|
PhazonLink posted:isnt the reverse picker effect also largely disproven because you can't logic illogical things? This assumes Cramer doesn't have hidden information and motivation to give poor stock picks!
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Yes, you will note that the Opinion section is still selected within a narrow band of ideas that can be technically opposed to the masthead, but not to the fundamental ideals of the owners. You sure about that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
Newspapers should and do take responsibility for the dreck they print.Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's actually not. The Editorial Board also released a piece today about SVB. They think it was (surprise) due to nefarious Dodd-Frank regulations and the "Elizabeth Warren acolyte" Biden appointed to the FDIC board being hostile to smaller bank mergers on ideological grounds that resulted in SVB not being able to merge with another bank to shore up its deposits. There's tedious pedantry and there's also "No, the official views of the paper are horrendously wrong in a slightly different way, and by the way they take no responsibility for the other content." Scott Adams will be relieved especially at that last part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
Name Change posted:Newspapers should and do take responsibility for the dreck they print. Nobody is saying that the WSJ editorial board is good or correct. Just that they specifically put out an editorial on the issue and it is not in agreement with that opinion piece. It is wrong in a different way, but it in no way makes the same argument or agrees with the opinion piece. The Editorial Board actually thinks that SVB and silicon valley were "anti-woke" and that Silicon Valley rubs the PC police the wrong way because they just try to find things that work without following the established rules or paying homage to diversity. That is literally the opposite of the assessment of SBV from the opinion piece.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nobody is saying that the WSJ editorial board is good or correct. Just that they specifically put out an editorial on the issue and it is not in agreement with that opinion piece. The WSJ Editorial Board literally wrote an article with basically the same position last year and the year before that, that trying to involve anyone but white men in banking will ruin it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Yes. They still continue to publish Transphobic content for more than the last 4 years. If they say "oh mea culpa, we were wrong about this" and then continue doing it, then yeah they never cared about not being transphobic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:37
|
|
|
Piell posted:The WSJ Editorial Board literally wrote an article with basically the same position last year and the year before that, that trying to involve anyone but white men in banking will ruin it. Again, nobody is saying the WSJ editorial is cool and good. Just that they literally are not blaming SVB failing on wokeness and diversity. The WSJ editorial board thinks SVB and Silicon Valley are bastions of anti-wokeness in a business world gone mad. Even if they believed that wokeness is responsible for 100% of all bank failures, they do not apply that argument here because they consider SVB and Silicon Valley to be anti-woke. The opinion piece argues that SVB failed because it was too woke. The Editorial board piece thinks it is anti-woke and being punished by radical woke and anti-business ideologues at the FDIC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Yes. They still continue to publish Transphobic content for more than the last 4 years. If they say "oh mea culpa, we were wrong about this" and then continue doing it, then yeah they never cared. My point is that they posted an opinion piece that you said they wouldn't accept. Which seemingly goes against the argument at hand, which is whether or not opinion pieces represent the views of a news outlet in where its published.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
Kalit posted:My point is that they posted an opinion piece that you said they wouldn't accept. Which seemingly goes against the argument at hand, which is whether or not opinion pieces represent the views of a news outlet in where its published. No, they will still publish it, but only in a narrow band. They would not publish something calling for the removal of the editors and a root and branch reform of the paper and its ideals. They would not publish something saying not only should tehy stop publoshing Transphobic stuff, but that the editorial board should resign and be replaced by people better equipped to deal with the world. Hence a narrow band of dissent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:No, they will still publish it, but only in a narrow band. They would not publish something calling for the removal of the editors and a root and branch reform of the paper and its ideals. They would not publish something saying not only should tehy stop publoshing Transphobic stuff, but that the editorial board should resign and be replaced by people better equipped to deal with the world. Hence a narrow band of dissent.  I guess if you want to move the goalposts this far, you got me. But saying that a news outlet won't publish an opinion piece demanding for mass resignation at the company is a hell of an interpretation ofJosef bugman posted:the Opinion section is still selected within a narrow band of ideas that can be technically opposed to the masthead, but not to the fundamental ideals of the owners. Kalit fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Kalit posted:
