One of the things that really bothers me in the modern era is the way people have learned to pretend to be victimized to support their cause. Two types of people use this. The first are over-privileged people trying to make their narcissistic extravagance less intolerable and the second are those trying to keep the cult together, so to speak. The first is usually hypocritical actors, arrogant models and the children of the ultra rich... nepo babies. The second tend to be political types trying to keep the morons outraged. In the last few weeks something interesting along these lines has emerged: Snopes.
You might remember Snopes as a hard-left "fact checker." It lies and misleads and spreads all kinds of leftist propaganda as it pretends to be an unbiased debunker. It seemed to kind of vanish from the news for a while, but now it's back. And what it's doing is... interesting.
Over the past month, I've seen Snopes articles appearing every day. Only one was overly political. It was a "debunking" of the idea that AOC became a millionaire over the last four years. To say the debunking was bunk is an understatement. First, it only used her official campaign disclosure to do the debunking... and we know no one lies on those, right? And what kind of debunker relies on the statements of the person they are investigating? Secondly, it only looked at cash in the bank and her declared retirement fund. It did not examine assets... where people keep their value. Based on this "extensive" look at one single self-reported form, Snopes concluded she was only worth about $15,000. Take that right wingers! Of course, that would make her a fool as her House income alone is $174,000 a year, before benefits and outside engagements.
Anyway, not the point.
What's interesting is that for the past month, Snopes has been posting articles at places like leftist Yahoo purporting to debunk things I can guarantee you no one actually said. These are usually attempts to defend well-connected leftist celebrities like Oprah, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates, Obama. What's more, they seem to be an attempt to defend these people from (fake) nonsense attacks in an effort to sure up their reputations when they've done something else that is being criticized.
Examples of the types of things they're debunking are:
I think there are several factors at play here. First, this defends well-connected leftist celebrities by polluting the water around them. If they get you to believe that your favorite celeb is under constant false attack, you tend to disbelieve and forgive real scandals. For example, Oprah's $10 million donation in Maui went over like a lead balloon because it looks chintzy compared to her wealth. Snopes steps in to debunk a fake scandal. Bill Gates was baffled why people were upset he owns 4% of the farmland in the US. Snopes steps in to debunk a fake scandal. As these are the people driving the left today, Snopes is protecting the leftist ruling class.
Secondly, it reinforces who we should listen to by (1) making certain people seem so important they are being targeted and (2) it keeps people assuming those who oppose them are lunatics. Basically, it's making average people believe the right is a bunch of Tucker Carlsons, which devalues the right very much by making them seem lunatic and devoid of any factual reasoning or common sense. It makes the right seem scary and stupid.
Third, it distracts at the same time it defines the culture: don't talk about incomes falling, inflation, corporate misbehavior, or out of control crime... the real battleground is Oprah's donations. It's the same way talk radio tells you the real issue is that teacher in Indiana or that kid at that one prom rather than trying to explain the real issues and provide real solutions. Look moron, shiny.
Fourth, it makes it easier to swallow bullship debunking like the AOC debunking because Snopes improves its batting average to build trust. So maybe you won't think too hard when it matters more.
I actually think this is pretty insidious. The left has been doing this for a while now. One of the first ones I really recall was the girly Ghostbusters movie. It was a movie no one wanted and then was premised with identity politics. It clearly wasn't selling. To try to make it sell, the black chick suddenly discovered racists who were trolling her over appearing in it. Appeals went out immediately to see the movie to fight back against racists. Within days, the anti-gay trolls supposedly appeared, then the misogynist trolls. None of it was real. They made it all up to sell the movie. Since then, it's slowly become a standard practice for actresses and leftists and the crapulent rich to try to garner sympathy to cover their mistakes. Now Snopes is part of it. Interesting.
You might remember Snopes as a hard-left "fact checker." It lies and misleads and spreads all kinds of leftist propaganda as it pretends to be an unbiased debunker. It seemed to kind of vanish from the news for a while, but now it's back. And what it's doing is... interesting.
Over the past month, I've seen Snopes articles appearing every day. Only one was overly political. It was a "debunking" of the idea that AOC became a millionaire over the last four years. To say the debunking was bunk is an understatement. First, it only used her official campaign disclosure to do the debunking... and we know no one lies on those, right? And what kind of debunker relies on the statements of the person they are investigating? Secondly, it only looked at cash in the bank and her declared retirement fund. It did not examine assets... where people keep their value. Based on this "extensive" look at one single self-reported form, Snopes concluded she was only worth about $15,000. Take that right wingers! Of course, that would make her a fool as her House income alone is $174,000 a year, before benefits and outside engagements.
