The NYT is at it again

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8889
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 233 times
Been thanked: 141 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by xouper » Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:06 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:03 pm
I'm guessing that one way or another it's an indirection, and the USC angle is false.
You could be right. How do you propose we test that conjecture?

shuize
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 101 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by shuize » Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:12 pm

I'm skeptical it was a student essay. But, if so, that would be the greatest story ever.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33586
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1747 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Grammatron » Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:14 pm

Why would a student essay claim to be written by a Trump insider?

But yes, if true then it would be one of the greatest stories ever. I very much doubt it's true.

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8889
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 233 times
Been thanked: 141 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by xouper » Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:32 pm

@MightyCassandra has some more explaining to do, especially how she knows it was a USC student submission to TurnItIn.

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 16861
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 2058 times
Been thanked: 2821 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Witness » Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:44 pm

xouper wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:32 pm
@MightyCassandra has some more explaining to do, especially how she knows it was a USC student submission to TurnItIn.
Looked at that site too. Unwieldy.

What struck me also (well, it shouldn't anymore by now) was that there are dozens of comments/articles on that tweet and nobody checked.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71428
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3322 times
Been thanked: 1228 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:51 pm

xouper wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:06 pm
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:03 pm
I'm guessing that one way or another it's an indirection, and the USC angle is false.
You could be right. How do you propose we test that conjecture?
Nothing right this minute, but I expect at some point in the not too distant future we will know who wrote it.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33586
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1747 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Grammatron » Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:16 am

Image

shuize
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 101 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by shuize » Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:59 am

I know he tried to walk it back later, but I can't read Krugman's name without remembering (and laughing at) how quickly he had to eat his smug post-election "If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never" virtue-signaling when markets reached record highs just a few hours later.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67658
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3427 times
Been thanked: 2174 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Doctor X » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:59 am

Yeah, Krugman is up there with Anne Coulter and other partisan bomb throwers. I am not sure he has ever been correct other than when stating the obvious, but he does not care, he tells his flock what they want to hear just as Coulter, Rush, and others from the opposite side do the same.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21749
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1410 times
Been thanked: 1235 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Anaxagoras » Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:12 am

Although this is only speculation, here's a theory that it's John Huntsman (currently Ambassador to Russia, which would technically make him a "Senior Administration Official.")

The Obvious Suspect
The quest to unmask the New York Times op-ed writer has been filled with speculation. But the article’s prose points to one person in particular.


Who wrote the anonymous op-ed against President Trump in Wednesday’s New York Times? All we know for certain is what the Times disclosed: that it’s a “senior official in the Trump administration.” But the most likely author, based on the op-ed’s content and style, is the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman.

Huntsman is an obvious suspect for several reasons. The article’s themes are classic Huntsman: effusive about conservative policies, blunt about low character. In 2016, he made the same points for and against Trump. The topic that gets the most space and detail in the piece is Huntsman’s current area, Russia. (As Slate’s Fred Kaplan points out, Trump has been circumventing and undermining Huntsman.) The prose, as in Huntsman’s speeches and interviews, is flamboyantly erudite. The tone, like Huntsman’s, is pious. And the article’s stated motive—“Americans should know that there are adults in the room”—matches a letter that Huntsman wrote to the Salt Lake Tribune in July. In the letter, Huntsman, responding to a columnist who thought the ambassador should resign rather than keep working for Trump, explained that public servants such as himself were dutifully attending to the nation’s business.
Country first. The op-ed glorifies the late Sen. John McCain. It calls him a “lodestar,” the word used by Henry Kissinger at McCain’s Sept. 1 memorial service to describe the senator. It concludes with this line: “There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first.” “Country first” was McCain’s presidential campaign slogan in 2008. Huntsman, who idolized McCain, adopted the same slogan for his 2012 presidential campaign. A week ago, after McCain died, Huntsman lauded McCain as his mentor and recalled his motto, “Country first.” Huntsman also flew back from Moscow to attend the memorial service.
It goes on to cite more reasons to think this is Huntsman.
Malign. The op-ed aims its most specific criticism at Trump’s coddling of Vladimir Putin:
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior.
That’s a lot of detail about what Trump said and did. It’s exactly the subject on which Huntsman would be most likely to get good inside information. In addition, malign—which is fancier and more correct in this context than the more popular term malignant—is one of Huntsman’s favorite words, especially when talking about Russia. Last year, at his confirmation hearing, Huntsman repeatedly denounced Russia’s “malign activity.” This summer, in briefings and interviews leading up to the July 16 summit between Trump and Putin, Huntsman criticized Russia’s “malign activity,” “malign activities,” and “malign events.” He used the word so profusely that Chris Wallace, while interviewing Huntsman on Fox News, felt obliged to quote the dictionary definition.
I think individual people do tend to use certain words more often than others without realizing it, and the particular set of words they habitually use may be distinct from the words that other people use. A sort of "lexical fingerprint".

Of course, this is all just speculation. But we'll see.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67658
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3427 times
Been thanked: 2174 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Doctor X » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:39 pm

Your Mom habitually uses a particular set of words. . . .