Okay. Anyway, what I am trying to lay out is that the idea that there is some sort of well of seperation between editorial and opinion is, at best, a fiction and at worst an outright lie. As has been helpfully proven through you posting an article asking for change and then 1) Not getting any change and 2) Not being able to call out the editors outside of a narrow area. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Again, nobody is saying the WSJ editorial is cool and good. Just that they literally are not blaming SVB failing on wokeness and diversity. The underlying view (that only straight cis white men are competent by default and anyone else is likely unqualified and does nothing but cause problems) is held by both the opinion writer and the WSJ editorial board, regardless of their position on a specific incident Piell fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
FWIW: The other major right-wing Murdoch newpaper seems to be conflicted on whether SVB was the last bastion of sanity in a world where PC has gone mad that is being punished by the woke Fed or if it was so woke that it was focused on diversity to the point of collapsing its business.quote:While Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, top executive pushed ‘woke’ programs https://nypost.com/2023/03/11/silicon-valley-bank-pushed-woke-programs-ahead-of-collapse/ quote:Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank could alter the course of American innovation: sources https://nypost.com/2023/03/11/collapse-of-silicon-valley-bank-could-hurt-american-innovation-sources/
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Anyway, what I am trying to lay out is that the idea that there is some sort of well of seperation between editorial and opinion is, at best, a fiction and at worst an outright lie. Josef bugman posted:As has been helpfully proven through you posting an article asking for change and then 1) Not getting any change and 2) Not being able to call out the editors outside of a narrow area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
Here's my take: Tech finance fuckers are extremely powerful in politics and media right now and they all kept their poo poo in the same bank and they're worried about losing any money at all so it's a huge story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Kalit posted:My point is that they posted an opinion piece that you said they wouldn't accept. Which seemingly goes against the argument at hand, which is whether or not opinion pieces represent the views of a news outlet in where its published. The Grauniad is insanely loving transphobic, and you splitting hairs over the precise degree of their bigotry is tedious as hell
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:The Grauniad is insanely loving transphobic, and you splitting hairs over the precise degree of their bigotry is tedious as hell Huh? I'm not trying to say anything about how bigoted The Guardian is. My point is they published an opinion piece that was calling out their own transphobia. Which wouldn't have been published if opinion pieces did reflect the owners/news outlet views.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Huh? I'm not trying to say anything about how bigoted The Guardian is. But that's quite transparently just a strategy of controlled opposition? I guess we've found the audience that works on. Did you also think that Fox was Fair and Balanced when that dead pencilneck dweeb Alan Colmes was on every night crying tears of liberalism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
I still marvel that not only was this dunce the President of the United States but has been celebrated by his supporters as possibly the most superior human being in history. That he might soon have his hands on the controls again is unsettling. https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1635334668341112832?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:No, I think people understand that the same group who spent four years lecturing about a pro-rape party and that black lives actually matter turned around and voted for a rapist/cop presidential ticket. As I said, when actual power is up for grabs, progressive dogma becomes fluid. Yes you have made it abundantly clear that’s your basis for retreating from the notion of things improving ever, but that still does not make it the way the words are used in conservative discourse. They don’t care that either are rapists in the first place, beyond how it related to their ability or inability to hurt perceived enemies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I still marvel that not only was this dunce the President of the United States but has been celebrated by his supporters as possibly the most superior human being in history. That he might soon have his hands on the controls again is unsettling. You know, there might be something the matter with this man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I still marvel that not only was this dunce the President of the United States but has been celebrated by his supporters as possibly the most superior human being in history. That he might soon have his hands on the controls again is unsettling. Did he get some bad news or something? Seems a bit unhinged even for him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I still marvel that not only was this dunce the President of the United States but has been celebrated by his supporters as possibly the most superior human being in history. That he might soon have his hands on the controls again is unsettling. He's now weak enough that Ron DeSantis looks strong by comparison. I'll be interested to see whether primary voters listen to anyone but Trump at all though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Did he get some bad news or something? Seems a bit unhinged even for him. Maybe too long had passed since there was a news headline or Twitter post about him?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
I'm genuinely surprised that his handlers didn't set up a Potemkin White House for him so he could spend his days in a mock Oval Office generating photo opportunities for the well-heeled freaks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:01
