paul
[2020-11-01 13:02:57] - What's the saying? That human beings are pattern seeking animals? Well, this seems to fit into a pattern that I think I am seeing (whether it legitimately should or not, is obviously another question). So I agree with you right now that I don't see a lot of evidence for what Greenwald is saying (yet) and his resignation looks like an overreaction. -Paul
[2020-11-01 13:01:15] - I believe that he usually isn't afraid to disagree with his own side, and I find that really admirable and valuable and rare. Also, as I alluded to, this seems to fit a trend that I believe is happening where many journalistic organizations seems to be becoming less and less tolerant of that same independent thought and deviating from certain viewpoints. -Paul
[2020-11-01 12:58:46] - Also, I realize I never made this clear, so let me lay it out here: I certainly come into this with a lot of bias and, since there isn't a lot of evidence, that bias is obviously doing a lot of work in filling in holes here. I think Glenn Greenwald has done a lot of good work in the past and I greatly respect his thoughtfulness and independence, even when I disagree with him. -Paul
[2020-11-01 02:58:35] - Pierce: So I guess it's a little hard for me to judge when a journalist is irresponsibly reporting on unsubstantiated things versus boldly following a lead. -Paul
[2020-11-01 02:53:37] - Pierce: I mean, in retrospect, a lot of the ink spilled by journalists about the whole Trump / Russia investigation ended up being not grounded in anything.... but it also did uncover some sketchy activity and end up putting some people behind bars. -Paul
[2020-11-01 02:49:15] - Pierce: I'll agree that the emails don't really seem to show the smoking gun that I think Greenwald thinks that it shows. It's hard for me to take sides without knowing more about the draft, his past interactions with his editors, and frankly where the Hunter Biden story goes. -Paul
[2020-10-30 23:22:09] - So I don't find much problem with the statement you cite. - mig
[2020-10-30 23:02:05] - pierce: "suggest' is still a hedge, and a word his own editor uses ("There are a couple of published emails and texts in which Hunter Biden or his business partners suggest or hint that Joe Biden might be aware of, or involved in, their dealings with China.") - mig
[2020-10-30 21:33:24] - liberals in the media aren't the reason the nypost coverage was so half-assed, they're not why the narrative about the laptop is so shady, they don't explain the bizarre tucker carlson bombshell evidence against hunter that was lost in the mail then found but they decided not to report on it after all... - pierce
[2020-10-30 21:32:46] - as for sullivan and weiss and the larger issue of journalists noping out: I'd be willing to talk about that, but I don't want to muddy the waters by segueing to it from the biden thing. if there are broad cultural biases in the media that led to greenwald specifically being censored to protect the bidens, the embarrassing journalistic quality of his draft makes a piss-poor case for it. - pierce
[2020-10-30 21:32:28] - he repeatedly calls for maas to point out specific factual inaccuracies, insinuating that the failure to do so means maas has another motive. but maas isn't saying the claims are provably false, he's saying they're unsubstantiated. and it's absolutely correct for an editor to ask a journalist to substantiate their claims. - pierce
[2020-10-30 21:31:39] - greenwald's being really disingenuous. yes, his draft does include a few things hedging his claims (which he lists in the "YOU"/"MY DRAFT" part of the email exchange), but the broad thrust of the article is clearly "these newly revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son’s business Ukrainian associates" (an actual sentence in the draft, that contradicts the hedging statements) - pierce
[2020-10-30 21:31:23] - but these are the emails greenwald chose to publish, and the story they tell is maas giving valid and constructive editorial feedback, followed by greenwald escalating, throwing his reputation around ("first time in fifteen years... I've been censored", which by the way partially undermines the argument that this had been a building problem with the leadership) and making accusations about his coworkers' motives. - pierce
[2020-10-30 21:30:45] - paul: I don't think greenwald has published an earlier version of the draft than the one I linked, so maas and reed's feedback in the emails may be describing an even rougher version of it from before greenwald gave up on the process. - pierce
[2020-10-30 16:21:16] - Pierce: It's a little hard to judge who is in the wrong and who is justified here without knowing a lot of the backstory there, and I'm guessing we never will. Do you know if Greenwald has released his original draft that led to this? -Paul
[2020-10-30 16:14:26] - Pierce: I read through the emails. I'm struck by how quickly things escalated from being super cordial at the beginning to accusations being thrown around. This feels like a lot of stuff was building up to this moment and this was the straw that broke the camel's back (especially since Glenn immediately started referencing previous articles). -Paul
[2020-10-30 13:42:50] - Daniel: Yeah, what Adrian and Miguel said. He seemed to be more diplomatic about it than Weiss and Greenwald, but it seemed to be the same idea that there was some disagreement on the topics covered that played a role in him leaving. -Paul
[2020-10-30 13:40:48] - daniel: probably this "On July 19, 2020, following the unexplained absence of his column for June 5, Andrew Sullivan announced that he would no longer write for New York. He announced he would be reviving The Dish as a newsletter The Weekly Dish hosted by Substack" ~a
[2020-10-30 13:40:46] - daniel: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/andrew-sullivan-see-you-next-friday.html - mig
[2020-10-30 13:39:18] - Paul: I tried to look up Sullivan on wikipedia to see what y ou are referring to but I didn't see anything. What happened with him? -Daniel
[2020-10-30 13:28:25] - Pierce: For example, Greenwald, Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, etc. It seems to have been happening a lot lately and they all seem to have very similar complaints on their way out the door of editors having a certain point of view that is suppressing alternative viewpoints. -Paul
[2020-10-30 13:27:09] - Pierce: I'll have to take a look through the links you posted, because so far I've only read his resignation letter and haven't gotten around to reading the editor's response. I am curious what you think about the seemingly larger issue of some pretty prominent (and often liberal) journalists noisily leaving their publications and staking out on their own. -Paul
[2020-10-30 13:15:32] - pierce: Greenwald has worked for Salon and the Guardian for a number of years. He hasn't always written with the kind of power he has had as founder of the Intercept. His reputation throughout that time (along with the Intercept) has been pretty stellar. Bold claim, yes, but I have no reason or evidence to doubt it.- mig
[2020-10-30 02:56:28] - and yes, I am broadly contributing to the problem, by revisiting this topic to talk about greenwald's resignation. it burned enough of my sanity before to spill pixels on it based on the nypost's shitty coverage. but I think greenwald's drama is a synecdoche of the larger trends in political discourse I was frustrated with, so it deserved a mention. - pierce
[2020-10-30 02:56:08] - so I guess the tl;dr of my take on the greenwald situation just echoes the point I was making before. do some shitty journalism, call censorship when people don't boost your signal, call censorship when people don't boost the signal of your censorship story. rinse and repeat until you drown out any other topics. - pierce
[2020-10-30 02:55:59] - and then, he says: "it's happening less than a week before a presidential election... by editors who eagerly want the candidate I'm writing about critically to win the election". following that, greenwald's very next sentence is "Note that I'm not making claims there about motives: I'm just stating facts that are indisputably true." seriously? he's not talking about motives? - pierce
[2020-10-30 02:55:52] - but instead of negotiating this through a normal editorial process, greenwald resigned. he makes (literally) bold claims about how no one has censored him in fifteen years. that seems implausible if we're only talking about the level of editorial feedback described above. - pierce
[2020-10-30 02:55:39] - in case it's not clear, I think these are all fair critiques of the journalism of greenwald's article, and if greenwald wanted to challenge them (especially as such a high-profile name) he'd have had the freedom to do so under normal editorial processes. and seriously, read his draft: even the worst interpretation is that hunter may be a scumbag playing off his family name and barely, possibly implicates joe biden. - pierce
[2020-10-30 02:55:29] - he says that greenwald "doesn’t explore how major news organizations have done significant stories, and those stories, such as the Journal’s, have not found anything of significance," and implies (again, diplomatically) that they would've undermined greenwald's narrative if greenwald had covered them. - pierce
[2020-10-30 02:55:19] - ...but he is clear that the theme of greenwald's article doesn't match the evidence. he would support a "valid albeit narrower" critique of journalists' failure to ask the bidens about legalized corruption, but not the broad strokes where this proves joe biden's corruption or active suppression efforts by the media at large. - pierce
[2020-10-30 02:55:08] - here's my take after reading both his draft and the email exchanges: peter maas, the intercept editor, is clearly taking a firm but diplomatic tone with their biggest name. he highlights things that do work about the article. he mentions but doesn't dwell (even though I think he should) on the questionable sourcing of the laptop... - pierce
[2020-10-30 02:54:58] - here's greenwald posting his emails with editors at the intercept on the issue. read them as if you were evaluating a workplace dispute. - pierce
[2020-10-30 02:54:50] - greenwald resigns from the intercept. he accuses them of censoring his [draft] reporting on the hunter biden story. - pierce
[2020-10-29 17:34:55] - why cars rarely crash into buildings in the netherlands ~a
[2020-10-29 17:33:02] - Paul: oO Good luck! Enjoy being busy
-Daniel[2020-10-29 16:27:37] - Daniel: Induction scheduled for next Monday, so might be busy with other stuff. -Paul
[2020-10-29 16:27:19] - paul: what happens after this week? -Daniel
[2020-10-29 16:02:41] - Don't forget, SC2 tonight! It might be the last week I can play for a bit, so if you enjoy beating up on Paul, be there or be square! -Paul
[2020-10-29 15:41:10] - yah. ~a
[2020-10-29 15:40:46] - a: Yeah. Either way, it reflects well on them. Either they are doing the right thing despite incentives or because of them. -Paul
[2020-10-29 15:35:56] - paul: i hear you about the business model. but honestly maybe that's why redfin tends to be lower: unlike zillow they have to actually take action on the prices they display. they don't want to over-promise or under-deliver. ~a
prev <-> next