The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Importance of Comments Sections in Bringing "Rolling Stone" to Justice
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Following the jury’s finding of “actual malice” in the libel suit against Rolling Stone over Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s hate hoax article “A Rape on Campus,” commenter eded writes:

Steve,

What does this story say about the value of newspaper comment sections that now seem to be on the way out?

I recall that the way UVA hoax really broke was when every journalist was praising the story, anonymous commenters were the only ones raising doubts. When Bradley wrote his blog post it was commenters linking to it in the newspaper comboxes that gave it an audience. Bradley was an obscure journalist writing a blog to fill his time between jobs. I don’t think it would have been widely read if it hadn’t been for you, and newspaper commenters. Every newspaper I read that did a story on the RS article seemed to a have link to Bradley’s blog post in the comment section.

Without comment sections does the article even get exposed as hoax or just take longer?

On a side note, it’s worth pointing out how many professional journalists have complained that Donald Trump is basically a comment section running for President.

 
Hide 131 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The phrase used to be Pamphleteers.

    • Agree: Alec Leamas, Coemgen
  2. As a frequent commenter through Disqus I am proud of Trump representing us.

    I hope on Tuesday night he can shout “First”

    • Agree: Lyov Myshkin
    • LOL: Perplexed
  3. Dahlia says:

    Very proud to have played a small part, mostly, in just encouraging you, Steve, to “pull the trigger” 🙂 It seemed like once you got over your reticence, others followed your lead and this really took off. We can’t win them all, Erdely and Rolling Stone victimized others, some much worse, but we got this one.

    The iSteve community and others who sleuthed it out in similar comment sections has much to be proud of today.

  4. I’m proud to have been the first to call BS on the Jackie//Erdely story in the comments of this blog.

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @ben tillman

    For posterity.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @res, @Lurker, @candid_observer

  5. This is another trenchant observation. ‘Gatekeeping’, in its media aspect, has a lot to do with who’s allowed to place actual content on a big site. It’s no coincidence that lots of media sites are shutting comments down, and that Hillary and other lefties organize and pay commenter shock troops to try to at least jam up comment sections, if not cut off all commications from their ideological foes.

    A related note: the rise of ‘fact-checkers’ in the Snopes mode (most, of course, with hard-left biases) seems closely related to the MSM’s Komment Kontrol Kampaign — that is, their primary aim is to provide ‘thread winner’ links and thereby shout down/distract anyone trying to challenge the Narrative.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    A lot of comment sections have shut down. On some other sites, you have 25% or more of the comments by moderators who control and guide the discussion into approved channels. It's quite ridiculous.

    It's true that comments sections -- well edited -- are a great source for further reading, and a good place to test arguments. This is one.

    At the same time, the old rancor of BBS days, even on comments sections until recently, has left its mark; Trump is not a comments thread, he is the first president candidate to speak the language of the internet, at once pithy, provocative, humorous, and insolent.

    The whole Rolling Stone fiasco, and the refusal of MSM, or MSM comment threads, to discuss it in any detail is what brought me here in the first place.

    Replies: @NoseytheDuke

    , @Barnard
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    A lot of newspapers won't allow comments on certain stories or have gone to Facebook comments, which obviously discourages anonymity. Instead of looking at the Jackie Coakley story as a warning, the media sees it as a missed opportunity to promote the narrative.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    , @kihowi
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Check out a photo of those "fact checkers" some time. They look like a gaggle of my ex girlfriends. Dopey, blonde, mildly overweight twenty somethings with laptops. Or, in 21st century speak: A Venerable Institution.

    Replies: @SFG

    , @jesse helms think-alike
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Speaking of Snopes and assorted fact checkers:

    Yesterday's Wikileaks release implying Podesta is involved with satanic rituals has already been fact checked :

    Do a Google search for "podesta satanic" and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story:
    claims that Hillary Clinton or John Podesta practice satanic rituals are grossly exaggerated.

    http://www.snopes.com/john-podesta-spirit-cooking

    WAPO has it's own story with the alarming title:
    No, John Podesta didn’t drink bodily fluids at a secret Satanist dinner

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/04/no-john-podesta-didnt-drink-bodily-fluids-at-a-secret-satanist-dinner/

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Anon

    , @Coemgen
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    With media sites shutting down commenting there's a business opportunity for other sites to link to news and allow commenting. Look at Drudge. He's made a fortune just linking to news. He could expand his business by offering a site where news can be commented on by readers.

    People want to have their say and we want to be able to "hear" the (honest and diverse) opinions of others.

    Oh, and some verbal analogies can be used to screen potential commenters ...

    Replies: @International Jew

    , @Jack D
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    The left is learning from their totalitarian comrades in China and Russia. Totalitarians realize that a free internet is even more dangerous than a free press. If you want to give the illusion of a free comments section you leave it open but you have all sensible comments drowned out by your Fifty Cent Party

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

    In the US, you don't even have to pay the trolls - guys like our TD do it for free. SJWs usually have some comfortable sinecure (or are living off of their parent's wealth) so token payments are not a big motivator for them. Only at the very top of the pyramid (Hillary and her inner circle) does the money get big enough to be a strong motivator.

    , @Hrw-500
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Snopes is playing with fire. Once the cat is officialy out of the bag, Snopes' credibility will be hit hard like Rolling Stone magazine with that hoax story.

  6. In the future with a Hillary Clinton administration, they will just mandate it so your internet-wide discussion account can be tied to your real name. That way you can still have “discussion” but if you stray from the narrative too much, other people can threaten to call up your employer to have you fired. You won’t be able to question a college rape narrative without being told the next day that you have to pack up your things and get out.

    • Replies: @wren
    @Random Dude on the Internet

    Hillary's dream for the US:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

    If your friends get in trouble or the blogger you left a comment with goes off script, they bring you down with them.

    Replies: @wren

    , @Joe Schmoe
    @Random Dude on the Internet

    There really is no way to shut down comments. What if I launched a site called commentssection.com. It would link to all the usual big media stories neatly indexed. Then whenever someone read a story, they could just jump over to commentssection.com and go to the page for that publication and story and there would be all the usual comments in all their anonymous glory. So, our host Steve and all other bloggers could post a link to the NYTimes story and its corresponding link at commentssection.com. So, all the libs, trolls, deplorables, cucks, and whathaveyou could duke it out there. Commentssection.com would only filter out true spam like repetitive links for getrichquick, porn, viruses, etc. but all other offensive remarks aka free speech would be left uncensored. It would not be an echo chamber. It could work. It could make ad money. Plenty of people are already addicted to commenting and it would be a true safe space aka free speech paid for with the usual ad revenue type scheme.

    Replies: @Randal, @melendwyr

    , @Greg Bacon
    @Random Dude on the Internet

    I fear it will be much worse than that. The Wicked Witch of the East can nurse a grudge for decades, over slights real or imagined, and will be looking to get revenge for all the trouble us 'deplorables' caused her ascent to the coronation.

    When she gets her blood-covered paws on the Justice D and the Pentagon, there's going to be Hell to pay for us peons.

    In the interest of 'national security,' the Queen will shut down many blogs and alternative news sites, leaving only the toxic CNN or FOX N*** to propagate the lies.

    The only blogs left will be about Kim K or sports or cooking, you know all the important stuff.

  7. @The Last Real Calvinist
    This is another trenchant observation. 'Gatekeeping', in its media aspect, has a lot to do with who's allowed to place actual content on a big site. It's no coincidence that lots of media sites are shutting comments down, and that Hillary and other lefties organize and pay commenter shock troops to try to at least jam up comment sections, if not cut off all commications from their ideological foes.

    A related note: the rise of 'fact-checkers' in the Snopes mode (most, of course, with hard-left biases) seems closely related to the MSM's Komment Kontrol Kampaign -- that is, their primary aim is to provide 'thread winner' links and thereby shout down/distract anyone trying to challenge the Narrative.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Barnard, @kihowi, @jesse helms think-alike, @Coemgen, @Jack D, @Hrw-500

    A lot of comment sections have shut down. On some other sites, you have 25% or more of the comments by moderators who control and guide the discussion into approved channels. It’s quite ridiculous.

    It’s true that comments sections — well edited — are a great source for further reading, and a good place to test arguments. This is one.

    At the same time, the old rancor of BBS days, even on comments sections until recently, has left its mark; Trump is not a comments thread, he is the first president candidate to speak the language of the internet, at once pithy, provocative, humorous, and insolent.

    The whole Rolling Stone fiasco, and the refusal of MSM, or MSM comment threads, to discuss it in any detail is what brought me here in the first place.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    @SPMoore8

    That's one of the reasons why Unz is growing so fast, I'm betting the 9/11 article currently up will top 1000 comments. I have had a couple of mine deleted but not in any way that wasn't justified and in no way was I censored. Compare the comments here with, say, The Guardian. Hands down this is the place to be.

    If keeping the place clean and tidy means eliminating comments that add nothing and clog up the thread I'm all for it. Some important work is taking place here despite some of the nuisances. It's work that the media have shown themselves to be inadequate at doing. Keep it up!

    Kudos to Ron Unz and has he considered having a couple of young things around to seed various social media, I wonder?

  8. When the printing press arrived in Germany, it had a profound impact on history, the people that normally decided what others should think (in this case the Catholic church) suddenly had competition. One can probably find the same with other technologies like radio. However all these things eventually got taken over by a very small group of people with essentially the same thinking.

    Most will say this is not going to happen with things like internet comments and blogs, but I think they are completely wrong. The signs are already there where this will all end, most people will end up communicating via the gargantuan outlets like Google, Facebook, Twitter. So to control what can be said is not really a technology problem, control those pipelines and you have already controlled 95% of what is being said. So the issue comes down to passing laws to control what can be said, and if you read sites like this you should probably be aware it will not take to long before things like hate speech law target A LOT of what can be said.

    I have already seen murmurs by some for government to pass laws that make anonymous accounts illegal, of course they will say this is to combat terrorism and pedophiles, but again it is obvious for people here what the true intent is. Once the anonymity has been removed and laws are in place to fine people for what they say, you will find very few willing to speak out.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @neutral


    murmurs by some for government to pass laws that make anonymous accounts illegal
     
    Murmurs by some advocating for the government to pass laws that make anonymous accounts illegal should be illegal.
    , @Anonym
    @neutral

    In some respects you are right. I have drawn this parallel myself before, comparing the printing press to the internet. And you are right, control of scribes became control of publishing by governments. When TV was invented, it really suited control of populations to a great degree due to government regulation of frequencies, network effect and barriers to entry through cost etc. Video was more addictive and influential than print for the masses. But then came the internet. Now Google, facebook and twitter are consolidating somewhat.

    However, it's difficult to control the internet. Truth is a drawcard, and people can link. So if reddit's the_donald gets shut down, something else will rise. Breitbart is there, and someone in the comments will link to something new and interesting. Trying to apply the sort of control that existed in the days of Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather is an exercise in trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

    , @Frau Katze
    @neutral

    In Canada, a judge ruling has already made the owners of a blog responsible for the entire comment section. If someone sues for libel, the blog owners are on the hook.

    Only the USA has true free speech (the other Anglo countries make libel absurdly easy).

  9. @The Last Real Calvinist
    This is another trenchant observation. 'Gatekeeping', in its media aspect, has a lot to do with who's allowed to place actual content on a big site. It's no coincidence that lots of media sites are shutting comments down, and that Hillary and other lefties organize and pay commenter shock troops to try to at least jam up comment sections, if not cut off all commications from their ideological foes.

    A related note: the rise of 'fact-checkers' in the Snopes mode (most, of course, with hard-left biases) seems closely related to the MSM's Komment Kontrol Kampaign -- that is, their primary aim is to provide 'thread winner' links and thereby shout down/distract anyone trying to challenge the Narrative.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Barnard, @kihowi, @jesse helms think-alike, @Coemgen, @Jack D, @Hrw-500

    A lot of newspapers won’t allow comments on certain stories or have gone to Facebook comments, which obviously discourages anonymity. Instead of looking at the Jackie Coakley story as a warning, the media sees it as a missed opportunity to promote the narrative.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Barnard

    A lot of newspapers won’t allow comments on certain stories or have gone to Facebook comments, which obviously discourages anonymity.

    And of course the problem with Facebook comments isn't just the lack of anonymity. It's the fact that the average Facebook user who comments on major articles has an IQ of around 90.

    Replies: @res

  10. @The Last Real Calvinist
    This is another trenchant observation. 'Gatekeeping', in its media aspect, has a lot to do with who's allowed to place actual content on a big site. It's no coincidence that lots of media sites are shutting comments down, and that Hillary and other lefties organize and pay commenter shock troops to try to at least jam up comment sections, if not cut off all commications from their ideological foes.

    A related note: the rise of 'fact-checkers' in the Snopes mode (most, of course, with hard-left biases) seems closely related to the MSM's Komment Kontrol Kampaign -- that is, their primary aim is to provide 'thread winner' links and thereby shout down/distract anyone trying to challenge the Narrative.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Barnard, @kihowi, @jesse helms think-alike, @Coemgen, @Jack D, @Hrw-500

    Check out a photo of those “fact checkers” some time. They look like a gaggle of my ex girlfriends. Dopey, blonde, mildly overweight twenty somethings with laptops. Or, in 21st century speak: A Venerable Institution.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @kihowi

    Reporters in the old pre-consolidation days were notorious drunks. Now, of course, everyone is fat. People with non-manual-labor jobs tend to get chunky, it's just physiology.

  11. @Random Dude on the Internet
    In the future with a Hillary Clinton administration, they will just mandate it so your internet-wide discussion account can be tied to your real name. That way you can still have "discussion" but if you stray from the narrative too much, other people can threaten to call up your employer to have you fired. You won't be able to question a college rape narrative without being told the next day that you have to pack up your things and get out.

    Replies: @wren, @Joe Schmoe, @Greg Bacon

    Hillary’s dream for the US:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

    If your friends get in trouble or the blogger you left a comment with goes off script, they bring you down with them.

    • Replies: @wren
    @wren

    Maybe this is Hillary's dream:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive

    I watched the first season of this show a year or so ago and enjoyed some of them.

    The episode was mentioned in the Wiki page on China's social credit scheme.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

  12. I’ve noticed that the publications that eliminate comments sections, or hamstring them with “rules” that favor the reporter, are usually those that seem to have publicists masquerading as blog reporters, those who have turned an unsupportable ideology into a religion, or who routinely tell the biggest whoppers.

    The “issue” reporters constantly bring up about anonymous “trolls” isn’t about civility. It’s about power. Commenter’s who mock reporters undermine the credibility of reporters, particularly when the commenters are right. If a reporter is stupid enough to “double-down” in the comments section to support his unsupportable stance against one commenter who has made a salient, supportable point, he will likely have the pleasure of receiving a swarm of commenters deconstructing his work like no editor would.

    I’ve also noticed that reporters who have the most fidelity to time-tested journalistic principals receive, by far, the least amount of guff from commenters. It’s apparently a tough row to hoe to create click-bait, while maintaining some journalistic integrity. I think it takes a talented writer to do that, Unfortunately, despite the mass influx of bloggers, good writers are still difficult to find.

    It’s not the commenters creating the primary mischief in journalism. It’s the “journalists,” by a long shot. Commenter’s, anonymous or not, are journalists friends. They help journalists keep their noses clean, in a chaotic, confusing world of “internet journalism.”

  13. Expect that President Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who will vote to ban half the stuff in comment sections as “hate speech” — or vote to allow the owners of websites and servers hosting comment sections to be sued into bankruptcy.

    Clinton — and the entire Left — is openly hostile to the 5-4 Citizens United decision, and she wants it overturned. But don’t forget that Citizens United was a nonprofit group that made a film critical of Hillary in 2008. She, and the rest of the establishment want that to be illegal. It’s the most open, hostile attack in the First Amendment I’ve ever seen in my life.

  14. The most enduring effect of the Internet is that nobody is fooling anybody anymore.

    Per the law of unintended consequences, media consolidation and ever more comprehensive and glaring Groupthink has drained the mainstream, especially prestige print, media of its most precious commodity, credibility.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @MLK

    The legacy media bought the clickbait revenue model--that viewer eyeballs were the only way to measure market share/penetration, hence advertiser rates and revenues. Therefore, all media became entertainment, and slaves to Nielsen ratings (or equivalent). And credibility became just another commodity available for sale. Though compared to other products--controversy, comedy, crockumentary, crime, courtroom, corruption--its market value seems to have declined. It's unclear whether the product has been diluted, or the actors (newsreader talking heads, field agent reporters) aren't believable, while the stories are lame.

    Like the old studio system in Hollywood, the producers have lost control of the product.

  15. @The Last Real Calvinist
    This is another trenchant observation. 'Gatekeeping', in its media aspect, has a lot to do with who's allowed to place actual content on a big site. It's no coincidence that lots of media sites are shutting comments down, and that Hillary and other lefties organize and pay commenter shock troops to try to at least jam up comment sections, if not cut off all commications from their ideological foes.

    A related note: the rise of 'fact-checkers' in the Snopes mode (most, of course, with hard-left biases) seems closely related to the MSM's Komment Kontrol Kampaign -- that is, their primary aim is to provide 'thread winner' links and thereby shout down/distract anyone trying to challenge the Narrative.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Barnard, @kihowi, @jesse helms think-alike, @Coemgen, @Jack D, @Hrw-500

    Speaking of Snopes and assorted fact checkers:

    Yesterday’s Wikileaks release implying Podesta is involved with satanic rituals has already been fact checked :

    Do a Google search for “podesta satanic” and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story:
    claims that Hillary Clinton or John Podesta practice satanic rituals are grossly exaggerated.

    http://www.snopes.com/john-podesta-spirit-cooking

    WAPO has it’s own story with the alarming title:
    No, John Podesta didn’t drink bodily fluids at a secret Satanist dinner

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/04/no-john-podesta-didnt-drink-bodily-fluids-at-a-secret-satanist-dinner/

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @jesse helms think-alike


    Do a Google search for “podesta satanic” and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story:
    claims that Hillary Clinton or John Podesta practice satanic rituals are grossly exaggerated.
     
    Yes, this is an excellent example. The story may be true or untrue, or somewhere in between, but Hillary and her sycophants have mastered a procedure for not only taking the air out of it, but also possibly turning it to their advantage.

    First, they'll say the story has been 'debunked' (heavy reliance on the fact-checkers for this), and then that the whole issue is a non-starter, old news, vicious rumors, etc. And then they'll push it to the next level and use the very existence of the story as proof of the machinations of the 'vast right wing conspiracy' -- a conspiracy whose purported existence, not coincidentally, is a story that never seems to get 'debunked'.

    Replies: @Old fogey, @Anonymous, @Forbes

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @jesse helms think-alike



    Do a Google search for “podesta satanic” and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story

     

    About Snopes:


    Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger
    ... Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.
    ... She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”

     

    , @Mr. Anon
    @jesse helms think-alike

    "Yesterday’s Wikileaks release implying Podesta is involved with satanic rituals has already been fact checked :"

    The term "fact checked" is itself patently ridiculous. When liberals say "That's been fact checked.", do they realize how spergy and idiotic they sound? Oh, it's been "fact checked" - the cat-ladies at Snopes have dismissed it. Well, that certainly settles that. They are, afterall, universally recognized arbiters of all knowledge.

  16. @wren
    @Random Dude on the Internet

    Hillary's dream for the US:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

    If your friends get in trouble or the blogger you left a comment with goes off script, they bring you down with them.

    Replies: @wren

    Maybe this is Hillary’s dream:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive

    I watched the first season of this show a year or so ago and enjoyed some of them.

    The episode was mentioned in the Wiki page on China’s social credit scheme.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

  17. I haven’t really noticed any of the comments sections I comment on getting closed at least.

    Anyways, the thing to do to keep comments sections alive is to click on ads. Most internet news sources are free and even if not, they depend on ad revenue. Comments sections already contribute to that because they drive up the overall page views of a site, which allows the site to charge more for ads. But clicking on the ads will really drive sites to allow unmoderated comments sections. The ad companies track exactly where ads are placed. If they see that certain pages get more clicks, they will pay for that real estate. And the websites will figure out those pages are the ones with comments sections. And then a whole lotta people will have unmoderated comment sections.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @little spoon

    Interesting. We should see to it that this strategy spreads.

    , @Prof. Woland
    @little spoon

    smart

    , @Alden
    @little spoon

    Thanks, I'll do that.

  18. @Random Dude on the Internet
    In the future with a Hillary Clinton administration, they will just mandate it so your internet-wide discussion account can be tied to your real name. That way you can still have "discussion" but if you stray from the narrative too much, other people can threaten to call up your employer to have you fired. You won't be able to question a college rape narrative without being told the next day that you have to pack up your things and get out.

    Replies: @wren, @Joe Schmoe, @Greg Bacon

    There really is no way to shut down comments. What if I launched a site called commentssection.com. It would link to all the usual big media stories neatly indexed. Then whenever someone read a story, they could just jump over to commentssection.com and go to the page for that publication and story and there would be all the usual comments in all their anonymous glory. So, our host Steve and all other bloggers could post a link to the NYTimes story and its corresponding link at commentssection.com. So, all the libs, trolls, deplorables, cucks, and whathaveyou could duke it out there. Commentssection.com would only filter out true spam like repetitive links for getrichquick, porn, viruses, etc. but all other offensive remarks aka free speech would be left uncensored. It would not be an echo chamber. It could work. It could make ad money. Plenty of people are already addicted to commenting and it would be a true safe space aka free speech paid for with the usual ad revenue type scheme.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @Joe Schmoe


    Commentssection.com would only filter out true spam like repetitive links for getrichquick, porn, viruses, etc. but all other offensive remarks aka free speech would be left uncensored.
     
    I've been giving that quite a lot of thought lately (mainly because of the loss of the two main formerly traditionalist conservative mainstream media outlets in Britain, the Telegraph and Spectator, to the metropolitan establishment "right", and their closing down or heavy censoring of comment sections. These are the publications that, in a less thought-controlled Britain, would be publishing regular columns by Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire, for sure).

    I am pessimistic about the prospects in my country (UK), at least. First, enforcement of the "hate speech" laws that have been on the statute books for a few years now is becoming more active. They would undoubtedly be used to threaten anyone connected with such a site in this country, even if the site itself were based in the US. Real anonymity in running such a site is impossible in the face of state resources.

    Second, there would be endless harassment by the elite lobbies opposed to speech that is not controlled in the ways they want it to be controlled. The libel laws would be used, copyright laws would be used (as they were against Free Republic in the US in the past). financial industry harassment would be used to cut access to libel insurance and even to banking services (see the Wikileaks and Russia Today examples) and if all else fails there would likely be violence against the persons and offices of those involved (officially condemned by the authorities but largely in practice ignored by the police and unpunished by the courts, as was the case with attacks on many of the overtly racist political organisations (National Front, British Movement etc) in this country).

    It's still something that really ought to be done, but it would require someone highly motivated and pretty well insulated against such countermeasures. Which means someone with no employment or business interests that they can be attacked through, including close family, and considerable financial resources.

    , @melendwyr
    @Joe Schmoe

    I think you've missed the point. The point of eliminating comment sections isn't to prevent the comments from existing. It's to prevent the easily-manipulated from seeing and hearing any message other than the ones the sites want them to see. Most people are not going to go look at a comments site, because those sites are going to have a terrible reputation, because it's absolutely vital for the propagandists to craft a bad reputation for them.

    It's like radio - they realized that people become accustomed to songs they hear repeated over and over again, whether they truly like them or not. Radio stations are concerned with ad space, radio itself exists to sell a product.

    Replies: @Forbes

  19. One reason comment sections are so powerful in ferreting out the truth — if a publication has any interest in the truth — is that they are automatic correctives to confirmation bias.

    What is actually quite remarkable about the RS story (and so many other hoax stories) is how easy it is to poke major holes in it if one merely seriously entertains the possibility that it may be false. It seems plausible only if you believe such a thing is, in effect, already true, and it is just the particular details that must be found and reported on. In the language of syllogisms, you’ve got a general belief about men, and you just need to locate Socrates.

    There’s probably no corrective for confirmation bias but someone who doesn’t have the same belief you’ve got, or at least not to the strength you’ve got it. They will be looking to poke holes, and if the fabric of rational belief is weak, will manage to do so.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @candid_observer

    There’s probably no corrective for confirmation bias

    Surely being aware of the phenomenon helps. Working hard to read things critically helps.

  20. One heartening development is watching the lib vs. lib struggle. Eramo is surely a lib who “believes” rape victims and pseudo rape victims. But Erdely needed to blame someone in authority, and authority has been largely been entrusted to libs like Eramo. Oops.

  21. It is really pathetic how many sites edit out comments expressing alternative views or evidence, or even better, post one comment, straw man it, and then prevent a reply. If you worldview can’t withstand an alternative argument or empirical evidence, maybe it is time to consider switching worldviews.

    Given sheer volume of replicated scientific knowledge that today falls under the heading of “racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, islamaphobic et. al.”, it is hard to see how they will be able to sustain the egalitarian lies for much longer. They couldn’t do it in the Soviet Union, and the Soviets had even heavier forms of repression.

  22. How often do you read an essay or news report where the majority of commenters go against the opinion or tone of it.
    Way too often, is this the not so silent majority, or are liberals silent in their ascent?

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @Dwright

    I can only think the silent majority, if it exists, must be people who never read comments, or dont even use the internet at all.

    Ive mentioned the YouTube disparity where Trump has routed Clinton in terms of videos, views, likes, comments.

  23. Keep an eye on the voter suppression lawsuit in Siskiyou County, CA. A sheriff’s deputy is accused of making threats against Hmong pot farmers, some of whom don’t speak English, if they tried to vote. The Hmong were already ticked off at the sheriff for raiding their farms. This has the same basic narrative–white males bad (especially cops) and minorities good. I haven’t heard anyone in print or online defending the cops.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @SF

    Hmong pot-farmers.

    Ah, diversity. Where would we be without you?

  24. Nobody here can look on the bright side.

    Absolutely. I’ve been reading the comments here now on the third article about the verdict and there are few high-five comments. Still lots of bitterness.

    If this type of news won’t make people here purely happy what will (other than Trump’s election and even then…)?

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @anony-mouse


    If this type of news won’t make people here purely happy
     
    I am not just purely happy, but pleased as punch. My happiness about the verdict is unbounded.

    And, BTW, Trump will win. Did I mention that before? No? Then write it on your napkin. Trump will win. And that will make me unspeakably happy. But not as happy as seeing David Brooks head explode. In fact, I am worried that after David Brooks head explodes I'll be so happy that I will spontaneously combust.
    , @Opinionator
    @anony-mouse

    On to the next battle.

    , @Anonymous
    @anony-mouse

    Beta Male Rage can never be quenched.

    , @NeonBets
    @anony-mouse

    In other words, you're arguing that Steve should have filtered-out your comment since it doesn't reinforce his views.

  25. OT: The Left’s plan is working exactly as expected in Nevada

  26. @neutral
    When the printing press arrived in Germany, it had a profound impact on history, the people that normally decided what others should think (in this case the Catholic church) suddenly had competition. One can probably find the same with other technologies like radio. However all these things eventually got taken over by a very small group of people with essentially the same thinking.

    Most will say this is not going to happen with things like internet comments and blogs, but I think they are completely wrong. The signs are already there where this will all end, most people will end up communicating via the gargantuan outlets like Google, Facebook, Twitter. So to control what can be said is not really a technology problem, control those pipelines and you have already controlled 95% of what is being said. So the issue comes down to passing laws to control what can be said, and if you read sites like this you should probably be aware it will not take to long before things like hate speech law target A LOT of what can be said.

    I have already seen murmurs by some for government to pass laws that make anonymous accounts illegal, of course they will say this is to combat terrorism and pedophiles, but again it is obvious for people here what the true intent is. Once the anonymity has been removed and laws are in place to fine people for what they say, you will find very few willing to speak out.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anonym, @Frau Katze

    murmurs by some for government to pass laws that make anonymous accounts illegal

    Murmurs by some advocating for the government to pass laws that make anonymous accounts illegal should be illegal.

  27. >OUR SYSTEM is most frequently characterized as a dictatorship or, more precisely, as the dictatorship of a political bureaucracy over a society which has undergone economic and social leveling. I am afraid that the term “dictatorship,” regardless of how intelligible it may otherwise be, tends to obscure rather than clarify the real nature of power in this system. We usually associate the term with the notion of a small group of people who take over the government of a given country by force; their power is wielded openly, using the direct instruments of power at their disposal, and they are easily distinguished socially from the majority over whom they rule. One of the essential aspects of this traditional or classical notion of dictatorship is the assumption that it is temporary, ephemeral, lacking historical roots. Its existence seems to be bound up with the lives of those who established it. It is usually local in extent and significance, and regardless of the ideology it utilizes to grant itself legitimacy, its power derives ultimately from the numbers and the armed might of its soldiers and police. The principal threat to its existence is felt to be the possibility that someone better equipped in this sense might appear and overthrow it.

    Even this very superficial overview should make it clear that the system in which we live has very little in common with a classical dictatorship. In the first place, our system is not limited in a local, geographical sense; rather, it holds sway over a huge power bloc controlled by one of the two superpowers. And although it quite naturally exhibits a number of local and historical variations, the range of these variations is fundamentally circumscribed by a single, unifying framework throughout the power bloc. Not only is the dictatorship everywhere based on the same principles and structured in the same way (that is, in the way evolved by the ruling super power), but each country has been completely penetrated by a network of manipulatory instruments controlled by the superpower center and totally subordinated to its interests. In the stalemated world of nuclear parity, of course, that circumstance endows the system with an unprecedented degree of external stability compared with classical dictatorships. Many local crises which, in an isolated state, would lead to a change in the system, can be resolved through direct intervention by the armed forces of the rest of the bloc.

    In the second place, if a feature of classical dictatorships is t….<

    http://www.vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=eseje&val=2_aj_eseje.html&typ=HTML

  28. @anony-mouse
    Nobody here can look on the bright side.

    Absolutely. I've been reading the comments here now on the third article about the verdict and there are few high-five comments. Still lots of bitterness.

    If this type of news won't make people here purely happy what will (other than Trump's election and even then...)?

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Opinionator, @Anonymous, @NeonBets

    If this type of news won’t make people here purely happy

    I am not just purely happy, but pleased as punch. My happiness about the verdict is unbounded.

    And, BTW, Trump will win. Did I mention that before? No? Then write it on your napkin. Trump will win. And that will make me unspeakably happy. But not as happy as seeing David Brooks head explode. In fact, I am worried that after David Brooks head explodes I’ll be so happy that I will spontaneously combust.

  29. @candid_observer
    One reason comment sections are so powerful in ferreting out the truth -- if a publication has any interest in the truth -- is that they are automatic correctives to confirmation bias.

    What is actually quite remarkable about the RS story (and so many other hoax stories) is how easy it is to poke major holes in it if one merely seriously entertains the possibility that it may be false. It seems plausible only if you believe such a thing is, in effect, already true, and it is just the particular details that must be found and reported on. In the language of syllogisms, you've got a general belief about men, and you just need to locate Socrates.

    There's probably no corrective for confirmation bias but someone who doesn't have the same belief you've got, or at least not to the strength you've got it. They will be looking to poke holes, and if the fabric of rational belief is weak, will manage to do so.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    There’s probably no corrective for confirmation bias

    Surely being aware of the phenomenon helps. Working hard to read things critically helps.

  30. @anony-mouse
    Nobody here can look on the bright side.

    Absolutely. I've been reading the comments here now on the third article about the verdict and there are few high-five comments. Still lots of bitterness.

    If this type of news won't make people here purely happy what will (other than Trump's election and even then...)?

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Opinionator, @Anonymous, @NeonBets

    On to the next battle.

  31. Major, major achievement Steve, getting this job done, you should take a victory lap from that.

    Even more, though, your stewardship of your comments section is amazing, everyone knows that. Best comments section on the web, hands down.

  32. @anony-mouse
    Nobody here can look on the bright side.

    Absolutely. I've been reading the comments here now on the third article about the verdict and there are few high-five comments. Still lots of bitterness.

    If this type of news won't make people here purely happy what will (other than Trump's election and even then...)?

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Opinionator, @Anonymous, @NeonBets

    Beta Male Rage can never be quenched.

  33. I am wondering what it would be like to be SJW leftist. I simply cannot imagine it. The belief in racial intelligence and behavior being either the same or 100% the result of environment against all evidence from personal experience and all evidence from statistics.

    And the few times you manage to find something in the news that seems to support your world view, so often the narrative collapses.

    I suppose the SJW can’t imagine what it would be like to have crimethought views that could get you fired or shunned.

    I guess the right-wing equivalent might be young-earth creationism. Even then, you don’t have contrary evidence shoved into your face every time you read the news or go into a “vibrant” part of town.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    @Lot

    The right-wing equivalent is kitschy taste in pop culture, music, food etc.

    , @theo the kraut
    @Lot

    I've been a SJW for most of my life: we like to have people piss into our mouths. Most people like that, but we like it more. It's important to understand the concept, I tried to explain this at length here.

    Replies: @Lot

    , @Lurker
    @Lot


    I guess the right-wing equivalent might be young-earth creationism. Even then, you don’t have contrary evidence shoved into your face every time you read the news or go into a “vibrant” part of town.
     
    I remember it being pointed out (maybe on iSteve) that a belief in young-earth creationism hardly matters anyway. It doesn't have direct implications for almost anything in day to day life. But a true belief in flat earth racial egalitarianism has fundamental implications for public policy, business, daily life.
  34. One of the reasons people liken Trump to (rightist) net comments is that net comments are often by “doers” who have a real job and experience that does not involve opining for a living. Those who opine for a living often got there fresh out of college where your day to day existence was probably reading things written by others who did not have a real job either. I.e. living in a bubble. The Western political class is not much better. A background of law teaches you man’s rules, but man’s laws are something of a house of cards. Physical law is far less tolerant of poorly tested assumptions.

    This is one of the reasons we frequent this blog, Steve has actually had a real job for a number of years before he took up opining professionally. You can tell.

    A lot of the commentariat are straight, white, male, intelligent, opinionated assholes who got that way by being right a lot of the time, while having to deal with reality. They don’t like to be fed bullshit and they will try to have their say (although creating a venue for having their say is mostly too much effort – they have a real job). For the most part, the concept of safe spaces or tabula rasa doesn’t build a building or a successful business. Trump is that raised to a few powers. And just like we hate the MSM, especially when they don’t allow comments, Trump hates the media too. We love him for it.

  35. One big reason we are on the verge of having a President Trump is that we have had to endure an onslaught of feminist antics such as the Duke Lacrosse and UVA rape hoaxes over the last 40 years.
    We have become almost inured to this type of passive aggressive tactic and are dismissing it almost out of hand now. The “11 women to come forward” nonsense would have sunk a garden variety Republican (or Democratic) cuck instantly in past elections but these last 20 years have been like a time release red pill on the culture. It has been purely organic. Men are completely unorganized and leaderless but one by one they are starting to figure it out. We have been waiting for a guy like Trump and it won’t be a passing fad.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Prof. Woland

    The cultural shift happened in the early '90s.

    In 1987, Gary Hart's presidential campaign was destroyed by adultery suspicions. (Two Miami Herald reporters got a tip that Hart - a married man - was spending the weekend with a single woman and staked out his vacation house. They literally sat in a car overnight, watching the house to see who was coming and going.) Later that year, Douglas Ginsburg's Supreme Court nomination was derailed by his admission that he had smoked marijuana years earlier. (The Ginsburg affair came after the Bork fiasco.)

    But in the fall of 1991, Anita Hill's graphic, specific, nationally-televised testimony of sexual harassment didn't sink Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. (Incidentally, shortly after his nomination was announced, Thomas admitted that he had smoked marijuana in college. It was the same admission that Ginsburg had made, but times had changed and finding a few dusty bongs in the back of a politician's closet wasn't a big deal anymore.) Thomas narrowly won confirmation.

    Three months later, in early 1992, Gennifer Flowers' claims (backed up by tape recordings) of a love affair didn't sink Bill Clinton. Neither did revelations that he had dodged the draft - a story that broke (in the form of a letter* that Clinton sent in 1969 to the ROTC officer he had deceived to get a deferment) less than a week before the New Hampshire primary.

    And Clinton famously said that he once tried marijuana but "didn't inhale" because he didn't like it. Everyone chuckled at this laughably-lame claim. In a few short years, marijuana had gone from a career-killer to a punchline.

    Interestingly enough, shortly after winning re-election in '92, Oregon Sen. Bob Packwood was hit by charges that he had sexually harassed several of his female staffers. The scandal dragged on for years until Packwood resigned under heavy pressure in 1995. The twist was that Packwood was a prolific diarist who meticulously chronicled his indiscretions:
    http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1995/Excerpts-from-Sen-Bob-Packwood-s-diaries-released-by-the-Senate/id-39479612bbde2ba452a17bdc2caaa313

    In 1998, Monica Lewinsky ended up sinking Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston, but not Clinton. (Gingrich wasn't exactly Mr. All-American Family Man himself.)

    In 2003, a number of women came forward mere days before the California recall election to claim that front-runner candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger had groped them and otherwise harassed them sexually. The voters didn't care. Nor did they care that Schwarzenegger had been filmed smoking marijuana in the '70s.

    And it was back in the early '80s that Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards quipped that the only way he could lose was if someone found him in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

    *Some years before he ran for president, Clinton had the gall to ask the ROTC officer if he still had the letter and, if so, to give it back. The officer did give it back, but not before making a copy:
    http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/13/us/1992-campaign-letter-clinton-his-draft-deferment-war-opposed-despised.html

  36. @neutral
    When the printing press arrived in Germany, it had a profound impact on history, the people that normally decided what others should think (in this case the Catholic church) suddenly had competition. One can probably find the same with other technologies like radio. However all these things eventually got taken over by a very small group of people with essentially the same thinking.

    Most will say this is not going to happen with things like internet comments and blogs, but I think they are completely wrong. The signs are already there where this will all end, most people will end up communicating via the gargantuan outlets like Google, Facebook, Twitter. So to control what can be said is not really a technology problem, control those pipelines and you have already controlled 95% of what is being said. So the issue comes down to passing laws to control what can be said, and if you read sites like this you should probably be aware it will not take to long before things like hate speech law target A LOT of what can be said.

    I have already seen murmurs by some for government to pass laws that make anonymous accounts illegal, of course they will say this is to combat terrorism and pedophiles, but again it is obvious for people here what the true intent is. Once the anonymity has been removed and laws are in place to fine people for what they say, you will find very few willing to speak out.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anonym, @Frau Katze

    In some respects you are right. I have drawn this parallel myself before, comparing the printing press to the internet. And you are right, control of scribes became control of publishing by governments. When TV was invented, it really suited control of populations to a great degree due to government regulation of frequencies, network effect and barriers to entry through cost etc. Video was more addictive and influential than print for the masses. But then came the internet. Now Google, facebook and twitter are consolidating somewhat.

    However, it’s difficult to control the internet. Truth is a drawcard, and people can link. So if reddit’s the_donald gets shut down, something else will rise. Breitbart is there, and someone in the comments will link to something new and interesting. Trying to apply the sort of control that existed in the days of Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather is an exercise in trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

  37. I used to be a liberal. You spend a good part of the time making excuses or rationalizing. Or not noticing.

  38. You cynical bastards , your choice is between this :

    and this:

  39. @little spoon
    I haven't really noticed any of the comments sections I comment on getting closed at least.

    Anyways, the thing to do to keep comments sections alive is to click on ads. Most internet news sources are free and even if not, they depend on ad revenue. Comments sections already contribute to that because they drive up the overall page views of a site, which allows the site to charge more for ads. But clicking on the ads will really drive sites to allow unmoderated comments sections. The ad companies track exactly where ads are placed. If they see that certain pages get more clicks, they will pay for that real estate. And the websites will figure out those pages are the ones with comments sections. And then a whole lotta people will have unmoderated comment sections.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Prof. Woland, @Alden

    Interesting. We should see to it that this strategy spreads.

  40. @jesse helms think-alike
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Speaking of Snopes and assorted fact checkers:

    Yesterday's Wikileaks release implying Podesta is involved with satanic rituals has already been fact checked :

    Do a Google search for "podesta satanic" and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story:
    claims that Hillary Clinton or John Podesta practice satanic rituals are grossly exaggerated.

    http://www.snopes.com/john-podesta-spirit-cooking

    WAPO has it's own story with the alarming title:
    No, John Podesta didn’t drink bodily fluids at a secret Satanist dinner

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/04/no-john-podesta-didnt-drink-bodily-fluids-at-a-secret-satanist-dinner/

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Anon

    Do a Google search for “podesta satanic” and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story:
    claims that Hillary Clinton or John Podesta practice satanic rituals are grossly exaggerated.

    Yes, this is an excellent example. The story may be true or untrue, or somewhere in between, but Hillary and her sycophants have mastered a procedure for not only taking the air out of it, but also possibly turning it to their advantage.

    First, they’ll say the story has been ‘debunked’ (heavy reliance on the fact-checkers for this), and then that the whole issue is a non-starter, old news, vicious rumors, etc. And then they’ll push it to the next level and use the very existence of the story as proof of the machinations of the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ — a conspiracy whose purported existence, not coincidentally, is a story that never seems to get ‘debunked’.

    • Replies: @Old fogey
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    I love the use of the term "grossly exaggerated." That means that the basis of the story is indeed true - but the story is told with too much enthusiasm.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    , @Anonymous
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    "And then they’ll push it to the next level and use the very existence of the story as proof of the machinations of the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ — a conspiracy whose purported existence, not coincidentally, is a story that never seems to get ‘debunked’."

    Exemplary writing. Why I come here and what makes me realize that I'm a duffer.

    , @Forbes
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    The left has the habit of working the cause-->effect relationship in both directions, or finding opposites that arrive at the same outcome, e.g. Bush was dumb as a box of rocks, while simultaneously outsmarting everyone with lies. The ends justify the means.

  41. @SPMoore8
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    A lot of comment sections have shut down. On some other sites, you have 25% or more of the comments by moderators who control and guide the discussion into approved channels. It's quite ridiculous.

    It's true that comments sections -- well edited -- are a great source for further reading, and a good place to test arguments. This is one.

    At the same time, the old rancor of BBS days, even on comments sections until recently, has left its mark; Trump is not a comments thread, he is the first president candidate to speak the language of the internet, at once pithy, provocative, humorous, and insolent.

    The whole Rolling Stone fiasco, and the refusal of MSM, or MSM comment threads, to discuss it in any detail is what brought me here in the first place.

    Replies: @NoseytheDuke

    That’s one of the reasons why Unz is growing so fast, I’m betting the 9/11 article currently up will top 1000 comments. I have had a couple of mine deleted but not in any way that wasn’t justified and in no way was I censored. Compare the comments here with, say, The Guardian. Hands down this is the place to be.

    If keeping the place clean and tidy means eliminating comments that add nothing and clog up the thread I’m all for it. Some important work is taking place here despite some of the nuisances. It’s work that the media have shown themselves to be inadequate at doing. Keep it up!

    Kudos to Ron Unz and has he considered having a couple of young things around to seed various social media, I wonder?

  42. @Lot
    I am wondering what it would be like to be SJW leftist. I simply cannot imagine it. The belief in racial intelligence and behavior being either the same or 100% the result of environment against all evidence from personal experience and all evidence from statistics.

    And the few times you manage to find something in the news that seems to support your world view, so often the narrative collapses.

    I suppose the SJW can't imagine what it would be like to have crimethought views that could get you fired or shunned.

    I guess the right-wing equivalent might be young-earth creationism. Even then, you don't have contrary evidence shoved into your face every time you read the news or go into a "vibrant" part of town.

    Replies: @snorlax, @theo the kraut, @Lurker

    The right-wing equivalent is kitschy taste in pop culture, music, food etc.

  43. Former NPR boss writes in Vanity Fair about the extreme bias of the media this election — worth a read, even despite (because of?) all the backpedaling/rationalizing: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/the-right-wing-media-isnt-crazy

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @snorlax

    quote from the article:

    "And Trump is an affront to American democracy and common decency, and if this is the price to pay for keeping him out of the White House , so be it."

    In other words, the end justifies the means.

    I wish Stern would explain exactly how "Trump is an affront to American democracy." We're seeing Trump doing his best to beg for votes. Isn't that how democracy works? Is "American democracy" somehow different from plain old vanilla democracy?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Forbes
    @snorlax

    I thought the article was the usual leftwing nonsense, except for the admission that the right isn't completely bonkers--which reads like boilerplate concession clickbait to get Sailer-like readers to click-through.

  44. @little spoon
    I haven't really noticed any of the comments sections I comment on getting closed at least.

    Anyways, the thing to do to keep comments sections alive is to click on ads. Most internet news sources are free and even if not, they depend on ad revenue. Comments sections already contribute to that because they drive up the overall page views of a site, which allows the site to charge more for ads. But clicking on the ads will really drive sites to allow unmoderated comments sections. The ad companies track exactly where ads are placed. If they see that certain pages get more clicks, they will pay for that real estate. And the websites will figure out those pages are the ones with comments sections. And then a whole lotta people will have unmoderated comment sections.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Prof. Woland, @Alden

    smart

  45. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @jesse helms think-alike


    Do a Google search for “podesta satanic” and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story:
    claims that Hillary Clinton or John Podesta practice satanic rituals are grossly exaggerated.
     
    Yes, this is an excellent example. The story may be true or untrue, or somewhere in between, but Hillary and her sycophants have mastered a procedure for not only taking the air out of it, but also possibly turning it to their advantage.

    First, they'll say the story has been 'debunked' (heavy reliance on the fact-checkers for this), and then that the whole issue is a non-starter, old news, vicious rumors, etc. And then they'll push it to the next level and use the very existence of the story as proof of the machinations of the 'vast right wing conspiracy' -- a conspiracy whose purported existence, not coincidentally, is a story that never seems to get 'debunked'.

    Replies: @Old fogey, @Anonymous, @Forbes

    I love the use of the term “grossly exaggerated.” That means that the basis of the story is indeed true – but the story is told with too much enthusiasm.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Old fogey


    I love the use of the term “grossly exaggerated.” That means that the basis of the story is indeed true – but the story is told with too much enthusiasm.

     

    Yes. But just watch: in subsequent reports, 'grossly exaggerated' simply becomes 'debunked'. I'm coming to despise that word.

    Replies: @Old fogey

  46. @jesse helms think-alike
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Speaking of Snopes and assorted fact checkers:

    Yesterday's Wikileaks release implying Podesta is involved with satanic rituals has already been fact checked :

    Do a Google search for "podesta satanic" and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story:
    claims that Hillary Clinton or John Podesta practice satanic rituals are grossly exaggerated.

    http://www.snopes.com/john-podesta-spirit-cooking

    WAPO has it's own story with the alarming title:
    No, John Podesta didn’t drink bodily fluids at a secret Satanist dinner

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/04/no-john-podesta-didnt-drink-bodily-fluids-at-a-secret-satanist-dinner/

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Anon

    Do a Google search for “podesta satanic” and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story

    About Snopes:

    Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger
    … Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.
    … She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”

  47. @Old fogey
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    I love the use of the term "grossly exaggerated." That means that the basis of the story is indeed true - but the story is told with too much enthusiasm.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    I love the use of the term “grossly exaggerated.” That means that the basis of the story is indeed true – but the story is told with too much enthusiasm.

    Yes. But just watch: in subsequent reports, ‘grossly exaggerated’ simply becomes ‘debunked’. I’m coming to despise that word.

    • Replies: @Old fogey
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Ah, yes. "Debunked" has come to mean that while the point is well taken not everyone on the Left agrees with it.

  48. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    (((David Brooks))) should be sent back to Canada. His column today was complete trash, he basically endorsed Shillary. I watch the Newshour normally and his appearance was especially agravating:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-rancor-electorate-future-supreme-court/

    DAVID BROOKS: …

    But a lot of it is baked structurally into our society. And so we had a lot of good things over the years that were really good for America. I think globalization has been really good for America. I think the influx of immigrants has been really good for America. Feminism has been really good for America.

    But there are a lot of people who used to be up in society, because of those three good things, are now down, a lot of high school-educated white guys. And they have been displaced.

    And shame on us for not paying attention to that and helping them out. And, therefore, as a result, what happened was, they were alienated, they got super cynical, because they really were being shafted. And so they react in an angry way.

    Well, that’s not a shock, given the last 30 or 50 years of American history. And so, for us going forward, it’s to not reverse the dynamism of American society and the diversity. It’s to pay attention to the people who are being ruined by it, and so this doesn’t happen again.

    This is from the “conservative” at the new york times. Do you have a theory about what’s happened to him, did the divorce destroy his brain because I remember him saying semi-insightful things in the past. In what sense is he not a SJW besides being an Israel firster in terms of foreign policy.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Anonymous


    Do you have a theory about what’s happened to him, did the divorce destroy his brain because I remember him saying semi-insightful things in the past.
     
    Here ya go.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Forbes

    , @Dan Hayes
    @Anonymous

    Any good thoughts about Frum are wasted ones. His transgressions go back a long, long way. The first one I encountered some years back was his vile hit piece on Pat Buchanan in the American Spectator. (I then let my Spectator subscription lapse.) Frum's even more despicable act was his self-ordained proclamation/judgement in the National Review that a bunch of principled conservatives were unpatriotic Americans, worthy of only ridicule and contempt. (I then let my NR subscription lapse.)

    I suppose that I should be grateful to Frum for causing me to cut my ties to the Spectator and NR with their being replaced by more worthy venues (Chronicles, Unz Review, etc).

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Yak-15
    @Anonymous

    I cannot be mad at that guy too much. He is making a great living pedaling nonsense. Sure it's intellectually masochistic work and it is probably crushing his soul. But it sends the kids to college and buys him a comfortable life.

    , @jimbojones
    @Anonymous

    Just one more proof that John Dolan's brutal takedown of Brooks was well deserved.
    http://exiledonline.com/david-brooks-blows-bobos-an-exile-classic/

    Replies: @Forbes

  49. Remember the Hopewell Church fire that was all set to be a big pre-election story but then disappeared from the news?

    They seem to have found the person who did it, but police have “declined to describe the person’s race or gender.”

    GREENVILLE, Miss.—Police said they were interviewing a “person of interest” Wednesday evening in connection with a fire that heavily damaged an 111-year-old African-American church on which someone spray-painted “Vote Trump.”

    Police Chief Delando Wilson, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, said the person hasn’t been charged with any crime. Chief Wilson declined to describe the person’s race or gender but said he doesn’t believe anyone else was involved in the incident Tuesday evening.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-probes-vote-trump-message-possible-arson-at-black-church-in-mississippi-1478114594

  50. @Prof. Woland
    One big reason we are on the verge of having a President Trump is that we have had to endure an onslaught of feminist antics such as the Duke Lacrosse and UVA rape hoaxes over the last 40 years.
    We have become almost inured to this type of passive aggressive tactic and are dismissing it almost out of hand now. The "11 women to come forward" nonsense would have sunk a garden variety Republican (or Democratic) cuck instantly in past elections but these last 20 years have been like a time release red pill on the culture. It has been purely organic. Men are completely unorganized and leaderless but one by one they are starting to figure it out. We have been waiting for a guy like Trump and it won't be a passing fad.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    The cultural shift happened in the early ’90s.

    In 1987, Gary Hart’s presidential campaign was destroyed by adultery suspicions. (Two Miami Herald reporters got a tip that Hart – a married man – was spending the weekend with a single woman and staked out his vacation house. They literally sat in a car overnight, watching the house to see who was coming and going.) Later that year, Douglas Ginsburg’s Supreme Court nomination was derailed by his admission that he had smoked marijuana years earlier. (The Ginsburg affair came after the Bork fiasco.)

    But in the fall of 1991, Anita Hill’s graphic, specific, nationally-televised testimony of sexual harassment didn’t sink Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. (Incidentally, shortly after his nomination was announced, Thomas admitted that he had smoked marijuana in college. It was the same admission that Ginsburg had made, but times had changed and finding a few dusty bongs in the back of a politician’s closet wasn’t a big deal anymore.) Thomas narrowly won confirmation.

    Three months later, in early 1992, Gennifer Flowers’ claims (backed up by tape recordings) of a love affair didn’t sink Bill Clinton. Neither did revelations that he had dodged the draft – a story that broke (in the form of a letter* that Clinton sent in 1969 to the ROTC officer he had deceived to get a deferment) less than a week before the New Hampshire primary.

    And Clinton famously said that he once tried marijuana but “didn’t inhale” because he didn’t like it. Everyone chuckled at this laughably-lame claim. In a few short years, marijuana had gone from a career-killer to a punchline.

    Interestingly enough, shortly after winning re-election in ’92, Oregon Sen. Bob Packwood was hit by charges that he had sexually harassed several of his female staffers. The scandal dragged on for years until Packwood resigned under heavy pressure in 1995. The twist was that Packwood was a prolific diarist who meticulously chronicled his indiscretions:
    http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1995/Excerpts-from-Sen-Bob-Packwood-s-diaries-released-by-the-Senate/id-39479612bbde2ba452a17bdc2caaa313

    In 1998, Monica Lewinsky ended up sinking Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston, but not Clinton. (Gingrich wasn’t exactly Mr. All-American Family Man himself.)

    In 2003, a number of women came forward mere days before the California recall election to claim that front-runner candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger had groped them and otherwise harassed them sexually. The voters didn’t care. Nor did they care that Schwarzenegger had been filmed smoking marijuana in the ’70s.

    And it was back in the early ’80s that Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards quipped that the only way he could lose was if someone found him in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

    *Some years before he ran for president, Clinton had the gall to ask the ROTC officer if he still had the letter and, if so, to give it back. The officer did give it back, but not before making a copy:
    http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/13/us/1992-campaign-letter-clinton-his-draft-deferment-war-opposed-despised.html

  51. @Barnard
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    A lot of newspapers won't allow comments on certain stories or have gone to Facebook comments, which obviously discourages anonymity. Instead of looking at the Jackie Coakley story as a warning, the media sees it as a missed opportunity to promote the narrative.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    A lot of newspapers won’t allow comments on certain stories or have gone to Facebook comments, which obviously discourages anonymity.

    And of course the problem with Facebook comments isn’t just the lack of anonymity. It’s the fact that the average Facebook user who comments on major articles has an IQ of around 90.

    • Replies: @res
    @Wilkey

    Not to mention their seeming inability to police spam. Facebook comments are the most spam filled I have seen. Despite an apparent ability to police viewpoints that disagree. Funny how that works.

    Replies: @Wilkey

  52. The DT got rid of its comments thread, because its journalists needed a safe space from negative feedback. Then the Spectator’s own Damian Thompson wrote a piece telling his readership how much he despised them. I have not read the Speccie since.

    The incompetent elite,it seems, can’t take criticism when they write a bad article. No one is forced to read the comments thread.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/comment-threads-closing-thankfully-underpants-brigade-won/

    • Replies: @Randal
    @22pp22

    Yes, the Telegraph and the Spectator - the two classic traditionalist conservative media operations that you would have expected to be the British mainstream outlets for precisely those traditionalist conservative, nativist views that are most actively suppressed as politically incorrect or as "hate speech" in our societies. Both seem to have been subjected to vicious and sustained campaigns to browbeat and blackmail them into suppressing the views of such dissidents in their comment sections - "racism", "anti-Semitism", "homophobia" and "sexism" - that particular identity and other interested lobbies are most actively trying to censor and make impossible and even illegal to be expressed.

