Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Adder]

So both "Trump had Russian cosigners" (not sure I buy that at all) and "do what I want you to do even though it is illegal, I'll just pardon you" both seem like they should be massive bombshells but here we are.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Agree with the general notion of not caring what random people have to say, sorta, but also one thing that social media (really, just the opportunity to interact with and have exposure to commentators) is the realization that those who are paid for their opinion aren't necessarily anything special either.

I would certainly hope so. Those exposed to my expert predictions and analyses of the last election should hardly care to listen to the self-anointed talking heads.

I wonder if Ty cites my posts on twitter much?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I would certainly hope so. Those exposed to my expert predictions and analyses of the last election should hardly care to listen to the self-anointed talking heads.

I wonder if Ty cites my posts on twitter much?

All the time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

All the time.

Those are my copyright, or should I copy that FB post they all do about not agreeing to people like you treating my content as public domain?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Those are my copyright, or should I copy that FB post they all do about not agreeing to people like you treating my content as public domain?

I just start every tweet, "As my pal Hank likes to say at The Moth, ...."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The NYT mentions the past contro, but not with a cite. The special does go way the hell out a few times.

I watched it last nite. Then I watched it again with my wife. It's worth watching twice because if you're cooking and making g&ts, you'll miss the nuances. And it's a really nuanced set. I think the audience missed about ten subtle jokes in the special, and frequently missed where he was sliding into satire.

The show demonstrates why Chappelle is one of the few who can claim to be on par with Carlin, Pryor, and Murphy. It's hard to write about why without falling into silly superlatives. You have to look at the thing as a whole, and as a whole, it's insanely funny, astute in social critiques, and biting (the bit on white opioid users and black crack addicts was excellent).

Is it as gut-busting funny as Murphy's Delirious? That's a really high bar, but yes. Is it as daring as Pryor's Live on the Sunset Strip? Yeah. Does he skewer all the deserving hypocrisies like Carlin? Oh yes. But where he differentiates himself from them, and what made me think he might be working on a whole other level, is his bringing a bit of Andy Kaufman to the game. At several points, you can't tell when he's veering into irony, when he's actually earnest, and who's the butt of the joke.

The way he leads people down a path where they agree with him, where it appears he's deadly serious, and then he reveals the whole thing is a goof is brilliant. And the meta point in it - that this is comedy, and it's supposed to remind people not to take themselves seriously - is remade endlessly, but never too bluntly. By toying with the audience, he's instead saying, "If you're trying to figure out which 'side' I'm on, it's none. I'm here to make you laugh."

And man, did he do so.

ETA: The only guy to come close to a set this well done was Louis C.K.'s Oh My God ("of course... but maybe...?"). And Chappelle's bit on CK, by the way ("pancake batter on his stomach" and calling the cop to report masturbation) was also pretty solid (unlike his bit on Kevin Hart, which I think fell flat).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

So both "Trump had Russian cosigners" (not sure I buy that at all) and "do what I want you to do even though it is illegal, I'll just pardon you" both seem like they should be massive bombshells but here we are.

"Tonight, we are retracting the story," O'Donnell said. "We don't know whether the information is inaccurate, but the fact is we do know it wasn't ready for broadcast, and for that I apologize."

O’Donnell tweeted earlier Wednesday that his reporting Tuesday night, which cited a single unnamed source close to Deutsche Bank, did not meet "our rigorous verification and standards process."

"Last night I made an error in judgment by reporting an item about the president's finances that didn’t go through our rigorous verification and standards process. I shouldn't have reported it and I was wrong to discuss it on the air," O’Donnell said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...-have-n1047516

This is the crap that's going to get Trump re-elected. He's vulnerable, and all the Dems have to do is bring back some of the Blue Wall. What's the media doing? Bullshitting. Giving Trump talking points.

