non_radical_centrist
No bio...
User ID: 1327
And CNN deserves criticism for those sorts of stories, and that's exactly why many people don't trust it anymore. The fact that society doesn't hold it against CNN means that society is making a mistake and is being too lax on CNN, not that society should be more lax on LOTT.
I haven't discussed this incident before.
There's an argument that people should only publish if multiple unrelated sources for a claim can be identified (again, ignoring Corvus in Trace's hoax), but that's not a convention we hold anyone else toward.
One source that's trusted is fine. One source who's just some random email isn't. If CNN published a controversial story, and their only source was one person who emailed in with vague details, I absolutely would consider that that was a major deriliction of journalistic duty.
LOTT's whole job basically is editorial overview. If someone just wanted to see lots of cringe lib stuff they could browse the subreddits for it. If they want the privileges and respect from conservatives that comes with being a conservative journalist, they have the responsibility to do fact checking.
The whole reason the hoax tarnished their reputation is that it shows they don't fact check. How do you know other cases LOTT highlighted as real weren't fake, but faked by someone who hid their steps a bit more carefully?
Probably what will happen. But if either felt they were at a big advantage from more debates, they'd just demand multiple debates under a variety of conditions
LOTT wouldn't have been harmed if they did some basic fact checking to check if the story was real. The hoax wasn't that elaborate. And good journalistic practice really would be to not publish anything that hasn't been reasonably confirmed, not just not publish anything that has holes in it
If females want to use the boys bathroom, no one really has an issue with it. They're using it at their own risk. The danger comes from males using girl's bathrooms.
I don't think Trump has an obligation to stick to the planned debate. But I don't think you can say Kamala's the one trying to stay out of the spotlight either. If Republicans want a spotlight on Kamala to put the screws to her, all they'd have to do is stick to the original planned debate.
This is a simple "Only Nixon can go to China" moment. White people have plenty in common with each other groups don't, and America is diverse enough today that if you were to hold a generic "Men for Harris", a very large portion wouldn't be white. White men organizing with each other and enjoying each other's company is a natural organizational unit. But I agree it was held down until now because of progressivism- white men organizing together, even for a progressive cause, would've been too reminiscent of persona non grata groups like the Nazis and KKK.
Today, peak wokeness has passed, and it's now possible for white men to organize. But only for progressive causes, otherwise again it'd invoke too many parallels with some of the most hated groups in American history. Like how no one else but Nixon could go to China, or it'd be too suspicious they could be a commie sympathizer.
I expect wokeness will continue to decline, as people who were willing to give critical race theory the benefit of the doubt see with their own eyes that it's bunk.
You can look up "war communism", Trotsky had basically that exist idea and it failed miserably.
From my half-rigorous polling, about 20% of women are slutty and largely motivated by looks and aren't really that ashamed to admit it. 80% of women are more selective about their partners, and while looks do still play a large role for them, personality/beliefs do play a large role. It's that 20% who are slutty who make up the majority of hook up participants- at 25 they may have had roughly 30 partners where a member of the 80% has had roughly 5(most of whom were long term partners, not hook ups), as estimates.
I think the hypocrisy comes more in that the 80% don't acknowledge/aren't aware of the 20%. So they act like of course a hot man with a terrible personality would have some difficulties getting a girlfriend, since if all women were like them, the hot nazi would have some difficulties. Part of it is just virtue signalling too, a hot nazi would still do better with them than they'd admit, but most of the incredible success of hot nazis would come from the slutty 20%.
What's your point?
I absolutely don't think the swastika lady would be mostly pulling men who see it as a feature. There are an incredible amount of men who'd be eager to stick their dick in a tight pussy, no matter how horrid that woman is. She could be a murderer, racist, liar, etc. and men will still be falling over themselves if she's hot enough.
Women will fall over themselves for a hot enough man too. But like only 20% of women would, is my estimate. If it was consequence free, like at least 60% of men would abandon any morals to hook up with a hot enough woman.
I think it's completely possible the West keeps funding Ukraine, maybe pays for some private military companies to help it too to make up for the manpower shortage. Russia goes deeper into debt, eventually their economy collapses, Ukraine wins by default. I don't know what exact number I'd put on that, but if the West doesn't give up on Ukraine, I'd maybe give it a 20% chance?
I'm somewhat sympathetic to blackpill ideas, but I think the context it's missing is men will often be even worse. A 6'6 guy with a swastika tattoo might get lots of dates- but not as many as a skinny girl with D cups who has a swastika tattoo. You can condemn women for being superficial and horny, but you should be condemning men 100x as much. Us men are much more likely to look past horrible personality defects just to get laid by someone hot.
I've heard that narrative before, I'm not totally convinced by it. I'd want to see some decently strong evidence for it before buying into it.
Especially since generally, moderates win swing states, not whoever motivates partisans the hardest. The nation as a whole is like one giant swing state in many ways.
I don't believe framing has that much power. I think voters mostly make their own decisions, propaganda has an impact but it's relatively small.
Hot jihad against Israel has been tried 3 times previously. It failed disastrously each time, Israel had decisive victories and ended with more land than they started with. Israel's international stance and its military is much stronger today than the past as well.
I think pushing Russia back to 2013 is unlikely, but back to 2015 is not impossible. Especially since Russia's having difficulties, they're going deep into debt and relying heavily on China giving them loans and buying oil.
I think Palestinians have absolutely 0 plausible paths to victory through violence. Right it's looking like Ukraine won't regain its lost territory, but I wouldn't put the odds at 0. Plus Russia's been continuously slowly expansionist for the past two decades- if Ukraine just gave up no, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia tried to take it over again in twenty years.
Do you have good sources showing "moderating" will lead to fewer votes, especially in swing states where votes actually matter? I buy more into Median Voter Theorem, where moderating is usually the single best move a politician can make
I feel like it's a bit of a writing hack too. Part of why those series can be so enticing is that they present mysteries that seem impossible to resolve, and you desperately want to know how they do resolve. But turns out the author can't resolve them and you were enticed by the mystery under false premises.
Tracing Woodgrains.
Saudi military is incompetent. It doesn't matter what the tech you have is of you can't fight. It's how the RPF beat the French supported government of Uganda in the 90s, because the government forces were just that pathetic and ill led.
War is brutal. Israel has done many bad things, perhaps more than necessary, but that's how war goes. America was hardly polite and soft on Japan in WW2.
If Native Americans started randomly suicide bombing American cafes and launched roughly one attack every twenty years that would kill hundreds, how many Native American civilian casualties would you max out at before saying "no, the cost is too high to keep bombing reservations"?
There's definitely a massive disconnect among pretty much everyone between how much they sympathize with and care about any animal they see or hear about, even just in a book or video, and how much meat they eat. I'm not a vegan, but I'll whole heartedly admit to not actually consistently following my principles in real life, and I respect vegans who shape their lives around their beliefs.
I just accept that most people are not very self-aware.
I personally wouldn't rely particularly hard on either LOTT or CNN for my news. I don't know enough about either to judge which is worse.
More options
Context Copy link