|
cat botherer posted:Totally insignificant compared to the number of conservative/"just asking questions" columns. Just look at their roster of regular columnists, for one. That's not what FlamingLiberal was trying to claim... FlamingLiberal posted:I believe so. It’s just very interesting how they hide behind ‘journalism’ and ‘airing both sides’ of an issue, but conveniently never have ardent Communists or other far-left people have prominent op-eds.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Name Change posted:NYT's conservatives are generally uncomfortable pre-Trump conservatives who still hold execrable views but are waiting patiently and in vain for conservative voters to return to comfortable neoconservatism. It's a lot more tedious than say, Washington Post conservatives, who just write what they are told. Any claim that they don't highlight left perspectives because they aren't mainstream enough totally falls apart the second you look at the wall of old white dude faces that is their columnist roster. Kalit posted:That's not what FlamingLiberal was trying to claim...
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 17:05
|
|
|
This makes too much sense https://twitter.com/jbenmenachem/status/1583111768460890113?s=46&t=URSK1A1E1xo7mZmJy8yZJw
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
That makes so much sense and is hilariously blackpilling at the same time. They've been trying this same poo poo for over half a century, way before the outrage attention economy was the prime motivator, and chuds hate them more than ever. They just really think it's the right thing to do. Karl Popper found rotating in his grave at the speed of sound
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This makes too much sense Agnew: EFFETE CORPS OF IMPUDENT SNOBS nyt: well nothing to do but give a timeshare to weirdo Robert Bork-esques
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
That is literally what "Op-Ed" stands for - "Opposite the Editorials." Most major papers had "liberal" editorial boards and the Op-Ed page was supposed to allow for opposite opinions to be published. They eventually just turned it into the "essays from people who aren't our employees" section, but kept the name (or sometimes just changed it to "the opinion section" instead).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That is literally what "Op-Ed" stands for - "Opposite the Editorials." Imo part of the issue is that the op-ed is not bound by the same editorial rules. You have a paper that is *supposed* to be presenting things fairly neutrally and then the Opinion section where the writer puts down that true Christianity is fascist because we have to lead lost sheep to what is right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:Imo part of the issue is that the op-ed is not bound by the same editorial rules. You have a paper that is *supposed* to be presenting things fairly neutrally and then the Opinion section where the writer puts down that true Christianity is fascist because we have to lead lost sheep to what is right. One of the biggest mistakes humanity has made is believing that all opinions are equally valid and worthy of consideration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
Xposting from the J6 thread but figured you guys would be interested as well. https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1626250276540760065?t=vYoq8cuyFgpmGq5FwOgSHg&s=19 Haven't read through it yet but wanted to share that it dropped. E: most interesting part so far, from the limited pages that were released  What I can't ascertain is if they are only recommending indictments for the people that lied or if there is more to it that just is not unsealed, I can't remember what this particular GJ's edict was
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:One of the biggest mistakes humanity has made is believing that all opinions are equally valid and worthy of consideration. Also people at some point in the last half century forgot that we had all agreed not to put open Nazis in the major papers
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:This is especially funny because there is no actual constituency for these "never trump" Republicans. There's like two dozen of them and they're all columnists now. Half-true, though. There aren't that many Republicans who find Trumpism a deal-breaker (or they wouldn't still be Republicans) but there are loads of them who still appreciate the plausible deniability of having very-serious-grownups who back most of the same things but use softer language, so they can pretend they're not one of those MAGA loonies around normal people. It's just the ones that put "never-Trump" front and center that tend to burn bridges. They're definitely continuing to recede though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They've let leftists write pro-leftism (and even openly pro-communism) pieces for the opinion pages from time to time. It's just that those articles don't really stir up any meaningful outrage, so they mostly pass by without being noticed by the larger media commentary ecosystem. I absolutely believe this is true because it's how these places operate, but none come to mind, do you have an example? The Atlantic is about the only place I'm aware of that is reasonably well known and actually keeps some lefties around with all the insane turbo-fash and let's them write about what they want but I don't know if they're on staff or just regular contributors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:That's not actually too surprising because they're in a situation where you will be accused (accurately) of omitting views representative of the largest cohesive social and political power base in the US if they don't occasionally leave the floor open to at least a little deranged nationalist hyperconservative poo poo and haven't figured out why it's better not to give them compulsory timeshare especially considering they will be derided as leftist fake newsmedia by the right either way. You don't get the same issue by omitting the left since they're generally politically marginal They love it when