Jump to content

This past weekend I learned

pyrohornIII

By pyrohornIII
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Captainant

Captainant 28387

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah.  The claim was private schools are "lily fucking white", which isn't true for the good ones.  I mean our school district is "lily fucking white" compared to Northshore, and looks like a rainbow coalition when compared against the Woodlands.  

When you're only comparing opposite outliers to each other, that's what we call "cherry picking" - just so ya know

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

There are three private schools in Houston. St. Pius, St. Thomas, and Strake Jesuit are more like semi-private. 
 

giphy.gif

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46976

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

hey genius, you cited a link ranking the most diverse private schools, and private schools only, to cite that private schools are diverse in comparison to public schools. 

Do you see the fault in that logic? 

 

Ir's so beautiful! -- VY

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29556

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

Ok, I'll be that guy who wanders into the beginning of the thread and doesn't read the rest before responding, so I assume this has already been covered.  HOWEVER ... did I really just read a citation of the GETTYSBURG ADDRESS as an example of when America was homogeneous and united with everyone having the same motivations and aligned incentives?

I don't know, maybe I'm not a history buff.  But something about that seems wrong.   Pretty good troll game, though.

Maybe he was endorsing killing all the neo-confederates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90546

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think it’s likely that the majority of the most prolific posters on the CR are a combination of disaffected former Republicans (like Brisket) and politically homeless economic conservatives 

If you want to know why there is so much shock and anger from Surly posters directed at Trump and the GQP shitshow, it’s because so many of us are older and were Republicans at one point in our lives.

We went through the 90s where Clinton was bad because he was a draft dodger, and we still had a lot of WWII vets, and “bringing home” the Vietnam MIA/POWs was serous business, and batshit conspiracy theories were the realm of the fringe crowd who seriously read The National Enquirer and Weekly World News.

Now a former President who dodged the draft multiple times, is still the leading Republican front runner for the nomination, and he publicly encourages people with  batshit conspiracy theories that even the National Enquirer might have turned down as too crazy back in the day. He has shit all over military veterans, Gold Star families, and to this day, continues to openly shit on Vietnam vets and in particular, Vietnam POWs.

And yet the Republican party leaders try not to upset him or criticize him over the kinds of stuff that would have had Republicans out in the streets if a Democrat said them.  His Republican primary challengers aren’t truly willing to hold him accountable for the horrible things he says, that ran counter to Republican beliefs for decades,

And he’s backed by Boomers, the generation that had to live through Vietnam, and that saw millions of its generation in uniform during that era and shortly after, and they are okay with a draft dodger shitting all over Vietnam vets and POWs.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted

I read most of this topic and have some comments.  While I think it is stupid to disregard an article because of someone's belief that the publication offering it is biased, I can see where they are coming from.  And, those that vigorously defended the NYT seem just as obtuse if given a true read.

The cry from the detractors was that if the article was in the NYT then it would be biased, socially liberal and/or not very informative on a subject like NIL.  So I read the article and, to be certain, it had a biased, socially liberal lean and was pretty devoid of any real news.  I believe that anyone who is a college football fan, regardless of school, knows more about the NIL situation in college football than was shared in the article.  So the article, presumably, was directed to people other than college football fans. 

Looking at the article in those terms (people reading the article that do not know much about college football) it really is very biased.  Starting with the headline "Best Teams Money Could Buy" is obvious clickbait but it still paints the picture that these four teams were somehow unique.  It is WAY down the article that it even insinuates lightly that other schools do the same thing.  I would bet that if you polled every just passing college football fan that read the article, almost all of them would think Washington was a major NIL player and the primary reason they were in the playoff.  Obviously that is untrue.  Just within their own conference their NIL program is dwarfed by USC and Oregon.

Next, there was this little nugget in the article "They have also undermined the push for gender equity by immensely favoring male athletes."  What purpose does that have in the article?  When I first read it I assumed they would have some follow up or some evidence that it was true but it was just a throwaway line.  It was a socially liberal throw in.  Again, a person that is just a casual football fan but active NYT reader would infer that schools are somehow lessening their commitment to womens sports when that is absolute bullshit. 

They also suggest the IRS is investigating as if there is some nefarious stuff going on because most of the collectives are registered as non profits.  For fucks sake, the only ones that could possibly have an issue with the IRS are the players not reporting their money.  The collectives put in their own money for the lion's share of the funds.  The collectives make no profits.  It is, again, a shitty angle especially to non fans.  They say it has created an "imbalance" with teams.  As any fan knows the imbalances between programs has been in place since WW2.  But for the ignorant it reads that the 4 teams are big bad wolves and the others are sheep. 

So, as said, it is silly to just ignore an article because of the source but I can see the argument and the article did nothing to help argue against it.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30231

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

I read most of this topic and have some comments.  While I think it is stupid to disregard an article because of someone's belief that the publication offering it is biased, I can see where they are coming from.  And, those that vigorously defended the NYT seem just as obtuse if given a true read.

The cry from the detractors was that if the article was in the NYT then it would be biased, socially liberal and/or not very informative on a subject like NIL.  So I read the article and, to be certain, it had a biased, socially liberal lean and was pretty devoid of any real news.  I believe that anyone who is a college football fan, regardless of school, knows more about the NIL situation in college football than was shared in the article.  So the article, presumably, was directed to people other than college football fans. 

Looking at the article in those terms (people reading the article that do not know much about college football) it really is very biased.  Starting with the headline "Best Teams Money Could Buy" is obvious clickbait but it still paints the picture that these four teams were somehow unique.  It is WAY down the article that it even insinuates lightly that other schools do the same thing.  I would bet that if you polled every just passing college football fan that read the article, almost all of them would think Washington was a major NIL player and the primary reason they were in the playoff.  Obviously that is untrue.  Just within their own conference their NIL program is dwarfed by USC and Oregon.

Next, there was this little nugget in the article "They have also undermined the push for gender equity by immensely favoring male athletes."  What purpose does that have in the article?  When I first read it I assumed they would have some follow up or some evidence that it was true but it was just a throwaway line.  It was a socially liberal throw in.  Again, a person that is just a casual football fan but active NYT reader would infer that schools are somehow lessening their commitment to womens sports when that is absolute bullshit. 

They also suggest the IRS is investigating as if there is some nefarious stuff going on because most of the collectives are registered as non profits.  For fucks sake, the only ones that could possibly have an issue with the IRS are the players not reporting their money.  The collectives put in their own money for the lion's share of the funds.  The collectives make no profits.  It is, again, a shitty angle especially to non fans.  They say it has created an "imbalance" with teams.  As any fan knows the imbalances between programs has been in place since WW2.  But for the ignorant it reads that the 4 teams are big bad wolves and the others are sheep. 

So, as said, it is silly to just ignore an article because of the source but I can see the argument and the article did nothing to help argue against it.

 

https://businessofcollegesports.com/name-image-likeness/important-clues-from-the-irss-letter-on-501c3-nil-collectives/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
On 1/6/2024 at 3:06 PM, Captainant said:

I really doubt there would be this much acrimony towards NYT if trump had not targeted them so relentlessly. Because genuinely, I haven't heard a single addressable complaint aside from the usual "well they're just a RAG, ok??? MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING!!"

If y'all had something more than boohoo victimhood it would be much more interesting 

I do not think the NYT is a rag.  But it has become way more left leaning in the last 10 years.  Part of that is simple numbers.  The vast majority of journalism students are liberal, the vast vast majority of journalism professors are liberal and the majority of print newsrooms are liberal.  It would be impossible for journalism to not lean left.  But the fact that you posted this is the perfect example that you are just like the people you seem to detest.

Anyone could start with Trump Russia collusion headlines and stories in the NYT.  They willfully printed stories that were inaccurate or complete fabrications.  They clearly did not do their own reporting or their own verifying because, as we know, virtually all of the nefarious allegations proved to be false.

But let's just examine a few things the NYT has done regarding big headline grabbing stories in the last few years that might cause a person to think that they were biased.

1) The NYT headline and story about Israel Bombs Hospital in Gaza.  I suppose the NYT can be sort of excused initially but not really.  First, they said the information was "from Palestinian spokes people.  Obviously trying to insinuate that it wasn't Hamas saying it but supposedly unbiased Palestinians.  Lending credibility.  Second (and almost worse for a supposed venerable outfit) they put a picture under the headline of a bombed out building.  Now, of course, they admit the info was from Hamas and admit the picture was not the hospital in question.  Someone with more compassion than me might forgive the original headline and story because it was a race to get out the news.  But there can be no excuse for the blatant picture misrepresentation.  That is like National Inquirer level for a political publication.  Can you see why Israeli's might think the NYT is biased?

2) Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.  This one was really bad.  The NYT used headlines saying he had been killed during the insurrection by someone bashing him in the head with a fire extinguisher.  Someone on this thread made the absurd statement that the NYT always sources the people in their stories.  Its just bullshit.  In this case they said "according to two law enforcement officials".  They obviously just either made up the quotes or, certainly, did absolutely zero investigating on their own.  They kept the articles coming for months.  They even then tried to insinuate he died from mace or pepper spray from one of the insurrectionists.  These were Pulitzer winning journalists.  Jan 6 was a big deal in America.  Tensions were very high.  Yet somehow the NYT and multiple Pulitzer winning journalists couldn't fact check a huge incident like this?  Not a single phone call to his family or the doctors or anyone?  The reporting absolutely flamed the fires.  It was 3.5 months before they finally printed a retraction that the officer sustained no injuries on Jan 6.  Obviously the damage was done.

3) Russian Bounty Stories.  The NYT pushed this story full scale in the months leading up to the election.  The NYT claimed not only that the bounties were real and that US soldiers were murdered but that also Trump knew about it and did nothing in response.  They used "intelligence officials" as their source.  No one identified.  They ran stories right through the election.  Months after the election the NYT "updated" the story to say that the intelligence was never confirmed and no US soldiers had ever been killed or even injured.  You think they run a story like that about Biden or Obama?

4) Nick Sandman.  The NYT headline was "Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March".  The story was completely one sided, no comments from any of the "boys".  Weeks later an "updated" story to "provide more context" went up.  No boys "mobbed" anyone. 

5) Caliphate.  The NYT promoted, sponsored, ran multiple stories etc on this report from one of its prized reporters.  The story won a Peabody and was nominated for a Pulitzer.  Again, months and months later, the NYT admits that the story was likely bullshit.  They gave back the Peabody. 

6) Duke Lacrosse.   NYT first reported the story.  Then after it became apparent the story was wrong, the NYT wrote a lengthy article defending itself and the reporter and later admitted to leaving out all exculpatory information.  The reporter, Selena Roberts said this "I wrote that a crime didn't have to occur for us to inspect the irrefutable evidence of misogyny and race baiting that went on that night"  That is the standard for the NYT?  It doesn't matter if we get a story wrong and ruin lives if we "feel" it was bad? 

7) 1619 Project.  The NYT promoted the story vigorously.  Multiple "fact checkers" were called on by the NYT to check the story/essay.  Multiple fact checkers came back to the NYT and pointed out numerous errors.  The NYT published the essay without any corrections.  Months later they admitted that many of the historical points were in fact false and had to "correct" the story multiple times.  This is the NYT.  They can not do stuff like this and be considered a venerable institution.

Like I said, I do not think the NYT is a rag and I truly believe it is a worthwhile publication.  But I can absolutely see the argument made from some.  And those that blindly champion it are just as wrong as those that now won't read it.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, bolverk said:

https://businessofcollegesports.com/name-image-likeness/important-clues-from-the-irss-letter-on-501c3-nil-collectives/

What is your point?  The NYT article clearly insinuated that these collectives may be running afoul of the IRS like they are doing something illegal or somehow committing tax fraud.  The collectives don't get to just say they are non profit.  They approach the IRS asking for status as a 501(c)(3) entity.  Either the IRS grants it or it doesn't.  If the IRS comes back later and changes their mind then the collectives will have to re classify.  Nothing will change with the NIL program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 8204

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

Anyone could start with Trump Russia collusion headlines and stories in the NYT.  They willfully printed stories that were inaccurate or complete fabrications.  They clearly did not do their own reporting or their own verifying because, as we know, virtuality all of the nefarious allegations proved to be false.  

 

Reuter’s disagrees.

“U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia used a scheme of hacking and propaganda to cause discord in the United States and harm Trump's Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

Mueller's probe, with several Trump campaign figures already pleading guilty or being convicted, has documented numerous contacts between Russians and people close to the president.“

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-collusion-explainer/explainer-in-trump-russia-probe-when-does-collusion-become-a-crime-idUSKCN1QJ0AL/

 

Links, or

 

image.jpeg.a6b22bc480b88d3f1b4ed54a9a3c390a.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Reuter’s disagrees.

“U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia used a scheme of hacking and propaganda to cause discord in the United States and harm Trump's Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

Mueller's probe, with several Trump campaign figures already pleading guilty or being convicted, has documented numerous contacts between Russians and people close to the president.“

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-collusion-explainer/explainer-in-trump-russia-probe-when-does-collusion-become-a-crime-idUSKCN1QJ0AL/

 

Links, or

 

image.jpeg.a6b22bc480b88d3f1b4ed54a9a3c390a.jpeg

lol.  I am not interested, at all, in rehashing Trump.  I would prefer to never have to hear about him ever again.  But this topic has to do with the NYT.  This article is by the Columbia Journalism Review.  Google them if you want to learn what they do, but they are considered the gold standard in journalism ethics by everyone.  The attached article is very long.  It goes directly to the point of what I have been saying.  The short version is that supposed respected papers, most notably the NYT and WAPO, essentially abandoned their journalistic ethics when reporting on Trump. 

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29556

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

If you want to know why there is so much shock and anger from Surly posters directed at Trump and the GQP shitshow, it’s because so many of us are older and were Republicans at one point in our lives.

We went through the 90s where Clinton was bad because he was a draft dodger, and we still had a lot of WWII vets, and “bringing home” the Vietnam MIA/POWs was serous business, and batshit conspiracy theories were the realm of the fringe crowd who seriously read The National Enquirer and Weekly World News.

Now a former President who dodged the draft multiple times, is still the leading Republican front runner for the nomination, and he publicly encourages people with  batshit conspiracy theories that even the National Enquirer might have turned down as too crazy back in the day. He has shit all over military veterans, Gold Star families, and to this day, continues to openly shit on Vietnam vets and in particular, Vietnam POWs.

And yet the Republican party leaders try not to upset him or criticize him over the kinds of stuff that would have had Republicans out in the streets if a Democrat said them.  His Republican primary challengers aren’t truly willing to hold him accountable for the horrible things he says, that ran counter to Republican beliefs for decades,

And he’s backed by Boomers, the generation that had to live through Vietnam, and that saw millions of its generation in uniform during that era and shortly after, and they are okay with a draft dodger shitting all over Vietnam vets and POWs.

 

You do know the Vietnam MIA/POW thing was basically a bullshit conspiracy theory, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90546

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You do know the Vietnam MIA/POW thing was basically a bullshit conspiracy theory, right? 

Oh I don’t think any POWs were alive after the 70s, but even today we are still bringing home the remains of MIAs, with the assistance of Vietnam and surrounding countries, and we are identifying them as well.

But the POW thing was huge through the 80s (see the various action movies about bringing them home, as well as all of the Vietnam reconciliation stuff) and into the 90s, and hell, Trump signed a new law back in 2019 expanding when and where the POW flag is displayed on federal properties.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29556

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I know it was a huge thing, and it was a huge myth. The prevalence of that myth on the right can very reasonably be seen as a precursor to QAnon shit. That's why it's weird to imply that it's of an era when the Republican party was normal and not beholden to batshit conspiracy theories.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90546

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That's why it's weird to imply that it's of an era when the Republican party was normal and not beholden to batshit conspiracy theories.

I think it was more about putting them on pedestals. The parents of Vietnam POWs/MIAs were still alive and there was a kind of reverence involved, and the Democrats were the party of draft dodgers (see Carter’s pardoning of them as well as Bill Clinton) and the Republicans were the ones who held military service in a higher regard (never mind John Kerry, Al Gore, who were Vietnam vets vs George W Bush who was never going to be sent to Vietnam).

To me it’s more about the sacrifice of the Vietnam vets and so it’s on a different level than a batshit conspiracy theory on the 2020s about Oprah Winfrey trafficking kids for their adrenochrome so she can stay young (it’s not working).

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...