The memo you link to doesn't support your conclusion.
It wasn't "a memo". It was an email chain.
Google tried to get Spanish speakers out to vote with Spanish language tools.
Huh, and do you think it may be the case that the majority of Spanish voters almost always vote Democrat? And that it was expected, given Trump's rhetoric, that they'd be even more inclined to vote Democrat?
No admission it was too help Clinton, in fact the memo is careful to remind readers that Google made efforts to be non-partisan with the information it provided.
They tried the fig leaf of "non-partisan", but the main person behind this effort kept dropping the mask. Just couldn't help herself.
First, note the keen interest in "key states":
"A large percentage of Latino voters in Florida were new voters who had become citizens just in time to vote. We saw high traffic for the search queries 'votar,' 'como votar,' and 'donde voter,' in key states like Florida and Nevada. "
But wait, there's more! We have talk of a "silent donation", and explicit coordination with a Democrat senator:
"We also supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states (silent donation). We even helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides (with support from HOLA folks who rallied and volunteered their time to help). We supported Voto Latino to help them land an interview with Senator Meza of Arizona (key state for us) to talk about the election and how to use Google search to find information about how to vote. They were a strong partner, among many in this effort."
Oh, you think I'm done? Think you could mumble your way around those? Now the mask comes clean off:
" "Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us," Murillo wrote. "We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. We saw headlines like this about early voter turn out and thought that this was finally the year that the 'sleeping giant' had awoken." "
Oops. But I'm still not done!
" "On personal note, we really thought we had shown up to demonstrate our political power against a candidate who had vehemently offended our community by calling us rapists and drug dealers," Murillo wrote. "We read the headline and thought WOW, we did it!" "
The headline refers to "2016: The Year Latinos Saved America?", which is a story that refers to a tweet about Trump losing Nevada: "Final (almost) NV early #s are in: Trump is dead."
Still not done! Time to put the nail in the coffin:
"But then reality set in. Only 71% of Latinos voted for Hillary, and that wasn't enough."
I could go on, but that would be beating a dead horse. As for you, AmiMojo, I think this title is applicable.
You already knew that it would not be accepted because Breitbart is not news. Breitbart is propoganda - the word that we used before alternative facts.
Breitbart is news. If it isn't, then point out what that story got factually wrong. There's no such thing as non-propaganda outlets any more, if there ever was. They all have a bias and an agenda. They report on some stories and not others. They leave out some facts and not others. And sometimes they just outright make shit up.
Remember how all those "trusted" media outlets kept on insisting that censorship of the right on social media was a "conspiracy theory"?
Except it wasn't -- Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted to shadowbanning 600,000 accounts (note link to "real news" Engadget, but submission was also removed from the votable feed within hours) . Breitbart foreshadowed that story, which I also submitted, and which was also removed within hours.
But hey, just pretend you can ignore alternative news sites, because the other sites are "real news".
A "choose your own adventure" book has multiple endings. Many open world games like the Witcher have multiple outcomes. Other similar interactive fiction games like Life is Strange, Heavy Rain etc. managed story arcs / branches.
Life is Strange is an odd one to bring up because it was as shallow as Telltale Games. They were basically a "me too" Telltale game, except threw in the reverse time mechanic.
I didn't get their newer games because of my experience with Batman, as mentioned. Older laptop, new engine performed poorly on it. Their engine performance for their first Batman was a common complaint on Steam reviews, by the way.
Second, we also make sure to design and build durable products that last as long as possible.
Then ask them why they don't support the right to repair. Why they make their products so difficult to repair. Why they make it a costly purchase to replace a battery.
AI isn't needed, just more writing animating and voice acting.
They did, to some extent. They had a few choices that had deep impact, like in Game of Thrones, the last act of the game was split in two, depending on which main character you chose to sacrifice. And there were smaller touches here and there reflected your choices. And each dialog prompt got a different response, depending on what you chose.
But it would have been impossibly expensive to have every choice matter in a deeply satisfying way. You'd need an exponential tree of crafted responses.