Anyway, not the point.
What's interesting is that for the past month, Snopes has been posting articles at places like leftist Yahoo purporting to debunk things I can guarantee you no one actually said. These are usually attempts to defend well-connected leftist celebrities like Oprah, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates, Obama. What's more, they seem to be an attempt to defend these people from (fake) nonsense attacks in an effort to sure up their reputations when they've done something else that is being criticized.
Examples of the types of things they're debunking are:
Did Jada Pinkett panic as her 'sickening' role in Maui wild fires leaks?Note that this is all obvious nonsense no one would believe. Note also that no one likely said any of this. I don't mean the celebrity didn't say it, I mean no real person ever suggested this happened. Maybe a Russian bot, but no actual person. And certainly no one believed it or passed it on. So what is Snopes doing?
Did Tom Hanks reveal Oprah's 'true plan' behind Maui fires?
Did Bill Gate laugh and say he was buying land in Maui at pennies on the dollar?
Did NFL coach/owner X immediately suspend a player/fire coach Y for kneeling during the national anthem?
Did Obama panic of Joan River's confession?
I think there are several factors at play here. First, this defends well-connected leftist celebrities by polluting the water around them. If they get you to believe that your favorite celeb is under constant false attack, you tend to disbelieve and forgive real scandals. For example, Oprah's $10 million donation in Maui went over like a lead balloon because it looks chintzy compared to her wealth. Snopes steps in to debunk a fake scandal. Bill Gates was baffled why people were upset he owns 4% of the farmland in the US. Snopes steps in to debunk a fake scandal. As these are the people driving the left today, Snopes is protecting the leftist ruling class.
Secondly, it reinforces who we should listen to by (1) making certain people seem so important they are being targeted and (2) it keeps people assuming those who oppose them are lunatics. Basically, it's making average people believe the right is a bunch of Tucker Carlsons, which devalues the right very much by making them seem lunatic and devoid of any factual reasoning or common sense. It makes the right seem scary and stupid.
Third, it distracts at the same time it defines the culture: don't talk about incomes falling, inflation, corporate misbehavior, or out of control crime... the real battleground is Oprah's donations. It's the same way talk radio tells you the real issue is that teacher in Indiana or that kid at that one prom rather than trying to explain the real issues and provide real solutions. Look moron, shiny.
Fourth, it makes it easier to swallow bullship debunking like the AOC debunking because Snopes improves its batting average to build trust. So maybe you won't think too hard when it matters more.
I actually think this is pretty insidious. The left has been doing this for a while now. One of the first ones I really recall was the girly Ghostbusters movie. It was a movie no one wanted and then was premised with identity politics. It clearly wasn't selling. To try to make it sell, the black chick suddenly discovered racists who were trolling her over appearing in it. Appeals went out immediately to see the movie to fight back against racists. Within days, the anti-gay trolls supposedly appeared, then the misogynist trolls. None of it was real. They made it all up to sell the movie. Since then, it's slowly become a standard practice for actresses and leftists and the crapulent rich to try to garner sympathy to cover their mistakes. Now Snopes is part of it. Interesting.
15 comments:
Andrew, I take it you don't want to talk about it, but what do you think about McCarthy being knocked out? Any way this can be a good thing?
Hi Anon,
I don't see anyone in or near power who can make this a good thing -- unless you're a Democrat, but you never know what the future holds. I suppose this might wake the party up to the danger in their midst. That would be a good thing.
The problem is McCarthy was Matt Gaetz before Gaetz, so even the grown ups in the party won't be too sad to see this happen and likely will miss seeing this as the chance it affords them to fix things for that reason.
Who knows though? Maybe someone will surprise? If not, a decade in the wilderness tends to do wonders slapping the stupid out of parties.
As an aside, this was what I meant when I said McCarthy should have cut a deal with moderate Democrats when he started.
Andrew
Newt Gingrich said this today:
'If Gaetz were simply a loudmouthed junior member who attacked McCarthy every day, that would be fine, too,' wrote Gingrich.
''He would just be isolated with a small group of lawmakers who can't figure out how to get things done. They'd huddle together seeking warmth and reassurance from their fellow incompetents.
'But Gaetz has gone beyond regular drama. He is destroying the House GOP's ability to govern and draw a sharp contrast with the policy disasters of the Biden administration.'
Say what you will about Newt; he was probably the last strong (and dare I say it, ruthless) Speaker the GOP had. How in the world the Republicans are going to pick a replacement Speaker beats the crap out of me. Honestly, they don't have anyone worthy enough to take up the gavel and make decisions without being either totally spineless or a complete ass. Except possibly Jim Jordan, but he's said repeatedly that he doesn't want to do it. Wise of him, honestly.
Anon, I saw that from Newt. I don't always agree with him, but he's right on this one. Gaetz is not someone the Republicans should ever have trusted. He makes his living attacking Republicans.
Andrew
Anon 2(?), The asses won't even try to take it because they make their living as anti-GOP hecklers and wouldn't know how to lead. Besides, responsibility would destroy their appeal.
Ultimately, someone with a sense of responsibility will take over, becoming talk radio's new villain in the process.
Where it gets interesting is what choice that person will make about how to handle the role? Will they go bold and redefine the party in the hopes of attracting the public (moving toward Reaganism perhaps?) or will they let the Democrats and the assholes treat them like a ping pong ball?
McCarthy was a ping pong ball. I don't see a Reagan. I see assholes and sheep. But you never know. There might be a Reagan hidden in the flock.
Andrew
Hey Andrew,
Straw-man arguments are the name of the game for Legacy Mediots... especially so called "fact checkers".
At this point, I don't think the bigger MSM outlets have any clout or validity anymore. I tend to get news on X/Twitter days before the Legacy outlets report on it.
Looks like Jim Jordan will run for Speaker... I really hope he gets the position. He has had some great arguments if you go watch some of his take downs.
-Kyle
Kyle, Every day, my respect for "the media" sinks, legacy or other. Something else I'm seeing that drives me nuts is that they are using "this is what I saw on twitter" as news now. What a dishonest way to claim anything. All I have to do is pick out the the people I want to report on to completely invent an argument.
And most of the new media stuff is pure gossip filled with biased opinion and zero actual facts. It's "journalistic" malpractice.
Good luck to Jordan. If he doesn't find some way to refresh his relationship with the public fast, he'll just be moving into a person grinder of a position.
Andrew
I am happy to discuss specific issues, but no blanket paranoids.
Andrew
What I'm finding rather funny today is all the GOP members and commenters who are shocked at how "stupid" Gaetz is and how he was "misled" by democrats and how shocked they are that this group of 8 (and a few others) are "fundraising off their votes." (Those are direct quotes.)
Do they really not understand that these people were never genuine? This is a who they are. They throw bombs because it makes them money and it brings them fame. And they throw bombs at Republicans because it's easier to be a traitor and become notorious than it is to get noticed throwing bombs at the enemy. That's all this is. This isn't some ideological fight... they have no actual ideology... it's just opportunism.
I'm really surprise people can't see this.
Andrew
Just read something interesting from Matt Lewis. It's about the Democrats. He points out that the Democrats had a potentially huge victory here by saving McCarthy because they could sell themselves as the adult party. But they blew it by voting for Gaetz.
I actually think he's right. I know a lot of nonaligned people who are angry at the Democrats for letting the Republicans hurt the country doing this... and yes, that is how this is being interpreted outside the bubble.
It's an interesting take by Lewis and these people I know and it makes me nervous. (Quote from Lewis: "Democrats didn’t start this fire, but it sure as hell feels like they are fanning the flames instead of smothering it. Doesn’t America deserve at least one adult party?")
For generations (probably since Chicago 1968), the Republicans have been seen as the responsible party (the ant), with the Democrats seen as 'softeners' whenever GOP policy got a little too cold (the grasshopper). The idea that people would look to the Democrats for responsibility would be a very serious shift in the underlying view of the parties, and not a good one. Yet, Lewis is suggesting it's a possibility.
Andrew
Interesting take from Lewis. I'm honestly fine with McCarthy being ousted due to his backroom deals to supply Ukraine with billions more of our tax dollars.
With that said, the problem is that there was no plan for a replacement speaker… so now were in a muddy situation.
We have an insane border crisis, a terrible economy and so many other massive problems here in the states; however our leaders are instead focusing on funding this proxy war.
Our leaders are just crap: The Dems are way overstretching with the Trump trials... They have nothing but artificially upgraded charges. The Reps are infighting and wasting time while our country falters. Its just one big clown show at this point.
-Kyle.
Kyle,
I have zero love for McCarthy. He shouldn't have been chosen in the first place. But expectations are ridiculous and throwing him out was chaos for the sake of jerking off supporters. You can't run a government with one-half of one wing of the government and to whine about that half not doing dramatic things is silly. It's all been theater.
"Our leaders are just crap." I agree completely. It is a big clown show. What kills me is the Republicans have joined the circus on recent years... didn't used to be the case.
Andrew
P.S. Rip Dick Butkus
Post a Comment