    I've linked before to one of the "antisemite witchfinders" there explaining how back door pressure was used to "encourage" such publications to toe the line. Here's one of their regular leftist commenters recently expressing concern that they weren't censoring my views on race and crime sufficiently effectively:

    "Just in case anyone from The Spectator's editorial board is looking below the line at this time in the evening; please, close these threads. Look at the comments you've got. Look at the type of person, like Randal, who posts here.

    Get rid of these threads. Please."

    The Telegraph no longer exists as far as I'm concerned. I'm banned from Spectator blogs (apparently the aforementioned witch-hunter had a personal contact in the senior management there who shared his discomfort at my opinions being allowed to be expressed and "assured him" directly that I would henceforth be "persona non grata" there), so I don't bother reading those much these days. The main Spectator site has not, for some reason, actually banned me yet, but they have taken to pre-emptively not allowing comments on most of the pieces that might attract comments that will get them nagged.

    I take the view generally that I'm not interested in reading the opinions of sites that aren't interested in turn in their reader's opinions.

    (I know you and I have discussed this before, but it's another opportunity to raise the issues in question.)

    Replies: @Lurker, @Forbes

  53. If Clinton wins I expect Disqus to make some big changes that will make being anon, and really posting comments at all much more difficult.

    If Clinton wins a second term I fully expect that Disqus will be used as a grand database to guide retroactive hate-speech prosecutions.

  54. @Anonymous
    (((David Brooks))) should be sent back to Canada. His column today was complete trash, he basically endorsed Shillary. I watch the Newshour normally and his appearance was especially agravating:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-rancor-electorate-future-supreme-court/


    DAVID BROOKS: ...

    But a lot of it is baked structurally into our society. And so we had a lot of good things over the years that were really good for America. I think globalization has been really good for America. I think the influx of immigrants has been really good for America. Feminism has been really good for America.

    But there are a lot of people who used to be up in society, because of those three good things, are now down, a lot of high school-educated white guys. And they have been displaced.

    And shame on us for not paying attention to that and helping them out. And, therefore, as a result, what happened was, they were alienated, they got super cynical, because they really were being shafted. And so they react in an angry way.

    Well, that’s not a shock, given the last 30 or 50 years of American history. And so, for us going forward, it’s to not reverse the dynamism of American society and the diversity. It’s to pay attention to the people who are being ruined by it, and so this doesn’t happen again.
     

    This is from the "conservative" at the new york times. Do you have a theory about what's happened to him, did the divorce destroy his brain because I remember him saying semi-insightful things in the past. In what sense is he not a SJW besides being an Israel firster in terms of foreign policy.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Dan Hayes, @Yak-15, @jimbojones

    Do you have a theory about what’s happened to him, did the divorce destroy his brain because I remember him saying semi-insightful things in the past.

    Here ya go.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    A quote from Brooks in the link you provided;

    "As a result, many feel lost or overwhelmed. They feel a hunger to live meaningfully, but they don’t know the right questions to ask, the right vocabulary to use, the right place to look or even if there are ultimate answers at all."

    Do you think he realizes that he is giving voice here to the angst of the many working-class Americans whose jobs have been off shored and who have been cast adrift from their formerly secure moorings? That he is speaking for the very group he sadistically belittles?

    Of course he doesn't. He's not that aware. He's only speaking of himself and others trapped in the dilemma of his class' consciousness. What he is complaining about is that as he views his life in hindsight, he realizes that he has accomplished nothing of tangible noteworthiness.

    He never used his body incarnate to incarnate any of his mind's Ideas.

    That's why God put you on this planet you moron! You were meant to DO something, build something, make something of, by and for yourself! Build a better world, wrestle with the materiality of existence, grow some muscle through strife and toil! Commit yourself to a BIG PROJECT and suffer through the day to day grind until it was complete! AND IT IS A GRIND! You will be ground down by it in the process. Carl Jung called it "polishing your stone". It is the Alchemy of the SPIRIT, achieved, ironically, through hard work by the body.

    The GREAT CATHEDRALS were built by sheer hard labor. Who do you think ground down those stones and raised them? Every flute on every column of the Parthenon was HAND GROUND in situ--which is why they are aligned perfectly between sections of the column. They didn't have carborundum or diamond grinding and polishing compounds. Can you imagine the labor?

    That was your job Brooks. To help build the Temple. To raise and place a stone--one which you had perfectly shaped and polished--in its allocated space.

    And you have the gall to belittle and dismiss unfortunate middle-Americans from flyover country for wandering like lost sheep because their purpose and meaning have been tossed away by this nation's new, alien Elite.

    You pimped yourself out for the leaders of Empire.

    But I tell you this. Any nation whose coastal, metropolitan, free-trade Elite derides and discards the interests of the loyal, yeoman commoners of the hinterland (devoted as they are to their own community's interests and affairs) will rot from within and fail.

    , @Forbes
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    That deadspin column would be hilarious, if what it said about Brooks (short story version: Brooks is pathetic) wasn't so sad.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  55. @Random Dude on the Internet
    In the future with a Hillary Clinton administration, they will just mandate it so your internet-wide discussion account can be tied to your real name. That way you can still have "discussion" but if you stray from the narrative too much, other people can threaten to call up your employer to have you fired. You won't be able to question a college rape narrative without being told the next day that you have to pack up your things and get out.

    Replies: @wren, @Joe Schmoe, @Greg Bacon

    I fear it will be much worse than that. The Wicked Witch of the East can nurse a grudge for decades, over slights real or imagined, and will be looking to get revenge for all the trouble us ‘deplorables’ caused her ascent to the coronation.

    When she gets her blood-covered paws on the Justice D and the Pentagon, there’s going to be Hell to pay for us peons.

    In the interest of ‘national security,’ the Queen will shut down many blogs and alternative news sites, leaving only the toxic CNN or FOX N*** to propagate the lies.

    The only blogs left will be about Kim K or sports or cooking, you know all the important stuff.

  56. @The Last Real Calvinist
    This is another trenchant observation. 'Gatekeeping', in its media aspect, has a lot to do with who's allowed to place actual content on a big site. It's no coincidence that lots of media sites are shutting comments down, and that Hillary and other lefties organize and pay commenter shock troops to try to at least jam up comment sections, if not cut off all commications from their ideological foes.

    A related note: the rise of 'fact-checkers' in the Snopes mode (most, of course, with hard-left biases) seems closely related to the MSM's Komment Kontrol Kampaign -- that is, their primary aim is to provide 'thread winner' links and thereby shout down/distract anyone trying to challenge the Narrative.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Barnard, @kihowi, @jesse helms think-alike, @Coemgen, @Jack D, @Hrw-500

    With media sites shutting down commenting there’s a business opportunity for other sites to link to news and allow commenting. Look at Drudge. He’s made a fortune just linking to news. He could expand his business by offering a site where news can be commented on by readers.

    People want to have their say and we want to be able to "hear" the (honest and diverse) opinions of others.

    Oh, and some verbal analogies can be used to screen potential commenters …

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Coemgen


    With media sites shutting down commenting there’s a business opportunity for other sites to link to news and allow commenting.
     
    I've thought about that too. A site like that wouldn't work if users had to actively navigate to it and, once there, find the particular MSM piece they want to comment on. Too inconvenient.

    Instead, what's needed is a browser plug-in that places an icon right up on your tool bar. You click the icon and you're sent to a discussion (if one exists) of the article you were reading.

    Of course people would need to install that plug-in. But only once.
  57. @ben tillman
    I'm proud to have been the first to call BS on the Jackie//Erdely story in the comments of this blog.

    Replies: @Coemgen

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Coemgen

    I just perused Jonah’s comment history.

    One of the smartest ones here. Nice dry sense of humor.

    , @res
    @Coemgen

    Thanks for that. It's too time consuming to fact check every baseless self aggrandizing statement myself. Any suggestions for how you tracked down the comment? I have had trouble searching the Unz archives. Unable to use Google effectively because the comment previews on the lower right mess up searches and I tend to get too many extraneous responses for all but the most specific searches.

    And for ben tillman--have you no shame?

    P.S. I second the other comment about Jonah's comment history. Would be good to see more from him.

    Replies: @Coemgen

    , @Lurker
    @Coemgen

    For great justice!

    , @candid_observer
    @Coemgen

    Looking back to Jonah's original skeptical comment on the supposed rape, I recovered a comment I made at the NY Times, expressing my serious doubts about it (coincidentally, on the same day -- my handle there is frankly0):

    http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/does-the-university-of-virginia-have-a-culture-of-silence-around-sexual-assault/?comments#permid=13423560

    Of course, my comment didn't get a NY Times pick, but one of its rebuttals did.

    Now what struck me about my own reaction to it is how swiftly I was able to find gaping implausibilities in the story after a more skeptical attitude kicked in. And how did I come by that more skeptical attitude? I had read basically just the headlines of the story at first, without delving into the details. I mostly just accepted the content of those headlines at face value -- one doesn't ordinarily reject a story from a fairly reputable magazine out of hand -- one presumes some due diligence has been done.

    But then I had a conversation with my son, who had read more of the article. I don't remember the details of what he said, but he expressed some real skepticism about it. Spurred by his doubts, I went back to read more of what was described in the article. I became increasingly convinced that it was a hoax.

    But if I had not gotten to a point at which I started to doubt the story, and thought it was important to see if it had any holes in it, I might have been on board with it fairly indefinitely -- or at least until others pointed out the holes.

    This is one of the reasons I brought up the issue of confirmation bias in an earlier comment. It is a very real and consequential phenomenon. Even looking at one's own case, one sees any number of instances in which it plays a part.

    Perhaps the lesson here is that, if Truth is one's goal, the Devil always needs an advocate. And the Devil's Advocate may usually be found in the comment sections.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @res

  58. @22pp22
    The DT got rid of its comments thread, because its journalists needed a safe space from negative feedback. Then the Spectator's own Damian Thompson wrote a piece telling his readership how much he despised them. I have not read the Speccie since.

    The incompetent elite,it seems, can't take criticism when they write a bad article. No one is forced to read the comments thread.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/comment-threads-closing-thankfully-underpants-brigade-won/

    Replies: @Randal

    Yes, the Telegraph and the Spectator – the two classic traditionalist conservative media operations that you would have expected to be the British mainstream outlets for precisely those traditionalist conservative, nativist views that are most actively suppressed as politically incorrect or as “hate speech” in our societies. Both seem to have been subjected to vicious and sustained campaigns to browbeat and blackmail them into suppressing the views of such dissidents in their comment sections – “racism”, “anti-Semitism”, “homophobia” and “sexism” – that particular identity and other interested lobbies are most actively trying to censor and make impossible and even illegal to be expressed.

    I’ve linked before to one of the “antisemite witchfinders” there explaining how back door pressure was used to “encourage” such publications to toe the line. Here’s one of their regular leftist commenters recently expressing concern that they weren’t censoring my views on race and crime sufficiently effectively:

    Just in case anyone from The Spectator’s editorial board is looking below the line at this time in the evening; please, close these threads. Look at the comments you’ve got. Look at the type of person, like Randal, who posts here.

    Get rid of these threads. Please.

    The Telegraph no longer exists as far as I’m concerned. I’m banned from Spectator blogs (apparently the aforementioned witch-hunter had a personal contact in the senior management there who shared his discomfort at my opinions being allowed to be expressed and “assured him” directly that I would henceforth be “persona non grata” there), so I don’t bother reading those much these days. The main Spectator site has not, for some reason, actually banned me yet, but they have taken to pre-emptively not allowing comments on most of the pieces that might attract comments that will get them nagged.

    I take the view generally that I’m not interested in reading the opinions of sites that aren’t interested in turn in their reader’s opinions.

    (I know you and I have discussed this before, but it’s another opportunity to raise the issues in question.)

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @Randal

    We ruled the DT comment threads! Though I noticed a certain cuck tendency hiding in the sport threads.

    And now they're gone. And I've only read about three DT articles since then.

    I too am banned from Spectator blogs, though not from the main Spectator site. As you say, there are few articles to comment on there, most of the action is on the blogs.

    I do remember some nasty piece of work threatening to get me banned and in due course I was, I can't remember the name. He was unloved and unpopular with other commenters but received a suspiciously high number of votes from people who never commented.

    , @Forbes
    @Randal

    Need I guess that DT and the Spectator were on board to stay--vote against Brexit?

  59. @Anonymous
    (((David Brooks))) should be sent back to Canada. His column today was complete trash, he basically endorsed Shillary. I watch the Newshour normally and his appearance was especially agravating:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-rancor-electorate-future-supreme-court/


    DAVID BROOKS: ...

    But a lot of it is baked structurally into our society. And so we had a lot of good things over the years that were really good for America. I think globalization has been really good for America. I think the influx of immigrants has been really good for America. Feminism has been really good for America.

    But there are a lot of people who used to be up in society, because of those three good things, are now down, a lot of high school-educated white guys. And they have been displaced.

    And shame on us for not paying attention to that and helping them out. And, therefore, as a result, what happened was, they were alienated, they got super cynical, because they really were being shafted. And so they react in an angry way.

    Well, that’s not a shock, given the last 30 or 50 years of American history. And so, for us going forward, it’s to not reverse the dynamism of American society and the diversity. It’s to pay attention to the people who are being ruined by it, and so this doesn’t happen again.
     

    This is from the "conservative" at the new york times. Do you have a theory about what's happened to him, did the divorce destroy his brain because I remember him saying semi-insightful things in the past. In what sense is he not a SJW besides being an Israel firster in terms of foreign policy.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Dan Hayes, @Yak-15, @jimbojones

    Any good thoughts about Frum are wasted ones. His transgressions go back a long, long way. The first one I encountered some years back was his vile hit piece on Pat Buchanan in the American Spectator. (I then let my Spectator subscription lapse.) Frum’s even more despicable act was his self-ordained proclamation/judgement in the National Review that a bunch of principled conservatives were unpatriotic Americans, worthy of only ridicule and contempt. (I then let my NR subscription lapse.)

    I suppose that I should be grateful to Frum for causing me to cut my ties to the Spectator and NR with their being replaced by more worthy venues (Chronicles, Unz Review, etc).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Dan Hayes

    I think you're confusing David Frum with David Brooks. Brooks wants to invade the world and invite the world, Frum just wants to invade the world.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes, @Opinionator

  60. @snorlax
    Former NPR boss writes in Vanity Fair about the extreme bias of the media this election — worth a read, even despite (because of?) all the backpedaling/rationalizing: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/the-right-wing-media-isnt-crazy

    Replies: @Coemgen, @Forbes

    quote from the article:

    “And Trump is an affront to American democracy and common decency, and if this is the price to pay for keeping him out of the White House , so be it.”

    In other words, the end justifies the means.

    I wish Stern would explain exactly how “Trump is an affront to American democracy.” We’re seeing Trump doing his best to beg for votes. Isn’t that how democracy works? Is “American democracy” somehow different from plain old vanilla democracy?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Coemgen

    By George, I think you've got it. "American democracy" will be a newspeak term for a new kind of democracy, different from the old kind. In "American democracy" only people who are not irredeemable will have a voice, will be allowed to comment on public forums, will be permitted to run for office, will be allowed to vote, will be allowed to play on sports teams, will even have jobs. Nazis, anti-Semites, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. need not apply - they are not American. They have forfeited that right due to their views. That's not who we are. (Minorities, BTW, are NEVER irredeemable, no matter how bad their behavior - when you picture Hillary's "basket of deplorables" it's filled with white (male) faces). We have seen glimmers of this here and there (Harvard soccer team all suspended yesterday, people getting "Watsoned") but it hasn't quite come together. At least not yet.

    People who have shown themselves to be irredeemable will have none of the above - they will have to eke out a living at the margin of society. If they have a business, it will need to be boycotted and bankrupted. If possible, the power of the state will be brought down on them, like people who refuse to make gay wedding cakes. (Just yesterday I saw a "food review" in the Philly paper. The main food critic was telling people to stop drinking Yuengling beer because the owner backs Trump. This in the guise of a review of another brand, which is "much tastier" (i.e. the owner has the right political views). This will be considered to be their own fault - their irredeemableness means that they no longer deserve the protections and benefits of our diverse society. By definition, someone who is irredeemable can not be reformed - he (it's usually a he) is like a hardened criminal - all you can do is segregate him away from society.

    If the left is unable to implement this fully, it will not be for lack of effort. In their heart of hearts, this is exactly what they would like to do TODAY if it was within their power (and sometimes it is, but for now only in fairly isolated cases). Anyway, you don't have to destroy EVERY irredeemable. You destroy a few and most sensible people will get the message. Maybe in their heart they are still irredeemable, but they will know better than to let any glimmer of this out in public. Gun control forms an important part of the scheme - irredeemables haven't (despite leftist delusions) shown themselves to be actually violent, but on some level the left understands that once they try to corner people they will lash back at some point and they would like to preempt the backlash.

    Notice that Hillary said that only HALF of Trump supporters were irredeemable. If society is divided 50/50 this is a perilous position (this is why unfettered immigration is so important, in order to keep tipping the system in the right direction). What you want to do is have an "acceptable" right that will be allowed to stay within the system, so long as they stick to the rules. Of course, this means that 2/3's of voters are Democrats and 1/3 are "acceptable" Republicans, so naturally Democrats win most or all contests, but you keep the Republicans around as a token opposition (the Washington Generals role) so that you can maintain the form of democracy . Acceptable Republicans will still be able to work and will get some token voice - say 3 seats on the Supreme Court, so they can write nice dissents but will never be in the majority. "American democracy" will, on paper, look just like the old kind - there will still be a Congress and a Supreme Court, etc. , it's just that they won't mean squat.

    Basically the same system that has existed in most American big cities since the New Deal era, and on most college faculties, except now it will be in every city and workplace. It will be an imperceptible transition - there will be no black helicopters. When American big cities and campuses fell under this system, it was gradual and imperceptible. There was no day when the Maximum Leader stood on the steps of City Hall and said that from now on, no Republican would ever be elected again or get a job on the faculty. That's not how it's going to work.

    Replies: @Cwhatfuture, @Forbes

  61. The woman who starred in the newest celebrity propaganda video demonising Trump made a video egging on men to touch her ‘boobies’.

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f5860f6bd3/you-can-touch-my-boobies?_cc=__d___&_ccid=ca6251c1-06f2-454c-a116-589297688750

    I guess touching the pussy is taking it too far though.

    This is such stereotypical Jewish smut.

