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

Back in the Inwood I knew best, circa 1970s, if anyone was running you had to make a quick decision - shoot, run, or get out of the way. I suspect that's the era when the park's defenses were designed.

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

Translation: I saw naked ladies in Times Square!

So I’ve been in Manchester a bit lately. Advertises as a gateway to Boston. Logan is a bit much. Do people use Manchester to get into the city?

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

Not much, but folks who live north of the city and people coming in to see businesses in areas north of the city use it. South of the city there is Providence airport, and west of the city Bedford (much smaller) and Worcester airports.

Warren
 

No link.

Look up her crowds and poll #s on your own.

Who else ran like this and surprised everybody?

I’m usually wrong on this stuff. But maybe not this time?

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

Bret Stephens is a piece of work.

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

Definitely not insect-like, though.

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

What a horrible thing to say about him. The worst thing that's ever been said on the internet.

Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

So I see a new Chappelle special on my Netflix, and of course, behind Succession and the Righteous Gemstones (very funny, despite McBride basically rehashing Kenny Powers as a preacher), I set it as my next Must Watch.

Like much of humanity, if it's Chappelle, it's required viewing.

Anyway, viewing this must've triggered the algorithm in my news feed to offer me this article from Vice: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5...cks-and-stones

So I scan it and it's got a few links in it, and at the bottom, where it ostensibly makes a point, there's this paragraph:

Chappelle has always been a daredevil comedian willing to take a controversial stance or downplay a serious controversy for laughs, including his early-2000s skits about R. Kelly's court trials on Chappelle's Show. But now he chooses to blatantly ignore the historic criticism against his style of comedy and new loud-and-clear criticism from the trans community. His approach comes off like a defiant rejection of change at any cost. As he keeps going down this path, drawing attention to the worst aspects of his important career, the biggest cost will be tarnishing his own legacy.

I asked myself, "What's this 'historic criticism' of Chappelle?" It turns out, it's Vice criticizing Chappelle back in 2017.

Vice has cited itself as the source of historical criticism Chappelle has ignored. At first, I wondered if this was possible, if this wasn't a violation of some cardinal rule of responsible journalism. Then I considered, this is Vice. I understand this company is in poor financial condition, and they pump out articles at a rate of ten an hour, but can they really not afford to have found a source other than themselves?

The Times can do this sort of thing. So can the Journal, or Boston Globe, or LA Times. But Vice? This is kind of like one of us citing an old post taking another of us to task in the past. So what?

I've read that newspaper subscriptions have increased in response to Trump's criticism of the media. In this battle where reputable sources fight for credibility, it'd be nice to see a bright line drawn between the real and the McJournalism of Vice. I like clickbait as much as the next guy, but when it starts referring to itself as a reputable source of record, we're testing Rock Bottom.

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/t...-broadway.html

The NYT mentions the past contro, but not with a cite. The special does go way the hell out a few times. I think part of his armor is he already walked away- "what, you're going to run me out of show biz? Fuck that. People don't want me, I'll go again."

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

If the Times' piece predates Vice's, all is well in the universe, as it's a case of Vice stealing/glomming on/plagiarizing (and creepily crediting itself rather than citing the Times). If Vice piece predates the Times, we're potentially left to wonder if maybe the Times is following "new media's" lead. The latter is a really depressing possibility.

But there is precedent for it. I can't stand the Times' graphics. They're trying to imitate the graphics of exclusively online sources. And it's so fucking irritating. I was trying to delve into some of the 1619 stuff and the initial link is all this huge print and photos and after a few minutes of searching, you feel like screaming, channeling an inner Lewis Black, "Just give me the fucking text! Just the fucking text! You're a fucking newspaper, goddammit! I want to read motherfucking words!!!!"

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

I too am an old person and took a second to figure out to click on the quotes.

But I'm not silly enough to be surprised that a publisher of online content cites itself above and before citing others.

