Page 141 of 142

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 19 Sep 2017, 10:46
by nicole
Extreme LOL at "assertive mating"


Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 19 Sep 2017, 13:09
by dhex
It's more fun than passive mating.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 19 Sep 2017, 14:48
by Eric the .5b
Still seem to be a lot of women who fuck socons, or else otherwise I wouldn't see the pictures of their hordes of kids on their desks.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 19 Sep 2017, 14:50
by tr0g
Eric the .5b wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 14:48
Still seem to be a lot of women who fuck socons, or else otherwise I wouldn't see the pictures of their hordes of kids on their desks.
Still a lot of people out there too dumb to use birth control, too, so it's multi-variate.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 19 Sep 2017, 15:03
by Eric the .5b
tr0g wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 14:50
Eric the .5b wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 14:48
Still seem to be a lot of women who fuck socons, or else otherwise I wouldn't see the pictures of their hordes of kids on their desks.
Still a lot of people out there too dumb to use birth control, too, so it's multi-variate.
Sure, but I just don't run into many socon men who aren't seeing someone or married. (And some fraction of them are of course both.) All they have to be is vaguely functional adults. The whole head-fucked, hyper-misogynist incel business needs to be dissected, not defended or courted, but the one-liner is almost as divorced from reality as the article. We see people dismiss their own rights all the damn time.

ETA: and really, the article isn't even that bad. It's just standard, trendy hand-wringing about freedom of association. Weirdly, the guy claims to be a libertarian.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 19 Sep 2017, 17:27
by Jennifer
Eric the .5b wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 15:03
The whole head-fucked, hyper-misogynist incel business needs to be dissected, not defended or courted, but the one-liner is almost as divorced from reality as the article.
From what I've seen, if I had to make a single statement encompassing not just incels but the alt-right in general (not all or even most alt-righters are incels, but I'd wager the lion's share of incels are alt-righters), it would be "They're all extreme hypocrites, possibly caused by an extreme lack of empathy toward those with whom they disagree in any way." To make just one obvious example -- of course the Federalist would not be appalled by any discovery that anti-abortion people would prefer to date or marry those who share their views on abortion. And I'm sure they take it for granted that of course people with deeply held [Christian] religious values would prefer to marry those who share their religious beliefs -- but, of course, if atheists prefer to marry other atheists, that's proof of atheists' intolerance toward believers, and (according to anti-Semites) when Jews prefer to marry other Jews, that is proof that Jews are downright bigoted [in addition to being one of the driving forces behind the "white genocide" epidemic].

Here's the last paragraph of that idiotic Federalist piece:
If a progressive doesn’t want to date a conservative and vice versa, that’s perfectly fine. Everyone has deal-breakers. But as a political protest, this form of virtue-signaling is counterproductive in the long run.
That's another alt-right attitude: anyone expressing opinions they disagree with is actually "virtue-signaling." Nobody's sincerely opposed to racism, for example; any condemnation of it is merely "virtue signaling." (See also: "Anytime a man disagrees with me by taking a woman's side in an argument, he's simply 'white-knighting' her; it can't possibly be because the man in question genuinely agrees with her rather than me." IIRC, pretty much every man who opposed the Gamergaters was either gay or white-knighting.)

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 19 Sep 2017, 17:55
by Aresen
Eric the .5b wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 15:03
tr0g wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 14:50
Eric the .5b wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 14:48
Still seem to be a lot of women who fuck socons, or else otherwise I wouldn't see the pictures of their hordes of kids on their desks.
Still a lot of people out there too dumb to use birth control, too, so it's multi-variate.
Sure, but I just don't run into many socon men who aren't seeing someone or married. (And some fraction of them are of course both.)
Any stats I have seen, from the Kinsey report onwards, indicate that socons fuck around just as much as anyone else. They just lie about (not doing) it more.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 19 Sep 2017, 18:40
by Eric the .5b
Aresen wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 17:55
Eric the .5b wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 15:03
tr0g wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 14:50
Eric the .5b wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 14:48
Still seem to be a lot of women who fuck socons, or else otherwise I wouldn't see the pictures of their hordes of kids on their desks.
Still a lot of people out there too dumb to use birth control, too, so it's multi-variate.
Sure, but I just don't run into many socon men who aren't seeing someone or married. (And some fraction of them are of course both.)
Any stats I have seen, from the Kinsey report onwards, indicate that socons fuck around just as much as anyone else. They just lie about (not doing) it more.
Ayup. But that's demand; I was talking about supply.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 19 Sep 2017, 22:51
by Mo
By this article's logic isn't Farmers Only or J-Date even worse?

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 20 Sep 2017, 19:06
by dbcooper
Reminder that Gawker is still nothing but scum:

Tell Us What You Know About the Louis C.K. Sexual Abuse Allegations

Damn that's some high quality crowd-sourced witch-hunting investigative journalism!