  62. @Coemgen
    @ben tillman

    For posterity.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @res, @Lurker, @candid_observer

    I just perused Jonah’s comment history.

    One of the smartest ones here. Nice dry sense of humor.

  63. As I read further into Sten’s piece, I become more and more possessed with the notion that we should have “sneer” tags in HTML, akin to italics tags, that can be used to mark text where elites are communicating to, or about, deplorables.

    Question: Is “deplorable” a noun?

    • Replies: @res
    @Coemgen


    Question: Is “deplorable” a noun?
     
    In the dictionary, no: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deplorable
    deplorableness is the noun form there (with a different meaning than "deplorable" used as a noun).

    In common usage I think it is from now on. I wonder how long it will take for a dictionary to agree.

    Here's a more detailed take from Merriam-Webster a couple of months ago: http://www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch/clinton-says-half-of-trump-supporters-are-in-a-basket-of-deplorables-20160910
    They note a small number of earlier noun usages.
  64. Sailer (and eded) are surely correct in identifying comment sections as ideal for raising concerns with particular articles such as the Rolling Stone piece in question.

    I’ve always been a little sceptical about any wider political impact from “highbrow” news media comment sections, taking the view that the readerships are far too low for the kind of political impact that comments on genuine mass outlets such as Facebook, Twitter etc can have, and the latter do seem to be where most organised opinion influencing operations relying on paying people to post are aimed. My view has been that such sections are useful mainly for testing the strengths of one’s own opinions against real opposition. Clearly, though, many identity lobbyists etc do regard news media comment sections as significant, or the anti-racists, anti-anti-semite witchfinders, anti-homophobes and anti-sexist censors would not put so much effort into suppressing the expression of dissident opinions on them.

    However, there are some ways that news media comment sections imo can influence the wider debate in some circumstances, and I’ll give my opinion of one case based on personal experience:

    My personal main political concern is opposing the interventionism (especially military interventionism) that plagues modern US sphere foreign policy. I have opposed it since the Kosovo war, which was the Clinton and Blair regimes’ first step into “humanitarian” mass murder. All the major interventionist wars and aggressive political interferences have had disastrous consequences for the US and British nations that waged them (though not for the lobbies that promoted them), from Yugoslavia through Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine, to Syria today (leaving out lots of lesser cases).

    The high point of influence for news media comment sections, imo, was in 2013 when the US and UK governments tried to make the case for doing to the Syrian government what had been done to the Libyan government. This was egregiously stupid, even by the standards of the US sphere elite foreign policy groupthink, given that it was obvious at the time that the Libyan intervention had been a disaster and that a similar but even bigger catastrophe would result if the Obama and Cameron governments had gotten their way. Nevertheless the lobbies pushing for war (Saudi, Israel, “humanitarian” interventionist, US uber alles, etc) saw another such disaster as in their interests, and knew from experience that opinion in the US sphere could be “managed” to manufacture political consent even for the stupidest of interventions. (I’m still not sure what Obama’s personal position was on this – did he want to intervene but fear to do so without implicating Congress, or did he not want to and used popular opposition to provide an excuse? For sure Hillary Clinton was in favour of the idiocy of bombing Syrian government forces.)

    Online discussion forums and, later, media comment sections had been a presence for those of us arguing against wars going back to Kosovo, but they were much more widely established by 2013. From my recollection, arguing the case in them was far more effective in defeating the case for war than it ever had been previously, and it’s noticeable that the establishment campaign against them stepped up after the elite failure to get their way on that war. I do believe they played a role in winning the arguments, and I believe it was not because of a mass audience (though undoubtedly when there is a particularly controversial and urgent issue such as voting for war being debated, more readers of pieces arguing the case will tend to scroll down to read the opinions of others). Rather I think it was because repeated defeats in discussion helped to demoralise the elite opinion formers who were working to manufacture consent. Those people (often the writer of the piece being commented under) certainly read the comments (it’s very hard not to, when you’ve published an opinion), and I have no doubt whatsoever they and their editors and colleagues often engaged in the debates under (usually) anonymous identities. But the case for bombing Syria in 2013 was undoubtedly by far the weakest of any of the cases for war in the past 20 years, and their positions were repeatedly trashed. I got the definite impression they lost confidence as a result, and voices of dissent within the elites gained in confidence to oppose the proposed war. Defeating the proposed shift to open war on Syria in 2013 was imo the only major victory of the opponents to establishment interventionism in the past 20 years, and I think news media comment sections played a part in it. Since then, they have been increasingly rmoved and controlled.

    None of this can be proved, of course, but it’s what I believe from my personal experience.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Randal

    From what I read, the polls before the putative war showed support by the public at about 15%, lower than any actual war. After Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, people were sick of war. My guess is Obama read the polls and backed off.

    Still, who knows?

    Replies: @Randal

  65. @Lot
    I am wondering what it would be like to be SJW leftist. I simply cannot imagine it. The belief in racial intelligence and behavior being either the same or 100% the result of environment against all evidence from personal experience and all evidence from statistics.

    And the few times you manage to find something in the news that seems to support your world view, so often the narrative collapses.

    I suppose the SJW can't imagine what it would be like to have crimethought views that could get you fired or shunned.

    I guess the right-wing equivalent might be young-earth creationism. Even then, you don't have contrary evidence shoved into your face every time you read the news or go into a "vibrant" part of town.

    Replies: @snorlax, @theo the kraut, @Lurker

    I’ve been a SJW for most of my life: we like to have people piss into our mouths. Most people like that, but we like it more. It’s important to understand the concept, I tried to explain this at length here.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @theo the kraut

    Not sure if I agree with your analysis here, but I spent an hour reading your blog archive. Great stuff, you should link to it more here and ask Steve for a sidebar link.

  66. @Joe Schmoe
    @Random Dude on the Internet

    There really is no way to shut down comments. What if I launched a site called commentssection.com. It would link to all the usual big media stories neatly indexed. Then whenever someone read a story, they could just jump over to commentssection.com and go to the page for that publication and story and there would be all the usual comments in all their anonymous glory. So, our host Steve and all other bloggers could post a link to the NYTimes story and its corresponding link at commentssection.com. So, all the libs, trolls, deplorables, cucks, and whathaveyou could duke it out there. Commentssection.com would only filter out true spam like repetitive links for getrichquick, porn, viruses, etc. but all other offensive remarks aka free speech would be left uncensored. It would not be an echo chamber. It could work. It could make ad money. Plenty of people are already addicted to commenting and it would be a true safe space aka free speech paid for with the usual ad revenue type scheme.

    Replies: @Randal, @melendwyr

    Commentssection.com would only filter out true spam like repetitive links for getrichquick, porn, viruses, etc. but all other offensive remarks aka free speech would be left uncensored.

    I’ve been giving that quite a lot of thought lately (mainly because of the loss of the two main formerly traditionalist conservative mainstream media outlets in Britain, the Telegraph and Spectator, to the metropolitan establishment “right”, and their closing down or heavy censoring of comment sections. These are the publications that, in a less thought-controlled Britain, would be publishing regular columns by Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire, for sure).

    I am pessimistic about the prospects in my country (UK), at least. First, enforcement of the “hate speech” laws that have been on the statute books for a few years now is becoming more active. They would undoubtedly be used to threaten anyone connected with such a site in this country, even if the site itself were based in the US. Real anonymity in running such a site is impossible in the face of state resources.

    Second, there would be endless harassment by the elite lobbies opposed to speech that is not controlled in the ways they want it to be controlled. The libel laws would be used, copyright laws would be used (as they were against Free Republic in the US in the past). financial industry harassment would be used to cut access to libel insurance and even to banking services (see the Wikileaks and Russia Today examples) and if all else fails there would likely be violence against the persons and offices of those involved (officially condemned by the authorities but largely in practice ignored by the police and unpunished by the courts, as was the case with attacks on many of the overtly racist political organisations (National Front, British Movement etc) in this country).

    It’s still something that really ought to be done, but it would require someone highly motivated and pretty well insulated against such countermeasures. Which means someone with no employment or business interests that they can be attacked through, including close family, and considerable financial resources.

  67. @kihowi
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Check out a photo of those "fact checkers" some time. They look like a gaggle of my ex girlfriends. Dopey, blonde, mildly overweight twenty somethings with laptops. Or, in 21st century speak: A Venerable Institution.

    Replies: @SFG

    Reporters in the old pre-consolidation days were notorious drunks. Now, of course, everyone is fat. People with non-manual-labor jobs tend to get chunky, it’s just physiology.

  68. @Randal
    Sailer (and eded) are surely correct in identifying comment sections as ideal for raising concerns with particular articles such as the Rolling Stone piece in question.

    I've always been a little sceptical about any wider political impact from "highbrow" news media comment sections, taking the view that the readerships are far too low for the kind of political impact that comments on genuine mass outlets such as Facebook, Twitter etc can have, and the latter do seem to be where most organised opinion influencing operations relying on paying people to post are aimed. My view has been that such sections are useful mainly for testing the strengths of one's own opinions against real opposition. Clearly, though, many identity lobbyists etc do regard news media comment sections as significant, or the anti-racists, anti-anti-semite witchfinders, anti-homophobes and anti-sexist censors would not put so much effort into suppressing the expression of dissident opinions on them.

    However, there are some ways that news media comment sections imo can influence the wider debate in some circumstances, and I'll give my opinion of one case based on personal experience:

    My personal main political concern is opposing the interventionism (especially military interventionism) that plagues modern US sphere foreign policy. I have opposed it since the Kosovo war, which was the Clinton and Blair regimes' first step into "humanitarian" mass murder. All the major interventionist wars and aggressive political interferences have had disastrous consequences for the US and British nations that waged them (though not for the lobbies that promoted them), from Yugoslavia through Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine, to Syria today (leaving out lots of lesser cases).

    The high point of influence for news media comment sections, imo, was in 2013 when the US and UK governments tried to make the case for doing to the Syrian government what had been done to the Libyan government. This was egregiously stupid, even by the standards of the US sphere elite foreign policy groupthink, given that it was obvious at the time that the Libyan intervention had been a disaster and that a similar but even bigger catastrophe would result if the Obama and Cameron governments had gotten their way. Nevertheless the lobbies pushing for war (Saudi, Israel, "humanitarian" interventionist, US uber alles, etc) saw another such disaster as in their interests, and knew from experience that opinion in the US sphere could be "managed" to manufacture political consent even for the stupidest of interventions. (I'm still not sure what Obama's personal position was on this - did he want to intervene but fear to do so without implicating Congress, or did he not want to and used popular opposition to provide an excuse? For sure Hillary Clinton was in favour of the idiocy of bombing Syrian government forces.)

    Online discussion forums and, later, media comment sections had been a presence for those of us arguing against wars going back to Kosovo, but they were much more widely established by 2013. From my recollection, arguing the case in them was far more effective in defeating the case for war than it ever had been previously, and it's noticeable that the establishment campaign against them stepped up after the elite failure to get their way on that war. I do believe they played a role in winning the arguments, and I believe it was not because of a mass audience (though undoubtedly when there is a particularly controversial and urgent issue such as voting for war being debated, more readers of pieces arguing the case will tend to scroll down to read the opinions of others). Rather I think it was because repeated defeats in discussion helped to demoralise the elite opinion formers who were working to manufacture consent. Those people (often the writer of the piece being commented under) certainly read the comments (it's very hard not to, when you've published an opinion), and I have no doubt whatsoever they and their editors and colleagues often engaged in the debates under (usually) anonymous identities. But the case for bombing Syria in 2013 was undoubtedly by far the weakest of any of the cases for war in the past 20 years, and their positions were repeatedly trashed. I got the definite impression they lost confidence as a result, and voices of dissent within the elites gained in confidence to oppose the proposed war. Defeating the proposed shift to open war on Syria in 2013 was imo the only major victory of the opponents to establishment interventionism in the past 20 years, and I think news media comment sections played a part in it. Since then, they have been increasingly rmoved and controlled.

    None of this can be proved, of course, but it's what I believe from my personal experience.

    Replies: @SFG

    From what I read, the polls before the putative war showed support by the public at about 15%, lower than any actual war. After Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, people were sick of war. My guess is Obama read the polls and backed off.

    Still, who knows?

    • Replies: @Randal
    @SFG

    Polling support was often very low for proposed wars, especially before the usual concerted mainstream media and political propaganda efforts to manage it upwards with scare stories about the new Hitler and the dangers of "appeasement", etc etc. On Iraq in 2003, for instance, even after the deliberate campaigns of dishonest scaremongering and media browbeating to try to justify the war, support for war over here in the situation that ultimately pertained (no proof of WMD and no UNSC resolution), immediately before the war was launched, was only 26%.

    I'm sure you are correct that polling support for going to war in Syria in 2013 was even lower, but I don't think that generally factors much into the war advocates' calculations, because they know that support can quickly be manufactured, and will anyway quickly rise once war is started due to the "support the troops" effect, and that is all that really matters in a short and "successful" war, such as the Libya war. Remember for the interventionists themselves, Libya was a success - the objective of regime change was achieved and nobody in politics or the media responsible for the attack suffered any negative consequences because it could be portrayed as a "triumph" in the short term, and the long term results don't affect anybody's career.

    Obama's political self interest calculation on Syria would have depended on whether he thought it would be an Iraq or a Libya. As you say, who knows?

  69. @anony-mouse
    Nobody here can look on the bright side.

    Absolutely. I've been reading the comments here now on the third article about the verdict and there are few high-five comments. Still lots of bitterness.

    If this type of news won't make people here purely happy what will (other than Trump's election and even then...)?

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Opinionator, @Anonymous, @NeonBets

    In other words, you’re arguing that Steve should have filtered-out your comment since it doesn’t reinforce his views.

  70. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    @jesse helms think-alike


    Do a Google search for “podesta satanic” and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story:
    claims that Hillary Clinton or John Podesta practice satanic rituals are grossly exaggerated.
     
    Yes, this is an excellent example. The story may be true or untrue, or somewhere in between, but Hillary and her sycophants have mastered a procedure for not only taking the air out of it, but also possibly turning it to their advantage.

    First, they'll say the story has been 'debunked' (heavy reliance on the fact-checkers for this), and then that the whole issue is a non-starter, old news, vicious rumors, etc. And then they'll push it to the next level and use the very existence of the story as proof of the machinations of the 'vast right wing conspiracy' -- a conspiracy whose purported existence, not coincidentally, is a story that never seems to get 'debunked'.

    Replies: @Old fogey, @Anonymous, @Forbes

    “And then they’ll push it to the next level and use the very existence of the story as proof of the machinations of the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ — a conspiracy whose purported existence, not coincidentally, is a story that never seems to get ‘debunked’.”

    Exemplary writing. Why I come here and what makes me realize that I’m a duffer.

  71. @SFG
    @Randal

    From what I read, the polls before the putative war showed support by the public at about 15%, lower than any actual war. After Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, people were sick of war. My guess is Obama read the polls and backed off.

    Still, who knows?

    Replies: @Randal

    Polling support was often very low for proposed wars, especially before the usual concerted mainstream media and political propaganda efforts to manage it upwards with scare stories about the new Hitler and the dangers of “appeasement”, etc etc. On Iraq in 2003, for instance, even after the deliberate campaigns of dishonest scaremongering and media browbeating to try to justify the war, support for war over here in the situation that ultimately pertained (no proof of WMD and no UNSC resolution), immediately before the war was launched, was only 26%.

    I’m sure you are correct that polling support for going to war in Syria in 2013 was even lower, but I don’t think that generally factors much into the war advocates’ calculations, because they know that support can quickly be manufactured, and will anyway quickly rise once war is started due to the “support the troops” effect, and that is all that really matters in a short and “successful” war, such as the Libya war. Remember for the interventionists themselves, Libya was a success – the objective of regime change was achieved and nobody in politics or the media responsible for the attack suffered any negative consequences because it could be portrayed as a “triumph” in the short term, and the long term results don’t affect anybody’s career.

    Obama’s political self interest calculation on Syria would have depended on whether he thought it would be an Iraq or a Libya. As you say, who knows?

  72. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Anonymous


    Do you have a theory about what’s happened to him, did the divorce destroy his brain because I remember him saying semi-insightful things in the past.
     
    Here ya go.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Forbes

    A quote from Brooks in the link you provided;

    “As a result, many feel lost or overwhelmed. They feel a hunger to live meaningfully, but they don’t know the right questions to ask, the right vocabulary to use, the right place to look or even if there are ultimate answers at all.”

    Do you think he realizes that he is giving voice here to the angst of the many working-class Americans whose jobs have been off shored and who have been cast adrift from their formerly secure moorings? That he is speaking for the very group he sadistically belittles?

    Of course he doesn’t. He’s not that aware. He’s only speaking of himself and others trapped in the dilemma of his class’ consciousness. What he is complaining about is that as he views his life in hindsight, he realizes that he has accomplished nothing of tangible noteworthiness.

    He never used his body incarnate to incarnate any of his mind’s Ideas.

    That’s why God put you on this planet you moron! You were meant to DO something, build something, make something of, by and for yourself! Build a better world, wrestle with the materiality of existence, grow some muscle through strife and toil! Commit yourself to a BIG PROJECT and suffer through the day to day grind until it was complete! AND IT IS A GRIND! You will be ground down by it in the process. Carl Jung called it “polishing your stone”. It is the Alchemy of the SPIRIT, achieved, ironically, through hard work by the body.

    The GREAT CATHEDRALS were built by sheer hard labor. Who do you think ground down those stones and raised them? Every flute on every column of the Parthenon was HAND GROUND in situ–which is why they are aligned perfectly between sections of the column. They didn’t have carborundum or diamond grinding and polishing compounds. Can you imagine the labor?

    That was your job Brooks. To help build the Temple. To raise and place a stone–one which you had perfectly shaped and polished–in its allocated space.

    And you have the gall to belittle and dismiss unfortunate middle-Americans from flyover country for wandering like lost sheep because their purpose and meaning have been tossed away by this nation’s new, alien Elite.

    You pimped yourself out for the leaders of Empire.

    But I tell you this. Any nation whose coastal, metropolitan, free-trade Elite derides and discards the interests of the loyal, yeoman commoners of the hinterland (devoted as they are to their own community’s interests and affairs) will rot from within and fail.

  73. “Unz Comments” 2020.

  74. @The Last Real Calvinist
    This is another trenchant observation. 'Gatekeeping', in its media aspect, has a lot to do with who's allowed to place actual content on a big site. It's no coincidence that lots of media sites are shutting comments down, and that Hillary and other lefties organize and pay commenter shock troops to try to at least jam up comment sections, if not cut off all commications from their ideological foes.

    A related note: the rise of 'fact-checkers' in the Snopes mode (most, of course, with hard-left biases) seems closely related to the MSM's Komment Kontrol Kampaign -- that is, their primary aim is to provide 'thread winner' links and thereby shout down/distract anyone trying to challenge the Narrative.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Barnard, @kihowi, @jesse helms think-alike, @Coemgen, @Jack D, @Hrw-500

    The left is learning from their totalitarian comrades in China and Russia. Totalitarians realize that a free internet is even more dangerous than a free press. If you want to give the illusion of a free comments section you leave it open but you have all sensible comments drowned out by your Fifty Cent Party

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

    In the US, you don’t even have to pay the trolls – guys like our TD do it for free. SJWs usually have some comfortable sinecure (or are living off of their parent’s wealth) so token payments are not a big motivator for them. Only at the very top of the pyramid (Hillary and her inner circle) does the money get big enough to be a strong motivator.

  75. @Anonymous
    (((David Brooks))) should be sent back to Canada. His column today was complete trash, he basically endorsed Shillary. I watch the Newshour normally and his appearance was especially agravating:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-rancor-electorate-future-supreme-court/


    DAVID BROOKS: ...

    But a lot of it is baked structurally into our society. And so we had a lot of good things over the years that were really good for America. I think globalization has been really good for America. I think the influx of immigrants has been really good for America. Feminism has been really good for America.

    But there are a lot of people who used to be up in society, because of those three good things, are now down, a lot of high school-educated white guys. And they have been displaced.

    And shame on us for not paying attention to that and helping them out. And, therefore, as a result, what happened was, they were alienated, they got super cynical, because they really were being shafted. And so they react in an angry way.

    Well, that’s not a shock, given the last 30 or 50 years of American history. And so, for us going forward, it’s to not reverse the dynamism of American society and the diversity. It’s to pay attention to the people who are being ruined by it, and so this doesn’t happen again.
     

    This is from the "conservative" at the new york times. Do you have a theory about what's happened to him, did the divorce destroy his brain because I remember him saying semi-insightful things in the past. In what sense is he not a SJW besides being an Israel firster in terms of foreign policy.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Dan Hayes, @Yak-15, @jimbojones

    I cannot be mad at that guy too much. He is making a great living pedaling nonsense. Sure it’s intellectually masochistic work and it is probably crushing his soul. But it sends the kids to college and buys him a comfortable life.

  76. @Coemgen
    @snorlax

    quote from the article:

    "And Trump is an affront to American democracy and common decency, and if this is the price to pay for keeping him out of the White House , so be it."

    In other words, the end justifies the means.

    I wish Stern would explain exactly how "Trump is an affront to American democracy." We're seeing Trump doing his best to beg for votes. Isn't that how democracy works? Is "American democracy" somehow different from plain old vanilla democracy?

    Replies: @Jack D

    By George, I think you’ve got it. “American democracy” will be a newspeak term for a new kind of democracy, different from the old kind. In “American democracy” only people who are not irredeemable will have a voice, will be allowed to comment on public forums, will be permitted to run for office, will be allowed to vote, will be allowed to play on sports teams, will even have jobs. Nazis, anti-Semites, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. need not apply – they are not American. They have forfeited that right due to their views. That’s not who we are. (Minorities, BTW, are NEVER irredeemable, no matter how bad their behavior – when you picture Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” it’s filled with white (male) faces). We have seen glimmers of this here and there (Harvard soccer team all suspended yesterday, people getting “Watsoned”) but it hasn’t quite come together. At least not yet.

    People who have shown themselves to be irredeemable will have none of the above – they will have to eke out a living at the margin of society. If they have a business, it will need to be boycotted and bankrupted. If possible, the power of the state will be brought down on them, like people who refuse to make gay wedding cakes. (Just yesterday I saw a “food review” in the Philly paper. The main food critic was telling people to stop drinking Yuengling beer because the owner backs Trump. This in the guise of a review of another brand, which is “much tastier” (i.e. the owner has the right political views). This will be considered to be their own fault – their irredeemableness means that they no longer deserve the protections and benefits of our diverse society. By definition, someone who is irredeemable can not be reformed – he (it’s usually a he) is like a hardened criminal – all you can do is segregate him away from society.

    If the left is unable to implement this fully, it will not be for lack of effort. In their heart of hearts, this is exactly what they would like to do TODAY if it was within their power (and sometimes it is, but for now only in fairly isolated cases). Anyway, you don’t have to destroy EVERY irredeemable. You destroy a few and most sensible people will get the message. Maybe in their heart they are still irredeemable, but they will know better than to let any glimmer of this out in public. Gun control forms an important part of the scheme – irredeemables haven’t (despite leftist delusions) shown themselves to be actually violent, but on some level the left understands that once they try to corner people they will lash back at some point and they would like to preempt the backlash.

    Notice that Hillary said that only HALF of Trump supporters were irredeemable. If society is divided 50/50 this is a perilous position (this is why unfettered immigration is so important, in order to keep tipping the system in the right direction). What you want to do is have an “acceptable” right that will be allowed to stay within the system, so long as they stick to the rules. Of course, this means that 2/3’s of voters are Democrats and 1/3 are “acceptable” Republicans, so naturally Democrats win most or all contests, but you keep the Republicans around as a token opposition (the Washington Generals role) so that you can maintain the form of democracy . Acceptable Republicans will still be able to work and will get some token voice – say 3 seats on the Supreme Court, so they can write nice dissents but will never be in the majority. “American democracy” will, on paper, look just like the old kind – there will still be a Congress and a Supreme Court, etc. , it’s just that they won’t mean squat.

    Basically the same system that has existed in most American big cities since the New Deal era, and on most college faculties, except now it will be in every city and workplace. It will be an imperceptible transition – there will be no black helicopters. When American big cities and campuses fell under this system, it was gradual and imperceptible. There was no day when the Maximum Leader stood on the steps of City Hall and said that from now on, no Republican would ever be elected again or get a job on the faculty. That’s not how it’s going to work.

    • Agree: snorlax
    • Replies: @Cwhatfuture
    @Jack D

    Agree but we are far down this road already. Already only liberals and SJWs can speak at work. Already the State of California is a one party state, where two democrats run for Senate. Already any physician speaking out the wrong way can be destroyed with a federal government Medicare audit. Already the IRS is fully a fully politicized Left wing instrument of destruction. If the Left ever gets total power, there will be show trials here and the Gulag.

    , @Forbes
    @Jack D

    Jack D, you've pretty much hit it out of the park. The left is adopting--and turning into--that which they rebelled against: the conformity of the 1950s, and the social ostracism that enforced it.

    The irony is telling. The left was shameless in overturning every social convention, tradition, and/or institution thought to be inhibiting. Meanwhile, they plan to use shame and opprobrium to enforce conformity to their politics, masked in their social conventions--AKA political correctness.

  77. @jesse helms think-alike
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Speaking of Snopes and assorted fact checkers:

    Yesterday's Wikileaks release implying Podesta is involved with satanic rituals has already been fact checked :

    Do a Google search for "podesta satanic" and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story:
    claims that Hillary Clinton or John Podesta practice satanic rituals are grossly exaggerated.

    http://www.snopes.com/john-podesta-spirit-cooking

    WAPO has it's own story with the alarming title:
    No, John Podesta didn’t drink bodily fluids at a secret Satanist dinner

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/04/no-john-podesta-didnt-drink-bodily-fluids-at-a-secret-satanist-dinner/

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Mr. Anon

    “Yesterday’s Wikileaks release implying Podesta is involved with satanic rituals has already been fact checked :”

    The term “fact checked” is itself patently ridiculous. When liberals say “That’s been fact checked.”, do they realize how spergy and idiotic they sound? Oh, it’s been “fact checked” – the cat-ladies at Snopes have dismissed it. Well, that certainly settles that. They are, afterall, universally recognized arbiters of all knowledge.

  78. @Dan Hayes
    @Anonymous

    Any good thoughts about Frum are wasted ones. His transgressions go back a long, long way. The first one I encountered some years back was his vile hit piece on Pat Buchanan in the American Spectator. (I then let my Spectator subscription lapse.) Frum's even more despicable act was his self-ordained proclamation/judgement in the National Review that a bunch of principled conservatives were unpatriotic Americans, worthy of only ridicule and contempt. (I then let my NR subscription lapse.)

    I suppose that I should be grateful to Frum for causing me to cut my ties to the Spectator and NR with their being replaced by more worthy venues (Chronicles, Unz Review, etc).

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I think you’re confusing David Frum with David Brooks. Brooks wants to invade the world and invite the world, Frum just wants to invade the world.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    @Anonymous

    Anonymous,

    I respectfully disagree with you. My comments were directed to Frum alone and I stand by them. Frum and Brooks are despicable each in their own ways which sometimes overlap.

    , @Opinionator
    @Anonymous

    Brooks wants to invade the world and invite the world, Frum just wants to invade the world.

    Frum says he doesn't want to invite the world, but when the opportunity finally presents itself to limit immigration, what does he do?

    Replies: @snorlax

  79. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The comments section of most mass media public forums are a swamp of mediocrity, nastiness and bottomless stupidity. To read much of it is just too painful an experience. It just brings home the fact of the animal-level intelligence of the average American. That’s why I park myself at the Unz website. Apart from the few trolls and cranks who ride their favorite hobbyhorse all the time, commenters one can ignore, the level of commenting is much better here and often add quite a bit to the articles themselves.

  80. @SF
    Keep an eye on the voter suppression lawsuit in Siskiyou County, CA. A sheriff's deputy is accused of making threats against Hmong pot farmers, some of whom don't speak English, if they tried to vote. The Hmong were already ticked off at the sheriff for raiding their farms. This has the same basic narrative--white males bad (especially cops) and minorities good. I haven't heard anyone in print or online defending the cops.

    Replies: @stillCARealist

    Hmong pot-farmers.

    Ah, diversity. Where would we be without you?

  81. Bill Maher with hitler hysteria. He calls Trump a fascist and says he won’t leave office.

  82. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    That’s why few of them are so imprudent as to keep allowing free commentary.

    Depending on staff size and resources, they either censor hard comment-by-comment or disable comments at all for carefully selected items.

    See for example the magazine for th enlightened, cultured, deep-thinking gamer, Polygon.
    They try to keep up the pretense of free commentary.
    Then you find an item written by a dark-skinned female scolopendrid, a pile of malicious falsehoods along the lines of “GamerGate [a right-leaning gamer movement] is a bunch of fascists who want to rid the videogame scene from the little weak defenceless buds of progressivism in it via heavy censorship — that is what the unhinged cultural-Marxist ultra-tanned/tri-sexual femaloids are trying to do in the game scene, of course projection rules like ever] and, surprise, comments were disabled from the start.

    Really free commentary is getting ever rarer by the day.
    They, or their hindbrain at least, know open debate is lethal for their bendy interests (the manoeuvrers) as well as their petty cherished ego-reassuring petty lies (the manoeuvred).

  83. Reporters in the old pre-consolidation days were notorious drunks. Now, of course, everyone is fat. People with non-manual-labor jobs tend to get chunky, it’s just physiology.

    Tom Wolfe’s Idle Belly springs to mind.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    @Anonymous

    Wolfe also wrote about journalists in The Bonfire of the Vanities. His characters seemed to have some basis in people he must have met or read about, to reader delight.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

  84. Mainstream comment sections like Comment Is Free don’t like reader commentary on certain topics like rape, because discussions get out of control, and they may be liable for commenters who out and kill themselves after being told by other commenters that they are lying or exaggerating.

    For example, fairly recently there was a case in England when the main prosecution witness in the trial of a retired music teacher for rape and sexual abuse committed suicide shortly after being cross examined in court. Although she did not have the anonymity of a commenter, there is a kind of parallel.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    @Jonathan Mason

    In CiF-land the most hot-button pieces (where the mods have itchy delete fingers) are those written on gender, sexuality, race and one particular religion. Where these intersect (e.g. the Cologne sex attacks), the mildest factual counter-narrative observation can be zapped.

    Despite the frequent boosting of strong independent women, the default assumption of the CiF moderators is that women are fragile and easily-bruised creatures, in need of protection from men. It's positively Victorian.

  85. @Wilkey
    @Barnard

    A lot of newspapers won’t allow comments on certain stories or have gone to Facebook comments, which obviously discourages anonymity.

    And of course the problem with Facebook comments isn't just the lack of anonymity. It's the fact that the average Facebook user who comments on major articles has an IQ of around 90.

    Replies: @res

    Not to mention their seeming inability to police spam. Facebook comments are the most spam filled I have seen. Despite an apparent ability to police viewpoints that disagree. Funny how that works.

    • Agree: Barnard
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @res

    Filling the comment threads up with brain-dead posts and/or spam seems more like the goal of some traditional newspapers. It gives them the aura of allowing feedback while making certain it's so petty and voluminous as to make it seem not worth an intelligent reader's time. It ensures that any decent rebuttals will get buried by an avalanche of detritus.

  86. Speaking of comments sections, I think the media is getting a well deserved comments section right in its face in the Trump rallies.

    The horrific abuse to which they are subjected can be seen in this NY Times video:

    http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004726496/in-the-media-pen-at-a-trump-rally.html

    Oh, the humanity.

    I especially love the guy who turns to them after Trump has called them the most dishonest people in the world, and says, “Take a bow!”

    Working class wit can be a fun thing.

  87. @Coemgen
    @ben tillman

    For posterity.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @res, @Lurker, @candid_observer

    Thanks for that. It’s too time consuming to fact check every baseless self aggrandizing statement myself. Any suggestions for how you tracked down the comment? I have had trouble searching the Unz archives. Unable to use Google effectively because the comment previews on the lower right mess up searches and I tend to get too many extraneous responses for all but the most specific searches.

    And for ben tillman–have you no shame?

    P.S. I second the other comment about Jonah’s comment history. Would be good to see more from him.

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @res

    Steps:

    1. I googled the date of the first reporting of questions about the veracity of the Rolling Stone rape at UVA piece: November 2014.

    2. I then used the unz.com user comments lookup by year (and month) to find Ben Tillman's November 2014 posting.

    Replies: @res

  88. @Coemgen
    @ben tillman

    For posterity.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @res, @Lurker, @candid_observer

    For great justice!

  89. @Coemgen
    As I read further into Sten's piece, I become more and more possessed with the notion that we should have "sneer" tags in HTML, akin to italics tags, that can be used to mark text where elites are communicating to, or about, deplorables.

    Question: Is "deplorable" a noun?

    Replies: @res

    Question: Is “deplorable” a noun?

    In the dictionary, no: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deplorable
    deplorableness is the noun form there (with a different meaning than “deplorable” used as a noun).

    In common usage I think it is from now on. I wonder how long it will take for a dictionary to agree.

    Here’s a more detailed take from Merriam-Webster a couple of months ago: http://www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch/clinton-says-half-of-trump-supporters-are-in-a-basket-of-deplorables-20160910
    They note a small number of earlier noun usages.

  90. @Dwright
    How often do you read an essay or news report where the majority of commenters go against the opinion or tone of it.
    Way too often, is this the not so silent majority, or are liberals silent in their ascent?

    Replies: @Lurker

    I can only think the silent majority, if it exists, must be people who never read comments, or dont even use the internet at all.

    Ive mentioned the YouTube disparity where Trump has routed Clinton in terms of videos, views, likes, comments.

  91. @Coemgen
    @ben tillman

    For posterity.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @res, @Lurker, @candid_observer

    Looking back to Jonah’s original skeptical comment on the supposed rape, I recovered a comment I made at the NY Times, expressing my serious doubts about it (coincidentally, on the same day — my handle there is frankly0):

    http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/does-the-university-of-virginia-have-a-culture-of-silence-around-sexual-assault/?comments#permid=13423560

    Of course, my comment didn’t get a NY Times pick, but one of its rebuttals did.

    Now what struck me about my own reaction to it is how swiftly I was able to find gaping implausibilities in the story after a more skeptical attitude kicked in. And how did I come by that more skeptical attitude? I had read basically just the headlines of the story at first, without delving into the details. I mostly just accepted the content of those headlines at face value — one doesn’t ordinarily reject a story from a fairly reputable magazine out of hand — one presumes some due diligence has been done.

    But then I had a conversation with my son, who had read more of the article. I don’t remember the details of what he said, but he expressed some real skepticism about it. Spurred by his doubts, I went back to read more of what was described in the article. I became increasingly convinced that it was a hoax.

    But if I had not gotten to a point at which I started to doubt the story, and thought it was important to see if it had any holes in it, I might have been on board with it fairly indefinitely — or at least until others pointed out the holes.

    This is one of the reasons I brought up the issue of confirmation bias in an earlier comment. It is a very real and consequential phenomenon. Even looking at one’s own case, one sees any number of instances in which it plays a part.

    Perhaps the lesson here is that, if Truth is one’s goal, the Devil always needs an advocate. And the Devil’s Advocate may usually be found in the comment sections.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    @candid_observer

    One thing we have to be careful about, once we see that we are sometimes right in our skepticism, is to be reflexively skeptical.

    I remember seeing a link on the article when it was first went up the week before Thanksgiving but I didn't think it was worth pursuing, just more sexual politics on campus, either true or not true. It was only after the Thanksgiving weekend that someone alerted me to there being a controversy about the article, so I read it, and it only took a few paras to realize that this is highly unlikely. (In addition to the details being off, the entire atmosphere seemed terribly overwritten.)

    But my reaction at that point was, not that it is definitely true, or definitely false, but, where's the evidence? Names, reactions, police investigations, etc. I certainly wouldn't believe, or accept the implications of believing, this account just on its face.

    The problem with the SJW approach to these kinds of stories is that they are true, period. No corroboration is required. What caused my skepticism to grow was not the absence of evidence as such, but rather the reaction of those who believed the story when you asked them for some evidence: essentially a lot of "How dare you!" imprecations and name calling. Of course, to anyone but a true believer the entire story collapsed within a week.

    However, there are still a lot of true believers out there.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    , @res
    @candid_observer

    Seems to me it would be appropriate to go back and post an "I told you so" to the commenters who questioned you and call out the NYT for their pick choice.

    And this is worth echoing. Well put.


    Perhaps the lesson here is that, if Truth is one’s goal, the Devil always needs an advocate. And the Devil’s Advocate may usually be found in the comment sections.
     
  92. “Gun control forms an important part of the scheme – […]the left understands that once they try to corner people they will lash back at some point and they would like to preempt the backlash.”

    The NYT tacitly acknowledges this in their op-ed piece of on Nov. 1 concerning the jury nullification of the Federales gun possession laws:

    Bundy Verdict Puts a Target on the Backs of Federal Workers

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/opinion/bundy-verdict-puts-a-target-on-the-backs-of-federal-workers.html?_r=1

    This is why it is important that everyone use Jury Nullification against the Gun Controllers when you get on their juries. Remember, YOU are the monkey wrench in the cosmopolitan’s gun control conviction machines. Spread the word.

  93. @Randal
    @22pp22

    Yes, the Telegraph and the Spectator - the two classic traditionalist conservative media operations that you would have expected to be the British mainstream outlets for precisely those traditionalist conservative, nativist views that are most actively suppressed as politically incorrect or as "hate speech" in our societies. Both seem to have been subjected to vicious and sustained campaigns to browbeat and blackmail them into suppressing the views of such dissidents in their comment sections - "racism", "anti-Semitism", "homophobia" and "sexism" - that particular identity and other interested lobbies are most actively trying to censor and make impossible and even illegal to be expressed.

    I've linked before to one of the "antisemite witchfinders" there explaining how back door pressure was used to "encourage" such publications to toe the line. Here's one of their regular leftist commenters recently expressing concern that they weren't censoring my views on race and crime sufficiently effectively:

    "Just in case anyone from The Spectator's editorial board is looking below the line at this time in the evening; please, close these threads. Look at the comments you've got. Look at the type of person, like Randal, who posts here.

    Get rid of these threads. Please."

    The Telegraph no longer exists as far as I'm concerned. I'm banned from Spectator blogs (apparently the aforementioned witch-hunter had a personal contact in the senior management there who shared his discomfort at my opinions being allowed to be expressed and "assured him" directly that I would henceforth be "persona non grata" there), so I don't bother reading those much these days. The main Spectator site has not, for some reason, actually banned me yet, but they have taken to pre-emptively not allowing comments on most of the pieces that might attract comments that will get them nagged.

    I take the view generally that I'm not interested in reading the opinions of sites that aren't interested in turn in their reader's opinions.

    (I know you and I have discussed this before, but it's another opportunity to raise the issues in question.)

    Replies: @Lurker, @Forbes

    We ruled the DT comment threads! Though I noticed a certain cuck tendency hiding in the sport threads.

    And now they’re gone. And I’ve only read about three DT articles since then.

    I too am banned from Spectator blogs, though not from the main Spectator site. As you say, there are few articles to comment on there, most of the action is on the blogs.

    I do remember some nasty piece of work threatening to get me banned and in due course I was, I can’t remember the name. He was unloved and unpopular with other commenters but received a suspiciously high number of votes from people who never commented.

  94. @Lot
    I am wondering what it would be like to be SJW leftist. I simply cannot imagine it. The belief in racial intelligence and behavior being either the same or 100% the result of environment against all evidence from personal experience and all evidence from statistics.

    And the few times you manage to find something in the news that seems to support your world view, so often the narrative collapses.

    I suppose the SJW can't imagine what it would be like to have crimethought views that could get you fired or shunned.

    I guess the right-wing equivalent might be young-earth creationism. Even then, you don't have contrary evidence shoved into your face every time you read the news or go into a "vibrant" part of town.

    Replies: @snorlax, @theo the kraut, @Lurker

    I guess the right-wing equivalent might be young-earth creationism. Even then, you don’t have contrary evidence shoved into your face every time you read the news or go into a “vibrant” part of town.

    I remember it being pointed out (maybe on iSteve) that a belief in young-earth creationism hardly matters anyway. It doesn’t have direct implications for almost anything in day to day life. But a true belief in flat earth racial egalitarianism has fundamental implications for public policy, business, daily life.

  95. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Old fogey


    I love the use of the term “grossly exaggerated.” That means that the basis of the story is indeed true – but the story is told with too much enthusiasm.

     

    Yes. But just watch: in subsequent reports, 'grossly exaggerated' simply becomes 'debunked'. I'm coming to despise that word.

    Replies: @Old fogey

    Ah, yes. “Debunked” has come to mean that while the point is well taken not everyone on the Left agrees with it.

  96. @candid_observer
    @Coemgen

    Looking back to Jonah's original skeptical comment on the supposed rape, I recovered a comment I made at the NY Times, expressing my serious doubts about it (coincidentally, on the same day -- my handle there is frankly0):

    http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/does-the-university-of-virginia-have-a-culture-of-silence-around-sexual-assault/?comments#permid=13423560

    Of course, my comment didn't get a NY Times pick, but one of its rebuttals did.

    Now what struck me about my own reaction to it is how swiftly I was able to find gaping implausibilities in the story after a more skeptical attitude kicked in. And how did I come by that more skeptical attitude? I had read basically just the headlines of the story at first, without delving into the details. I mostly just accepted the content of those headlines at face value -- one doesn't ordinarily reject a story from a fairly reputable magazine out of hand -- one presumes some due diligence has been done.

    But then I had a conversation with my son, who had read more of the article. I don't remember the details of what he said, but he expressed some real skepticism about it. Spurred by his doubts, I went back to read more of what was described in the article. I became increasingly convinced that it was a hoax.

    But if I had not gotten to a point at which I started to doubt the story, and thought it was important to see if it had any holes in it, I might have been on board with it fairly indefinitely -- or at least until others pointed out the holes.

    This is one of the reasons I brought up the issue of confirmation bias in an earlier comment. It is a very real and consequential phenomenon. Even looking at one's own case, one sees any number of instances in which it plays a part.

    Perhaps the lesson here is that, if Truth is one's goal, the Devil always needs an advocate. And the Devil's Advocate may usually be found in the comment sections.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @res

    One thing we have to be careful about, once we see that we are sometimes right in our skepticism, is to be reflexively skeptical.

    I remember seeing a link on the article when it was first went up the week before Thanksgiving but I didn’t think it was worth pursuing, just more sexual politics on campus, either true or not true. It was only after the Thanksgiving weekend that someone alerted me to there being a controversy about the article, so I read it, and it only took a few paras to realize that this is highly unlikely. (In addition to the details being off, the entire atmosphere seemed terribly overwritten.)

    But my reaction at that point was, not that it is definitely true, or definitely false, but, where’s the evidence? Names, reactions, police investigations, etc. I certainly wouldn’t believe, or accept the implications of believing, this account just on its face.

    The problem with the SJW approach to these kinds of stories is that they are true, period. No corroboration is required. What caused my skepticism to grow was not the absence of evidence as such, but rather the reaction of those who believed the story when you asked them for some evidence: essentially a lot of “How dare you!” imprecations and name calling. Of course, to anyone but a true believer the entire story collapsed within a week.

    However, there are still a lot of true believers out there.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @SPMoore8


    It was only after the Thanksgiving weekend that someone alerted me to there being a controversy about the article, so I read it, and it only took a few paras to realize that this is highly unlikely.

     

    This is The Narrative's trump [sorry] card: even for intelligent, well-informed readers, it takes substantial mental effort to load up and run, over and over, the 'Reading With Reasonable Skepticism' software.

    For most people this ongoing filtering-and-discernment project is either way too much effort, or beyond their breadth of knowledge or processing power.

    The SJW's thoughtless, reactionary acceptance of all Narrative data points saves a lot of mental energy, which can then be spent on holding their complex, ever-mutating web of mutually-contradictory beliefs.
  97. Bradley was an obscure journalist writing a blog to fill his time between jobs.

    Wrong, he was then (still is?) editor-in-chief of Worth magazine, had three books to his credit, and was a known quantity in journalism. At the time the Rolling Stone story appeared, his blog had a steady clientele of commenters who appeared to be mostly journalists themselves.

  98. As Chateau Heartsite mentionned, Rolling Stone will go the way of Gawker.

  99. @The Last Real Calvinist
    This is another trenchant observation. 'Gatekeeping', in its media aspect, has a lot to do with who's allowed to place actual content on a big site. It's no coincidence that lots of media sites are shutting comments down, and that Hillary and other lefties organize and pay commenter shock troops to try to at least jam up comment sections, if not cut off all commications from their ideological foes.

    A related note: the rise of 'fact-checkers' in the Snopes mode (most, of course, with hard-left biases) seems closely related to the MSM's Komment Kontrol Kampaign -- that is, their primary aim is to provide 'thread winner' links and thereby shout down/distract anyone trying to challenge the Narrative.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @Barnard, @kihowi, @jesse helms think-alike, @Coemgen, @Jack D, @Hrw-500

    Snopes is playing with fire. Once the cat is officialy out of the bag, Snopes’ credibility will be hit hard like Rolling Stone magazine with that hoax story.

  100. @Anonymous
    @Dan Hayes

    I think you're confusing David Frum with David Brooks. Brooks wants to invade the world and invite the world, Frum just wants to invade the world.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes, @Opinionator

    Anonymous,

    I respectfully disagree with you. My comments were directed to Frum alone and I stand by them. Frum and Brooks are despicable each in their own ways which sometimes overlap.

  101. @Joe Schmoe
    @Random Dude on the Internet

    There really is no way to shut down comments. What if I launched a site called commentssection.com. It would link to all the usual big media stories neatly indexed. Then whenever someone read a story, they could just jump over to commentssection.com and go to the page for that publication and story and there would be all the usual comments in all their anonymous glory. So, our host Steve and all other bloggers could post a link to the NYTimes story and its corresponding link at commentssection.com. So, all the libs, trolls, deplorables, cucks, and whathaveyou could duke it out there. Commentssection.com would only filter out true spam like repetitive links for getrichquick, porn, viruses, etc. but all other offensive remarks aka free speech would be left uncensored. It would not be an echo chamber. It could work. It could make ad money. Plenty of people are already addicted to commenting and it would be a true safe space aka free speech paid for with the usual ad revenue type scheme.

    Replies: @Randal, @melendwyr

    I think you’ve missed the point. The point of eliminating comment sections isn’t to prevent the comments from existing. It’s to prevent the easily-manipulated from seeing and hearing any message other than the ones the sites want them to see. Most people are not going to go look at a comments site, because those sites are going to have a terrible reputation, because it’s absolutely vital for the propagandists to craft a bad reputation for them.

    It’s like radio – they realized that people become accustomed to songs they hear repeated over and over again, whether they truly like them or not. Radio stations are concerned with ad space, radio itself exists to sell a product.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @melendwyr

    Media being a venue for advertising, with programing (written, audio, video) to break up the monotony of the products promoted. Soap opera my be cliché, but like comedy it reveals a truth.

  102. @candid_observer
    @Coemgen

    Looking back to Jonah's original skeptical comment on the supposed rape, I recovered a comment I made at the NY Times, expressing my serious doubts about it (coincidentally, on the same day -- my handle there is frankly0):

    http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/does-the-university-of-virginia-have-a-culture-of-silence-around-sexual-assault/?comments#permid=13423560

    Of course, my comment didn't get a NY Times pick, but one of its rebuttals did.

    Now what struck me about my own reaction to it is how swiftly I was able to find gaping implausibilities in the story after a more skeptical attitude kicked in. And how did I come by that more skeptical attitude? I had read basically just the headlines of the story at first, without delving into the details. I mostly just accepted the content of those headlines at face value -- one doesn't ordinarily reject a story from a fairly reputable magazine out of hand -- one presumes some due diligence has been done.

    But then I had a conversation with my son, who had read more of the article. I don't remember the details of what he said, but he expressed some real skepticism about it. Spurred by his doubts, I went back to read more of what was described in the article. I became increasingly convinced that it was a hoax.

    But if I had not gotten to a point at which I started to doubt the story, and thought it was important to see if it had any holes in it, I might have been on board with it fairly indefinitely -- or at least until others pointed out the holes.

    This is one of the reasons I brought up the issue of confirmation bias in an earlier comment. It is a very real and consequential phenomenon. Even looking at one's own case, one sees any number of instances in which it plays a part.

    Perhaps the lesson here is that, if Truth is one's goal, the Devil always needs an advocate. And the Devil's Advocate may usually be found in the comment sections.

    Replies: @SPMoore8, @res

    Seems to me it would be appropriate to go back and post an “I told you so” to the commenters who questioned you and call out the NYT for their pick choice.

    And this is worth echoing. Well put.

    Perhaps the lesson here is that, if Truth is one’s goal, the Devil always needs an advocate. And the Devil’s Advocate may usually be found in the comment sections.

  103. @Coemgen
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    With media sites shutting down commenting there's a business opportunity for other sites to link to news and allow commenting. Look at Drudge. He's made a fortune just linking to news. He could expand his business by offering a site where news can be commented on by readers.

    People want to have their say and we want to be able to "hear" the (honest and diverse) opinions of others.

    Oh, and some verbal analogies can be used to screen potential commenters ...

    Replies: @International Jew

    With media sites shutting down commenting there’s a business opportunity for other sites to link to news and allow commenting.

    I’ve thought about that too. A site like that wouldn’t work if users had to actively navigate to it and, once there, find the particular MSM piece they want to comment on. Too inconvenient.

    Instead, what’s needed is a browser plug-in that places an icon right up on your tool bar. You click the icon and you’re sent to a discussion (if one exists) of the article you were reading.

    Of course people would need to install that plug-in. But only once.

  104. How come there’s no comments at vdare.com?

  105. Once the laws are in place prohibiting anonymity, there will be no need for laws to fine people for what they say – the SJWs are quite capable of destroying most people’s careers and stripping them of their livelihoods. I’m sure that if my employer knew that I’m a rock-ribbed Republican racist reactionary, I’d find myself out of work in a heartbeat.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  106. @MLK
    The most enduring effect of the Internet is that nobody is fooling anybody anymore.

    Per the law of unintended consequences, media consolidation and ever more comprehensive and glaring Groupthink has drained the mainstream, especially prestige print, media of its most precious commodity, credibility.

    Replies: @Forbes

    The legacy media bought the clickbait revenue model–that viewer eyeballs were the only way to measure market share/penetration, hence advertiser rates and revenues. Therefore, all media became entertainment, and slaves to Nielsen ratings (or equivalent). And credibility became just another commodity available for sale. Though compared to other products–controversy, comedy, crockumentary, crime, courtroom, corruption–its market value seems to have declined. It’s unclear whether the product has been diluted, or the actors (newsreader talking heads, field agent reporters) aren’t believable, while the stories are lame.

    Like the old studio system in Hollywood, the producers have lost control of the product.

  107. @Anonymous

    Reporters in the old pre-consolidation days were notorious drunks. Now, of course, everyone is fat. People with non-manual-labor jobs tend to get chunky, it’s just physiology.
     
    Tom Wolfe's Idle Belly springs to mind.

    Replies: @Ivy

    Wolfe also wrote about journalists in The Bonfire of the Vanities. His characters seemed to have some basis in people he must have met or read about, to reader delight.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    @Ivy

    Ivy:

    Wolfe's journalist model may (or may not) have been Christopher Hitchens. But whoever it was, Wolfe displayed a very strong antipathy against British journalists. On the other hand, Wolfe spent at least one whole chapter praising Irish Americans ("Tawkin Irish").

  108. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @jesse helms think-alike


    Do a Google search for “podesta satanic” and the second item is a Snopes piece debunking the story:
    claims that Hillary Clinton or John Podesta practice satanic rituals are grossly exaggerated.
     
    Yes, this is an excellent example. The story may be true or untrue, or somewhere in between, but Hillary and her sycophants have mastered a procedure for not only taking the air out of it, but also possibly turning it to their advantage.

    First, they'll say the story has been 'debunked' (heavy reliance on the fact-checkers for this), and then that the whole issue is a non-starter, old news, vicious rumors, etc. And then they'll push it to the next level and use the very existence of the story as proof of the machinations of the 'vast right wing conspiracy' -- a conspiracy whose purported existence, not coincidentally, is a story that never seems to get 'debunked'.

    Replies: @Old fogey, @Anonymous, @Forbes

    The left has the habit of working the cause–>effect relationship in both directions, or finding opposites that arrive at the same outcome, e.g. Bush was dumb as a box of rocks, while simultaneously outsmarting everyone with lies. The ends justify the means.

  109. @Jack D
    @Coemgen

    By George, I think you've got it. "American democracy" will be a newspeak term for a new kind of democracy, different from the old kind. In "American democracy" only people who are not irredeemable will have a voice, will be allowed to comment on public forums, will be permitted to run for office, will be allowed to vote, will be allowed to play on sports teams, will even have jobs. Nazis, anti-Semites, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. need not apply - they are not American. They have forfeited that right due to their views. That's not who we are. (Minorities, BTW, are NEVER irredeemable, no matter how bad their behavior - when you picture Hillary's "basket of deplorables" it's filled with white (male) faces). We have seen glimmers of this here and there (Harvard soccer team all suspended yesterday, people getting "Watsoned") but it hasn't quite come together. At least not yet.

    People who have shown themselves to be irredeemable will have none of the above - they will have to eke out a living at the margin of society. If they have a business, it will need to be boycotted and bankrupted. If possible, the power of the state will be brought down on them, like people who refuse to make gay wedding cakes. (Just yesterday I saw a "food review" in the Philly paper. The main food critic was telling people to stop drinking Yuengling beer because the owner backs Trump. This in the guise of a review of another brand, which is "much tastier" (i.e. the owner has the right political views). This will be considered to be their own fault - their irredeemableness means that they no longer deserve the protections and benefits of our diverse society. By definition, someone who is irredeemable can not be reformed - he (it's usually a he) is like a hardened criminal - all you can do is segregate him away from society.

    If the left is unable to implement this fully, it will not be for lack of effort. In their heart of hearts, this is exactly what they would like to do TODAY if it was within their power (and sometimes it is, but for now only in fairly isolated cases). Anyway, you don't have to destroy EVERY irredeemable. You destroy a few and most sensible people will get the message. Maybe in their heart they are still irredeemable, but they will know better than to let any glimmer of this out in public. Gun control forms an important part of the scheme - irredeemables haven't (despite leftist delusions) shown themselves to be actually violent, but on some level the left understands that once they try to corner people they will lash back at some point and they would like to preempt the backlash.

    Notice that Hillary said that only HALF of Trump supporters were irredeemable. If society is divided 50/50 this is a perilous position (this is why unfettered immigration is so important, in order to keep tipping the system in the right direction). What you want to do is have an "acceptable" right that will be allowed to stay within the system, so long as they stick to the rules. Of course, this means that 2/3's of voters are Democrats and 1/3 are "acceptable" Republicans, so naturally Democrats win most or all contests, but you keep the Republicans around as a token opposition (the Washington Generals role) so that you can maintain the form of democracy . Acceptable Republicans will still be able to work and will get some token voice - say 3 seats on the Supreme Court, so they can write nice dissents but will never be in the majority. "American democracy" will, on paper, look just like the old kind - there will still be a Congress and a Supreme Court, etc. , it's just that they won't mean squat.

