I read the abstract and it’s certainly peer-reviewed. It would be good to understand what they mean when they reference the highest exposure levels. All of that is behind the paywall, I think. Molehill confirmed :)
Huh, my copy isn’t paywalled, even on home wifi.
And here are the forest and funnel plots, just for you!
Lifelong grifter now using fake liberal cause PACs to line his pockets.
That molehill is starting to look like a quagmire.
I remember his name from something political in the past. Fund raising maybe, maybe he ran for office.
Maybe it’s this I remember the name from…
After serving a three-year prison sentence, Dupont was convicted again in 1991 after he attempted to obtain a $360,000 mortgage on a home that he did not own, according to the Times. He was sentenced to 46 months behind bars on charges of bank fraud and money laundering.
True, civil jury verdicts and peer reviewed science are the same thing.
;-)
They aren’t the same thing. But only the former results in a quagmire. The latter sees this as a “funding opportunity”.
Granted.
My snark may have been slightly askew of your point.
“Please learn how to talk about Jews in a non-anti-Semitic way,” the journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon tweeted. “Sincerely, American Jews.” Chelsea Clinton quoted those words, adding, “Co-signed as an American. We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism.”
Which leads to:
When the two strangers accosted Chelsea Clinton, she was attending an NYU vigil for the Muslims murdered by a terrorist in Christchurch, New Zealand. “This right here is the result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world,” one declared as the other recorded the encounter. “I want you to know that, and I want you to feel that deep down inside. Forty-nine people died because of the rhetoric you put out there.”
Just notice that at every link in that chain of events, public discourse was dominated not by efforts to persuade or debate anything on the merits, but by attempts to cast, locate, or portray the target of one’s opprobrium as out of bounds.
I mean it is Conor Friedersdorf, but it is a problem when everything is seen through the lens of consequences, and the only lenses that matter are yours.
I almost had to diagram this on the whiteboard to follow the thread of exactly who was upset about what:
One instructive place to begin: Last month, Representative Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader in the House, told reporters that punitive action should be taken against two Democratic House members for their statements on Israel. “It’s not clear what McCarthy particularly found offensive,” Haaretz reported, “but both lawmakers embrace the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel, and both have been accused of tweets that cross the line.”
On Twitter, the journalist Glenn Greenwald flagged that article for his followers. “It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans,” he declared.
Representative Ilhan Omar responded, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.”
Some saw her tweet as a standard leftist claim that donor money was corrupting politics, others as an unwitting or intentional echo of an anti-Semitic trope.
“Please learn how to talk about Jews in a non-anti-Semitic way,” the journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon tweeted. “Sincerely, American Jews.” Chelsea Clinton quoted those words, adding, “Co-signed as an American. We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism.”
That callout upset the NYU students. They felt that casting Omar’s comments as beyond the pale was itself beyond the pale—that it made Chelsea Clinton an anti-Muslim bigot. Fast-forward to the vigil, where they called out Chelsea Clinton in turn. Though it happened face-to-face, it was, in essence, an IRL quote-tweet. The “likes” were provided by classmates who snapped in solidarity.
I’m not following here; I think I’ve lost my scorecard. Which people are we allowed to shame and attack for saying things, and which ones aren’t we allowed to do that to?
To me it’s mostly about how absurd and hyperbolic the discourse can become. Secondarily how it is all focused on how it seems to so often to be about pushing the target outside the bounds of polite conversation.
We can shame those two idiot students, right?
Because they are idiots.
And they deserve to be shamed.
This seemed to be the point, emphasis mine:
The lesson isn’t that stigma is never appropriate. If someone incites violence against Jews or Muslims, for example, the words ought to be summarily condemned, not fodder for debate about whether violent attacks are, in fact, desirable. Still, this episode illustrates that when the constant focus is on the boundaries of legitimate speech, little time or attention is left for substance. And what’s said to constitute bigotry keeps expanding without any apparent limit.
Nowadays, the journalist Damon Linker observed in The Week , “the point is less to convince your opponent that she has made an error of reasoning or is wrong on the facts as to convince your own side, as well as the dwindling crowd of neutral observers … that they are excused from having to take your opponent seriously because she has crossed a line beyond which people shouldn’t be granted a hearing.”
There were a lot of breakdowns in that chain of offenses where the response should’ve been to press for an explanation from which misunderstandings could be resolved or differences could then be argued. Instead it’s assume the worst and attack the person as someone undeserving of discourse, only scorn.
So the DCCC has implemented a new policy to thwart challengers within their own ranks.
Democrats just want to lose is that it? Do you really want to have this albatross hanging on your head? It just reinforces what happened with them anointing Hillary queen and they’re not only not not apologetic, they’re going full steam ahead & making it a policy.
Good Grief.
Trump will be re-elected. Sorry everyone.
Remind me on Nov 5 2020.
Piece of shit is a piece of shit, news at 11.
Hillary was not an incumbent, so it has nothing to do with her.
And the policy makes sense. Democrats want to encourage incumbents to share information (donor lists, etc), but there is little incentive to share info that could wind up in the hands of a primary challenger.
Hillary was anointed. When you favor incumbents you are by proxy anointing them.
I’m telling you from an independent lens this looks like the dems are saying “I’m fine with the status quo”. By saying that you are not differentiating yourself from Republicans when Congress has a 15-20% approval. Yes dems are better than Republicans, but if you’re not willing to concede there are better dems than the incumbents, then you are in essence saying you’re ok with crappy representation.
You should always be looking for the best candidate. This is not that.