undefined

points

[-]

Choosing what to pay attention to says a lot about who you are and what you think. The largest fraud in the history of the country is unfolding in Washington, there is endless potential BAM content that would be of incredible consequence, but you won't find any mention of anything like that on his blog. Anybody that knows who patio is knows where his bread gets buttered understands very well why he would never say anything on those topics. As it stands this article is the only 'politica' post he has over the last year.

This is essentially gish-gallop or Banon's flood but for an audience that thinks itself sophisticated. As long as you are only focused on discussing the minutia of carefully selected technical materials, you won't have to focus on anything else going on.

by tptacek5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

No, to all of this. Talking about the largest fraud scheme in the history of the midwest without taking on all of Washington corruption doesn't make you a "gish gallop" or "Banon's flood" (whatever that is). In fact, it's kind of the opposite of a gish gallop. It's a single coherent argument. If you can rebut it, do so.

by wredcoll5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

"the history of the midwest" seems awfully specific and easy to redefine as required.

That being said, it was a fairly interesting article about fraud in general, but if this is the only fraud article he wrote, why is that? There's lots of public frauds going on right now, is he going to write about them next?

by tptacek5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Give it any reasonable definition you like, it'll probably still hold! This is extremely not the only fraud article he's written, and if you don't know that, why are you offering any opinions on his site at all? It's fine not to know anything about it! Just don't pretend otherwise and you'll be OK.

by martythemaniak5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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

A critical part of media literacy is not just evaluating a piece of work at face value, but considering who wrote it, why they wrote it, why they wrote it now, what they didn't write etc. The article itself is actually not really interesting, but why this person wrote this article now is interesting.

by zahlman4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Please speak plainly, and show your work. In your own words, who do you believe "this person" is, and why is that significant? Why do you suppose he wrote "this article", "now", and what is your reason for believing thus? What other articles by the same author are you aware of, and how does that square with the bias you are trying to allege?

by martythemaniak4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Reread my OP, I was pretty clear upfront and it answers all your questions.

by zahlman3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I have reread it and I strongly disagree with that assessment.

by martythemaniak2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Now go on X.com and see whether this blog post is being shared and discussed amongst the MAGA Silicon Valley executive class. Taken at face value, this topic is completely irrelevant to them and you should see no mention of it whatsoever and therefore I am hallucinating things. But if you do see it discussed, then you'll also see a subtext of "See, Trump was right to send ICE to MN!", and thus patio has done his job well in the way I described.

by tptacek2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This is not a reasonable way to understand the world. It does not matter if facts are inconvenient on Twitter (why do you care about what's being said on Twitter to begin with? stop now.)

This attitude, that if reactionary tech execs are sharing something on Twitter it must be bad to talk about it, is poison.