0xdeadfa65

>I'm trying to tell you that your writing is unintelligible.

You're free to ask me what point is giving you trouble.

>I don't believe you. You know all his talking points by heart.

Trump vomits more foul content than any person I know. But okay. Gatekeep hating Trump. Weird flex though.

>See my first point.

Nice dodge. I'm starting to think I pulled all the wind out of sails since I wasn't just some run of the mill trumptard. Do you admit that? I'm giddy with anticipation.

>I still don't believe you, and I'm bored with this, goodbye.

Not bored. Defeated. Just take the L friend.

> 1. The data/emails were most likely stolen and the media was trying not to make the same mistake as reporting DNC hacked emails, which was a Russian intelligence operation.

This is a complete assumption on their part if that happened. Instead of researching and taking time to assess the finding, they assume foul play. Why does it happen conveniently when the Democrat Joe Biden would suffer from investigating this clearly? Why would they assume it was stolen? Why would they assume it was Russian disinfo? Do you not see the clear profile of ideological politicing at play here? It's all conveniently explained away and meanwhile they get to keep playing politics and pretending to be bipartisan.

> 2. Hunter Biden is not a politician, unlike the Trump kids (who are all hopeless cocaine addicts but no one seems to care) he never worked in the White House. And there's 0 proof Biden was a part of any of Hunter's bullshit. So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.

So being a cocaine addict is newsworthy when it's the Trump kids but not when its a Biden kid?

>So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.

Strong disagree. This is exactly the thing that muckraking should uncover. Again, if this was about a Trump kid, everyone would want to know and investigate it. Including you and me.

Do your links prevent the opposite argument from being made? I have heard more often that crime causes poverty.

Also, the specific connection with crime and poverty inequality, not poverty itself.

They should not be receiving public funds if they are going to continue to produce ideologically inclined content. At this point, they are no different than a little neoliberal/progressive think tank. And an honest assessment of the content means that they lean heavily to the left.

Nope it was definitely a lie. Corporate journalist along with their connections in our intelligence institutions colluded to tarnish and bury the story before an election before it had a chance to be assessed properly. I understand not believing the story to begin with and even believing that there was no incriminating content within the laptop (other than Hunter’s dysfunctional life), but there was definitely a campaign to bury the story so that it would not affect Joe Biden’s chances of being elected. The campaign was to call it Russian disinformation. Do you at least admit this much?

And that’s why our intelligence apparatus is not a trusted source. Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder. Look how the Pentagon is handling the leak of the Ukrainian papers, not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak.

The story was mentioned as an example of NPR editorializing. What is your point?

Do you not see how this is editorializing? They refuse to cover story having to do with the son of the Democratic candidate. And they pretended the story was not real.

This is quite a terrible take, considering the story has been proven to be true. Your sarcastic tone really annoys me since the media spent half a year, pretending the story wasn’t real.

You can commit atrocious evil without reaping rewards. It is extremely doubtful that Mao contributed any good. Read any book like Mao’s Great Famine or any other book detailing Maos life and exploits. He was a psychopath who refused to admit he did anything wrong. He was also an ephebophile, sleeping with girls as young as 14. Did that contribute any good?

Yes but there are many wannabe aspirants competing to be the next Mao

Was this supposed to be a gotcha?

I had the same response. What exactly should I be outraged about?

You like changing your language because you convinced yourself that you’re part of the crew getting to make the changes. Just wait until you’re on the receiving end. Or even better forced to speak a different language, you don’t know, which has happened before under the banner of progress.

I think you missed the point completely. Rioting affects the political and cultural ambience of our times. It does not need to affect you directly or be a nuisance in your local communities for one to voice displeasure. Your take feels very dense in this regard and concern trolling is not a sufficient description of the post your responding to.

This is not the first time I have heard about police departments infiltrated by supposed fascist elements. Unfortunately, these accusations never seem to come from honest actors; usually from agents with a dedicated agenda to push.

I don’t doubt that there is a presence. I’m sure there is some symbiosis between the police departments and right-wing elements and I’m open to understanding the severity of the issue.

The question now is do you have any evidence of the severity that isn’t from paid political agitators? Keep in mind, snarling out invectives like “nazi” is currently in vogue; I expect the evidence to be excellent and demonstrable irrespective of political affiliation.

Is this a gotcha comment?

