You have a golden opportunity to nail me in black and white, all on one post for everyone to see, rather than lamely referring back to the thread generically. Not sure why you don't take advantage.
Pro tip: maybe focus on the quality of your posts rather than the quantity. It's great you're in every thread and that you've started half of them, but it dilutes the brand. You're like the house wine of MOL.
because "nailing you" doesn't need any analysis on my part. It's all here, in black and white, in this thread.
You've nailed yourself, as ml1 amply demonstrates from that single post he quoted.
ETA: yeah, maybe I post a lot. so what? anyway, no one can accuse me of trying to weasel out of something I said.
JUDGE: Prosecuting Attorney Drummerboy, you may now make your case.
DB ESQ: (Hands jurors QR code that links to all evidence)
JUDGE: Uh...Counsel, you're supposed to uh...*present* your case?
DB ESQ: Nah, no need. It's all there. Defendant is guilty as sin. I rest my case.
JURORS: (Exchange WTF looks)
keep on digging that hole.
ETA: on what planet am I supposed to argue my case the way you want me too? Planet Smedley I guess, next door to Bizarro world.
But considering it's white people who are perpetuating racism, I'm not seeing the joke in white people trying to talk honestly with each other about it. Should we just shut up until some Black people enter the discsusion?
I believe flimbro and others would remind us it's not up to black people to tell us how to fix ourselves. We have to do that on our own. Do you think that's what's been happening in this thread for the last week? Is that really the honest conversation you think is happening here?
ETA: Smedley? Do you think any of this is fixing us whites here?
But considering it's white people who are perpetuating racism, I'm not seeing the joke in white people trying to talk honestly with each other about it. Should we just shut up until some Black people enter the discsusion?
I believe flimbro and others would remind us it's not up to black people to tell us how to fix ourselves. We have to do that on our own. Do you think that's what's been happening in this thread for the last week? Is that really the honest conversation you think is happening here?
ETA: Smedley? Do you think any of this is fixing us whites here?
it hasn't been honest. but some of us were trying.
You have a golden opportunity to nail me in black and white, all on one post for everyone to see, rather than lamely referring back to the thread generically. Not sure why you don't take advantage.
Pro tip: maybe focus on the quality of your posts rather than the quantity. It's great you're in every thread and that you've started half of them, but it dilutes the brand. You're like the house wine of MOL.
because "nailing you" doesn't need any analysis on my part. It's all here, in black and white, in this thread.
You've nailed yourself, as ml1 amply demonstrates from that single post he quoted.
ETA: yeah, maybe I post a lot. so what? anyway, no one can accuse me of trying to weasel out of something I said.
JUDGE: Prosecuting Attorney Drummerboy, you may now make your case.
DB ESQ: (Hands jurors QR code that links to all evidence)
JUDGE: Uh...Counsel, you're supposed to uh...*present* your case?
DB ESQ: Nah, no need. It's all there. Defendant is guilty as sin. I rest my case.
JURORS: (Exchange WTF looks)
keep on digging that hole.
ETA: on what planet am I supposed to argue my case the way you want me too? Planet Smedley I guess, next door to Bizarro world.
You have a deluded mind.
It's funny, when your hero ml1 swooped in the other day, he quoted me saying that I believe the U.S. is among the least racist countries. Um...yeah? That's kind of what I have said all along in this thread. Was that meant as some kind of grand exposé or gotcha or something? I'm happy go back and find more of my own quotes saying that or something similar, if that would help your argument. Just let me know.
Plus the fact that to prove that someone "tried to rewrite" something, as you spuriously accused me of doing, you kinda have to post more than one quote. You know, one to show the write, and the other to show the rewrite? You guys kinda missed that minor nuance.
But, you reflexively fell all over yourself congratulating ml1 for 'amply demonstrating' your assertion, when in fact he did nothing of the sort.
Anyway, I'll leave it there, as you have produced essentially zero evidence to support your spurious claim, and I'm sure you're not going to. In a court of law your case would be thrown out for lack of evidence.
Half-baked shorthand Nyah-nyaahs generically referring back to my posts coming in 3, 2, 1....
But considering it's white people who are perpetuating racism, I'm not seeing the joke in white people trying to talk honestly with each other about it. Should we just shut up until some Black people enter the discsusion?
I believe flimbro and others would remind us it's not up to black people to tell us how to fix ourselves. We have to do that on our own. Do you think that's what's been happening in this thread for the last week? Is that really the honest conversation you think is happening here?
ETA: Smedley? Do you think any of this is fixing us whites here?
No, I can't say that I do. But, (honest question here, not being a noodge) - does every discussion have to be about fixing something?
Just one man's opinion. But I don't think pointing out that other countries are worse is any sort of start to addressing racism in the U.S. Maybe not every discussion needs to be about fixing problems. But I'm pretty sure discussions that are diverted to whataboutism are worse than not having a discussion at all.
Just one man's opinion. But I don't think pointing out that other countries are worse is any sort of start to addressing racism in the U.S. Maybe not every discussion needs to be about fixing problems. But I'm pretty sure discussions that are diverted to whataboutism are worse than not having a discussion at all.
Discussions about the discussions are worse than either.
"Ok, I get the idea. I get the idea" -- Stacey Abrams gave Sen. John Kennedy waaaaay more than he bargained for when he asked her to list off provisions of the Georgia voter suppression bill she objects to pic.twitter.com/PP7s7ZltMS
This NYT article “woke” me up this a.m. (briefly, to reassure the trolls here). Hitler burned books, now we will just decide what books may be published. I really think publishers are putting the final nail in the coffin for bookstores and book lovers. It started with Dr. Seuss and our kids, and now this mindset is going for books yet to see scrutiny by readers.
I think big name publishers will be big time losers if this censorship goes forward. Amazon and other online sites will step up and fill the void — at half the price and with free shipping.
I personally don't know why they bother. Just go to Regnery - they'll publish any old right wing horseshit, they're still distributed by Simon and Schuster and the RNC will buy all the copies so Kelly can say she's a NYT bestseller just like DJTJ and Ted Cruz and all those other lying bastards.
This NYT article “woke” me up this a.m. (briefly, to reassure the trolls here). Hitler burned books, now we will just decide what books may be published. I really think publishers are putting the final nail in the coffin for bookstores and book lovers. It started with Dr. Seuss and our kids, and now this mindset is going for books yet to see scrutiny by readers.
I think big name publishers will be big time losers if this censorship goes forward. Amazon and other online sites will step up and fill the void — at half the price and with free shipping.
This NYT article “woke” me up this a.m. (briefly, to reassure the trolls here). Hitler burned books, now we will just decide what books may be published. I really think publishers are putting the final nail in the coffin for bookstores and book lovers. It started with Dr. Seuss and our kids, and now this mindset is going for books yet to see scrutiny by readers.
I think big name publishers will be big time losers if this censorship goes forward. Amazon and other online sites will step up and fill the void — at half the price and with free shipping.
But the reticence extends beyond Mr. Trump himself, and several publishers acknowledge that there are certain ideological lines that they won’t cross. Some said they wouldn’t acquire books by politicians or pundits who questioned the results of the presidential election. Another bright line is working with people who promoted the false narratives or conspiracy theories that Mr. Trump espoused. ... “There is a tension there — on the one hand, I’ve always believed, and I still believe fervently, that we need to publish major voices that are at the center of the national conversation, whether we agree with them or not,” said Adrian Zackheim, the president and publisher of two Penguin Random House imprints, including Sentinel, which is geared toward conservative books. “On the other hand, we have to be leery of public figures who have come to be associated with blatant falsehoods.”
So publishers are exercising a little "quality control" over what goes out under their name. There are enough publishing houses which don't worry about that, so these books will get printed.
I have to say, while there are many truly difficult questions around free speech and an open society, the number of tears I should shed over people who literally support attempting to kill politicians they disagree with and overthrow the government is not one of those. Unless Ms. Conway has a section in her book where she denounces Trump and his rioters, the amount of sleep I'm losing over her facing the inconvenience of looking for another publisher is nil.
Does “free speech” extend to giving people who knowingly spread lies a platform to continue to do so? Should publishers stop fact checking the books they publish? Would it be “censorship” for editors to remove untrue passages from manuscripts submitted for publication?
Does “free speech” extend to giving people who knowingly spread lies a platform to continue to do so? Should publishers stop fact checking the books they publish? Would it be “censorship” for editors to remove untrue passages from manuscripts submitted for publication?
That's being too generous. It's not generic "lies," it's lies in support of a political movement aiming to overturn our system of government. Free speech is an attribute of liberal democracy; a movement actively hostile to liberal democracy is by definition hostile to free speech, and it's a pretty clear line IMO that defending free speech does not mean defending attempts to make it impossible.
Jan. 6 was a bright line -- Trumpists are on the wrong side of it.
I warned a few years ago that the thing I was most worried about in a Trump presidency was his profligate and unrepentant lying. The press, at the very least, should have been much, much harder on him.
Instead, they just treated it as "Trump being Trump". Meanwhile, the discourse coming from the right grew further and further from reality, with little push back.
Today, any major talking point from the right is basically a lie.
Does “free speech” extend to giving people who knowingly spread lies a platform to continue to do so? Should publishers stop fact checking the books they publish? Would it be “censorship” for editors to remove untrue passages from manuscripts submitted for publication?
That's being too generous. It's not generic "lies," it's lies in support of a political movement aiming to overturn our system of government. Free speech is an attribute of liberal democracy; a movement actively hostile to liberal democracy is by definition hostile to free speech, and it's a pretty clear line IMO that defending free speech does not mean defending attempts to make it impossible.
Jan. 6 was a bright line -- Trumpists are on the wrong side of it.
no doubt about this.
But I was being more generic -- is there a right to a platform to spread any sorts of lies? If I'm writing a cookbook, do I have a "free speech" right to misrepresent the nutritional value of my dishes? Do I have the right to publish a sports book that is full of made up stories about important games, passed off as truth?
If anything, it becomes even more obvious in these non-political examples, that it's not "censorship" on the part of publishers to refuse to give a platform to habitual liars of any sort.
But I was being more generic -- is there a right to a platform to spread any sorts of lies? If I'm writing a cookbook, do I have a "free speech" right to misrepresent the nutritional value of my dishes? Do I have the right to publish a sports book that is full of made up stories about important games, passed off as truth?
If anything, it becomes even more obvious in these non-political examples, that it's not "censorship" on the part of publishers to refuse to give a platform to habitual liars of any sort.
Broadly speaking, sure -- I think the default position is you can publish whatever you want so long as you can find a publisher. But no publisher is required to take your piece. And if you do manage to find a publisher, you have no right to any shield against any scorn and ridicule heaped upon you by people pointing out your lies. In general people can say whatever they like -- but other people are also free to say whatever they like back. It's not "censorship" if you write a terrible, dishonest book and people respond with mean, negative reviews. So perhaps we disagree here. (and of course in specific areas, there may well be actual legal issues -- if you cross those, again that's not censorship).
Agree or disagree, though, what I think we probably do agree on, and what i want to stress again, is that invading the Capitol in an attempt to capture and possibly kill lawmakers in the hope of overturning an election you lost is not a free speech issue. Trump and his supporters crossed an important line on Jan. 6th, and the threat to the country they represent remains active. I don't find it unreasonable for any publisher to refuse work by Trump partisans.
But I was being more generic -- is there a right to a platform to spread any sorts of lies? If I'm writing a cookbook, do I have a "free speech" right to misrepresent the nutritional value of my dishes?
Or, worse, give it a misleading name so people don't even know what it's about.
regarding lying, I happened to come cross this today:
I mean "crazy" in the sense Harry Frankfurt intended. In 2006's On Truth, the moral philosopher described the ethical effect of lies. They are not just deceptions. They are not just duplicity. They are injuries. Lies are designed to damage our grasp of reality," he wrote. "So they are intended, in a very real sense, to make us crazy." But more than that, they are authoritarian injuries. "The most irreducibly bad thing about lies is that they contrive to interfere with, and to impair, our natural effort to apprehend the real state of affairs," Frankfurt wrote. "They are designed to prevent us from being in touch with what is really going on. In telling his lie, the liar tries to mislead us into believing that the facts are other than they actually are. He tries to impose his will on us."4
regarding lying, I happened to come cross this today:
I mean "crazy" in the sense Harry Frankfurt intended. In 2006's On Truth, the moral philosopher described the ethical effect of lies. They are not just deceptions. They are not just duplicity. They are injuries. Lies are designed to damage our grasp of reality," he wrote. "So they are intended, in a very real sense, to make us crazy." But more than that, they are authoritarian injuries. "The most irreducibly bad thing about lies is that they contrive to interfere with, and to impair, our natural effort to apprehend the real state of affairs," Frankfurt wrote. "They are designed to prevent us from being in touch with what is really going on. In telling his lie, the liar tries to mislead us into believing that the facts are other than they actually are. He tries to impose his will on us."4
I wrote something very similar to this in a comment on an online article (on salon.com I think) around 2003 in reference to the W Bush Admin. My premise was that the biggest damage they did to the country was in degrading our discourse with lies. The truth was irrelevant to Bush and team when they wanted to do something like start a war. Donald Trump's lies didn't spring forth without precedent. Bush and Rove et. al waged a very calculated war on the truth. And before anyone says "all politicians lie", there was something very different about the way the Bushies tried to make truth and objective fact irrelevant to our political discussions. And Trump simply took it to another level once the way had been paved for the right wing base to believe anything they wanted to believe, whether or not it was true or even plausible.
keep on digging that hole.
ETA: on what planet am I supposed to argue my case the way you want me too? Planet Smedley I guess, next door to Bizarro world.