Monday, April 12, 2021

Althouse

Althouse

"After the officer fired, she is heard on the video saying, 'Holy shit. I just shot him.'"

Posted: 12 Apr 2021 01:17 PM PDT

From "Minnesota Officer Who Shot Daunte Wright Meant to Fire Taser, Chief Says/Officials from Brooklyn Center said that the fatal shooting was an 'accidental discharge,' and released body-camera video of the encounter" (NYT). 

"It is my belief that the officer had the intention to deploy their Taser, but instead shot Mr. Wright with a single bullet," Chief Tim Gannon of the Brooklyn Center Police Department said of the shooting on Sunday of Daunte Wright, 20, during a traffic stop. "This appears to me, from what I viewed, and the officer's reaction and distress immediately after, that this was an accidental discharge that resulted in a tragic death of Mr. Wright."... 

Chief Gannon said that Mr. Wright had been initially pulled over because of an expired registration on the vehicle he was driving. The video showed a brief struggle between Mr. Wright and police officers before one of the officers fired her gun.

The topic of race does not come up until the 5th paragraph of this article, where we are told: "Mr. Wright was Black. City officials did not identify the race of the police officer." The gender of the officer is revealed in the first paragraph, but only by way of the pronoun "her." The quoted statement from the police chief avoids pronouns.

It's hard to fathom the incompetence that would be necessary to mix up your taser and your gun. How is it possible that these 2 items are shaped and positioned in a manner that would allow them to be confused?

(The way to comment is just to email me here.)

"Cambodia’s Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts has said that an Ireland-based photo restoration artist broke the country’s archive law after he digitally colourised and added smiles..."

Posted: 12 Apr 2021 12:12 PM PDT

"... to images of genocide victims. VICE has removed an article showcasing Matt Loughrey's work, whilst a petition demanding an apology gained traction on Sunday evening.... ... Cambodia's Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts said on Sunday that the photos 'are in violation of the dignity of Cambodian Genocide victims and of the rights of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum… We urge researchers, artists and the public not to manipulate any historical source to respect the victims.'... The project received a widespread backlash on social media with many calling it 'tasteless,' 'racist' and 'tone-deaf.'... Cambodia-based photojournalist John Vink was among the critics on Twitter: 'Matt Loughrey in Vice is not colourising S21 photographs. He is falsifying history,' he tweeted."  

Hong Kong Free Press reports. 

I can't imagine that Loughrey thought he was doing something that was anything other than uplifting and kindly, making a nice image of a real person from a photograph captured under horrific circumstances. I don't think what he did was racist, but it was poor judgment — by Loughrey and by VICE. There shouldn't be laws against artistic poor judgment, and I would think the intense disapproval is enough. But Cambodia has its own laws.

(The only way to comment is to email me. here.)

I'm only seeing NBC News covering the "White Lives Matter" rallies that didn't happen.

Posted: 12 Apr 2021 09:30 AM PDT

Headline: "'White Lives Matter' rallies flop as hardly anyone shows up/The poor turnout underscores how the country's unpopular and disorganized extremist movements have been driven underground." 

Is it news when something doesn't happen? You need to establish the foundation that it was supposed to happen and something prevented it. Maybe most news organizations decided that to say these rallies didn't happen is to say that there are very few people dedicated to this cause, and that's not something they want us to believe.

The way NBC News dealt with that is to say that the failure to show up in person should be interpreted to mean that the movements have gone "underground." So a big rally would be bad, but a non-rally would be bad too: 

The poor showing underscores how the country's unpopular and disorganized extremist movements have been driven underground by increased scrutiny from the media, law enforcement agencies and far-left activists who infiltrate their private online spaces and disrupt their attempts to communicate and organize.

How do you know that what looked like rally planning wasn't just the media, law enforcement agencies, and far-left activists  talking amongst themselves? 

Few "White Lives Matter" marchers showed up Sunday, but anti-racist and anti-fascist groups gathered just the same. In Raleigh, North Carolina, a small crowd of antifa and anti-racist protesters gathered at the park where the "White Lives Matter" march was planned. They marched around downtown behind a large white sign that read, "WE ACCEPT YOUR SURRENDER."...

The "White Lives Matter" rallies were disrupted in several cities after activists infiltrated their online groups and leaked internal chats to journalists. Those chats were reported to have indicated that the events were being planned by the extremist group the Proud Boys and by self-described fascists and Nazis who framed the rallies as peaceful events unaffiliated with known hate groups to recruit more mainstream members....

Reported to have indicated....

Two of the largest Telegram channels dedicated to events in Philadelphia and New York City were shown to be traps created by anti-fascist activists. Another local activist tweeted screenshots of the plan's reveal with a warning Saturday to would-be rallygoers: "Given how riddled these chats are with antifascists ... it might be time to rethink whether you really want to trust a bunch of anonymous internet weirdos to show up with you in your city."

Is that the same as existing activist groups being "driven underground"? The whole thing looks fake.

FROM THE EMAIL: Jerry writes: 

I was shocked that NBC identified some as "Antifa," since they're only an idea. And since others are identified as "Anti-fascist groups" shouldn't there be some Fascists on the other side?

***

There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.

The Anti-Defamation League wants Fox News to fire Tucker Carlson.

Posted: 12 Apr 2021 08:13 AM PDT

WaPo reports in "ADL demands Fox News fire Tucker Carlson over anti-Semitic trope: 'This has deadly significance.'"

Here's the exact quote from Carlson (which includes his awareness that what he is saying is fuel to his would-be cancelers):

"Now, I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term 'replacement,' if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the third world," Carlson said. "But they become hysterical because that's what's happening actually. Let's just say it: That's true." 
Carlson then referenced the racist claim by name, dismissing it as the motivation for his remarks. 
"Everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it. Oh, you know, the white replacement theory? No, no, no," he said. "I have less political power because they are importing a brand new electorate. Why should I sit back and take that?" 
The "great replacement theory" was popularized in 2012 by French writer Renaud Camus, who warned that Western countries face an impending White genocide. The phrase has evolved into a bogus notion that a cabal of elite Jews are plotting to replace White populations with immigrants, Muslims and people of color, according to the ADL.

Of course, Carlson was denying that he meant to espouse the "replacement theory." He said he wanted to use the word "replacement" without the extra baggage and to criticize his antagonists for getting emotional over that word. He knew what he was doing, and presumably he loves the media attention he engineered. He's in a creepy love embrace with liberal media. Maybe I should just look away. I would look away, but I just want to nail this down to keep track of it.

FROM THE EMAIL: Several readers are attacking the Anti-Defamation League, saying that it's not what it used to be. For example, one reader says:

The ADL is a D operation and a long standing embarrassment to Jews.... It is a D organization wearing the clothes of a former Jewish group. It is a defamation to Jews, and it is a terrible embarrassment. I don't think for a second ADL actually thinks, Carlson, talking about how black voter dilution is a product of mass immigration, was inviting harm to Jews or anyone else. It is insulting. Insulting that they are posing as if Jews, for a second, think that speaking out against diluting the black vote through mass immigration is hurting Jews, It's a farce they are playing at the expense of diaspora Jews.

***

There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.

"Someone needs to change that headline which seems to state the judge had drugs and thought she was Harry Potter"/"Absolute word salad."/"Confusing headline, for the deceased judge’s sake please correct."

Posted: 12 Apr 2021 05:54 AM PDT

Washington Post commenters cry out in near unison over a wretched headline. 

The headline — here — has now been tweaked — lamely — but I found the cached version and made a screen shot of the 2 headlines. The old headline is shown first and the current headline second:

 

 

 

 

The deceased judge is Sandra J. Feuerstein. I offer sympathy to her family and friends.

Perhaps you will think it interesting that the driver's name is Nastasia Snape. I'm only mentioning that so you don't feel you have to email me to express that interest. But you can email me here if you want to comment.

"A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that 55% of Republicans falsely believe Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election was the result of illegal voting or rigging."

Posted: 12 Apr 2021 01:18 PM PDT

"Additionally, 60% of Republicans incorrectly agree that the election was stolen from Republican Donald Trump." 

CNN reports, aggressively inserting the view that the people who were polled are wrong. I believe that's a very unusual way to report an opinion poll, with insistence that the opinion is wrong and apart from any factual reporting that makes it perfectly obvious that the opinion is mistaken. 

This displays a desperate fear of the opinion, and I don't think it does much good. The urge to stamp the opinion out will tend to make those who hold it grip more tightly: What are they afraid of? Are they trying to get me to move on, telling me there's nothing to see here?

CNN continues:

What is perfectly clear, however, is that Republicans' lack of faith in our current election infrastructure is a direct result of Trump's historic efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 results.

It's "perfectly clear" why people have this opinion? This is a news article, reporting a poll, and it's making an absolute assertion about why human beings believe what they do. That doesn't inspire confidence. It makes people suspicious, perhaps paranoid. 

FROM THE EMAIL: Cheryl writes: 

"Election infrastructure..." 

Seems like that word is being softened up to mean anything they want it to mean. Wonder why. 

Good catch. I'll boldface the word in the quoted text above. Cheryl's right. There's been a lot of talk lately from Democrats around the word "infrastructure." I was just saying: "It's a propaganda word to the core."

AND: Temujin emails:

The only thing missing from this article was the word 'debunked' as in, these false theories have been clearly debunked. Which, of course, they have not.

The key to this is that the fraud, or at least the appearance of fraud has never been fully examined, investigated, or allowed to be. Even those few court 'appearances' were mostly tossed out of court for 'lack of standing' or due to lack of evidence. Yes, it's hard to obtain evidence when your discovery time is extremely short, and the states have it locked away, or thrown away, or it has simply 'disappeared'.

What we have had, since the surprising closing of the polls late in the evening in 4 key cities, and the more surprising change from a massive Trump lead to a Biden surge taking place while the polls were 'closed' at 1-4 am, is a barrage of media sources, Big Tech, and 'expert' talking heads telling us all how this was clearly a clean election, no fraud, and all questions have been answered, all theories, debunked. I personally will go to my grave not believing that 80 million Americans — more than voted for any previous person in our history- got out and voted for Joe Biden who had spent the previous 18 months locked up in a basement with an occasional outing to mispronounce names or forget where he was.

There are roughly 74 million people in this country walking around right now with a nagging nervousness in their gut, like a wound that will not go away. Too many of us, and I clearly include me in this, strongly suspect a massive foul play — a coup — took place on November 3. We are suspicious of what took place before, during, and certainly after election day. Demanding we believe the networks is hardly the answer to clearing this up.

And the overall complete and total censorship and dismissal of the topic — by Big Tech, the networks, major news outlets, and talking heads — only exacerbates our suspicions. That CNN- the network most famous for promoting the Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax, purposely misquoting Trump on his Charlottesville comments, showcasing preposterous liars with fabulous stories about Justice Kavanaugh, calling flat-out riots destroying our cities 'peaceful protests', and sporting insurrection tears — has a show called "Reality Check" is all you need to know about the USA in 2020, 2021.

That the Reuters/Ipsos poll only shows 55% of Republicans still questioning things shows how much work the media has already done to make this all disappear. That number should be at 80%. It probably is. We know how inaccurate our polls have been over the last few years. Yet we still crank them out — daily.

Owen writes:  

Remarkable behavior by CNN, as you point out. Reminds me of the line, "The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

And mezzrow says: 

On truth and elections. Here's a definition of what term 'liberal' means from my favorite reactionary. On these terms, I will always proudly identify as liberal. It's the only identity politics that has meaning to me.

There exist two interpretations of the popular vote, one democratic, the other liberal. 

According to the democratic interpretation what the majority resolves upon is true; according to the liberal interpretation the majority merely chooses one option. 

A dogmatic and absolutist interpretation, the one; a skeptical and discreet interpretation, the other. – Don Colacho

And Tim writes: 

Somehow, both Hayes and Kennedy avoided going down in history with an asterisk beside their name. I do not think Biden is going to avoid that fate. A big part of both Hayes and Kennedy avoiding that fate was their attempt to reconcile with their foes. But Biden has never been the sharpest pencil in the box.

AND: Bob Boyd writes:

That doesn't inspire confidence. It makes people suspicious, perhaps paranoid. 

I think this kind of thing does inspire confidence in those who choose to believe The Narrative.

CNN knows what it is doing with this stuff. It's not a blunder. It's not poor journalism. It's the new journalism. Their role is not to report facts, it's to report their expert determination of the correct opinion.

There is no factual reporting included because it is not the role of news consumers to determine which opinion is correct and which is mistaken. Facts are for experts to sift through, who will then report their determination of the correct opinion. Wise consumers will adopt that expert opinion. Failure to adopt that opinion is a clear indication of a serious character flaw.

Am I being paranoid?

And Wild Swan writes: 

Believe is kind of a funny word which may make "falsely believing" an impossibility. What would Wittgenstein say? Can I "falsely believe" in the sense that I would be able to say "I falsely believe?"

Wittgenstein said no.. He said: I can believe a falsehood (false belief) but I am not able to carry out an action - "falsely believing" - that means believing and not believing?

Continuing on from him, I say: "Truly believing," as a description of the belief of many Republicans about the 2020 election means "sincerely believing," rather than "correctly believing." Its opposite is not "falsely believing" but "pretending to believe" or hypocrisy.

Go further. Can someone else truly say of me: "She falsely believes?" Is there such a thing as a psychological state which is a false way to believe, as opposed to a false belief. Can you falsely believe CNN or Jen Psaki?

The significance of the question is that a "false belief" implies that there is a truth somewhere whereas "falsely believing" is a nonsense phrase - something a bureaucrat or any other dullard is well able to say about the ciphers they ruin without the phrase ever diverting them into falsely questing for truth.

AND: Dwight writes: 

USA Today has been doing this for months regarding the election... "Trump falsely claims..."

I've been waiting for "Franklin Graham falsely claims there is a God".

*** 

There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.

Daffodils.

Posted: 12 Apr 2021 08:25 AM PDT

IMG_3447
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

What makes an Instant Coffee "Premium"?

It's in the beans and packing process͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ...