Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Traditional journalist writes about an angry Twitter mob. Never gets old. Are those kids off Taibbi's lawn yet?

That’s the only comeback you’ll ever have to what he wrote.

You can’t get near it on substance. You can’t even try. And in a public square, you versus him? He’d scatter your teeth on this subject in a debate.

You couldn’t even argue with Greenwald on this issue.

ETA: What’s a “traditional” journalist? I have time to write tomorrow, and I’ve a few thoughts on how silly your explanation of “non-traditional” journalism is going to be. Here’s a tip: Don’t even try to argue that journalism shouldn’t necessarily be objective. If you write that Wolfe or Thompson would support the bullshit in our media today, you’re going to regret it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://www.snopes.com/?s=transmissi...ges+with+masks

I am just amazed at how many "smart" people, people who mock on trump supporters as being stupid, just repost memes with no check at all on accuracy. I accept masks help. I wear them in public, but fuck, people.

If you’re arguing against mask wearing, you’re in the Jenny McCarthy bucket. There’s no harm to wearing them, and only gain to be had.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I'm sure the FDA never thought of any of those issues. You should write them.

You can come up with all the metaphysical doubts about the validity of the FDA study. My point was merely that this was a funny dialogue:

You: I talked to some doctors and the drugs work. In fact, any argument that risk of the harms from the drugs might outweigh the benefits is pure sophistry.

Ty (months later): The FDA did a study and concluded the drugs are unlikely to work, and that the risk of harms, including serious cardiac illness, from the drugs outweighs any potential benefits.

You: I was right!!!

I'll also note that your probing skepticism of the FDA study (some of which may be valid -- as you note, we don't know a lot), is in striking contrast to your willingness, based on one post from a lawyer on an internet chatting board who said that he knew some other guy that was really sick, took the drug, and got better, that the drugs not only "all but assuredly" were the cause of this guy's cure, but that they were generally effective as cures for COVID.

I think you’re emotional and biased to the extent it clouds your thinking. I think Icky is exactly the opposite. Does that explain it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Look at countries where mask use is prevalent. Fewer cases. Fewer deaths.

Yes. But the point is people make up %s.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Yes. But the point is people make up %s.

I took those numbers as just guidance. No one would have enough data to compile those.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You’re right, of course. Nine or more gin and tonics combined with the correct dosage of crab puffs provokes the type of candor usually only found in Ayahuasca trips.

Hell offers no pain like tripping with a hipster.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I took those numbers as just guidance. No one would have enough data to compile those.

I took the numbers as anyone who posts them is an idiot. It's a bigger point. Facebook memes should not be accepted as fact. That’s what the Russians want.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

if you’re arguing against mask wearing, you’re in the jenny mccarthy bucket. There’s no harm to wearing them, and only gain to be had.

stp

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I took the numbers as anyone who posts them is an idiot. It's a bigger point. Facebook memes should not be accepted as fact. That what the Russians want.

Twitter users don't take as fact what facebook users do. Fact.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Twitter users don't take as fact what facebook users do. Fact.

Do you need a twitter account to vote?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That’s the only comeback you’ll ever have to what he wrote.

You can’t get near it on substance. You can’t even try. And in a public square, you versus him? He’d scatter your teeth on this subject in a debate.

You couldn’t even argue with Greenwald on this issue.

ETA: What’s a “traditional” journalist? I have time to write tomorrow, and I’ve a few thoughts on how silly your explanation of “non-traditional” journalism is going to be. Here’s a tip: Don’t even try to argue that journalism shouldn’t necessarily be objective. If you write that Wolfe or Thompson would support the bullshit in our media today, you’re going to regret it.

Scatter his teeth? Man, you become positively vicious when someone goes after your main dude Taibbi. Hey, Ty. Back. The. Fuck. Up.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Scatter his teeth? Man, you become positively vicious when someone goes after your main dude Taibbi. Hey, Ty. Back. The. Fuck. Up.