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71428
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3322 times
Been thanked: 1228 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:49 pm

The New York Times as Iago
Unz Review
The New York Times continues to outdo itself in the production of fake news. There is no more reliable source of fake news than the intelligence services, which regularly provide their pet outlets (NYT and WaPo) with sensational stories that are as unverifiable as their sources are anonymous. A prize example was the August 24 report that US intelligence agencies don’t know anything about Russia’s plans to mess up our November elections because “informants close to … Putin and in the Kremlin” aren’t saying anything. Not knowing anything about something for which there is no evidence is a rare scoop.

A story like that is not designed to “inform the public” since there is no information in it. It has other purposes: to keep the “Russia is undermining our democracy” story on front pages, with the extra twist in this case of trying to make Putin distrustful of his entourage. The Russian president is supposed to wonder, who are those informants in my entourage?

But that was nothing compared to the whopper produced by the “newpaper of record” on September 5. (By the way, the “record” is stuck in the same groove: Trump bad, Putin bad – bad bad bad.) This was the sensational oped headlined “I am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration”, signed by nobody.

The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception.

...
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71428
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3322 times
Been thanked: 1228 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:56 pm

Another NYT Op-Ed (nothing to do with Trump or Republicans this time) that I would characterize as disinformation.

Or perhaps a better term in this particular case would be "fan fiction" or "soft core porn".

In any case, The author is trying to manipulate the audience with a story that that never really happened.

He Asked Permission to Touch, but Not to Ghost

Synopsis: Fucked her twice and disappeared. Wah wah wah. And something feminist political.

OK that by itself is plausible enough, but the details of the seduction are not.

Ya gotta read it to appreciate it. :lmao:
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21749
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1410 times
Been thanked: 1235 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Anaxagoras » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:24 pm

I guess this is how they train young men in sex ed these days. You can't just ask for a general permission or assume that permission has been granted without verbal confirmation at each step.
I lay down on my bed, and he lay beside me.

“Is this O.K.?” he said.

“I invited a guy from Tinder to my empty apartment on a snow day,” I said. “Let’s just assume you have blanket consent.”

“I’m not comfortable with that.”

I looked at his earnest eyes, hair flopping into his face, stubble that was already reddening my skin (I had already decided I didn’t mind). Hadn’t I already said yes several times? Wasn’t I lying there with him, my leg tossed over his, my whole body arcing toward him?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

shuize
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 101 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by shuize » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:28 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:56 pm
Another NYT Op-Ed (nothing to do with Trump or Republicans this time) that I would characterize as disinformation.

Or perhaps a better term in this particular case would be "fan fiction" or "soft core porn".

In any case, The author is trying to manipulate the audience with a story that that never really happened.

He Asked Permission to Touch, but Not to Ghost

Synopsis: Fucked her twice and disappeared. Wah wah wah. And something feminist political.

OK that by itself is plausible enough, but the details of the seduction are not.

Ya gotta read it to appreciate it. :lmao:

It sounds a bit contrived to me too. (Ha. Ha. "me too")

As to her general point, I was with her for the first half. Having to keep asking for consent every two seconds is dumb. As is the idea that consent only works one way. But she seems to want to expand it to mean something along the lines of "It's only consent now if he calls me back later."

I don't like where she's going with retroactive consent. But her "Hey, isn't sex supposed to mean something?" is starting to sound a bit "conservative" to me. (to me, me too. I can go both ways)

I checked her bio. "just for fun." Thought maybe would. Then I saw her Harvard Divinity degree "just for fun." Maybe would not.

Not to mention, her collection of useless liberal arts degrees. That's another warning sign.

https://courtneysender.com/
Last edited by shuize on Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21749
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1410 times
Been thanked: 1235 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Anaxagoras » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:32 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:56 pm
Another NYT Op-Ed (nothing to do with Trump or Republicans this time) that I would characterize as disinformation.

Or perhaps a better term in this particular case would be "fan fiction" or "soft core porn".

In any case, The author is trying to manipulate the audience with a story that that never really happened.

He Asked Permission to Touch, but Not to Ghost

Synopsis: Fucked her twice and disappeared. Wah wah wah. And something feminist political.

OK that by itself is plausible enough, but the details of the seduction are not.

Ya gotta read it to appreciate it. :lmao:
I've never used Tinder myself of course, I've been married since before online dating was a thing, but I thought that Tinder dates were assumed to be "NSA"? They met on Tinder, they hooked up twice, and I guess he decided that he just wasn't that into her so he ghosted her.

Big deal?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71428
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3322 times
Been thanked: 1228 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:37 pm

Anaxagoras wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:24 pm
I guess this is how they train young men in sex ed these days. You can't just ask for a general permission or assume that permission has been granted without verbal confirmation at each step.
That may be what is taught somewhere or other, but do people really behave that way?
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
ed
Posts: 33310
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 451 times
Been thanked: 777 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by ed » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:42 pm

shuize wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:28 pm
I can go both ways
Noted
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

shuize
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 101 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by shuize » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:47 pm

ed wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:42 pm
shuize wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:28 pm
I can go both ways
Noted
Remember, under the new standard it's not consent if you don't call back.

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13999
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 348 times

Re: The NYT is at it again

Post by WildCat » Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:15 am

Grammatron wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:16 am
Image
Technically correct since there is no "living Constitution" in Kavenaugh's world.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj