drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
How is it the entire breadtube ecosystem? Even in the responses to this person, there are people disagreeing with them.
If you're gonna present this as "breadtube/the left is out to get IH", you need stronger evidence than this.
drmanhattan16
7mo ago
No, I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think it's entirely plausible that, to use the examples brought up initially, Target and Bud Light were protested against because there has been a years-long attempt by right-wingers to cast LGBT people and activism as intrinsically evil. It's much easier to get people to support a boycott when you raise the moral stakes.
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
black people are criminals more often
More often compared to what? In general? Do black people constitute more than half of all criminals?
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
I misspoke, but my general point is that there's probably not a disparate impact on the political makeup of either the users or mods.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Sure, I'd love if they at least tried something like that. But the harshest complaint here is consistently that this is down out of intentional malice, and that's what I don't agree with.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Setting it in Miami isn't the worst the movie could have done, and he did keep the plot, the characters, and the language.
Right, so why can't we say something like "Making the characters look like a sampling of New York City's elite isn't the worst thing, they still kept the plot, characterizations, and language" for LOTR?
It's for cheap novelty and attention.
Why can't it be the view that race is irrelevant to character? That a black Anne Boleyn is the same in a fundamental sense as a white one?
And before someone tells me that progressives are hypocrites because they don't tolerate the whitewashing of a character, recognize that they, like all people, are more than capable of compartmentalizing their beliefs. That they do this in no way suggests that they also don't actually believe it.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Additionally activists tend to see these swaps as permanent and will demand black Aragorn in all future adaptations.
Sorry, where's the proof for that?
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Romeo and Juliet is not that cohesive, imo. Language is informed by many things, you can't expect people from modern America to talk like Shakespeare's characters. If anything, it should bother people just as much that the language was not updated to reflect modern American English.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Why would I? I'm not the one making the claim about them.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Modern gender theory is nonsense.
As opposed to traditional gender theory?
Men are men, women are women, don’t make it complicated.
Sure. What's a man? What's a woman?
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
The problem with Reddit's business model is that it relies on massive amounts of volunteer labor (subreddit moderators). Moderators are unpaid, so these positions will be filled by people who value power and status over money, i.e. progressive activists.
How exactly do you know their political alignment and level of engagement?
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Those guys live, eat, breath, and shit classified information for 4 to 8 years, the changeover is chaotic and shit slips through.
It's not a new risk nor do we lack the resources to handle it cleanly. Why don't they have people making sure it's secure? Trump doesn't need to handle it personally, there are probably a dozen people he could get instructions from or fob them off to his staff.
I can forgive a college student for not having an immaculate room. People with money and people to make things happen correctly don't have that excuse.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
We know they wanted to do it, the question is why they want to. If they were being totally honest, was their conscious and major driving reason that they found the language objectionable? Or, as I suspect, were they doing this in a way to generate attention by surfing the line?
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
It was good
TG:M was decent at best.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
You must be from another universe's themotte.org, because you're referring to some comment not present in this thread that would suggest my motivation is to paint Twitter's staff as Trump supporters by a large percentage. I invite you to demonstrate what I've said that would in any way support your argument because I can tell for a fact you didn't read any of my comments, and if you did, you assigned maximum uncharitability to them.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
There could have been a vocal minority. We don't know because the slack logs aren't available for us to peruse. There was also pushback from the TTS team and a few others who didn't see the tweets as violating any rules.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
He is. We just can't forget that "modal" isn't shifted much by the rioters.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Activist at Twitter were on Team Biden, and their decisions were biased to the core.
Wait just a moment. From what Taibbi said, the key role was played by Vijaya Gadde. What's the proof she's a Biden supporter?
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
What's your proof?
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Eyeballing it, it looks like it went from 14/100k to 18/100k. 30%, yes, but doesn't seem that big overall.
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
If that's the case, why do you insist on using the term election denier? After all, any of these other terms would mean the same thing anyway eventually, so why not use those terms and avoid my complaints? Frankly, this is nonsense. You use the term because you want to smuggle in your opinion as the default while signaling disdain to others.
Because your objection isn't the phrase, it's the meaning you perceive behind it. The demand to use another phrase for the same thing is part of another euphemistic treadmill.
Whether or not "fraud" (whatever that means) is done, if elections are done illegally in contravention to law, you cannot then claim "well, actually there was an agreed upon method which was done so you are bound to the outcome" because it's explicitly not an "agreed-upon method."
Whose law? The federal governments or any particular state's? As I said, you don't have a claim to the latter - your concern is whether or not there was fraud, not whether that election was done illegally.
First, this obligation is goofy. "Do I care about this only because I lost?" Every person is going to think and say "no."
See, that's the funny thing - Hlynka doesn't even care about this standard, nor do some people on this site, apparently. It says something that the most trivial of intellectual hurdles is apparently beyond what he requires of others. More to the point, just because someone says "I'm not doing this because I lost" doesn't mean we have to believe them. There are ways of evaluating whether someone is being rational that can find clearly irrational people even when we allow for ambiguity.
This is why this just looks like an attempted beachhead in order to expand these obligations toward your default position. What you really want is to get election losers to have to meet some growing obligation and standard to analyze "facts," which you will morph and grow into proving something to others who are hostile, like you, for what I'm sure are purely truth-seeking, rational motives. This is why I claimed it looked like you're trying to smuggle in your default position because otherwise these meek obligations you're trying to get others to agree on don't matter.
In your view, am I or am I not trying to establish a "beachhead"?
Hlynka's opinions and election "deniers" claims are disprovable; the issue is you have no facts which are good enough to convince them and no explanations good enough to poster-board over their concerns and suspicions, and frankly any person who doesn't start from your default position, about the legitimacy of the election and its outcome. If this justifies obligations, I can think of a myriad number of obligations which conflict with and undermine your default position assumption.
How can they be disproven when in the same breath, I'm told that fraud is undetectable, but we also know it must have occurred? If the former is true, then you can't deny the possibility of no fraud. If the latter is true, then it's disprovable, but you have to provide evidence of it. Yet, I see multiple people using the former as their justification for the latter. You have to pick one and stick with it, no jumping between stances when it suits you. (I mean "you" in the general sense, not just you specifically).
Moreover, if someone wants to come to the conclusion that we fundamentally cannot know, based on facts, whether the election was stolen or not, then it's very curious how this never comes accompanied with a suggestion for which outcome is more likely: stolen election or not. I understand why this happens, but it's very telling that Hlynka and those who agree with him on this issue don't seem to care about evaluating what their real objection to the election actually is.
This is why Hlynka harps on this not being the correct default position because it won't convince losers whenever anything slightly suspicious happens.
And it doubly won't convince them if their real objection is the outcome of the election, not its integrity.
But Hlynka isn't interested in asking himself or others if that's actually the case. What a shame.
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
That's not what the lawsuit alleged. It said that hosts were allowed to make claims that executives believed were false, and that guests were brought on and made claims that the hosts believed were false.
Okay, yeah, this is the case I was thinking of. I recall going through the evidence brought against them and I found it fairly convincing that Fox had no reason to believe what they were peddling and also didn't believe it themselves.
The actual proof can be found in the pdf at the bottom of this article. It's 192 pages, but it's either screenshots that can quickly be read or large font question-answer segments. I think it clearly indicates that the people at Fox didn't believe what they were saying, because their own research team was telling them there wasn't any evidence, and it notes that Fox believed executives had an obligation to correct people from stating falsehoods on their own network.
Ultimately, what did Fox in wasn't the view that the election was stolen. It was not believing their own public statements.
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
Man, it's a good thing Yassine isn't asking for those in the first place, huh?
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
Am I misremembering, or was this the one in which Fox was shown to have peddled the idea that Dominion's voting machines were rigged but not even the hosts saying it believed what they were saying?
I didn't say any of them were. I said moving in that direction.
More options
Context Copy link