The Culture War

suspendedreason

Well-known member
Which is an interpretation of what a preference is, to begin with. Plenty of genetic preferences exist, e.g. not liking cilantro.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
On the same day most major left-leaning pubs are refusing to publish on the Hunter Biden allegations, which are shocking
that's a pretty narrow interpretation

it's a very sketchily sourced allegation from a media outlet with a recent history of perpetuating actively dangerous, baseless nonsense like the Bill Gates corona microchip theory, in a climate where both media outlets and social media platforms have been repeatedly burned for spreading or allowing to spread by inaction dangerous, baseless nonsense. caution is plenty warranted.

also I'd hardly call them shocking. bad, certainly, if accurate, but hardly surprising given prior allegations and the general predictability of powerful guy's son introduces shady businessman to his dad, which also describes some huge percentage of the Trump administration.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
no arguments about the "sexual preference" thing, that's hella dumb, counterproductive nonsense

there are many, many legitimate reasons to both dislike her and keep her off the SC, no need to make new ones up
 

suspendedreason

Well-known member
Oh I think it's totally reasonable for media to be wary of being played, and wary of throwing an election after the Comey/Clinton scandal. And also to want to make sure the source is legit, etc. But silence/censorship "until confirmed" is a really weird move. Air a goddam story about how Giuliani is alleging to be in possession of emails, whatever.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
"orientation" is preferable all things considered, but either is fine

aside: there's also nothing wrong with sexuality being a choice

the idea it's only OK if it's hardwired into yr genes is dumb and retrograde

it made sense tactically when that was the only way to get straight people to admit it was acceptable

but you'd think we could move past it at some point, especially since sexuality is clearly somewhere between hardwired and "choice"
 

suspendedreason

Well-known member
the mere allegation itself feels like major news: it's Rudy Giuliani claiming to have digital evidence contradicting testimony by a presidential candidate

in total agreement it's claims shaky, but I'm wary of platforms being able to decide a major political story is "fake" and ban all links to it
 

suspendedreason

Well-known member
if NYT has good reason to believe the evidence is forged, and has been quiet solely because they wanna do due diligence, and later tn/tomorrow they come out with a thorough follow-up, then I take back almost everything above about the response.

but so much shit flew when it came to speculation about Trump's collusion. if there's real evidence of the Biden camp being involved in this kinda thing, it should get treated seriously and not swept under the rug
 

suspendedreason

Well-known member
maybe one thing we can all agree on is that platforms just blocking links to any story about this, given its far from being "disproven" or evaluated, is a little worrying

if there was a policy that all unevaluated, unconfirmed news had a softblock on it, I'd understand, but it feels selective and political
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
it's Rudy Giuliani claiming
I mean, "Rudy Giuliani claiming" in 2020 ain't what it was in 2002

it's also Rupert Murdoch and you know where he stands

blocking the link outright seems like a bad call and probably counterproductive in a Streisand Effect way

but after the bullshit last time, and the everything the last few years, I don't really mind if they want to put their thumbs on the scale for Biden a bit

it's not ideal but it falls pretty low on my list of terrible shit massively influential social media network companies are involved in
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
no arguments about the "sexual preference" thing, that's hella dumb, counterproductive nonsense

there are many, many legitimate reasons to both dislike her and keep her off the SC, no need to make new ones up
This is exactly what I thought. I admit I'd never heard of this Barrett woman until a few days ago, but surprise surprise, she doesn't sound like good news (saw a clip of her earlier pretending not to understand that voter intimidation is illegal). But this plays so fucking easily into the "Orwellian leftists are literally redefining the language to silence conservatives" narrative. As if that wasn't a sufficiently widespread trope already.

Jezebel magazine has - of course - called ACB's phrase a "slur".
 
Last edited:
Top