I'd say they're fucking morons, but they're not. Because they really don't care whether the Democrats win, at least not right now. What they want is a really bloody dogfight, some scandals, and in the quest for this, they keep doing dumb shit that helps Trump.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Agree with the general notion of not caring what random people have to say, sorta, but also one thing that social media (really, just the opportunity to interact with and have exposure to commentators) is the realization that those who are paid for their opinion aren't necessarily anything special either.

He's got my proxy: https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Eliti.../dp/0385479433

I loved the internet because I thought a true marketplace of ideas would allow the best to rise to the top. In some regards, this has happened. You have some really great outlets from which to choose.

But they're mixed in with an endless supply of shit, and they're becoming polluted with shit because editors see crap sites acquiring huge traffic and follow suit.

I have a well policed news feed. It's largely mainstream sites, and if I see shit, I remove the source or hit "dislike." But this cannot be done assiduously enough. The shit creeps back into the feed. Vanity Fair is perhaps the worst offender. I want the big articles because I like a lot of their writers. But the price of that is to read their utter shite, often political, filled with insipid opinions of Hollywood jerk-offs presented as though offered by people who actually know something.

I don't give a fuck what Leo thinks of climate change. Not a single atom of a fuck. Why, in order to get an article by William Cohan or Michael Lewis, does my feed have to be polluted with a litany of short pieces that sound like they were written for a political fundraiser by Rob Reiner?

Well, because VF has to pump out crap every half hour to compete with Buzzfeed.

These things are not like each other. There needs to be some form of separation between real media and jerk-off media. Maybe a wall of some sort. I'd pay taxes for that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

[INDENT]This is the crap that's going to get Trump re-elected. He's vulnerable, and all the Dems have to do is bring back some of the Blue Wall. What's the media doing? Bullshitting. Giving Trump talking points.

Speaking of fucking morons, this is the stupidest thing ever. This helps Trump? It helps a politician to report that he's corrupt without multiple sources? Imagine saying this about a Democrat and thinking that it would help. (Maybe a baseless report about email abuse?) O'Donnell's report makes it more likely that absolutely no one will want to vote for Trump. Anyone with the sense of cultural grievance who is going to feel sorry for Trump because of this is already wearing a MAGA hat and a t-shirt that says, Trump-Pence 2020 Make Liberals Cry Again.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Speaking of fucking morons, this is the stupidest thing ever. This helps Trump? It helps a politician to report that he's corrupt without multiple sources? Imagine saying this about a Democrat and thinking that it would help. (Maybe a baseless report about email abuse?) O'Donnell's report makes it more likely that absolutely no one will want to vote for Trump. Anyone with the sense of cultural grievance who is going to feel sorry for Trump because of this is already wearing a MAGA hat and a t-shirt that says, Trump-Pence 2020 Make Liberals Cry Again.

Do you really think you'll get away with suggesting that the only thing rendering O'Donnell's claim worthy of retraction is a lack of additional sources? O'Donnell isn't retracting because he's only got one source.

O'Donnell's report will be seen by Blue Wall voters as more proof that there's a dirty President being attacked by an even dirtier media. It pushes voters on the fence (and there are a lot) closer to concluding, "both sides are crooked." Once a person is in that mindset, the incumbent's natural advantage turns the vote in his favor.

It's not a sense of cultural grievance with Blue Wall swing voters. That's your arrogance - your belief you know what people are thinking, which is only correct about 50% of the time - leading you to that pompous belief. That's also you confusing Trumpkins with Blue Wall moderates. Those are two very different camps.

A lot of Blue Wall voters are disgusted with both sides. I assume the Blue Wall is a lot like PA and NJ, where I spend most of my time. There are a lot of similarities between the regions. Moderates in these parts are sick of Trump. But they're just as sick of the Resistance. And they really hate the media (right and left). It's not grievance. They truly Do Not Like Either Side.