Dude. It's worse than that. I'm pretty sure Ty has dentures. That was a really fucked up thing Sebby said

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That’s the only comeback you’ll ever have to what he wrote.

You can’t get near it on substance. You can’t even try. And in a public square, you versus him? He’d scatter your teeth on this subject in a debate.

I think it's a stupid piece, mixing together a whole bunch of unrelated things, on some of which I completely agree with Taibbi and on others I think he is off the mark. What he really needs is an editor. His headline is about "the press" but then he also complains about "the left," which is music to your ears, I know.

On the fight between Lee Fang and Akela Lacy, why should we care? So lots of people liked a bad tweet.

"There were other incidents. The editors of Bon Apetit and Refinery29 both resigned amid accusations of toxic workplace culture." And this is bad? I've never heard of Refinery29 so I don't know why I should care, but I heard a lot of stuff about Bon Appetit and it sounds like the editor had it coming. So?

About Bennet, he says "The main thing accomplished by removing those types of editorials from newspapers — apart from scaring the hell out of editors — is to shield readers from knowledge of what a major segment of American society is thinking." Actually, many people said that Cotton's views should be covered by the Times as news. Then Times readers would know what he thinks. Taibbi doesn't seem to know that, suggesting that he has been shielding himself from what a major segment of American society is thinking. Also, Taibbi doesn't seem to know that Bennet admitted he never read Cotton's piece.

These tensions led to amazing contradictions in coverage. For all the extraordinary/inexplicable scenes of police viciousness in recent weeks — and there was a ton of it, ranging from police slashing tires in Minneapolis, to Buffalo officers knocking over an elderly man, to Philadelphia police attacking protesters — there were also 12 deaths in the first nine days of protests, only one at the hands of a police officer (involving a man who may or may not have been aiming a gun at police).

Looting in some communities has been so bad that people have been left without banks to cash checks, or pharmacies to fill prescriptions; business owners have been wiped out (“My life is gone,” commented one Philly store owner); a car dealership in San Leandro, California saw 74 cars stolen in a single night. It isn’t the whole story, but it’s demonstrably true that violence, arson, and rioting are occurring.

However, because it is politically untenable to discuss this in ways that do not suggest support, reporters have been twisting themselves into knots. We are seeing headlines previously imaginable only in The Onion, e.g., “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London.”

Where are the "amazing contradictions in coverage"? I have seen all of these things reported.

Get him an editor. That piece is a mess.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I took the numbers as anyone who posts them is an idiot. It's a bigger point. Facebook memes should not be accepted as fact. That’s what the Russians want.

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think it's a stupid piece, mixing together a whole bunch of unrelated things, on some of which I completely agree with Taibbi and on others I think he is off the mark. What he really needs is an editor. His headline is about "the press" but then he also complains about "the left," which is music to your ears, I know.

On the fight between Lee Fang and Akela Lacy, why should we care? So lots of people liked a bad tweet.

"There were other incidents. The editors of Bon Apetit and Refinery29 both resigned amid accusations of toxic workplace culture." And this is bad? I've never heard of Refinery29 so I don't know why I should care, but I heard a lot of stuff about Bon Appetit and it sounds like the editor had it coming. So?

About Bennet, he says "The main thing accomplished by removing those types of editorials from newspapers — apart from scaring the hell out of editors — is to shield readers from knowledge of what a major segment of American society is thinking." Actually, many people said that Cotton's views should be covered by the Times as news. Then Times readers would know what he thinks. Taibbi doesn't seem to know that, suggesting that he has been shielding himself from what a major segment of American society is thinking. Also, Taibbi doesn't seem to know that Bennet admitted he never read Cotton's piece.



Where are the "amazing contradictions in coverage"? I have seen all of these things reported.

Get him an editor. That piece is a mess.

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

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

I'm still wondering, however, what is a "traditional" journalist? I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you were suggesting there are now more enlightened newsrooms where objectivity cedes to the important narratives that progressive journalists want to emphasize, and anything that challenges them is potentially offensive.