undefined

points

[-]

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 wredcoll7 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 tptacek7 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 martythemaniak7 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 zahlman6 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 martythemaniak6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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

by zahlman5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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

by martythemaniak4 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 tptacek4 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.

by martythemaniak1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's an extremely unfortunate and shockingly stupid way to understand the world, but not unreasonable, because it's a accurate reflection of how the world works at the moment.

Take a look at the situation "room" at Mar A Lago during the Venezuelan coup: https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/trump-situation-room-photos

What's the main thing up in the screen? Fucking Twitter, because that's what the US government cares about and that's what drives their decisions. The Vice President follows an exquisitely curated set of groypers whom he endlessly tries to impress, the Secretary of "War" is obsessed with impressing Twitter losers with his "lethality" TED talks, they all get giddy seeing citizens executed on the streets, it just doesn't stop. Patio knows exactly the crowd he's playing to.

by tptacek27 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

None of this has anything to do with the article.