[deleted]
NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
251–260 of 368 posts
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not making a general claim, I’m making a specific claim about him. https://twitter.com/heresysquad/status/1191762909325492225?s... He was so enthusiastic about defending his clients (who were neo-Nazis, yes real ones, they do exist) that NY judges called him unethical in court and the bar banned his behavior after the fact. https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1110344950674186240?...
I'm sorry but is there anything in that twitter thread that actually shows Glen Greenwald is a Nazi or is this one of those "If you defend one, you are one" cases? https://twitter.com/heresysquad might be a little biased.
[flagged]
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
As Greenwald points out, these journalists work at major outlets and have huge followings which they can use - and have used - to shut down speech. Cancel culture is real and we must not allow it to be tolerated. I've been told that I'm "problematic" and should reconsider blogging... because I recommended a $40 pair of hair shears. Greenwald is being a bit melodramatic, but his substance isn't wrong. A reporter lied…
> A reporter lied and attempted to slam a public figure That... seems kinda spun. The source material isn't so damning. Taylor Lorenz was on the call, and tweeted: "@pmarca just openly using the r-slur on Clubhouse tonight and not one other person in the room called him on it or saying anything" Then later when she was corrected that it wasn't Andreessen but someone else, replied: "Thanks for clarifying that it was F…
No, she didn't make a mistake. Taylor Lorenz lied in order to smear the guy, and her response to being caught was itself a lie, blaming another mysterious "male voice", when it was in fact a female.
As Greenwald pointed out, her recent reporting seems to indicate some sort of vendetta against Andreesen.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#254The NYT is hardly beyond criticism. But Greenwald's whole schtick these past few years has been little more than a more articulate Trumpian "the press is the enemy of the people" anti-intellectual nonsense. I don't think Greenwald is a Russian agent. But it's hard to imagine a Russian agent behaving a whole lot differently, if their motive was to sow discord and distrust in our most historically credible institutions…
> if their motive was to sow discord and distrust in our most historically credible institutions. Those very institutions are doing exactly that to themselves. It's easy to ignore if they mostly comport with your own worldview. But to anyone who goes against the grain at all, it's starkly obvious that these institutions have become little more than propaganda machines for the dominant narrative.
Seeing the same people who go on and on about [mildly conservative channel] fake news and laughing at the idiots who watch it while also being completely oblivious to the exact same bs they're lapping up day after day has been outright depressing.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#255Greenwalds tactics aside, do we really consider someone saying the word "retard" in a private discussion newsworthy? More importantly it wasnt even reported correctly and appears to be the result of Taylor Lorenz having an axe to grind with Marc Andreessen.
AS far as I can tell, it wasn’t even a news story. It was a tweet. And then later clarified after brought to her attention. I find it hard to believe that it justifies this long blog. This is the first thing I’ve seen him wrote in years. And it is horrible.
> it wasn’t even a news story. It was a tweet.
If this had turned out to be true, it surely would have sparked several news stories. The reason that such a long post by Greenwald was warranted is that the journalist was clearly trying to create a story with the tweet.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Retarded is not a slur. Never was. People keep picking arbitrary words and saying they're "offensive", but there's no reason why. I have heard kids call each other "mentally challenged" and "developmentally delayed", I kid you not. Younger kids have trouble pronouncing those, so maybe that's something? Anyway, I refuse to partake in the euphemism treadmill.
The original context, FWIW, is that the /r/wallstreetbets community calls themselves "retards" ironically. That is absolutely a slur; calling someone "retarded" in that sense is calling them stupid by likening them to people with developmental disabilities. And that is offensive to a lot of people in the modern world. And, to be perfectly frank, that offense is exactly the reason why the WSB community adopted it in t…
And according to Taylor Lorenz, by using the word "retard" in your reply, you are perpetuating this slander and showing yourself to be insensitive and ableist. If your defense of Ms Lorenz upthread was at all sincere, you should apologize for your use of this word and then delete your account.
I'm being obviously sarcastic, but I'm guessing the irony will be lost on you.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but meanwhile in America Twitter bans people or the NY Times refuses to publish literally anything anyone sends so they're censoring too!" more realistically, a Twitter mob harasses your employer until you are fired, unemployable in your industry, and lose all of your friends. > so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom from social consequences. There are consequences, like cor…
There's also the question of why employers think that caving to Twitter outrage is good or necessary for business.
I think that's obvious: because such outrage is infectious and is liable to spread from employee to employer.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
One side of it is deplatforming, but the other side is protecting more vulnerable family and community members. The fact is that there are pied-pipers of disinformation on these platforms leading vulnerable members of our communities down rabbit-holes to who-knows-where. Normally we would address this with in-person confrontation but I think people are struggling to find the tools to protect their friends and familie…
> the tools that we may have once used There were tabloid magazines full of "fake news" sold in supermarkets throughout my entire childhood. People would shake their heads and laugh at the silly headlines, but nobody, ever, talked seriously about censoring the tabloid newspapers just because they didn't believe what they were saying.
We didn't worry that tens of millions of people would read a false claim in a tabloid and storm the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election either.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#259It's interesting how polemic Greenwald has become, bringing with it the same magnitude of reality denial as the actors he is going after. A title like "The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows" coming from an investigative journalist like himself really sounds like a sore loser's version of "investigative journalism needs to die if it doesn't share my narrative and polit…
> I used to be a free speech absolutist myself back in Snowden times FWIW, there is no reason you shouldn't still be a Free Speech absolutist (I still am) so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom from social consequences. When individuals or other fully private entities decide they don't like someone's speech and choose to not associate or support that person/entity any longer,…
>WIW, there is no reason you shouldn't still be a Free Speech absolutist (I still am) so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom from social consequences.
These days I see less and less (speaking in terms of justifications and arguments) going for the idea that free speech is an unfettered good in itself - especiall when it very clearly runs up against the principle of liberal egalitarian philosophy. I find it very hard - if not impossible - to be a liberal egalitarian in the context where hate speech and inegalitarian pornography (yes, we can talk about what those terms mean) are allowed free reign in the public discourse.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, an NYT reporter snooping on a Clubhouse conversation got her facts wrong (although she later corrected them), and the entire thing seemed relatively trivial to start with. And... this is exhibit A for the prosecution about how no one is doing real journalism anymore, they're just playing hall monitor. Or turning into the modern Stasi. Sure, those two things don't seem very similar, but we always forget how the…
Okay, let's grant for the sake of argument that Taylor Lorenz is overly focused on Andreessen blocking her on Clubhouse. (1) You leapt from "Taylor Lorenz did this" to "The New York Times sends out agents to harass and stalk perceived enemies"; those two things are not the same, and I suspect if we were talking about entities you had more positive feelings about, you wouldn't conflate the two. (This is not to say tha…
re: 3 -- Do you believe that her intent in tweeting that was simply to report a fact? Or do you think there might have been other motives given her demonstrated pattern of behavior?