471–480 of 656 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first amendment should only apply to citizens. I understand that current case law says it applies to everyone, but I think that is a misstep that we can & should correct.
So forced religious conversions for green card holders should be legal? That's a take, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Republicans started cancel culture. It really gained steam in 2001 when they cancelled the Dixie Chicks for being anti-war (turns out they were right). So I guess you're right, the left adopted it after realizing they'd lose if they didn't use such an effective weapon against fascists.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is more scientific doubt about the true effectiveness of COVID vaccines than you think.
Do you have any study that found any of the 3 western ones ineffective? The effect is so strong and universal that everybody finds it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to post this. Haven't we learned many times in the last 5 years that, on average, "The Literal New York Times" is a better and more reliable source than "Some Guy on Substack"? Claiming that anonymous sources inside an agency/administration is "not a thing" clearly betrays the fact that this person knows nothing about actual journalism. Heck even a casual NYT reader will know that they cite anonymous source…
They do quote anonymous sources all the time, and, more often than not, those anonymous sources are leaking to the media to push their narrative, ie propaganda. The NYT is very clearly the puppet of washington insiders. The “literal New York Times” doesn't exist anymore. This is not investigative journalism. This is just acting as the mouth piece for some anonymous government official.
Citation needed. The New York Times has very strict rules about using anonymous sources. It's not some scary, shadow journalism effort. They publish their rules for anonymous sources right on their web site. Google is your friend.
The “literal New York Times” doesn't exist anymore. This is not investigative journalism. This is just acting as the mouth piece for some anonymous government official.
Having been a reader of the New York Times for almost 50 years, I can say the New York Times hasn't changed that much. I can also say that I look at it with a much more critical eye than most because of my journalism degrees and decades of experience as a journalist.
A major problem with society is that some anonymous low-karma recent-joiner rando spews things on HN like "The NYT is very clearly the puppet of washington insiders" and people believe it for no reason other than it tickles the part of their brain that agrees with it. Not because of any kind of objectivity, analysis, proof, or thought.
To pick a nit, you are correct: This was no investigative journalism. This was a routine daily story covering an announcement by a government agency. If you don't know the difference between the two, then you lack the knowledge and understanding required to be critical of any sort of journalism.
I felt slightly...hm...confused when reading this. When I see something in the news, to the degree that I trust the source, I see it only as a statement of fact, and unless I trust the commentator, I ignore the comment. I only expect descriptive accuracy from the news. This sometimes requires resources that individuals don't generally have. When I read a personal blog article articulating a personal opinion, presenti…
It's not complicated. This is a normal sort of criminal enterprise. These rooms filled with SIM boxes are all over the world. The owners of them rent out the service to others -- letting them send 1,000 spam messages for a fee. One of the buyers of the service was indeed using it to threaten a politician. But this represents a tiny fraction (less than 1% of 1% of the SIMs normal use -- which is probably mostly phishi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, [journalists] know what they are doing ... Carefully calibrated, highly-selective use of (often, quite awkward) linguistic constructs does not happen unconsciously, it is a deliberate, knowing choice. The incredible vast majority of people in the world are acting in good faith. The way you are framing this is that nearly all journalists are acting in bad faith, which makes me believe the arguments of the parent…
>The incredible vast majority of people in the world are acting in good faith. this a very westerner perspective on society. Ask an Eastern European (like myself) how the vast majority of people are really acting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I only have the vaguest memories of cancel culture around 9/11. Maybe you agreed with the canceling enough it wasn't noticeable; I cited two specific examples directly related to that day. It was… not a fun time to be anti-war. Go back a few years and you'll find further prominent examples, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode > On the other hand, consider Karen Attiah. I disagree with her firing, b…
>Maybe you agreed with the canceling enough it wasn't noticeable; I cited two specific examples directly related to that day. It was… not a fun time to be anti-war. I was roughly 12 years old when Iraq was invaded. I was sitting in class staring at the clock and waiting for recess. It was a different political era from my perspective, and it feels a little disingenuous that you keep harping on it. It seems to me that…
It's a little disingenuous to go "I only have the vaguest memories of cancel culture around 9/11" and "I have very vivid memories of progressive cancel culture during the late Obama administration", in that case. I, similarly, have few memories of paying for health insurance when I was in middle school.
> They're applying the exact standard that progressives requested.
Maybe! But describing him as a "white man" is accurate, as describing Obama as a "black man" would be uncontroversial. If you start talking about white/black men as monolithic groups, you start getting into trouble.
> I think you're a little fixated on the government thing, as cancel culture is generally speaking a non-governmental phenomenon…
I am, because the people who whined incessantly about that phenomenon are now weilding governmental power to do the same thing, in a way that is clearly far less acceptable legally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"When we do it, it doesn't count."
“If you personally don’t keep spending money on someone, that’s cancel culture”
Like, say, Ted Cruz being pissy over Harry Potter boycotts. https://x.com/tedcruz/status/1588271789247197186
Or Musk suing advertisers for not buying ads. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/01/nx-s1-5283271/elon-musk-lawsu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are bot nets that specifically offer such services
...and perfectly legal services too, e.g. joinmassive.com, brightdata, etc. (they're used for gathering listing data from e-commerce sites, job boards, etc.) disclosure: I'm an investor/advisor in massive.