You'll remember the genius author (journalism masters degree programs are so prestigious) from this UVA moment:

http://jezebel.com/is-the-uva-rape-stor ... 1665233387
Hi Robby [Soave]! Thanks for stopping by! One small correction: I don't think you've ever "reported" a goddamn thing in your life. (And because I know you're going to do this, either here or in my Twitter mentions, which you and your friends are currently stink-clouding up with your Feelings, I have a master's degree in journalism from Columbia and I write investigative stories. Have done for years, both at Jezebel and before I got here. Thanks for asking!)

Instead, I think, as I made clear above, that you're piggy-backing on the work of other people who are calling Erdely's story into question without a single shred of evidence. You don't get brownie points for saying *IF* the story is true *THEN* UVA should have called the cops. That's what any decent human being would suggest.

But by all means, do some journalism! Follow up on those leads! Let's see it! Can't wait!
From the people who brought you framing every single thing as patriarchy or white-supremacy.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 21 Sep 2017, 01:54
by Sandy
Oh, the comments on that UVA piece.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 21 Sep 2017, 09:38
by JasonL
Frickin frack, mumble mumble head'splode. I HATE Nancy McLean of Buchanan hit piece fame. This f'cking piece of dung is making the rounds in my bookface feed.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ical-roots

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 12:25
by Mo


Yes, a sector can account for over 100% of the trade deficit. If every other sector combined runs a surplus, while your economy runs a deficit, your sector would account for more than 100% of the deficit. In fact, you could have a situation where every sector but one has a larger trade deficit than the national trade deficit. For example, there are 10 sectors, your national trade deficit is $1, nine sectors run a $2 deficit and one sector runs a $17 surplus.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 13:28
by Warren
Mo wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 12:25


Yes, a sector can account for over 100% of the trade deficit. If every other sector combined runs a surplus, while your economy runs a deficit, your sector would account for more than 100% of the deficit. In fact, you could have a situation where every sector but one has a larger trade deficit than the national trade deficit. For example, there are 10 sectors, your national trade deficit is $1, nine sectors run a $2 deficit and one sector runs a $17 surplus.
Um okay. But I think it's fair to say that would qualify as "a lot of percent".

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 13:30
by nicole
Warren wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 13:28
Mo wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 12:25


Yes, a sector can account for over 100% of the trade deficit. If every other sector combined runs a surplus, while your economy runs a deficit, your sector would account for more than 100% of the deficit. In fact, you could have a situation where every sector but one has a larger trade deficit than the national trade deficit. For example, there are 10 sectors, your national trade deficit is $1, nine sectors run a $2 deficit and one sector runs a $17 surplus.
Um okay. But I think it's fair to say that would qualify as "a lot of percent".
Also, if the direct quote from Ross is accurate, it's still wrong. Nothing can be "more than 100% of the reason for" something. If autos and auto parts account for more than 100% of the trade deficit, they're still "only" 100% of the reason for the trade deficit, at most -- and if some other industry is also running a trade deficit, they'd be less than 100% of the reason.

(Not saying that is what Dan Primack thought though...)

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 13:38
by Warren
nicole wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 13:30
Warren wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 13:28
Mo wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 12:25


Yes, a sector can account for over 100% of the trade deficit. If every other sector combined runs a surplus, while your economy runs a deficit, your sector would account for more than 100% of the deficit. In fact, you could have a situation where every sector but one has a larger trade deficit than the national trade deficit. For example, there are 10 sectors, your national trade deficit is $1, nine sectors run a $2 deficit and one sector runs a $17 surplus.
Um okay. But I think it's fair to say that would qualify as "a lot of percent".
Also, if the direct quote from Ross is accurate, it's still wrong. Nothing can be "more than 100% of the reason for" something. If autos and auto parts account for more than 100% of the trade deficit, they're still "only" 100% of the reason for the trade deficit, at most -- and if some other industry is also running a trade deficit, they'd be less than 100% of the reason.

(Not saying that is what Dan Primack thought though...)
If the trade deficit was $100, and the widget sector ran a $50 dollar deficit, would it be wrong to say "Widgets account for 50% of the trade deficit"? Because that's the way I'd read it to mean.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 14:07
by nicole
Warren wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 13:38
nicole wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 13:30
Warren wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 13:28
Mo wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 12:25


Yes, a sector can account for over 100% of the trade deficit. If every other sector combined runs a surplus, while your economy runs a deficit, your sector would account for more than 100% of the deficit. In fact, you could have a situation where every sector but one has a larger trade deficit than the national trade deficit. For example, there are 10 sectors, your national trade deficit is $1, nine sectors run a $2 deficit and one sector runs a $17 surplus.
Um okay. But I think it's fair to say that would qualify as "a lot of percent".
Also, if the direct quote from Ross is accurate, it's still wrong. Nothing can be "more than 100% of the reason for" something. If autos and auto parts account for more than 100% of the trade deficit, they're still "only" 100% of the reason for the trade deficit, at most -- and if some other industry is also running a trade deficit, they'd be less than 100% of the reason.

(Not saying that is what Dan Primack thought though...)
If the trade deficit was $100, and the widget sector ran a $50 dollar deficit, would it be wrong to say "Widgets account for 50% of the trade deficit"? Because that's the way I'd read it to mean.
You're taking "reason for" out of it.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 14:13
by Warren
nicole wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 14:07
You're taking "reason for" out of it.
I am. And while I concede your point. I think you're parsing it too closely for a straight forward reading.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 22 Sep 2017, 14:16
by nicole
Warren wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 14:13
nicole wrote:
22 Sep 2017, 14:07
You're taking "reason for" out of it.
I am. And while I concede your point. I think you're parsing it too closely for a straight forward reading.
Yeah I mean I'm saying the "math" part isn't wrong but it was still a stupid sloppy statement.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 06 Oct 2017, 15:29
by JD
I know that the Daily Mail barely counts as "journalism", since it barely even counts as "English sentences on a page", but this is just headache-inducingly stupid:
* Tracer ammunition lights up to give shooters more accuracy targeting in darkness
* Without it, Paddock was likely firing indiscriminately at the crowd below, despite many of his guns being outfitted with scopes

Stephen Paddock tried to buy a special sort of ammunition before the Las Vegas shooting, that would have let him target specific victims on the ground.
...
Tracer ammunition, which is legal, lights up as it's fired, making a direct line to its target - allowing shooters to target specific objects in the dark.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ition.html)

A) The Daily Mail apparently thinks tracer rounds give you magic seeing-in-the-dark powers, suggesting that they did not do even as much research as typing "what is tracer ammunition" into Google, and
B) SINCE HE DIDN'T EVEN ACTUALLY BUY ANY, WHY IS THIS ANY KIND OF STORY AT ALL?

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 08 Oct 2017, 00:40
by Painboy
JD wrote:
06 Oct 2017, 15:29
I know that the Daily Mail barely counts as "journalism", since it barely even counts as "English sentences on a page", but this is just headache-inducingly stupid:
* Tracer ammunition lights up to give shooters more accuracy targeting in darkness
* Without it, Paddock was likely firing indiscriminately at the crowd below, despite many of his guns being outfitted with scopes

Stephen Paddock tried to buy a special sort of ammunition before the Las Vegas shooting, that would have let him target specific victims on the ground.
...
Tracer ammunition, which is legal, lights up as it's fired, making a direct line to its target - allowing shooters to target specific objects in the dark.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ition.html)

A) The Daily Mail apparently thinks tracer rounds give you magic seeing-in-the-dark powers, suggesting that they did not do even as much research as typing "what is tracer ammunition" into Google, and
B) SINCE HE DIDN'T EVEN ACTUALLY BUY ANY, WHY IS THIS ANY KIND OF STORY AT ALL?
What's even more stupid is that had the guy used tracer rounds it might have saved some people's lives, since it would have been immediately evident where the bullets were coming from.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 08 Oct 2017, 06:49
by dhex
https://www.thecut.com/2017/10/this-isn ... y-men.html

Drawing a line between accused rapist, serial sexual harassers, a white nationalist, and a dude who shot people is fairly fucked up.

That the comments are focused on Clinton in a he's evil versus no he had a flawed soul is actually worse.

That people need to write articles arguing that power means not having to give a shit about others is arguably even worse that that.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 11 Oct 2017, 19:21
by Jennifer
This is not a bad piece of journalism itself, but I'm putting it in this thread since it discusses Breitbart (among other mondo-bad journalism stuff): an interesting but unfortunately unsurprising discussion of the connections between Gamergate, MRAs, Trumpsters and white supremacists/the alt-right.

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2 ... sts/218075
Men's-rights activism can serve as a gateway drug to the alt-right," in part because both "are based on a bizarro-world ideology in which those with the most power in contemporary society are the true victims of oppression."

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 12 Oct 2017, 14:29
by Dangerman
>>>..."Elizabeth Spiers, founding editor of Gawker, called Damore’s “intellectually dishonest conclusions and misreading of scientific studies,” “vapid bullshit.”"

>>...editor of Gawker

>...Gawker

Oh, well, then it must be so.

Re: When journalism goes bad

Posted: 12 Oct 2017, 14:59
by JD
Dangerman wrote:
12 Oct 2017, 14:29
>>>..."Elizabeth Spiers, founding editor of Gawker, called Damore’s “intellectually dishonest conclusions and misreading of scientific studies,” “vapid bullshit.”"
Well, nobody knows vapid bullshit like Gawker!