Organized does not necessarily mean brimming with marketing material about their organizational structure. Antifa obviously has members and planning. They make great effort to counter who they perceive to be their political rivals. Analyzing from the outside, I imagine they would prefer their structure remain as opaque as possible for pragmatic reasons. I can’t point you to a “starter link” of my local Catholics; yet they exist and are organized.

Your curt inquiry should be directed at journalists, who for whatever reason are delinquent in their duty to investigate this organization.

So was your comment supposed to be cute? An invitation to a purported dead-end investiture? I assume you think yourself adjacent politically to Antifa. I find that most “fellow-travelers” tend to be the most vocal defenders of them online. Would you be this cavalier and flippant if your political rivals were doing the same thing Antifa is doing but for the opposite political “team?”

Just a thought.

Can't help but feel this article was written in bad-faith. It feels desperate to counter the narrative of rising crime being an issue. Truth is crime has risen in the last couple of years and it has resulted in the severe deterioration of the quality of life in affected populations. The facts are clear and are not on the crime-downplaying side.

I wish crime would be a bipartisan issue since it leads to severe consequence for everyone alike. Alas, the partisan calculus being played demands inconvenient narratives be shut down, without any exploration of the causes.

I guess they wouldn't. I honestly don't know how to get public discourse back on track to an appreciation for truth. I can only hope the partisans that weaponized social media as their pet angry mob eventually get their comeuppance; preferably in a way that leaves us with more transparency into how these platforms operate and the agents that leverage it.

It’s crazy to me that there is still people that refuse to acknowledge the collusion. I imagine it’s because they perceive a benefit from this arrangement and see it as an opportunity to hurt their political rivals. Good luck getting them to admit anything.

Thank you for this comment. Too much gleeful malice distracting from the message.

Thank you for the laugh. I’m not convinced though that this is not their though process.

Thank you for the very thoughtful comment. The required login I think is enough to scare me off. Which is a shame. It’s the first time I’ve heard of this terminal and the features listed intrigue me enough to want to explore more.

I have to burst your bubble here. Conservative institutions suffer from much less child abuse accounts than progressive, "leftist" institutions. If you want a good example, compare rates of child abuse between the Catholic Church and US public schools. The latter is rife with such accounts, both in relative and absolute terms. I say there is an association where the greater the deviation from conservative, traditional values, the more scandalous idiosyncrasies of the individuals manifest.

Is this funny to you? Or are you using some rhetorical flourish to morally grandstand? Either way, your style of retort is what I dearly hate about the present world. Maybe spend less time laughing at strangers on the internet and consuming raw propaganda; and more time education yourself on the statistics of the topic your are weaponizing.

Just a thought. Let me know if you want me to substantiate any of the points I mentioned.

https://sites.law.duq.edu/juris/2019/03/16/catholic-priest-s...

I am too but I don’t think you’ll get it, even on HN. Good luck though

This comment is the perfect storm of all things pernicious with a lot of modern discourse I see surrounding wokeism. Let's see; * liberal interpretation of the word "voluntary," * presenting Nikole Hanna Jones as a martyr for social justice when in reality she is no such thing, * no mention of the political allegiance or ideology of the people behind those awards as if they were objective and neutral third-parties (they're not), * no elaboration on the 1619 Project and its MANY faults, chief among them being its status of more of a work of fan-fiction than historical reality as attested by the author herself, * exaggerating the degree to which American universities are neutral; they are not, they are fully captured institutions of the left for better or worse (note that I am neutral on this point) * mandatory mention of Donald Trump for maximum effect, * all of the above presented with an aggravating demeanor of a petulant apologist for bad politics, all while pretending to be some sort of centrist(?) (or at least that is how I interpreted your attitude. I could be wrong. Let me know.)

If you do consider yourself some kind of leftist or at least an advocate for social justice, can you stop with this manner of addressing your purported adversaries online? I can't think of anything more frustrating than crypto-wokeists. It fans the flames of animosity and strengthens the spirit of reaction. You're not fooling anyone with this plausibly-deniable posturing.

Of course I could be wrong myself and read into your comment more than you intended :).

The cynical part of me says this is done intentionally for politically posturing.

I wish I shared your optimism.

This was libel... There was an intentional effort by the college to smear the bakery as racist and hurt their business. What does this have to do with the First Amendment?