The article claims that all these alternative viewpoints are false, but they totally fail to actually refute anything specific. The article is more of an attempt to slander every alternative viewpoint as "racist" by associating it with a fringe element. Then as the cherry on top, to support their views, they interview people from the very same "think tanks" that led us into the Iraq war based on fake news.
We know you can look at numbers in all different types of ways. There are lies, damned lies and statistics after all. But calling every alternative viewpoint you don't like "racist" is the same failed strategy that led to Trump. Don't you think it's time to try something new? How about actually refuting the specific points you are opposed to instead of simply parroting the obviously partisan viewpoints of establishment "think tank" hacks?
> The article is more of an attempt to slander every alternative viewpoint as "racist" by associating it with a fringe element.
Pointing out that these groups are founded by and often run by overt racists isn't 'slander'. And Wired extensively links to other breakdowns about all of the racist nonsense these people are peddling.
> But calling every alternative viewpoint you don't like "racist" is the same failed strategy that led to Trump. Don't you think it's time to try something new? How about actually refuting the specific points you are opposed to instead of simply parroting the obviously partisan viewpoints of establishment "think tank" hacks?
The saying that it takes an order of magnitude more effort to debunk a lie than it does to produce it applies here. The internet is full of thorough debunkings of all of these groups, but they keep churning away.
The false equivalence of grouping NPI with an organization like Brookings is sad and predictable but I guess that's the age in which we live now.
Wired never had any credibility. It was, at best, the Vogue of the tech scene, and when it was acquired by the same company that owns Vogue nobody should have been surprised.
What it did have was tone, and around 1999 or so it completely lost touch with its roots.
> How about actually refuting the specific points you are opposed to...
The current White House administration doesn't give a fuck about points or facts or any of that. You can refute all day long and it won't matter, plus they can make "alternative facts" up faster than you can refute them. It's an unwinnable war on those terms.
The SPLC is not a reliable source. They have a vested interest in denouncing as many groups as possible, they get more funding and visibility that way.
7 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 21.5 ms ] threadThe article claims that all these alternative viewpoints are false, but they totally fail to actually refute anything specific. The article is more of an attempt to slander every alternative viewpoint as "racist" by associating it with a fringe element. Then as the cherry on top, to support their views, they interview people from the very same "think tanks" that led us into the Iraq war based on fake news.
We know you can look at numbers in all different types of ways. There are lies, damned lies and statistics after all. But calling every alternative viewpoint you don't like "racist" is the same failed strategy that led to Trump. Don't you think it's time to try something new? How about actually refuting the specific points you are opposed to instead of simply parroting the obviously partisan viewpoints of establishment "think tank" hacks?
Wired has lost all credibility.
Pointing out that these groups are founded by and often run by overt racists isn't 'slander'. And Wired extensively links to other breakdowns about all of the racist nonsense these people are peddling.
> But calling every alternative viewpoint you don't like "racist" is the same failed strategy that led to Trump. Don't you think it's time to try something new? How about actually refuting the specific points you are opposed to instead of simply parroting the obviously partisan viewpoints of establishment "think tank" hacks?
The saying that it takes an order of magnitude more effort to debunk a lie than it does to produce it applies here. The internet is full of thorough debunkings of all of these groups, but they keep churning away.
The false equivalence of grouping NPI with an organization like Brookings is sad and predictable but I guess that's the age in which we live now.
What it did have was tone, and around 1999 or so it completely lost touch with its roots.
> How about actually refuting the specific points you are opposed to...
The current White House administration doesn't give a fuck about points or facts or any of that. You can refute all day long and it won't matter, plus they can make "alternative facts" up faster than you can refute them. It's an unwinnable war on those terms.