And they laugh at people like you who profess to know what they're thinking or why they vote as they do. You're really fucking clueless. Your argument against Biden proves it. And you clearly have some issue with maths. Your view - that Ds should run strident progressives - is a recipe for a giant Electoral College loss coupled with a giant Popular Vote win. If you're hoping to spur a constitutional convention where we throw out the Electoral College, this may be a clever long term plan. If you want to win this election, it's a terrible idea.

ETA: Trump is an openly lying liar. There is a perverse honesty in that. The people in the media who shade things are not openly lying. They are trying to hide the ball, to convince you that what they are saying is credible. That’s more of a sneak then a liar. People really dislike sneaks. Your calculation is that sneaks can amass huge amounts of voters against a liar. I don’t think that’s likely. I think most people look at such a scenario and throw their hands up in disgust.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Do you really think you'll get away with suggesting that the only thing rendering O'Donnell's claim worthy of retraction is a lack of additional sources? O'Donnell isn't retracting because he's only got one source.

I don't know why you think I care. I'm reacting to what you said, not O'Donnell's report.

O'Donnell's report will be seen by Blue Wall voters as more proof that there's a dirty President being attacked by an even dirtier media. It pushes voters on the fence (and there are a lot) closer to concluding, "both sides are crooked." Once a person is in that mindset, the incumbent's natural advantage turns the vote in his favor.

This paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Sorry.

It's not a sense of cultural grievance with Blue Wall swing voters. That's your arrogance - your belief you know what people are thinking, which is only correct about 50% of the time - leading you to that pompous belief. That's also you confusing Trumpkins with Blue Wall moderates. Those are two very different camps.

You were explaining what these voters were thinking when you said it would help Trump. That's your arrogance - your belief you know what people are thinking, which is only correct about .5% of the time - leading you to that pompous belief.

A lot of Blue Wall voters are disgusted with both sides. I assume the Blue Wall is a lot like PA and NJ, where I spend most of my time. There are a lot of similarities between the regions. Moderates in these parts are sick of Trump. But they're just as sick of the Resistance. And they really hate the media (right and left). It's not grievance. They truly Do Not Like Either Side.

Even if that all of that is true, which I doubt, but whatever, the idea that a mistaken report that Trump is corrupt somehow helps him (because Both Sides!) is totally, completely stupid.

And they laugh at people like you who profess to know what they're thinking or why they vote as they do. You're really fucking clueless. Your argument against Biden proves it. And you clearly have some issue with maths. Your view - that Ds should run strident progressives - is a recipe for a giant Electoral College loss coupled with a giant Popular Vote win. If you're hoping to spur a constitutional convention where we throw out the Electoral College, this may be a clever long term plan. If you want to win this election, it's a terrible idea.

I'm not sure what you are talking about in this paragraph. It bears no resemblance to anything I have said. Knock yourself out.

ETA: Trump is an openly lying liar. There is a perverse honesty in that. The people in the media who shade things are not openly lying. They are trying to hide the ball, to convince you that what they are saying is credible. That’s more of a sneak then a liar. People really dislike sneaks. Your calculation is that sneaks can amass huge amounts of voters against a liar. I don’t think that’s likely. I think most people look at such a scenario and throw their hands up in disgust.

Trump certainly will get a lot of votes who see him on one side and liberal media on the other. But that's beside the point.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's your arrogance - your belief you know what people are thinking . . . .

Did you really just write this?

[Hank Chinaski]

So I was going to Nordic Track for an hour and need something to watch. I see a show called "Locked Up Abroad" on Nat Geo channel- first off all how sad is it that Nat Geo has to debase its brand- But worse, I'm scrolling through episodes and "Swim suit model makes a horrible mistake in Texas and ends up with life in jail in Bangladesh." So no brainer- I watch it! But there is no reference at all to swim suit modeling. It was all a cheap ploy to suck me in. How sad is it that an educated man can be so predictably shallow?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Good. Times.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Did you really just write this?

I realized that could be perceived a bit rich.