This would be the same Google that plans to closely track users of it's search services for the Chinese government and silenced people talking about it ?
It's also the same Google that used their platform to drive Latino votes during the election, in the hopes of upending Trump. But the Slashdot gatekeepers didn't want to tell you that story. They pulled that from the stories you could vote on within hours of my submitting it.
Once you tried to replay these games for a few times, you understood the underlying mechanisms tricking you into thinking that you had an impact when you really didn't have all that much. So the next game, you came armed with this knowledge, reducing the enjoyment. And this effect cumulated rapidly.
Sure, it would have been nice if all those choices could have had deep impact that molded the story. But practically we know that with today's tech this was basically impossible, because they made finely crafted stories, with quality writers and voice actors. So you either accepted it for what it was, and enjoyed the games on its terms, or you stopped playing.
The final nail in the coffin was the blatant cash grabs with new episodes that were clearly just there to cash in. I guess that killed whatever was left of any good will from the customers.
Could be. They did seem to expand pretty fast into several new series. I personally stopped buying their games after testing out Batman, which played like crap on an (admittedly) older laptop. But their other games before that were all right with the settings turned down.
But I don't regret any of my purchases. Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Wolf Among Us, Tales from the Borderlands, those were all great.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. AAA titles? You could buy a whole series for like $25. Shovelware? No, they had quality writers, and while the artwork was obviously not meant to be AAA, it was good for what it was. Either you liked Telltale style of games or you didn't. But the gamers who didn't went out of their way to hate on their games.
I don't think it's the talk about biological differences per se that offend. More likely it's the naive tendency to ignore any influence from social causes and then arguing all differences must arrive from biology
The only politically acceptable position is to assume that unequal outcomes are because of "the patriarchy", and that these unequal outcomes must be corrected. To argue that what is driving the unequal outcomes is mostly due to biology and sexual preferences is met with screeching hysteria.
through some plausible sounding, pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo
James Damore based his memo on solid research. But the reverse is not true -- the activists aren't required to present serious studies that demonstrate their assumptions about social causes are true, and that their methods to "fix" such outcomes are valid. Instead, they just ignore all the science that demonstrates the opposite.
Whoa, there, Sparky. Let's not get all crazy and talk about biological differences between the sexes. If you work at Google, please report yourself to HR so that you may be fired.
I don't think all the people who can read it in-context as a parody of scientific racism are in the far-left filter bubble.
You're in the far-left filter bubble. The average person can see vulgar racism for what it is. There is no context, other than she was a social "justice" idiot like you, with the social "justice" hair dye, and surrounded by people who shared her racism and sexism.
I think centrists could also handle an adult touching childrens' shoulders
And their breasts, and smelling their hair, and stroking their faces, and kissing them. Yes, I'm sure the average person will think this is all totally normal and fine. Fucking creep.
Sure, I have no disagreement here. Even most in the far-left can see this. Are you done with this red herring?
Oh, really? Then why has Ellison not been disavowed? Why did you skip over it? What about the black congressional caucus? What about Obama? Where's the national media storm?
No Republican would have survived the equivalent associations with David Duke. Not even Trump. He got lambasted just because he didn't disavow him quick enough.
pat yourself on the back
I'm not the one claiming moral superiority. I can fully admit politics is pragmatic, on either side.
nitpicking [..] see how far that goes to convincing anyone outside the far-right filter bubble
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble knows shit like, "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" is racist.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can look at those Biden clips and have their skin crawl.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can see that Louis Farrakhan is the black equivalent of David Duke.
The double standard has been laid bare for all to see.
while today's "conservatives" simply don't "eat their own" at all, ever, for any reason
Roy Moore was not elected. Never-Trump conservatives exist to this day. Milo was thrown under the bus.
It's not an open secret if only his own company and some Hollywood insiders know about it. If it's not widely known, it's just a regular secret.
It was an open secret among many within Hollywood, that bastion of liberals and the crowd that the Democrats love to have campaign for them. The story was also squelched by multiple liberal media outlets until the New York Times ran with it.
Consider their record, compared to the record of the Republicans on Roy Moore and Trump himself. This is the beginning of a trend where you've begun to move the goalposts
No, this is where you move the goalposts from the supposedly moral high ground that liberals maintain:
"Liberals happily "eat their own" because they have these things called morals and principles, rather than just simple party tribalism."
Such high ground being they only act when it is politically expedient to do so.
Biased sample fallacy. Most liberals would not support Polanski.
Hahahahaha. Hollywood is about as liberal as it gets. Now you're playing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Not only did Hollywood circle the wagons, they even gave him an Academy award: "After the announcement of the Best Director Award, Polanski received a standing ovation from most of those present in the theater."
And yet you claim these same liberals had such moral principles for eventually turning on Weinstein.
A ridiculous description of well-documented events?
Either you have eyes and use them or you look the other way. You choose to look the other way. Another disgusting example of liberal "morals and principles".
So is he still in good standing? Hard to tell.
Yes, he is. There was some grumbling right after #MeToo, but he's still invited to liberal events. In fact, he had prime seating at Aretha Franklin's funeral, right along with... Louis Farrakhan.
If the allegations from the '90s happened today and he was in office, it would likely be a different story.
Oh, is that why Ellison hasn't been disavowed? Did you think I would just let you slide by without noticing that you completely skipped over him? Thanks for demonstrating, yet again, that "morals and principles" are only for when they are politically expedient.
As for Sarah Jeong, like it or not parodying racism isn't racist, and there is a difference between punching up and punching down in comedy.
She wasn't parodying racism, she was just being racist, where it was openly acceptable among her circle, as the Forbes article you linked to demonstrated. But that's just another example of liberal "morals and principles" on display.
Pretending otherwise harms your credibility.
Thanks for the laugh. You've displayed what your "credibility" amounts to:
"But the alternative view -- that of today's political left -- is that Jeong definitionally cannot be racist, because she's both a woman and a racial minority. Racism against whites, in this neo-Marxist view, just "isn't a thing" -- just as misandry literally cannot exist at all. And this is because, in this paradigm, racism has nothing to do with a person's willingness to pre-judge people by the color of their skin, or to make broad, ugly generalizations about whole groups of people, based on hoary stereotypes. Rather, racism is entirely institutional and systemic, a function of power, and therefore it can only be expressed by the powerful -- i.e., primarily white, straight men. For a nonwhite female, like Sarah Jeong, it is simply impossible. In the religion of social constructionism, Jeong, by virtue of being an Asian woman, is one of the elect, incapable of the sin of racism or group prejudice. All she is doing is resisting whiteness and maleness, which indeed require resistance every second of the day."
In other words, he was pushed out in line with their morals and prinicples, but this behavior ultimately benefitted democrats so it doesn't count?
Why do you strawman instead of tackling the issue? You ignored the initial pushback. You ignored the context in which he was finally pushed out. It wasn't about morals, it was about what was politically expedient.
How is that an example of hypocrisy or tribalism? Trump [..]
What does Trump have to do with the behavior of the Democrats? Not only does Ellison have multiple accusations by women against him, he's also been associated with the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan and an apologist for cop killers.
So? He's a fugitive hiding from US law enforcement. Hollywood nutballs aren't politicians.
But they are liberals.
I haven't heard of this. Is this what you're talking about?
"Jeong is a great hire for the Times but her tweets appeared to be blatantly racist, whatever their intention."
Hey, look at those great standards! What morals! What adherence to principles:
"Oh man itâ(TM)s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" --Sarah Jeong
"#CancelWhitePeople" --Sarah Jeong
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" --Sarah Jeong
Whew, that's pretty spicy! I see why she was a great hire for the New York Times.
How long did it take for Weinstein to face the music? That started the #MeToo movement, and after that a comedian like Louis C.K. stood no chance.
Al Franken is an illustrative example, because there was initially a lot of pushback to prop him up. But this was during the time of the Roy Moore election, so eventually he fell because it was more politically expedient to drop him.
But what about Keith Ellison? Oh ho, different story here. He's deemed too important right now.
What about Roman Polanski? Remember how Hollywood stood by him?
What about Joe Biden? As Vice President, this creepy perv got all touchy-feely with the wives, daughters, and granddaughters of Senators at a public swearing in ceremony, in front of cameras.
Is Bill Clinton still in good standing within Democrat circles?
Why did the New York Times hire a racist to their editorial board, and then double down after being called out?
When you make specific, incorrect claims about an actalperson it's a lie.
I've proven you've engaged in this behavior. You want to excuse your behavior and that of your ilk because of a bit of hyperbole. No sale.
You've still failed to address my point.
If there's anybody point dodging it's you. You're doing it in the very post I'm responding to. Reminder:
"Yes, let's remove the neo-Nazi smear, and examine the real issue at hand. You completely ignore that the root of the "code of conduct" was a difference of political opinion on transgenders outside the project. That 99.9% of the people are demanded to respect the delusions of the 0.1%. That's your social "justice"."
It's known as hyperbole. The fundamental truth is there. I've demonstrated you've engaged in this behavior. I've demonstrated how this behavior is at the root of what we're discussing.
You clearly don't understand what an "example" is.
Your Godwin example? You started with admitted defeat. It's a smear tactic, and you've been caught doing it before, when you were dead wrong.
My contention is you don't get a free pass on your actions in one sphere just because you try to separate areas of your life. Your response is basically "herp duh SJW *drool* godwin"
Yes, let's remove the neo-Nazi smear, and examine the real issue at hand. You completely ignore that the root of the "code of conduct" was a difference of political opinion on transgenders outside the project. That 99.9% of the people are demanded to respect the delusions of the 0.1%. That's your social "justice".
So do I or don't I personally call "everybody" neo Nazis? You have two choices here. You go for "do" which is a lie, or got for "don't" in which case your previous claim was a lie.
I have a third choice. I was speaking loosely and generically, and the essence of my statement is that you personally engage in this kind of behavior, as I have demonstrated, and that it's also true of your social "justice" ilk.
YEs but we both know I didn't accuse anyone of being one.
It's a smear tactic to associate those afoul of the "code of conduct" with neo-Nazis.
But you never once addressed the actual point.
The point has already been addressed -- it's that you'd rather quibble instead of making a counterpoint. We've seen how these "codes of conduct" are used to attack people politically for their outside opinions that have nothing to do with "neo-Nazis". We can trace this right back to "Coraline Ada" and Opalgate.
That's admitting defeat and you're doing it more and more with every post:)
Oh, you're still playing this game after you started with a Godwin loss? How retarded. But what else do I expect from a social "justice" idiot?
Are you denying Twitter has banned quite a nmbe of people who do identify as nazis?
The topic was about what was happening at large scales to right-wing users. You and the left-wing media denied it. You were dead wrong.
Interesting, you didn't actually deny you made up lies about me.
I picked the lowest hanging fruit. I didn't make up any lies about you. You're Slashdot's #2 social "justice" idiot behind AmiMojo. And it's not just what you say personally, we've seen this calling everybody to the right a neo-Nazi for two years now, as an excuse for either violence or censorship.
You swing wildly between bawling about accusations of Naziism (even though none were present)
You literally brought in neo-Nazis into a discussion about Codes of Conduct.
banging on the Godwin drum as if this is some great insight you had
You tried to play the "admitted defeat" angle, you 'tard. I just threw it back in your face, with the difference that you actually did.
And it's not the first time, either. There you are claiming Twitter's censorship was about Nazis.
You were dead wrong about that. Even CEO Jack Dorsey admitted it after it became too big to deny and he was called before Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
The memo you link to doesn't support your conclusion.
It wasn't "a memo". It was an email chain.
Google tried to get Spanish speakers out to vote with Spanish language tools.
Huh, and do you think it may be the case that the majority of Spanish voters almost always vote Democrat? And that it was expected, given Trump's rhetoric, that they'd be even more inclined to vote Democrat?
No admission it was too help Clinton, in fact the memo is careful to remind readers that Google made efforts to be non-partisan with the information it provided.
They tried the fig leaf of "non-partisan", but the main person behind this effort kept dropping the mask. Just couldn't help herself.
First, note the keen interest in "key states":
"A large percentage of Latino voters in Florida were new voters who had become citizens just in time to vote. We saw high traffic for the search queries 'votar,' 'como votar,' and 'donde voter,' in key states like Florida and Nevada. "
But wait, there's more! We have talk of a "silent donation", and explicit coordination with a Democrat senator:
"We also supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states (silent donation). We even helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides (with support from HOLA folks who rallied and volunteered their time to help). We supported Voto Latino to help them land an interview with Senator Meza of Arizona (key state for us) to talk about the election and how to use Google search to find information about how to vote. They were a strong partner, among many in this effort."
Oh, you think I'm done? Think you could mumble your way around those? Now the mask comes clean off:
" "Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us," Murillo wrote. "We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. We saw headlines like this about early voter turn out and thought that this was finally the year that the 'sleeping giant' had awoken." "
Oops. But I'm still not done!
" "On personal note, we really thought we had shown up to demonstrate our political power against a candidate who had vehemently offended our community by calling us rapists and drug dealers," Murillo wrote. "We read the headline and thought WOW, we did it!" "
The headline refers to "2016: The Year Latinos Saved America?", which is a story that refers to a tweet about Trump losing Nevada: "Final (almost) NV early #s are in: Trump is dead."
Still not done! Time to put the nail in the coffin:
"But then reality set in. Only 71% of Latinos voted for Hillary, and that wasn't enough."
I could go on, but that would be beating a dead horse. As for you, AmiMojo, I think this title is applicable.
You already knew that it would not be accepted because Breitbart is not news. Breitbart is propoganda - the word that we used before alternative facts.
Breitbart is news. If it isn't, then point out what that story got factually wrong. There's no such thing as non-propaganda outlets any more, if there ever was. They all have a bias and an agenda. They report on some stories and not others. They leave out some facts and not others. And sometimes they just outright make shit up.
Remember how all those "trusted" media outlets kept on insisting that censorship of the right on social media was a "conspiracy theory"?
Except it wasn't -- Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted to shadowbanning 600,000 accounts (note link to "real news" Engadget, but submission was also removed from the votable feed within hours) . Breitbart foreshadowed that story, which I also submitted, and which was also removed within hours.
But hey, just pretend you can ignore alternative news sites, because the other sites are "real news".
A "choose your own adventure" book has multiple endings. Many open world games like the Witcher have multiple outcomes. Other similar interactive fiction games like Life is Strange, Heavy Rain etc. managed story arcs / branches.
Life is Strange is an odd one to bring up because it was as shallow as Telltale Games. They were basically a "me too" Telltale game, except threw in the reverse time mechanic.
How much did Witcher 2 cost to purchase? It was sold as a AAA game. Telltale was a small studio that sold their games for $25.
I didn't get their newer games because of my experience with Batman, as mentioned. Older laptop, new engine performed poorly on it. Their engine performance for their first Batman was a common complaint on Steam reviews, by the way.
Second, we also make sure to design and build durable products that last as long as possible.
Then ask them why they don't support the right to repair. Why they make their products so difficult to repair. Why they make it a costly purchase to replace a battery.
Talk is cheap.
AI isn't needed, just more writing animating and voice acting.
They did, to some extent. They had a few choices that had deep impact, like in Game of Thrones, the last act of the game was split in two, depending on which main character you chose to sacrifice. And there were smaller touches here and there reflected your choices. And each dialog prompt got a different response, depending on what you chose.
But it would have been impossibly expensive to have every choice matter in a deeply satisfying way. You'd need an exponential tree of crafted responses.
This would be the same Google that plans to closely track users of it's search services for the Chinese government and silenced people talking about it ?
It's also the same Google that used their platform to drive Latino votes during the election, in the hopes of upending Trump. But the Slashdot gatekeepers didn't want to tell you that story. They pulled that from the stories you could vote on within hours of my submitting it.
Once you tried to replay these games for a few times, you understood the underlying mechanisms tricking you into thinking that you had an impact when you really didn't have all that much. So the next game, you came armed with this knowledge, reducing the enjoyment. And this effect cumulated rapidly.
Sure, it would have been nice if all those choices could have had deep impact that molded the story. But practically we know that with today's tech this was basically impossible, because they made finely crafted stories, with quality writers and voice actors. So you either accepted it for what it was, and enjoyed the games on its terms, or you stopped playing.
The final nail in the coffin was the blatant cash grabs with new episodes that were clearly just there to cash in. I guess that killed whatever was left of any good will from the customers.
Could be. They did seem to expand pretty fast into several new series. I personally stopped buying their games after testing out Batman, which played like crap on an (admittedly) older laptop. But their other games before that were all right with the settings turned down.
But I don't regret any of my purchases. Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Wolf Among Us, Tales from the Borderlands, those were all great.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. AAA titles? You could buy a whole series for like $25. Shovelware? No, they had quality writers, and while the artwork was obviously not meant to be AAA, it was good for what it was. Either you liked Telltale style of games or you didn't. But the gamers who didn't went out of their way to hate on their games.
You're not going to get anything deeper until we get AI that can pass the Turing test.
I don't think it's the talk about biological differences per se that offend. More likely it's the naive tendency to ignore any influence from social causes and then arguing all differences must arrive from biology
The only politically acceptable position is to assume that unequal outcomes are because of "the patriarchy", and that these unequal outcomes must be corrected. To argue that what is driving the unequal outcomes is mostly due to biology and sexual preferences is met with screeching hysteria.
through some plausible sounding, pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo
James Damore based his memo on solid research. But the reverse is not true -- the activists aren't required to present serious studies that demonstrate their assumptions about social causes are true, and that their methods to "fix" such outcomes are valid. Instead, they just ignore all the science that demonstrates the opposite.
biology
Whoa, there, Sparky. Let's not get all crazy and talk about biological differences between the sexes. If you work at Google, please report yourself to HR so that you may be fired.
I don't think all the people who can read it in-context as a parody of scientific racism are in the far-left filter bubble.
You're in the far-left filter bubble. The average person can see vulgar racism for what it is. There is no context, other than she was a social "justice" idiot like you, with the social "justice" hair dye, and surrounded by people who shared her racism and sexism.
I think centrists could also handle an adult touching childrens' shoulders
And their breasts, and smelling their hair, and stroking their faces, and kissing them. Yes, I'm sure the average person will think this is all totally normal and fine. Fucking creep.
Sure, I have no disagreement here. Even most in the far-left can see this. Are you done with this red herring?
Oh, really? Then why has Ellison not been disavowed? Why did you skip over it? What about the black congressional caucus? What about Obama? Where's the national media storm?
No Republican would have survived the equivalent associations with David Duke. Not even Trump. He got lambasted just because he didn't disavow him quick enough.
pat yourself on the back
I'm not the one claiming moral superiority. I can fully admit politics is pragmatic, on either side.
nitpicking [..] see how far that goes to convincing anyone outside the far-right filter bubble
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble knows shit like, "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" is racist.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can look at those Biden clips and have their skin crawl.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can see that Louis Farrakhan is the black equivalent of David Duke.
The double standard has been laid bare for all to see.
while today's "conservatives" simply don't "eat their own" at all, ever, for any reason
Roy Moore was not elected. Never-Trump conservatives exist to this day. Milo was thrown under the bus.
It's not an open secret if only his own company and some Hollywood insiders know about it. If it's not widely known, it's just a regular secret.
It was an open secret among many within Hollywood, that bastion of liberals and the crowd that the Democrats love to have campaign for them. The story was also squelched by multiple liberal media outlets until the New York Times ran with it.
Consider their record, compared to the record of the Republicans on Roy Moore and Trump himself. This is the beginning of a trend where you've begun to move the goalposts
No, this is where you move the goalposts from the supposedly moral high ground that liberals maintain:
"Liberals happily "eat their own" because they have these things called morals and principles, rather than just simple party tribalism."
Such high ground being they only act when it is politically expedient to do so.
Biased sample fallacy. Most liberals would not support Polanski.
Hahahahaha. Hollywood is about as liberal as it gets. Now you're playing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Not only did Hollywood circle the wagons, they even gave him an Academy award: "After the announcement of the Best Director Award, Polanski received a standing ovation from most of those present in the theater."
And yet you claim these same liberals had such moral principles for eventually turning on Weinstein.
A ridiculous description of well-documented events?
Either you have eyes and use them or you look the other way. You choose to look the other way. Another disgusting example of liberal "morals and principles".
So is he still in good standing? Hard to tell.
Yes, he is. There was some grumbling right after #MeToo, but he's still invited to liberal events. In fact, he had prime seating at Aretha Franklin's funeral, right along with... Louis Farrakhan.
If the allegations from the '90s happened today and he was in office, it would likely be a different story.
Oh, is that why Ellison hasn't been disavowed? Did you think I would just let you slide by without noticing that you completely skipped over him? Thanks for demonstrating, yet again, that "morals and principles" are only for when they are politically expedient.
As for Sarah Jeong, like it or not parodying racism isn't racist, and there is a difference between punching up and punching down in comedy.
She wasn't parodying racism, she was just being racist, where it was openly acceptable among her circle, as the Forbes article you linked to demonstrated. But that's just another example of liberal "morals and principles" on display.
Pretending otherwise harms your credibility.
Thanks for the laugh. You've displayed what your "credibility" amounts to:
"But the alternative view -- that of today's political left -- is that Jeong definitionally cannot be racist, because she's both a woman and a racial minority. Racism against whites, in this neo-Marxist view, just "isn't a thing" -- just as misandry literally cannot exist at all. And this is because, in this paradigm, racism has nothing to do with a person's willingness to pre-judge people by the color of their skin, or to make broad, ugly generalizations about whole groups of people, based on hoary stereotypes. Rather, racism is entirely institutional and systemic, a function of power, and therefore it can only be expressed by the powerful -- i.e., primarily white, straight men. For a nonwhite female, like Sarah Jeong, it is simply impossible. In the religion of social constructionism, Jeong, by virtue of being an Asian woman, is one of the elect, incapable of the sin of racism or group prejudice. All she is doing is resisting whiteness and maleness, which indeed require resistance every second of the day."
operate for a long time undiscovered
It wasn't undiscovered. It was an open secret.
In other words, he was pushed out in line with their morals and prinicples, but this behavior ultimately benefitted democrats so it doesn't count?
Why do you strawman instead of tackling the issue? You ignored the initial pushback. You ignored the context in which he was finally pushed out. It wasn't about morals, it was about what was politically expedient.
How is that an example of hypocrisy or tribalism? Trump [..]
What does Trump have to do with the behavior of the Democrats? Not only does Ellison have multiple accusations by women against him, he's also been associated with the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan and an apologist for cop killers.
So? He's a fugitive hiding from US law enforcement. Hollywood nutballs aren't politicians.
But they are liberals.
I haven't heard of this. Is this what you're talking about?
No, I'm talking about this.
How is this relevant? Should adulterers be treated the same as rapists and misogynists?
You know Good Ole' Bubba has been accused of rape, as well as being a serial sexual harasser of women, right?
your_credibility--
Oh really?
"Jeong is a great hire for the Times but her tweets appeared to be blatantly racist, whatever their intention."
Hey, look at those great standards! What morals! What adherence to principles:
"Oh man itâ(TM)s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" --Sarah Jeong
"#CancelWhitePeople" --Sarah Jeong
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" --Sarah Jeong
Whew, that's pretty spicy! I see why she was a great hire for the New York Times.
How long did it take for Weinstein to face the music? That started the #MeToo movement, and after that a comedian like Louis C.K. stood no chance.
Al Franken is an illustrative example, because there was initially a lot of pushback to prop him up. But this was during the time of the Roy Moore election, so eventually he fell because it was more politically expedient to drop him.
But what about Keith Ellison? Oh ho, different story here. He's deemed too important right now.
What about Roman Polanski? Remember how Hollywood stood by him?
What about Joe Biden? As Vice President, this creepy perv got all touchy-feely with the wives, daughters, and granddaughters of Senators at a public swearing in ceremony, in front of cameras.
Is Bill Clinton still in good standing within Democrat circles?
Why did the New York Times hire a racist to their editorial board, and then double down after being called out?
When you make specific, incorrect claims about an actalperson it's a lie.
I've proven you've engaged in this behavior. You want to excuse your behavior and that of your ilk because of a bit of hyperbole. No sale.
You've still failed to address my point.
If there's anybody point dodging it's you. You're doing it in the very post I'm responding to. Reminder:
"Yes, let's remove the neo-Nazi smear, and examine the real issue at hand. You completely ignore that the root of the "code of conduct" was a difference of political opinion on transgenders outside the project. That 99.9% of the people are demanded to respect the delusions of the 0.1%. That's your social "justice"."
Liberals happily "eat their own" because they have these things called morals and principles, rather than just simple party tribalism.
The Oppression Olympics is all about tribalism, not morals.
The state merely mandates
lulz
Yes, but why do it? Is Linux some incredible prize worth conquering?
Cancer isn't discriminatory.
That is known as a "lie".
It's known as hyperbole. The fundamental truth is there. I've demonstrated you've engaged in this behavior. I've demonstrated how this behavior is at the root of what we're discussing.
You clearly don't understand what an "example" is.
Your Godwin example? You started with admitted defeat. It's a smear tactic, and you've been caught doing it before, when you were dead wrong.
My contention is you don't get a free pass on your actions in one sphere just because you try to separate areas of your life. Your response is basically "herp duh SJW *drool* godwin"
Yes, let's remove the neo-Nazi smear, and examine the real issue at hand. You completely ignore that the root of the "code of conduct" was a difference of political opinion on transgenders outside the project. That 99.9% of the people are demanded to respect the delusions of the 0.1%. That's your social "justice".
So do I or don't I personally call "everybody" neo Nazis? You have two choices here. You go for "do" which is a lie, or got for "don't" in which case your previous claim was a lie.
I have a third choice. I was speaking loosely and generically, and the essence of my statement is that you personally engage in this kind of behavior, as I have demonstrated, and that it's also true of your social "justice" ilk.
YEs but we both know I didn't accuse anyone of being one.
It's a smear tactic to associate those afoul of the "code of conduct" with neo-Nazis.
But you never once addressed the actual point.
The point has already been addressed -- it's that you'd rather quibble instead of making a counterpoint. We've seen how these "codes of conduct" are used to attack people politically for their outside opinions that have nothing to do with "neo-Nazis". We can trace this right back to "Coraline Ada" and Opalgate.
That's admitting defeat and you're doing it more and more with every post :)
Oh, you're still playing this game after you started with a Godwin loss? How retarded. But what else do I expect from a social "justice" idiot?
Are you denying Twitter has banned quite a nmbe of people who do identify as nazis?
The topic was about what was happening at large scales to right-wing users. You and the left-wing media denied it. You were dead wrong.
Interesting, you didn't actually deny you made up lies about me.
I picked the lowest hanging fruit. I didn't make up any lies about you. You're Slashdot's #2 social "justice" idiot behind AmiMojo. And it's not just what you say personally, we've seen this calling everybody to the right a neo-Nazi for two years now, as an excuse for either violence or censorship.
You swing wildly between bawling about accusations of Naziism (even though none were present)
You literally brought in neo-Nazis into a discussion about Codes of Conduct.
banging on the Godwin drum as if this is some great insight you had
You tried to play the "admitted defeat" angle, you 'tard. I just threw it back in your face, with the difference that you actually did.
And it's not the first time, either. There you are claiming Twitter's censorship was about Nazis.
You were dead wrong about that. Even CEO Jack Dorsey admitted it after it became too big to deny and he was called before Congress.