I know its tough for you and everyone else to believe, but I entered this conversation and all its derivatives trying to achieve an understanding of the truth. I also know you an dother want to recoil from the notion, but a lot of this drama is about people not liking their lack of control over their lives and the lives of people they consider their inferiors. While I have some sympathy for the former state, I have zero sympathy for the latter.
And once again we are back to the bottom line - conservative white males can't stand living in a world where they are called out in the public square for their sh!tty behavior.
We are not talking about the War on Drugs, we’re talking about employers.
You may be talking about that - I'm talking about intellectual approaches, philosophy, social norms. And I'm pointing out that the words used to make attacking hippies OK back in the day was (and sometimes still is) used to oppress any number of other groups historically.
That drug use was only criminalized as a way to fight back on the anti-war left and Blacks. That was the entire origin of the war on drugs. Prior to Nixon wanting to clamp down on the vocal opposition, both drugs (and a host of others) enjoyed wide use and tacit acceptance. Still do if you are rich and white.
My point is that language disparaging one group has been and can easily be again used to actively oppress another. And Hippies - in the eyes of many at the time - were the social justice activists of today. You insist - as did those doing the hiring at the time - that they conform to a set of social norms produced largely by conservative white men, and then note that once they did so they were "rewarded" with economic opportunity.
And yet you clearly fail to see - or actively want to avoid - the why and how that language is easily and equally pernicious applied to pretty much anyone else. Its fine to trash hippies because they weren't black or women, or gay . . . even when the same words were once used to trash women, and blacks and gays . . .
As my parents (who are of that generation) would happily intone - Hippies referred to both the free living free thinking sometimes drug using counterculture practitioners of the 1960's AND political leftists that the "establishment" didn't approve of. I also don't think its a coincidence that the drugs most heavily criminalized at the beginning of the War on Drugs (TM) were marijuana, and LSD, which enjoyed significant usage in both Black (marijuana) and hippie (LSD) communities.
Is there any set of circumstances under which a media platform of any kind could can people like Bennet or McNeil that you wouldn't regard as cancelling them?
I could understand it if a place of business didn’t want to hire, or serve, blacks. If people started pressuring a business to not hire or serve blacks, it would be the business’s right to decide on their own.
I could understand it if a place of business didn’t want to hire, or serve,gays. If people started pressuring a business to not hire or serve gays, it would be the business’s right to decide on their own.
I could understand it if a place of business didn’t want to hire, or serve, hispanics. If people started pressuring a business to not hire or serve hispanics, it would be the business’s right to decide on their own.
Funny how those two sentences contain so much bigotry even with the original wording.
much of the federal government has turned over contract execution management to intermediary contactors. Our ranks of Contracting Officer - with any sort of experience - and Contracting Officer Representatives are shrinking annually. Congress also loves to tweak sections of the FAR, so that what was true in contracting several years ago may not be true today. This is all part of the "make government more efficient like business" movement. Its hugely misplaced and does indeed result in some significant duds. Even so called best value contracts - while not always the cheapest - don't necessarily get you good stuff.
Delivery is a far greater problem then storage at the moment - and every time a grid upgrade gets proposed in civil works legislation in Congress it seems to dies off. There is $65 Billion in the Infrastructure Bill that was passed last year, but I don't think it will be near enough.
every outlet does that though. Fox News own polling shows around 70% of Americans approve of Biden nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court but they have yet to make that a story . . ..
industrial design and modeling software is sufficiently better then it used to be. And I know of academic institutions that have built them scaled down for research purposes. We know this works.
The NYT and other press didn't scoop the story - the NY post did. So all they could cover initially was the Post's claims - and I think they did those as neutrally as possible. They laid out what the Post said and what they could source themselves - which wasn't much. They pointed out what they didn't know. And they questioned the timing and veracity - which I think was appropriate given what we know about Trump and his minions. They only managed to interview the store owner at the time, and he confirmed what he reported to the Post. Giuliani confirmed his claims but refused to provide them any of the material, so at the time, adjudicating his claims wasn't possible by other outlets. The NYT has spent 18 months backtracking the source material - they wouldn't bother doing that if they thought they needed to bury it.
As to anonymous sources - If there's only one then it always needs to be treated with some suspicion. If you have several and particularly if they are from multiple places then you are probably reading credible evidence. In this case there were no real anonymous sources though - Guilaini was quite public, the store owner who turned over the laptop was interviewed by name, but neither of them shared the actual emails with anyone besides each other the Post and the FBI. That has tons of red and yellow flags about authenticity and purposeful dirty tricks being played.
That’s part of burying. If the ‘coverage’ is all how this is disinformation and we really shouldn’t have people questioning x, y or z that’s a problem.
Except that's not what the NYT or anyone else did. They reported the allegations made by Giuliani and the NY Post, they reported the FBIU investigation, and they reported what wasn't known or verifiable at the time. Its taken 18 months to get additional sourcing and confirmation. Which we now have. Your guess is as good as mine as to why that is, but its not about the current White House engaging in disinformation on Hunter Biden.
As to Joe Rogan - he deserved to be deplatformed because he was peddling verifiable lies about a pandemic that was killing people. Once you do that in the public square you need to suffer consequences.
Based on the reporting at the time, and the sourcing from the NYP and Guilani I did think it was fake.
I was wrong.
Clearly they Times has done actual reporting to confirm there were emails and and they were on that laptop. I remain convinced however thatthese emails reveal noting illegal, nor do they reveal anything that wasn't being done (and perhaps still is being done) by the Trump kids.
But we were talking about Mainstream Media Coverage and rot because the story was allegedly being suppressed. As your own link notes, the alleged links to Burisma were both reported and extensively investigated and while unseemly, were not illegal. And at the time even Fox News refused to report the actual laptop story. The media didn't suppress this - neither did OT.
If we linked to every story about this (not the original from the NY Post) at the time - like the NYT story I linked above - would you still say it was buried? As I recall it got several weeks of coverage at the time, but since the only person who admitted to having its hard drive contents was Rudy Guiliani - and he only shared with the FBI - no one could tell if it was authentic or disinfo. Not above form the initial NYT article that the reporter who wrote the initial story for the Post didn't want his name on it. That tells me he was not able to confirm a lot of its contents and was likely pressured by his bosses to produce it. That's rot too.
They’re reporting it a year and a half after the story broke. That’s rot.
To do so I posted the original link to the original NYT story on this, with a few tasty quotes. YOu were wrong about when the NYT reported this story, and that matters if we are to discuss media rot.
Having grown up on the north end of Cancer Alley I long ago learned to fear chemical plants and refineries more then nuclear, which we had about an hour away FWIW. The fact that I have yet to be diagnosed with something in the disease family still amazes me.
And as a lefty green, I support limited nuclear investment. As has been discussed numerous times here, there are reactor designs that are smaller, safer and just as powerful as the "old" Three Mile Island design, which tells me that we can safely incorporate nuclear into tour combined decarbonized generation future.
Then you and I have very different definitions of that term. Authors on OT rely on the NYT and WaPO - among others - as a primary reporting source for news they wish to comment on. I don't know of any instance where the WaPo or NYT articles so quoted have been misquoted. And Andrew or Jay or me doing a read it yourself from the WAPO definitely relies on that reporting since that's what you are directed to read as part of the post.
On “From the New York Times editorial board: America Has a Free Speech Problem”
I know its tough for you and everyone else to believe, but I entered this conversation and all its derivatives trying to achieve an understanding of the truth. I also know you an dother want to recoil from the notion, but a lot of this drama is about people not liking their lack of control over their lives and the lives of people they consider their inferiors. While I have some sympathy for the former state, I have zero sympathy for the latter.
"
And once again we are back to the bottom line - conservative white males can't stand living in a world where they are called out in the public square for their sh!tty behavior.
"
You may be talking about that - I'm talking about intellectual approaches, philosophy, social norms. And I'm pointing out that the words used to make attacking hippies OK back in the day was (and sometimes still is) used to oppress any number of other groups historically.
"
Not at all - and that's not my point.
"
And I'm pointing out that the thinking is as flawed as the thinking about all those other groups.
"
That drug use was only criminalized as a way to fight back on the anti-war left and Blacks. That was the entire origin of the war on drugs. Prior to Nixon wanting to clamp down on the vocal opposition, both drugs (and a host of others) enjoyed wide use and tacit acceptance. Still do if you are rich and white.
"
My point is that language disparaging one group has been and can easily be again used to actively oppress another. And Hippies - in the eyes of many at the time - were the social justice activists of today. You insist - as did those doing the hiring at the time - that they conform to a set of social norms produced largely by conservative white men, and then note that once they did so they were "rewarded" with economic opportunity.
And yet you clearly fail to see - or actively want to avoid - the why and how that language is easily and equally pernicious applied to pretty much anyone else. Its fine to trash hippies because they weren't black or women, or gay . . . even when the same words were once used to trash women, and blacks and gays . . .
"
As my parents (who are of that generation) would happily intone - Hippies referred to both the free living free thinking sometimes drug using counterculture practitioners of the 1960's AND political leftists that the "establishment" didn't approve of. I also don't think its a coincidence that the drugs most heavily criminalized at the beginning of the War on Drugs (TM) were marijuana, and LSD, which enjoyed significant usage in both Black (marijuana) and hippie (LSD) communities.
"
Is there any set of circumstances under which a media platform of any kind could can people like Bennet or McNeil that you wouldn't regard as cancelling them?
"
You don't live in a Right to Work State, do you?
"
Funny how those two sentences contain so much bigotry even with the original wording.