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Yes you have made it abundantly clear that’s your basis for retreating from the notion of things improving ever, but that still does not make it the way the words are used in conservative discourse. Again, "we're mad at woke because of the hypocrites, virtue signalers, and those who take it to far" is a lie that's been around for decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
I didn't realize that Barney Frank is on Signature's board of directors. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:09
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Again, "we're mad at woke because of the hypocrites, virtue signalers, and those who take it to far" is a lie that's been around for decades. But this doesn't invalidate the existence of hypocrisy. I wrote up an incredibly long Slack post that was pretty warmly regarded while our company was being excoriated internally over uplifting Walmart specifically as a "Doer of Good"; the entire thing is pretty long but the very core of it is this: quote:Because of Walmart's low compensation practices, many employees require government assistance, use community resources like food banks and free medical clinics, or turn to illicit drugs to replace costly pharmaceuticals - so long as these practices continue, Walmart continues to create inequity. Any measures they take to advertise they engage in [Corporate Social Responsibility] to address inequity are meaningless until they stop creating inequity. Ceding criticism of "woke" companies ("Socially Responsible" if that's a term you find more palatable) to the right and framing it as a right-wing bugbear takes legitimacy away from criticisms that are founded in truth and good faith because "they sound like the arguments the bad guys are making." it's shallow and thought terminating. Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Mar 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:But this doesn't invalidate the existence of hypocrisy. I wrote up an incredibly long Slack post that was pretty warmly regarded while our company was being excoriated internally over uplifting Walmart specifically as a "Doer of Good"; the entire thing is pretty long but the very core of it is this: This is why the conservative framing works, because they're parroting leftists. They know it's bullshit, just like parroting leftist criticisms of our rapist president matter to them when their rapist president didn't matter much at all. Nobody said there aren't people to criticize. You don't need a super long slack post about this. The summary is there are legit criticims of "woke culture" and that conservatives use the existence of legit criticism to pretend that's their lone objection with it, to cover for the fact that they're actual objection is that they are bigots and hate anything that calls them out on their bigotry. Bigots always keep up on the latest left wing vocab and criticism, they're often quicker to pick up on them than allies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:21
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This is why the conservative framing works, because they're parroting leftists. They know it's bullshit, just like parroting leftist criticisms of our rapist president matter to them when their rapist president didn't matter much at all. Yup, we agree on that, but the problem is that when there is rebuttal of the criticism, it's almost never grounded in any of the ideas you or I are discussing here - the mainstream rebuttal is simply an indication that anti-wokeness is pro-bigotry and this drives the behavior of the American lumpenprole - your average local news watcher shouting "Cuba Libre!" with nothing more than a vague, institutionally-instilled understanding that Cuba = Socialist = Communist = BAD (and the digression into how Capitalists drive pro-Capital ideas into both public and private schools is a topic worthy of its own discussion but I think it's pretty non-controversial to say in an overbroad sense that Capitalists printing school books covering the political ideologies of nations the US has traditionally has had aggressive relations with is worth scrutiny if nothing else) are going to see it as "well there's the bad guys (anti-woke) and the good guys (social responsibility) and that's all I need to know because MyFOX7 at 10 has all the news I need to know!" We need to have the conversations about why CSR is just a window dressing on wage slavery, but they're not going to happen in any of the mainstream outlets that have the media presence to meaningfully push back against right-wing framing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Papers publish opinion pieces that they don't agree with all the time. The Editorial is the "official" opinion of the Newspaper's staff and opinion pieces frequently disagree with the editorial stance. While this is true, Andy Kessler is a regular contributor to the WSJ's Opinion section, writing several pieces a month for them in his own dedicated column. Much like the NYT's Bret Stephens, it reflects on the WSJ's editorial policy that they feel the need to give a dedicated column to an ultra-conservative who's constantly complaining about the wokes and the gays. And those pieces are usually either dumb as hell (for example, predicting that game consoles will be obsolete in ten years because we'll all play games directly on our smart TVs instead) or angry conservative rants about how Biden is a crony for the woke scolds destroying America. For example, here's an article of his from just last month, in which he proclaims that MAGAism is a wholly understandable backlash by the silent majority against the nanny-state thought police who want to take away the freedom to be racist. quote:The Voting Bloc Against Bossiness "Economic anxiety" was a bullshit narrative, but at least it was better than a guy who appears to be the elemental incarnation of pure boomer rants. The WSJ thinks we need to hear from this guy literally every week?