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

Doesn't it seem likely that the Vice writer knows that people have criticized Chappelle in the past and wrote this, and then some editor or intern went back to add a cite and the other Vice thing was the first thing they found? Most journalists don't feel an obligation to include footnotes.

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

Good point. But it's incredibly lazy, or totally lacking in self-awareness. Even for an intern. Vice is not a source of record for anything. Even that great piece they did on Charlottesville was more the work of the awesome reporter (can't recall her name) who kept the story on point and factual, rather than Vice's producers, who turn everything into a Geraldo Rivera infotainment piece.

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

Perhaps that's the best we can expect from these sources. This is just what happens when media is democratized.

My favorite development is the story about Twitter and Facebook reactions to events or statements by politicians, celebrities, etc.

Headline: "Twitter exploded today when Brad Pitt said he didn't care for hairy armpits on women." Then below, a bunch of links from common everyday shlubs on Twitter and FB.

So let me get this straight... Comments from some school teacher in Ackron regarding what Brad Pitt said are now news? How? Who in the fuck cares what Karen from Ackron thinks about, well, anything. Fuck Karen. And fuck Bob from Tulsa who replied to Karen, and Vincent from Miami who replied to him. Fuck all of these people. Fuck this entire peanut gallery of poorly educated congenital misfits and whatever deluded hubris caused them to think their unlearned opinions have any claim to value in the public sphere.

Mary from Cincinnati works for a dermatologist and thinks women growing out armpit hair will lead to an epidemic of ingrown hairs requiring costly cyst removal? Fucking great. I couldn't have gotten through my day with out that. Thanks, Mary. Now go home and stick your head in the oven.

Goddammit. Can someone put the social media genie back in the fucking bottle? People saying crazy things should only do so anonymously, in places like this, where only other weirdos will read them.

But the real villain here, the unforgivable evil that should be sent to one of Dante's central rings, is Ted Turner.

If we'd never had that fucking idiotic 24/7 news cycle, we'd never have had this insane business model where, rather than allow for some dead air, assholes in media companies everywhere must be pumping out "stories" all day long. And where they've so run out of useful shit to write that now they're writing about and even doing full news bits on cable about the opinions - the moronic, uninformed opinions - of shitheads spewing on Twitter or Facebook.

"Hey, look, Tom in Seattle has a really strong view about international finance. He just tweeted to Christine Lagarde about it! This is news! Maybe if we try real hard - if we perhaps take acid, or hit ourselves over the head with bricks for a bit - we can imagine Christine reading Tom's tweet over a latte in some French cafe." Or, more realistically, we can envision the reality of Tom tweeting his stupid shite between making and serving lattes at the local hipster coffee shop.

Fuck off, Tom. But really, fuck off everyone paying attention to Tom. Which I guess includes me. But I only paid attention out of hatred. So only half fuck me.

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

If it isn't already, it will soon be all online sources. No one is going to choose to drive traffic to somebody else if they could instead point back to themselves.

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.

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

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.

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

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?

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

All the time.

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

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?

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

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

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

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).

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

"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.

Re: Vice: The New Grey Lady?
 

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

This paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Sorry.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Did you really just write this?

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

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?

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

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

I realized that could be perceived a bit rich.

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

Oh bullshit. You think Lawrence O’Donnell’s tripe could move the dial.

Here’s who moves the dial: Biden as Pres., Warren as VP, Bernie and Pete in guaranteed cabinet slots of significance. Mic drop. Trump DOA.

All this Russia shit? Phone promises about pardons? If it were real, it’d have stuck already. Ignore this muckraking shit. It’s fucking you. Get together, build a coalition instead of shooting each other and you can easily take out this guy.

Shut up about the investigations. That’s Trump’s ches- er, checkerboard. That’s where he wants you. And tell AOC and Co. to STFU. Give those people something. Buy them off. They’re like a perpetual free GOP ad campaign. Put them all on 20 month sabbatical.