On “The Misplaced Menace of Nuclear Power”
much of the federal government has turned over contract execution management to intermediary contactors. Our ranks of Contracting Officer - with any sort of experience - and Contracting Officer Representatives are shrinking annually. Congress also loves to tweak sections of the FAR, so that what was true in contracting several years ago may not be true today. This is all part of the "make government more efficient like business" movement. Its hugely misplaced and does indeed result in some significant duds. Even so called best value contracts - while not always the cheapest - don't necessarily get you good stuff.
"
Delivery is a far greater problem then storage at the moment - and every time a grid upgrade gets proposed in civil works legislation in Congress it seems to dies off. There is $65 Billion in the Infrastructure Bill that was passed last year, but I don't think it will be near enough.
On “From The Independent: White House urges Spotify to take further action on Joe Rogan: ‘More can be done’”
every outlet does that though. Fox News own polling shows around 70% of Americans approve of Biden nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court but they have yet to make that a story . . ..
On “The Misplaced Menace of Nuclear Power”
for once you and I agree.
"
industrial design and modeling software is sufficiently better then it used to be. And I know of academic institutions that have built them scaled down for research purposes. We know this works.
On “From The Independent: White House urges Spotify to take further action on Joe Rogan: ‘More can be done’”
The NYT and other press didn't scoop the story - the NY post did. So all they could cover initially was the Post's claims - and I think they did those as neutrally as possible. They laid out what the Post said and what they could source themselves - which wasn't much. They pointed out what they didn't know. And they questioned the timing and veracity - which I think was appropriate given what we know about Trump and his minions. They only managed to interview the store owner at the time, and he confirmed what he reported to the Post. Giuliani confirmed his claims but refused to provide them any of the material, so at the time, adjudicating his claims wasn't possible by other outlets. The NYT has spent 18 months backtracking the source material - they wouldn't bother doing that if they thought they needed to bury it.
As to anonymous sources - If there's only one then it always needs to be treated with some suspicion. If you have several and particularly if they are from multiple places then you are probably reading credible evidence. In this case there were no real anonymous sources though - Guilaini was quite public, the store owner who turned over the laptop was interviewed by name, but neither of them shared the actual emails with anyone besides each other the Post and the FBI. That has tons of red and yellow flags about authenticity and purposeful dirty tricks being played.
"
Except that's not what the NYT or anyone else did. They reported the allegations made by Giuliani and the NY Post, they reported the FBIU investigation, and they reported what wasn't known or verifiable at the time. Its taken 18 months to get additional sourcing and confirmation. Which we now have. Your guess is as good as mine as to why that is, but its not about the current White House engaging in disinformation on Hunter Biden.
As to Joe Rogan - he deserved to be deplatformed because he was peddling verifiable lies about a pandemic that was killing people. Once you do that in the public square you need to suffer consequences.
"
Based on the reporting at the time, and the sourcing from the NYP and Guilani I did think it was fake.
I was wrong.
Clearly they Times has done actual reporting to confirm there were emails and and they were on that laptop. I remain convinced however thatthese emails reveal noting illegal, nor do they reveal anything that wasn't being done (and perhaps still is being done) by the Trump kids.
But we were talking about Mainstream Media Coverage and rot because the story was allegedly being suppressed. As your own link notes, the alleged links to Burisma were both reported and extensively investigated and while unseemly, were not illegal. And at the time even Fox News refused to report the actual laptop story. The media didn't suppress this - neither did OT.
"
That was Hillary not Ivanka
"
If we linked to every story about this (not the original from the NY Post) at the time - like the NYT story I linked above - would you still say it was buried? As I recall it got several weeks of coverage at the time, but since the only person who admitted to having its hard drive contents was Rudy Guiliani - and he only shared with the FBI - no one could tell if it was authentic or disinfo. Not above form the initial NYT article that the reporter who wrote the initial story for the Post didn't want his name on it. That tells me he was not able to confirm a lot of its contents and was likely pressured by his bosses to produce it. That's rot too.
"
I'm fact checking you -
To do so I posted the original link to the original NYT story on this, with a few tasty quotes. YOu were wrong about when the NYT reported this story, and that matters if we are to discuss media rot.
On “The Misplaced Menace of Nuclear Power”
Having grown up on the north end of Cancer Alley I long ago learned to fear chemical plants and refineries more then nuclear, which we had about an hour away FWIW. The fact that I have yet to be diagnosed with something in the disease family still amazes me.
And as a lefty green, I support limited nuclear investment. As has been discussed numerous times here, there are reactor designs that are smaller, safer and just as powerful as the "old" Three Mile Island design, which tells me that we can safely incorporate nuclear into tour combined decarbonized generation future.
On “From The Independent: White House urges Spotify to take further action on Joe Rogan: ‘More can be done’”
I know, but neither you nor I - nor Andrew apparently - RELY on them.
"
Then you and I have very different definitions of that term. Authors on OT rely on the NYT and WaPO - among others - as a primary reporting source for news they wish to comment on. I don't know of any instance where the WaPo or NYT articles so quoted have been misquoted. And Andrew or Jay or me doing a read it yourself from the WAPO definitely relies on that reporting since that's what you are directed to read as part of the post.