everyone's mad at them, because it gets the hate-clicks. Writing an article unironically calling for fully-automated luxury communism doesn't really get any buzz or attention outside of a few alt-right nobodies, but Bret Stephens can poo poo out a dozen lazy hot takes and one or two of them will absolutely be paraded around rage Twitter for days by blue-checkmarks with tens of thousands of followers. That's basically what the modern op-ed page is for: getting people riled with spicy headlines that'll get screencapped and retweeted a bazillion times. As GJB pointed out, the op-ed department has always had a certain emphasis on what they euphemistically refer to as "diversity of opinion", and it's long known that "controversial" pieces draw more readership. But in the age of Twitter, management's started to catch on to the fact that nothing goes viral faster than an absolutely vile take, and they've been encouraging the editors to run more "provocative" pieces. The word from NYT staffers (including in the Opinion section) was reportedly that the new editor installed to oversee the Opinion and Op-Ed sections in 2016 was intended "to get the New York Times Opinion pages noticed and to get people talking about them", and the current run of coverage certainly has people talking about the NYT. I suspect they don't really care if the talk is positive or negative, as long as the wealthy center-liberal subscribers who've traditionally been their core base don't get mad enough to start canceling subscriptions. Of course, Bennet went too far and was ousted, but it's easy to just toss him away as a sacrificial lamb and put someone else in there to toe that line just a bit more carefully.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:This is especially funny because there is no actual constituency for these "never trump" Republicans. There's like two dozen of them and they're all columnists now. The voters I know personally just straight up abandoned ship when it became clear that it was all about hate. They aren't going back for the corporate tyranny types who have been pushed out. They realized that the religious nature of the party was poisoned by a particular kind of hateful evangelicalism that was incompatible with being principled Methodists (it helps that Methodism split over social issues several times before). The corporate tyranny types brought it together by promising that you could launder all the hate you wanted through letting them degrade employment law and regulations, and they would feed you red meat issues through the back channels. But they were always the small class of pro politicians and board room donors. The next generation of business types on their side had risen in wealth and power by abusing the looser rules, and many of them believed in the underlying hate. That hit critical mass, and now the donor pool is rich hateful people, no room left for the cynics to run the show. The hate has people who can be the professional politicians, or at least the backing cast that makes them more than just a noise machine with a suit. The never-trumpers are self serving jerks who just want to be put back on top of the monster
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They love it when everyone's mad at them, because it gets the hate-clicks. Writing an article unironically calling for fully-automated luxury communism doesn't really get any buzz or attention outside of a few alt-right nobodies, but Bret Stephens can poo poo out a dozen lazy hot takes and one or two of them will absolutely be paraded around rage Twitter for days by blue-checkmarks with tens of thousands of followers. I think you're right but I'm amazed that you can't write an article saying we should feed and care for the sick and destitute and not get 5 million people replying "as a Christian I object"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They love it when everyone's mad at them, because it gets the hate-clicks. Writing an article unironically calling for fully-automated luxury communism doesn't really get any buzz or attention outside of a few alt-right nobodies, but Bret Stephens can poo poo out a dozen lazy hot takes and one or two of them will absolutely be paraded around rage Twitter for days by blue-checkmarks with tens of thousands of followers. This isn't wrong but it also isn't complete. They aren't publishing anyone trying for hate clicks by trolling the right wing (e.g., " we should cut military spending and fund the arts" or "mandatory vaccination is good and should be the law")
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
I think people are severely underestimating self-importance as a factor. "Look at us, we are a sophisticated publication with editorials across the spectrum providing thought-provoking perspectives!" (Proceeds to publish hateful nonsense with intellectual sophistication of your average College Republican)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
Have they released any op eds that say "the right wing is now fascist and it's important to be declared openly"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This isn't wrong but it also isn't complete. They aren't publishing anyone trying for hate clicks by trolling the right wing (e.g., " we should cut military spending and fund the arts" or "mandatory vaccination is good and should be the law") I don't really read the NYT Op-Ed section often, but they did have a pro-mandatory vaccine Op-Ed that got people riled up. The other big right-wing troll articles that I can remember they did were during the Bush administration when they had a ton of writers advocating abolishing marriage as an institution as a backdoor way to gay rights. Not sure if this was a troll or not, but they also published someone who was a polygamist and said that two-person marriage was inherently discriminatory and polyamory was the next step in the civil rights. That's all I can think of off the top of my head in the last 15 years or so. But, they definitely do publish crazy poo poo and trolls all the time. The "Luxury Space Communism" article is new to me and very funny, so thanks for that being linked. Edit: Staluigi posted:Have they released any op eds that say "the right wing is now fascist and it's important to be declared openly" Definitely. This was a pretty common theme of Op-Eds during Trump. Especially from the "reasonable Republicans" who thought that Republicans were fascist now and they needed to return to the libertarian days of Goldwater/the greatness of Reagan/the values of Eisenhow/whatever their particular flavor of preferred Republican was. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Feb 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:Have they released any op eds that say "the right wing is now fascist and it's important to be declared openly" There was that essay, "Who goes Nazi", but I'm not sure if it'd pass Leon Trotsky 2012's smell test
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I absolutely believe this is true because it's how these places operate, but none come to mind, do you have an example? The Atlantic is about the only place I'm aware of that is reasonably well known and actually keeps some lefties around with all the insane turbo-fash and let's them write about what they want but I don't know if they're on staff or just regular contributors. Former goon, current host of Well There's Your Problem and known socialist Justin "donoteat" Roczniak wrote a guest op-ed for the NYT about trains https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/opinion/business-economics/freight-train-mismanagement.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This isn't wrong but it also isn't complete. They aren't publishing anyone trying for hate clicks by trolling the right wing (e.g., " we should cut military spending and fund the arts" or "mandatory vaccination is good and should be the law") Those people already loathe the NYT, to the point where they'll rant and rave about it even if it doesn't go out of its way to rile them up. The right is happy to hateread and scream about the NYT's actual news articles, so Opinion doesn't really need to bother. And even if there isn't a particular news article offending them, far-right media routinely invents all-new reasons to be mad at the NYT whenever there's a slow news day:   
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
NHTSA comes down hard on Tesla's autodrive feature. All Teslas with the full autodrive feature enabled are being recalled after an investigation found that Tesla misrepresented the technology and the feature actually increases the likelihood of a crash. The system is being disabled on all Teslas whose owners paid the $15,000 to enable it via a software update. Any cars that somehow avoid the software update are not street legal. The NHTSA is investigating at least 41 crashes and 19 deaths since 2016 where errors in the autodrive software were involved. The NHTSA is also pursuing two other separate safety investigations into Tesla's other autodrive features. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1626290519704731648 quote:Tesla is recalling more than 362,000 cars equipped with its Full Self-Driving driver-assistance system after government regulators found it increased the risk of accidents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:NHTSA comes down hard on Tesla's autodrive feature.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Completely nuts that was ever allowed to roll out on public roads. It technically never was! Tesla has a big asterisk on the full autodrive feature that says you are only supposed to use it on private roads, parking lots, and roads with no traffic. quote:Tesla's owner's manual states that Autopilot should not be used on city streets or on roads where traffic conditions are constantly changing. lmao.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
Part of the problem with our regulatory system is that people don't go to jail for crap like that. (Also, not sure I would trust it in a parking lot!)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Tesla has a big asterisk on the full autodrive feature that says you are only supposed to use it on private roads, parking lots, and roads with no traffic. That's even more absurd. OddObserver posted:Part of the problem with our regulatory system is that people don't go to jail for crap like that. Yep. I guess we solved how liability works in self-driving cards, if they ever are actually real: lol nobody is liable but the passengers
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
And all it took was a loving Super Bowl commercial. What the heck was the problem here, isn’t the NTHSA usually rather responsive when it comes to issues like these?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:And all it took was a loving Super Bowl commercial. My brother in capitalism, have you seen how much money Tesla was making people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I guess we solved how liability works in self-driving cards, if they ever are actually real: lol nobody is liable but the passengers Tech nerds used to warn that self-driving cars would be configured to disengage the AI the moment a crash became inevitable, so the logs should show it was under driver control during theimpact and they would assume liability Turns out they didn't even need to do that, it just takes years of dithering and billions of income to go from "the AI is very obviously responsible for crashes" to "the AI is banned from the road"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Tech nerds used to warn that self-driving cars would be configured to disengage the AI the moment a crash became inevitable, so the logs should show it was under driver control during theimpact and they would assume liability
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Teslas absolutely have done exactly that. As far as I understand it they auto-disengage whenever the AI gets unsure of itself, and there is a large but not perfect overlap between "unsure of itself" and "accident imminent". Teslas have definitely driven into things with total confidence that the road ahead is empty because their sensor package is lacking
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:And all it took was a loving Super Bowl commercial. I had no idea that someone actually did this, I guess it was an ad for his "methodology" but it's nice to see someone putting down Musk in such a visible way. I really don't think I could ever be tech bro enough to beta test a self driving car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Teslas absolutely have done exactly that. Literally doing that a second before the crash occurs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/15/tesla-autopilot-crashes/ Or from the NHTSA report directly: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INOA-EA22002-3184.PDF quote:The agency’s analysis of these sixteen subject first responder and road maintenance vehicle crashes
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
The Times OP-ED can be trash, but the larger issue is that they genuinely just have a transphobic streak. Like the JK Rowling piece is loving out of this world in its revisionism. But they have done non-opinion pieces that are also troubling in their sourcing, framing, and incomplete information. around trans issues. Like the last time this came up, it's not a Libs issue. USA Today, CNN, NBC News, Vox all have decent and more stable coverage of these issues. The Times and The Atlantic have a genuine transphobia issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:NHTSA comes down hard on Tesla's autodrive feature. Does it say the system is actually being turned off somewhere else in the article? I thought 'allows vehicles to travel above legal speed limits and through intersections in “an unlawful or unpredictable manner"' sounded like they were only removing the option that makes it speed and do rolling stops (why is that an option).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
Just seeing news pop up with Fetterman checking in to Walter Reed for clinical depression. Good for him getting the help he needs (and not letting his position scare him out of doing it since he's in the public eye). Part of me *wants* to hope this will help further our conversations on mental health, but I also know how the right is going to react. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-fetterman-checks-himself-into-walter-reed-for-clinical-depression/
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:NHTSA comes down hard on Tesla's autodrive feature. I think you're heavily overselling this, and may possibly have misunderstood it? As far as I can tell, this recall just consists of a software update changing certain behaviors of the FSD system that "could potentially infringe upon local traffic laws or customs" (as Tesla puts it) or "led to an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety based on insufficient adherence to traffic safety laws" (as NHTSA puts it). To be specific, it's not outright disabling the FSD system at all. It's just removing features and functionalities such as the ability to make a "rolling stop" at a stop sign rather than fully stopping, the ability for drivers to set it to exceed the known speed limit, some behaviors surrounding yellow traffic lights, and correcting some dicey behaviors in intersections. haveblue posted:Tech nerds used to warn that self-driving cars would be configured to disengage the AI the moment a crash became inevitable, so the logs should show it was under driver control during theimpact and they would assume liability That was never anything more than paranoid fiction circulating through the Twitter rumor mills. Like most "what should an AI driver do in situation X" hypotheticals, it's the result of a fundamental failure to understand just how not-smart these things are. For one thing, this one weird trick to evade the blame never worked. If NHTSA looks at the logs and sees that autopilot disengaged half a human reaction time before the crash, they're not going to throw up their hands and say "autopilot was disengaged so it can't be a contributing factor". In fact, NHTSA explicitly looks at the amount of time between the autopilot disengagement and the crash in their investigations, since it's a very easy way to tell when the driver became aware of the situation. Besides, the driver shares in liability even if autopilot was enabled, because the driver is supposed to be watching the road, monitoring autopilot's performance, and intervening to manually resolve any unsafe situations the autopilot might be getting the car into. Why is autopilot disengaging right before the crash, then? Because that's what it's supposed to do when it can't make sense of the situation. The only problem here is that autopilot is so lovely that it doesn't even realize it's missing something until the last second.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Does it say the system is actually being turned off somewhere else in the article? I thought 'allows vehicles to travel above legal speed limits and through intersections in “an unlawful or unpredictable manner"' sounded like they were only removing the option that makes it speed and do rolling stops (why is that an option). They aren't disabling it entirely. They still have multiple other safety investigations open into Teslas Autopilot and Autodrive (two different features) that are ongoing. This one disables most of the "Full self-driving" settings people could select that are supposed to replicate a real human driving (like going above the speed limit on a highway or rolling stops). It is hilarious that those were ever even options, but the argument was that is how most "real humans" drive and therefore it was replicating common human behavior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:The Times OP-ED can be trash, but the larger issue is that they genuinely just have a transphobic streak. Like the JK Rowling piece is loving out of this world in its revisionism. But they have done non-opinion pieces that are also troubling in their sourcing, framing, and incomplete information. around trans issues. Doesn't The Guardian also that problem as well? though I guess it's not as surprising since they're on TERF Island.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2023 20:53
|
|