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Yup, we agree on that, but the problem is that when there is rebuttal of the criticism, it's almost never grounded in any of the ideas you or I are discussing here - the mainstream rebuttal is simply an indication that anti-wokeness is pro-bigotry and this drives the behavior of the American lumpenprole - your average local news watcher shouting "Cuba Libre!" with nothing more than a vague, institutionally-instilled understanding that Cuba = Socialist = Communist = BAD (and the digression into how Capitalists drive pro-Capital ideas into both public and private schools is a topic worthy of its own discussion but I think it's pretty non-controversial to say in an overbroad sense that Capitalists printing school books covering the political ideologies of nations the US has traditionally has had aggressive relations with is worth scrutiny if nothing else) are going to see it as "well there's the bad guys (anti-woke) and the good guys (social responsibility) and that's all I need to know because MyFOX7 at 10 has all the news I need to know!" This conversation is in regards to one of the most vocal conservatives in the thread making this argument. If you'd like to have this conversation about Cuba or whatever, sure, but contextually you're just bridging the existing conversation into what you want to have the conversation about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This conversation is in regards to one of the most vocal conservatives in the thread making this argument. I'm refuting this: Jaxyon posted:Again, "we're mad at woke because of the hypocrites, virtue signalers, and those who take it to far" is a lie that's been around for decades. It is not a lie, it is demonstrably provable that it is nothing more than advertising a sense of social responsibility - but your statement here above doesn't leave any room for that. Walmart claiming social responsibility while paying workers $8.00/hr is advertising. It is a lie. It it hypocrisy. E: and as an extra twist of the knife, corporate social responsibility is often profitable for the companies that engage in it due to various tax incentives associated with it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Did he get some bad news or something? Seems a bit unhinged even for him. Yeah. He was invited to testify in front of a grand jury regarding the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. While he's allowed to turn down this invitation, the punditry says the fact that he got that invitation suggests he's likely to be indicted. https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1635260320343048193
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:It is not a lie, it is demonstrably provable that it is nothing more than advertising a sense of social responsibility - but your statement here above doesn't leave any room for that. Walmart claiming social responsibility while paying workers $8.00/hr is advertising. It is a lie. It it hypocrisy. It's a lie when conservatives say it, which is usually who's saying it, and the context in which I was making that statement. Again, you want to talk in the context of accurate leftist criticism, when that's not who I was replying to. If that's what you want to talk about, cool. Good for you. I don't disagree with you on the criticisms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Did he get some bad news or something? Seems a bit unhinged even for him. Michael Cohen also testified today in the grand jury mentioned just above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:I'm refuting this: It's true that corporations are hypocrites, but that's not why conservatives are mad at "woke." They'd be mad at corporations for being "woke" even if the corporations weren't being hypocrites and actually, genuinely supported those things (obviously they never will, but the point is that it's a post-hoc justifications by conservatives to pretend they aren't just being regressive). It's obviously a legitimate criticism to make from the left that corporations are green/rainbow/pink/etc washing these issues and just doing it because they think pretending to care will make them more money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 23:15
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:While this is true, Andy Kessler is a regular contributor to the WSJ's Opinion section, writing several pieces a month for them in his own dedicated column. Much like the NYT's Bret Stephens, it reflects on the WSJ's editorial policy that they feel the need to give a dedicated column to an ultra-conservative who's constantly complaining about the wokes and the gays. Do you understand the difference between an op-ed and an article? Do you understand why it's a problem to pass off an op-ed as an article?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Yup, we agree on that, but the problem is that when there is rebuttal of the criticism, it's almost never grounded in any of the ideas you or I are discussing here - the mainstream rebuttal is simply an indication that anti-wokeness is pro-bigotry and this drives the behavior of the American lumpenprole That’s literally the argument Jaxyon just made  But regardless, “only sinners would call out the hypocrisy of the church” is as illiberal as it gets. Every blackface wearing governor, rapist lieutenant governor, or oops-I-don’t-know-antiseptic-tropes congressperson you let off the hook because they’re on your side ends up undermining the entire progressive worldview.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Do you understand the difference between an op-ed and an article? Do you understand why it's a problem to pass off an op-ed as an article? What do you think the important and relevanr differences are between an op-ed and an article? Especially in this specific situation, but also in general. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Mar 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 23:43
|
|