    Basically the same system that has existed in most American big cities since the New Deal era, and on most college faculties, except now it will be in every city and workplace. It will be an imperceptible transition - there will be no black helicopters. When American big cities and campuses fell under this system, it was gradual and imperceptible. There was no day when the Maximum Leader stood on the steps of City Hall and said that from now on, no Republican would ever be elected again or get a job on the faculty. That's not how it's going to work.

    Replies: @Cwhatfuture, @Forbes

    Agree but we are far down this road already. Already only liberals and SJWs can speak at work. Already the State of California is a one party state, where two democrats run for Senate. Already any physician speaking out the wrong way can be destroyed with a federal government Medicare audit. Already the IRS is fully a fully politicized Left wing instrument of destruction. If the Left ever gets total power, there will be show trials here and the Gulag.

  110. @snorlax
    Former NPR boss writes in Vanity Fair about the extreme bias of the media this election — worth a read, even despite (because of?) all the backpedaling/rationalizing: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/the-right-wing-media-isnt-crazy

    Replies: @Coemgen, @Forbes

    I thought the article was the usual leftwing nonsense, except for the admission that the right isn’t completely bonkers–which reads like boilerplate concession clickbait to get Sailer-like readers to click-through.

  111. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Anonymous


    Do you have a theory about what’s happened to him, did the divorce destroy his brain because I remember him saying semi-insightful things in the past.
     
    Here ya go.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Forbes

    That deadspin column would be hilarious, if what it said about Brooks (short story version: Brooks is pathetic) wasn’t so sad.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Forbes

    It’s worth clicking on just for the brilliant ‘shopped picture of ‘haggard’ Brooks.

    Bonus: There’s a link to a video by Steve’s favorite ’80s band.

    Replies: @Forbes

  112. @Randal
    @22pp22

    Yes, the Telegraph and the Spectator - the two classic traditionalist conservative media operations that you would have expected to be the British mainstream outlets for precisely those traditionalist conservative, nativist views that are most actively suppressed as politically incorrect or as "hate speech" in our societies. Both seem to have been subjected to vicious and sustained campaigns to browbeat and blackmail them into suppressing the views of such dissidents in their comment sections - "racism", "anti-Semitism", "homophobia" and "sexism" - that particular identity and other interested lobbies are most actively trying to censor and make impossible and even illegal to be expressed.

    I've linked before to one of the "antisemite witchfinders" there explaining how back door pressure was used to "encourage" such publications to toe the line. Here's one of their regular leftist commenters recently expressing concern that they weren't censoring my views on race and crime sufficiently effectively:

    "Just in case anyone from The Spectator's editorial board is looking below the line at this time in the evening; please, close these threads. Look at the comments you've got. Look at the type of person, like Randal, who posts here.

    Get rid of these threads. Please."

    The Telegraph no longer exists as far as I'm concerned. I'm banned from Spectator blogs (apparently the aforementioned witch-hunter had a personal contact in the senior management there who shared his discomfort at my opinions being allowed to be expressed and "assured him" directly that I would henceforth be "persona non grata" there), so I don't bother reading those much these days. The main Spectator site has not, for some reason, actually banned me yet, but they have taken to pre-emptively not allowing comments on most of the pieces that might attract comments that will get them nagged.

    I take the view generally that I'm not interested in reading the opinions of sites that aren't interested in turn in their reader's opinions.

    (I know you and I have discussed this before, but it's another opportunity to raise the issues in question.)

    Replies: @Lurker, @Forbes

    Need I guess that DT and the Spectator were on board to stay–vote against Brexit?

  113. @res
    @Coemgen

    Thanks for that. It's too time consuming to fact check every baseless self aggrandizing statement myself. Any suggestions for how you tracked down the comment? I have had trouble searching the Unz archives. Unable to use Google effectively because the comment previews on the lower right mess up searches and I tend to get too many extraneous responses for all but the most specific searches.

    And for ben tillman--have you no shame?

    P.S. I second the other comment about Jonah's comment history. Would be good to see more from him.

    Replies: @Coemgen

    Steps:

    1. I googled the date of the first reporting of questions about the veracity of the Rolling Stone rape at UVA piece: November 2014.

    2. I then used the unz.com user comments lookup by year (and month) to find Ben Tillman’s November 2014 posting.

    • Replies: @res
    @Coemgen

    Thanks!

  114. @Jack D
    @Coemgen

    By George, I think you've got it. "American democracy" will be a newspeak term for a new kind of democracy, different from the old kind. In "American democracy" only people who are not irredeemable will have a voice, will be allowed to comment on public forums, will be permitted to run for office, will be allowed to vote, will be allowed to play on sports teams, will even have jobs. Nazis, anti-Semites, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. need not apply - they are not American. They have forfeited that right due to their views. That's not who we are. (Minorities, BTW, are NEVER irredeemable, no matter how bad their behavior - when you picture Hillary's "basket of deplorables" it's filled with white (male) faces). We have seen glimmers of this here and there (Harvard soccer team all suspended yesterday, people getting "Watsoned") but it hasn't quite come together. At least not yet.

    People who have shown themselves to be irredeemable will have none of the above - they will have to eke out a living at the margin of society. If they have a business, it will need to be boycotted and bankrupted. If possible, the power of the state will be brought down on them, like people who refuse to make gay wedding cakes. (Just yesterday I saw a "food review" in the Philly paper. The main food critic was telling people to stop drinking Yuengling beer because the owner backs Trump. This in the guise of a review of another brand, which is "much tastier" (i.e. the owner has the right political views). This will be considered to be their own fault - their irredeemableness means that they no longer deserve the protections and benefits of our diverse society. By definition, someone who is irredeemable can not be reformed - he (it's usually a he) is like a hardened criminal - all you can do is segregate him away from society.

    If the left is unable to implement this fully, it will not be for lack of effort. In their heart of hearts, this is exactly what they would like to do TODAY if it was within their power (and sometimes it is, but for now only in fairly isolated cases). Anyway, you don't have to destroy EVERY irredeemable. You destroy a few and most sensible people will get the message. Maybe in their heart they are still irredeemable, but they will know better than to let any glimmer of this out in public. Gun control forms an important part of the scheme - irredeemables haven't (despite leftist delusions) shown themselves to be actually violent, but on some level the left understands that once they try to corner people they will lash back at some point and they would like to preempt the backlash.

    Notice that Hillary said that only HALF of Trump supporters were irredeemable. If society is divided 50/50 this is a perilous position (this is why unfettered immigration is so important, in order to keep tipping the system in the right direction). What you want to do is have an "acceptable" right that will be allowed to stay within the system, so long as they stick to the rules. Of course, this means that 2/3's of voters are Democrats and 1/3 are "acceptable" Republicans, so naturally Democrats win most or all contests, but you keep the Republicans around as a token opposition (the Washington Generals role) so that you can maintain the form of democracy . Acceptable Republicans will still be able to work and will get some token voice - say 3 seats on the Supreme Court, so they can write nice dissents but will never be in the majority. "American democracy" will, on paper, look just like the old kind - there will still be a Congress and a Supreme Court, etc. , it's just that they won't mean squat.

    Basically the same system that has existed in most American big cities since the New Deal era, and on most college faculties, except now it will be in every city and workplace. It will be an imperceptible transition - there will be no black helicopters. When American big cities and campuses fell under this system, it was gradual and imperceptible. There was no day when the Maximum Leader stood on the steps of City Hall and said that from now on, no Republican would ever be elected again or get a job on the faculty. That's not how it's going to work.

    Replies: @Cwhatfuture, @Forbes

    Jack D, you’ve pretty much hit it out of the park. The left is adopting–and turning into–that which they rebelled against: the conformity of the 1950s, and the social ostracism that enforced it.

    The irony is telling. The left was shameless in overturning every social convention, tradition, and/or institution thought to be inhibiting. Meanwhile, they plan to use shame and opprobrium to enforce conformity to their politics, masked in their social conventions–AKA political correctness.

  115. @Coemgen
    @res

    Steps:

    1. I googled the date of the first reporting of questions about the veracity of the Rolling Stone rape at UVA piece: November 2014.

    2. I then used the unz.com user comments lookup by year (and month) to find Ben Tillman's November 2014 posting.

    Replies: @res

    Thanks!

  116. @res
    @Wilkey

    Not to mention their seeming inability to police spam. Facebook comments are the most spam filled I have seen. Despite an apparent ability to police viewpoints that disagree. Funny how that works.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    Filling the comment threads up with brain-dead posts and/or spam seems more like the goal of some traditional newspapers. It gives them the aura of allowing feedback while making certain it’s so petty and voluminous as to make it seem not worth an intelligent reader’s time. It ensures that any decent rebuttals will get buried by an avalanche of detritus.

  117. @melendwyr
    @Joe Schmoe

    I think you've missed the point. The point of eliminating comment sections isn't to prevent the comments from existing. It's to prevent the easily-manipulated from seeing and hearing any message other than the ones the sites want them to see. Most people are not going to go look at a comments site, because those sites are going to have a terrible reputation, because it's absolutely vital for the propagandists to craft a bad reputation for them.

    It's like radio - they realized that people become accustomed to songs they hear repeated over and over again, whether they truly like them or not. Radio stations are concerned with ad space, radio itself exists to sell a product.

    Replies: @Forbes

    Media being a venue for advertising, with programing (written, audio, video) to break up the monotony of the products promoted. Soap opera my be cliché, but like comedy it reveals a truth.

  118. @SPMoore8
    @candid_observer

    One thing we have to be careful about, once we see that we are sometimes right in our skepticism, is to be reflexively skeptical.

    I remember seeing a link on the article when it was first went up the week before Thanksgiving but I didn't think it was worth pursuing, just more sexual politics on campus, either true or not true. It was only after the Thanksgiving weekend that someone alerted me to there being a controversy about the article, so I read it, and it only took a few paras to realize that this is highly unlikely. (In addition to the details being off, the entire atmosphere seemed terribly overwritten.)

    But my reaction at that point was, not that it is definitely true, or definitely false, but, where's the evidence? Names, reactions, police investigations, etc. I certainly wouldn't believe, or accept the implications of believing, this account just on its face.

    The problem with the SJW approach to these kinds of stories is that they are true, period. No corroboration is required. What caused my skepticism to grow was not the absence of evidence as such, but rather the reaction of those who believed the story when you asked them for some evidence: essentially a lot of "How dare you!" imprecations and name calling. Of course, to anyone but a true believer the entire story collapsed within a week.

    However, there are still a lot of true believers out there.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    It was only after the Thanksgiving weekend that someone alerted me to there being a controversy about the article, so I read it, and it only took a few paras to realize that this is highly unlikely.

    This is The Narrative’s trump [sorry] card: even for intelligent, well-informed readers, it takes substantial mental effort to load up and run, over and over, the ‘Reading With Reasonable Skepticism’ software.

    For most people this ongoing filtering-and-discernment project is either way too much effort, or beyond their breadth of knowledge or processing power.

    The SJW’s thoughtless, reactionary acceptance of all Narrative data points saves a lot of mental energy, which can then be spent on holding their complex, ever-mutating web of mutually-contradictory beliefs.

  119. @Forbes
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    That deadspin column would be hilarious, if what it said about Brooks (short story version: Brooks is pathetic) wasn't so sad.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    It’s worth clicking on just for the brilliant ‘shopped picture of ‘haggard’ Brooks.

    Bonus: There’s a link to a video by Steve’s favorite ’80s band.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Vividly remember the song but can't say I remember that video from the '80s MTV era of music videos...

  120. @Anonymous
    (((David Brooks))) should be sent back to Canada. His column today was complete trash, he basically endorsed Shillary. I watch the Newshour normally and his appearance was especially agravating:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-rancor-electorate-future-supreme-court/


    DAVID BROOKS: ...

    But a lot of it is baked structurally into our society. And so we had a lot of good things over the years that were really good for America. I think globalization has been really good for America. I think the influx of immigrants has been really good for America. Feminism has been really good for America.

    But there are a lot of people who used to be up in society, because of those three good things, are now down, a lot of high school-educated white guys. And they have been displaced.

    And shame on us for not paying attention to that and helping them out. And, therefore, as a result, what happened was, they were alienated, they got super cynical, because they really were being shafted. And so they react in an angry way.

    Well, that’s not a shock, given the last 30 or 50 years of American history. And so, for us going forward, it’s to not reverse the dynamism of American society and the diversity. It’s to pay attention to the people who are being ruined by it, and so this doesn’t happen again.
     

    This is from the "conservative" at the new york times. Do you have a theory about what's happened to him, did the divorce destroy his brain because I remember him saying semi-insightful things in the past. In what sense is he not a SJW besides being an Israel firster in terms of foreign policy.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Dan Hayes, @Yak-15, @jimbojones

    Just one more proof that John Dolan’s brutal takedown of Brooks was well deserved.
    http://exiledonline.com/david-brooks-blows-bobos-an-exile-classic/

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @jimbojones

    That takedown helps explain why I couldn't finish the book. I'm a fairly voracious reader, but Bobos was just filled with dreck.

  121. @Ivy
    @Anonymous

    Wolfe also wrote about journalists in The Bonfire of the Vanities. His characters seemed to have some basis in people he must have met or read about, to reader delight.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

    Ivy:

    Wolfe’s journalist model may (or may not) have been Christopher Hitchens. But whoever it was, Wolfe displayed a very strong antipathy against British journalists. On the other hand, Wolfe spent at least one whole chapter praising Irish Americans (“Tawkin Irish”).

  122. Hah, I was just reading Dolan’s bio to see where he is now, and I noticed that “Other than the Steve Paulson interview, the only non-eXile source of information about Brecher is an email interview with him conducted by Steve Sailer and published by United Press International.”

    Way to go, Steve! A small world after all.

  123. @theo the kraut
    @Lot

    I've been a SJW for most of my life: we like to have people piss into our mouths. Most people like that, but we like it more. It's important to understand the concept, I tried to explain this at length here.

    Replies: @Lot

    Not sure if I agree with your analysis here, but I spent an hour reading your blog archive. Great stuff, you should link to it more here and ask Steve for a sidebar link.

  124. Here is a question.

    Name the top 10 most influential comments sections on the web.

    Use your own definition of influential, make a case for it.

    I’m pretty interested in this.

  125. @Anonymous
    @Dan Hayes

    I think you're confusing David Frum with David Brooks. Brooks wants to invade the world and invite the world, Frum just wants to invade the world.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes, @Opinionator

    Brooks wants to invade the world and invite the world, Frum just wants to invade the world.

    Frum says he doesn’t want to invite the world, but when the opportunity finally presents itself to limit immigration, what does he do?

    • Replies: @snorlax
    @Opinionator


    inline bool is_frum(planet_t world)
    {

    return invade(world) > !invite(world)
     
    }
     
  126. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Forbes

    It’s worth clicking on just for the brilliant ‘shopped picture of ‘haggard’ Brooks.

    Bonus: There’s a link to a video by Steve’s favorite ’80s band.

    Replies: @Forbes

    Vividly remember the song but can’t say I remember that video from the ’80s MTV era of music videos…

  127. @Jonathan Mason
    Mainstream comment sections like Comment Is Free don't like reader commentary on certain topics like rape, because discussions get out of control, and they may be liable for commenters who out and kill themselves after being told by other commenters that they are lying or exaggerating.

    For example, fairly recently there was a case in England when the main prosecution witness in the trial of a retired music teacher for rape and sexual abuse committed suicide shortly after being cross examined in court. Although she did not have the anonymity of a commenter, there is a kind of parallel.

    Replies: @Anonymous Nephew

    In CiF-land the most hot-button pieces (where the mods have itchy delete fingers) are those written on gender, sexuality, race and one particular religion. Where these intersect (e.g. the Cologne sex attacks), the mildest factual counter-narrative observation can be zapped.

    Despite the frequent boosting of strong independent women, the default assumption of the CiF moderators is that women are fragile and easily-bruised creatures, in need of protection from men. It’s positively Victorian.

  128. @jimbojones
    @Anonymous

    Just one more proof that John Dolan's brutal takedown of Brooks was well deserved.
    http://exiledonline.com/david-brooks-blows-bobos-an-exile-classic/

    Replies: @Forbes

    That takedown helps explain why I couldn’t finish the book. I’m a fairly voracious reader, but Bobos was just filled with dreck.

  129. @Opinionator
    @Anonymous

    Brooks wants to invade the world and invite the world, Frum just wants to invade the world.

    Frum says he doesn't want to invite the world, but when the opportunity finally presents itself to limit immigration, what does he do?

    Replies: @snorlax

    inline bool is_frum(planet_t world)
    {

    return invade(world) > !invite(world)

    }

  130. @little spoon
    I haven't really noticed any of the comments sections I comment on getting closed at least.

    Anyways, the thing to do to keep comments sections alive is to click on ads. Most internet news sources are free and even if not, they depend on ad revenue. Comments sections already contribute to that because they drive up the overall page views of a site, which allows the site to charge more for ads. But clicking on the ads will really drive sites to allow unmoderated comments sections. The ad companies track exactly where ads are placed. If they see that certain pages get more clicks, they will pay for that real estate. And the websites will figure out those pages are the ones with comments sections. And then a whole lotta people will have unmoderated comment sections.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Prof. Woland, @Alden

    Thanks, I’ll do that.

  131. @neutral
    When the printing press arrived in Germany, it had a profound impact on history, the people that normally decided what others should think (in this case the Catholic church) suddenly had competition. One can probably find the same with other technologies like radio. However all these things eventually got taken over by a very small group of people with essentially the same thinking.

    Most will say this is not going to happen with things like internet comments and blogs, but I think they are completely wrong. The signs are already there where this will all end, most people will end up communicating via the gargantuan outlets like Google, Facebook, Twitter. So to control what can be said is not really a technology problem, control those pipelines and you have already controlled 95% of what is being said. So the issue comes down to passing laws to control what can be said, and if you read sites like this you should probably be aware it will not take to long before things like hate speech law target A LOT of what can be said.

    I have already seen murmurs by some for government to pass laws that make anonymous accounts illegal, of course they will say this is to combat terrorism and pedophiles, but again it is obvious for people here what the true intent is. Once the anonymity has been removed and laws are in place to fine people for what they say, you will find very few willing to speak out.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Anonym, @Frau Katze

    In Canada, a judge ruling has already made the owners of a blog responsible for the entire comment section. If someone sues for libel, the blog owners are on the hook.

    Only the USA has true free speech (the other Anglo countries make libel absurdly easy).

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS