Curious how this censorship orchestrated by “leftists” and big media seems to work.
Such as?
You did see that the research covered both implicit and explicit bias right? And 9% is enough by iteslf to make the belief not “extreme”.
Did you just skim that link, and miss the bit where experience doesn’t do squat?
Speaking from actual experience : when actual racism can’t be called out for what it is, for fear of imprisonment, torture and death, it’s an even worse thing than your nonexistent boogeyman.
I’m glad Joe Biden won the presidency, and I’m even happier that the Cheeto in Chief will be vacating the White House in January.
But what you have said here is simply untrue. It’s not like the Obama birth certificate lie at all.
The Hunter Biden laptop thing suggests evidence of a variety of things, and raises questions about the extent to which Joe Biden has been willing, or not, to exercise his considerable influence to the benefit of his sons’ (plural) business deals.
Take the initial claims by some media figures and people in the intelligence community that the laptop and emails are simply part of a Russian disinformation campaign. There has basically been not a single shred of evidence presented for this view, and some of these same outlets and individuals have explicitly said that they have no evidence that the laptop and emails are the work of a Russian disinformation campaign. As Greenwald points out, the media has even been upfront about this, with one media professor writing in a Washington Post op-ed that “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.”
There’s also the question of the authenticity of the email archive itself. As Greenwald points out, in the absence of any direct corroboration from the people who actually wrote the documents, journalists have to take other routes in order to make reasonable determinations about the credibility of evidence. They did this for other archives like the Snowden materials, the Panama Papers, the 2016 DNC/Podesta emails, etc., etc., and Greenwald himself was on some of these cases.
And for all the claims of inauthenticity or Russian disinformation, no-one whose name appears on these emails, including Hunter Biden and people connected with him, have actually come out and claimed that the emails are fake. As Greenwald notes:
More generally, Greenwald is pretty clear in his writing that none of this proves anything about Joe Biden himself. We have basically no direct evidence that Biden exercised undue or inappropriate political influence on behalf of his sons’ business ventures around the world, although some of the emails suggests that Hunter and Jim Biden were explicitly peddling Joe’s influence in their efforts to make deals. There are some other coincidences, in terms of areas where the Biden sons focus their business energies and areas where Joe Biden has had political dealings in the past, but none of that is evidence that Joe Biden has engaged in anything untoward. And there’s the issue of Ukraine Chief Prosecutor Shokhin, which raises some real questions that, to my mind, have not been adequately refuted by those arguing that the whole Biden story is a big nothingburger. Even Hunter Biden has admitted to showing “poor judgment,” and I think that’s a vast understatement of his grubby business dealings, where his influence clearly rests not on any particular expertise or skills, but on his political connections.
Don’t you think that these are issues that journalists are supposed to investigate, and questions that journalists are supposed to ask? Remove the names from this story, and replace them with generic names like Dave and Bob, instead of Biden. Then remove from the equation the fact that you really want to see the worst president in United States history voted out of office. Wouldn’t the evidence and the connections and the coincidences and the suspicious actions that emerge from the Hunter Biden laptop story be worthy of journalistic investigation? I don’t see how anyone can argue otherwise with a straight face.
Would it have been tragic if the Hunter Biden story had thrown the election to Trump? Absolutely. But shooting the messenger is not the way to deal with these things.
This is one of those facts that’s gonna go either way. If it’s a bestseller, why isn’t it getting more reviews? If it’s not a bestseller, clearly Amazon is suppressing it! So I expect spin.
That said, I just looked it up. It’s actually the #1 bestseller.
In the category of “LGBT Demographic Studies.”
You may have been fooled by Amazon’s incredibly thinly-sliced bestseller categories. In order to give books a little promotion, they’ve got like five bajillion different bestseller lists.
Incidentally, if you’d like to read a review of the introduction and first chapter by a couple of trans folk, check it out. It doesn’t sound like the author is super-committed to scholarly work.
That was not presented as a hypothetical, but as an analogy.
And it was a very poor analogy, because, just as we have actually gotten softer on criminals over the years, we have also gotten more tolerant of disagreeable speech.
You think that we should go back to having a very few voices, or even just one, who give us all the facts we need to know?
He’s dead, so we can’t ask, but I bet he wouldn’t have touched the Hunter story with a ten foot poll. If we were back in the days of Cronkite, the story would have been distributed in mimeographed pamphlets by that weird guy whose house is a fire trap from all the towers of newspapers.
In some ways, I think that we’d be a bit more civil, if we are all operating under the same facts, but I’m not sure that’s a good solution, and that’s the exact opposite of what is being called for by the OP.
I know that analogies don’t have to be factual to be valid, so please don’t misconstrue my criticism as being on that basis. However, it’s important which crime you choose for your analogy. As it happens, nobody is actually calling for imprisoning people for shoplifting.
So I suggest we change the analogy slightly: while historically people only got thrown into prison for things like burglary and assault, now people are getting imprisoned for, say, sexual assault.
Even ten years ago, it was vanishingly rare for men in positions of power to face consequences for pressuring or coercing employees into sex. It was widely known about: the “casting couch,” the boss chasing the secretary, these were things. But few folks faced consequences for this behavior. It was accepted as inevitable.
These days, though, Weinstein and Cosby face prison time. Their misdeeds that in the past were just part of the culture have faced serious resistance.
Is that a bad thing? Hell no.
Similarly, a lot of casually racist/misogynist/transphobic misbehavior that previously had no consequences is suddenly facing consequences. Is that a bad thing? Hell no.
And yes, some of those bigoted attitudes are every bit as mainstream as sexual assault was. I’m pretty cool with culture changing to exclude harmful behaviors and bigoted attitudes.
Obviously we need to be clear about the analogy: just as I’m analogizing sexual assault to bigoted attitudes, I’m also analogizing prison time to social consequences. I’m not calling for imprisoning people who say bigoted shit.
But wouldn’t that mean that you also wouldn’t be able to say any true thing without immediately having to present the “other side.”
If I do a story on climate change, do you think that I should then have to give equal time to the climate change denier?
The fairness doctrine was a good idea in principle, but it was pretty much entirely unworkable in practice.
Do you actually remember seeing the equal time presentations after the six o’clock news?
I do!
Whatever problems we have in the media today, I don’t believe that they are the product of the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine. That doctrine was a terrible idea, and it also had a tendency to get interpreted in ways that reinforced the existing political duopoly. So, if a Republican said “Policy X is bad,” the Fairness Doctrine would result in finding a Democrat to say that “Policy X is good.” But you didn’t get a libertarian or a green or a socialist explaining why both of the major parties had their heads up their asses. The Fairness Doctrine often narrowed rather than widened the debate. It was basically an inbuilt and inflexible Overton Window.
I knew this would be the objection raised. I’m surprised it took this long.
No, climate change denial is not the fair and balanced argument to climate change scientific fact. Some things, like the flat earth argument, are bullshit and don’t need fair and balanced representation.
And you think they are currently being well represented and given a fair hearing?
Perhaps not, but we can’t consider this issue without also considering the expansion of the media itself. If I want a socialist or a green or a libertarian view on something, I have about 20 bookmarks that allow me to find those things.
Anyway, I’m not arguing that things are perfect now, even within the big, mainstream media. I’m simply arguing that, whatever is or is not wrong with them, I don’t believe that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be a good solution.
O.k. I also remember those “rebuttals” that used to come on after the “normal” news. It wasn’t just Reps and Dems. It was all kinds of other groups – even very fringy ones – making them. I actually enjoyed them, because some were really out there.
I don’t know if you watch BBC World News regularly. It’s become my go to news source and I find it far more useful in providing facts I need to know than the balkanized news networks where 24/7 opinion circle jerks and “BREAKING NEWS” chyrons have become the daily norm.
It’s pretty much exactly like the Obama birth certificate in that it was pushed with no evidence for partisan reasons.
The same as any speculation would. But its still not evidence.
You mean claims from people in the intelligence community that were reported on by the media.
Tying it to Russia, there has not been any direct evidence. But that it was part of a disinformation campaign from someone is not in doubt. There’s as much evidence tying it to Russia as there is showing that Joe Biden used his influence to benefit his son’s (singular, unless you are now saying that that there were implications that Beau was also involved in this non-scandal) business deals.
Yeah, that’s because they hacked his email and had a whole bunch of real emails that they could sift through and take things out of context, as well as add or change things.
That this “email archive” has not been given to reputable outlets to vet, but only snips and screenshots should tell you quite a bit of the quality of this information.
This is actually true.
This is not. Though to be fair, the weasel word “suggests” there does a whole lot of heavy lifting there. Just as the fact that the horizon looks flat “suggests” that the Earth is flat.
Only if you assume that the entirety of the US state department, along with multiple other countries in the EU were in on this plot to get Hunter a job.
Yes, in that his actions, though entirely legal and moral, still led to a situation where people could make up shit about him, and weak minded people would believe it and have “questions”.
Yeah, most Yale lawyers don’t really have skills, and just engage in grubby business dealings. Would you say that is the case for all of the director’s jobs he has had, or just this one? Would you say that for anyone who ever sits on a board of director for a company that they do not have direct and relevant skills to the actual product or service delivered?
They did, and they found nothing.
Then it’s not even a story. This is only pushed because of who he is and is connected to.
Not really. If so, then probably about 90% of people who sit on a board of directors are a story worthy of journalistic investigation.
I don’t say it with a straight face, but one that is switching between utter disdain and trying my best not to laugh at how gullible those who give it and credibility are.
As it is, there were enough people who believed these lies that the election went more poorly than it would have if this false story had not been pushed and believed by the willfully ignorant. Of course, many of those who give the story credence also believe that the Democrats are running a child sex ring, or drinking their blood or something.
It is not the messenger who is at fault here, and there is no shooting of the messenger. It is the one who falsified the message that are at fault, and those are the ones who you are protecting.
I agree, but who do you think should make that determination?
It’s up to each and every one of us to stay informed on settled science and seek factual information on topical subjects.