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

There is nowhere, and no speed, at which one cannot watch something with the swimsuit, and if it’s your thing, hers and your dignity, removed.

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

Get that, and not ashamed of my choice. But they didn’t deliver and no explanation. “Hank, we know you are simple and this will make you watch this, sucker- “ ashamed I fell for that.

Greg Craig
 

If this guy is convicted for this McCrime, for this politically motivated horseshit (“we need to hang an Obama guy for credibility”), I see no reason not to simply register us as a banana republic.

Who does those ratings? Moody’s? S&P?

For further reading (but this guy doesn’t really count, as he was only targeted for being poor and the wrong color): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...eleased-prison

Is it okay to say it: I hate this country? It’s a perverted bazaar of degenerates... with fucking brain damage!

In sincerity, We Americans Are and Have Been for a Long Time a Virus.

Take us out. We’re too stupid to be allowed to persist.

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

No, I really don't. I don't care about your dial, and I'm not responding to all of the other stuff in your last post. I was responding to a very specific thing you said. I'm sick of people excusing conservative as if they aren't adults who are responsible for what they're doing. The idea that someone is going to decide to vote for Trump because some journalist said something wrong about Trump is total fucking nonsense. People vote for Trump because they prefer Trump to the alternative, not because someone else somehow triggered them.

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

Consider this- when one "Trump did horrible stuff" thing is shown to be false it lets someone who isn't hard core Trump think "maybe most of the horrible Trump stuff is fake?" I mean, it's a hypo because we can't stop it, but still.

It is hard to really get to understanding the issues- I mean really understand the Mueller report as an example- in making up my mind how to vote should I think about what the report really says? Why bother, it might be fake too.

That is the danger. None of us know hard core trumpers, and we are surrounded by Hate-Trumpers, but there are lots of people who might be a bit worried about him, but their life is going along okay, it would be nice for them to know he is bad.

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

Your words:

O'Donnell's report makes it more likely that absolutely no one will want to vote for Trump.

It works both ways or it doesn't work at all. Pick.

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

The siloing of Trump haters, and the level of hatred they hold, is so extreme that they fail to view the overwhelming majority of the country -- all the tens of millions of people who Don't Care About Politics.

Trump hating, screaming about Russia, howling about how awful he is... None of this shit's going to bring out voters except in places that are already blue. That stuff can only make the Left look like a pack of lunatics.

I live around tons of moderates, of swing voters. These people express one sentiment about Trump and the Trump Resistance: Exhaustion. "A shithead was elected President, and a bunch of sore losers are screaming about every fucking thing the guy does. Fuck them all." That's a solid paraphrase of the sentiment one hears in these parts, and that's probably the sentiment one hears in most of the Blue Wall.

You don't need to keep screaming about how awful Trump is and hyperbolizing and stretching, as O'Donnell did, for some illusory smoking gun. It isn't there. If there were a smoking gun, it'd have been found. Right now, the Resistance sounds like an overwrought group of irrational people. How many moderate voters does that approach attract? Well, considering "moderate" means someone who is tempered and probably most concerned with economic issues, is it any surprise for me to say "Zero"?

I used to listen to Morning Joe a bit. A guilty pleasure of sorts. About a year ago, it became all Trump attacks, all day. I stopped listening. It bores me. The Resistance bores me. I get it. He sucks. Duly noted. Every time he speaks, I'm reminded he sucks. Shut the fuck up about how much he sucks and tell us what you plan to do differently than him that will improve things.

I think everyone's tired of being asked to vote against things. Warren's current traction accrues from the fact that she's offering plans. Trump is in her rear view mirror. The media, the Resistance, should take a cue from that approach.

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

I saw the headline but I don't get where it comes from.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...tion-6730.html

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

I think that's silly, and it's a phenomenon that no one ever thinks exists except for conservatives. No one ever said, gee, maybe the media overreaction about the Clinton emails will cause some people to discount real stories about Clinton scandals.