3 ms·

> You make it sound so ominous It is like a group of folks only recently discovered the marketing value of being "banned". A lot of them apparently just notice

by _jal 5y ago

> You make it sound so ominous It is like a group of folks only recently discovered the marketing value of being "banned". A lot of them apparently just noticed punk rock this decade, I guess. And so you get amazing spectacles like Bari Weiss whining about being shut of out public discourse... in the NYT and WSJ. I'm sure many of her intellectual adversaries would love to be shunned to a similar degree.

EricE 5y ago
Talking about bans is not an open debate about an actual subject - it's just more dodging/suppression of dissenting opinion. Discourse around dissent of the popular narrative is simply not allowed and indeed you are doing the same. Deflecting to talking about bans/access, rather than the pro's/con's of treatments other than just the vaccines for COVID. Gives people like you the comfort of being open minded without actually being open minded.
- _jal 5y ago
  > Discourse around dissent of the popular narrative is simply not allowed What are you talking about? You're dissenting right here. People do it in the national press daily, as they have been for literally years now on this particular topic. No, what certain people don't like is that their preferred narratives aren't taken as seriously as they want. So whining about "suppressing dissent" is a more palatable explanation for their butthurt, whether sincere (as you might be) or manufactured (like I was pointing to). My high-school band didn't suck after all. We were suppressed!
  - ccn0p 5y ago
    Dissenting and getting downvoted, kind of proving the point. My experience living in a county and working in an industry that are both dominated by one particular way of thinking given to them by authority figures (CDC, New York Times, etc.) is that if you step outside that way of thinking and pose fairly innocuous questions that challenge it, two things happen: you lose all credibility, and you get called pretty bad things (racist, conspiracist, etc). That alone is pretty detrimental to pushing the envelope with hard conversations. I have no doubt (and hear) that what I personally experience is also happening across the media and entertainment industry resulting in groupthink even inside the rooms that are supposed to be doing journalism and asking the hard questions that criticize and question authority. As I type these words, it's almost as if the root of this is whether you trust those in "authoritative" roles, or not. And fear for ones health turns us against each other if we feel like those authoritative figures are either helping, or hurting. Anyways. If you think what Bari does is whine, that's too bad. Of the growing band of "counter-narrative" folks (Glenn Greenwald, Bari, Matt Taibi, Russell Brand, etc.) she's rock solid in her reporting and I oftentimes feel like she's doing what journalism should be doing. Spend a bit more time actually reading (or listening) to her. She covers a gambit of topics.
    - _jal 5y ago
      > getting downvoted In the US, you're entitled to free speech. You're not entitled to respect, or even an audience. And I'm sorry, but if getting downvoted is political oppression to you, you need to grow some skin. > She covers a gambit of topics. I have read her. She's a boring and repetitive replacement-level whiner who's built a brand appealing to people with certain kinds of insecurities.
      - ccn0p 5y ago
        You're entitled to your opinion about someones work and that's fine, but I would hardly call her work repetitive, whining, or an appeal to insecurity. When people get "cancelled", she interviews them to get their side of the story (Winston Marshall). When someone writes what seems like pretty groundbreaking work using experience from years at the CIA, she interviews them (Martin Gurri - Revolt of the Public). When everyone ostracized the Central Park Karen, she interviewed a friend who had interviewed Amy Cooper while she was basically in hiding to get the other side of the story. Feels like journalism to me.

by _jal 5y ago

EricE 5y ago

Talking about bans is not an open debate about an actual subject - it's just more dodging/suppression of dissenting opinion. Discourse around dissent of the popular narrative is simply not allowed and indeed you are doing the same. Deflecting to talking about bans/access, rather than the pro's/con's of treatments other than just the vaccines for COVID. Gives people like you the comfort of being open minded without actually being open minded.

_jal 5y ago
> Discourse around dissent of the popular narrative is simply not allowed What are you talking about? You're dissenting right here. People do it in the national press daily, as they have been for literally years now on this particular topic. No, what certain people don't like is that their preferred narratives aren't taken as seriously as they want. So whining about "suppressing dissent" is a more palatable explanation for their butthurt, whether sincere (as you might be) or manufactured (like I was pointing to). My high-school band didn't suck after all. We were suppressed!
- ccn0p 5y ago
  Dissenting and getting downvoted, kind of proving the point. My experience living in a county and working in an industry that are both dominated by one particular way of thinking given to them by authority figures (CDC, New York Times, etc.) is that if you step outside that way of thinking and pose fairly innocuous questions that challenge it, two things happen: you lose all credibility, and you get called pretty bad things (racist, conspiracist, etc). That alone is pretty detrimental to pushing the envelope with hard conversations. I have no doubt (and hear) that what I personally experience is also happening across the media and entertainment industry resulting in groupthink even inside the rooms that are supposed to be doing journalism and asking the hard questions that criticize and question authority. As I type these words, it's almost as if the root of this is whether you trust those in "authoritative" roles, or not. And fear for ones health turns us against each other if we feel like those authoritative figures are either helping, or hurting. Anyways. If you think what Bari does is whine, that's too bad. Of the growing band of "counter-narrative" folks (Glenn Greenwald, Bari, Matt Taibi, Russell Brand, etc.) she's rock solid in her reporting and I oftentimes feel like she's doing what journalism should be doing. Spend a bit more time actually reading (or listening) to her. She covers a gambit of topics.
  - _jal 5y ago
    > getting downvoted In the US, you're entitled to free speech. You're not entitled to respect, or even an audience. And I'm sorry, but if getting downvoted is political oppression to you, you need to grow some skin. > She covers a gambit of topics. I have read her. She's a boring and repetitive replacement-level whiner who's built a brand appealing to people with certain kinds of insecurities.
    - ccn0p 5y ago
      You're entitled to your opinion about someones work and that's fine, but I would hardly call her work repetitive, whining, or an appeal to insecurity. When people get "cancelled", she interviews them to get their side of the story (Winston Marshall). When someone writes what seems like pretty groundbreaking work using experience from years at the CIA, she interviews them (Martin Gurri - Revolt of the Public). When everyone ostracized the Central Park Karen, she interviewed a friend who had interviewed Amy Cooper while she was basically in hiding to get the other side of the story. Feels like journalism to me.