I like to read about the 1960s counterculture in Europe and North America. It was always funny to see Rolling Stone in the list of "underground newspapers" of the Sixties, because for my generation, it has always been a completely ordinary and conventional magazine that you can buy anywhere.
Also amazing is that Time Out, which will strike most people today as an unremarkable and boring listing of events, was considered a key achievement of the London counterculture when it first came out. Apparently any countercultural vibe was gradually purged from it over the course of the 1970s.
The alt-right didn't get him elected. Good ol' American racism did. They certainly helped. But what helped more was he had a solid pulse on scared white men.
Yes. And the narrative is his inauguration was an anomaly. That somehow the alt-right managed to get him elected. But there is nothing alt about securing over 70% of white male voters.
To your second statement I think the term you're looking for is scared. The more fringe will throw in race war as if the rest of humanity has a vendetta against your average white male.
I'm not gay, and therefore gay marriage and other LGBT issues have absolutely no positive effect on me personally.
There's nothing scary about gay marriage, even if it advances the interests of people who are barely connected to me (I only have a few publicly gay friends, and most of them managed to get married by traveling elsewhere... like Canada).
The whole "white nationalism" thingy with them freaking out about "advancements of other races" is kinda creepy to me. Just because one group of people benefit makes no difference to the strength of my position. Its like they don't understand the concept of "non-zero sum games".
>There's nothing scary about gay marriage, even...
First of all, how many people do you think are "scared" of gay marriage?
Second, whether that's true or it isn't has no bearing on this discussion. That is a different situation with its own particular set of circumstances. There is no need to complicate this discussion by talking about that. Do you have any evidence that white nationalists deny the existence of non-zero sum games?
>Just because one group...
Surely you understand that zero sum games do exist. Surely you understand that it's perfectly possible for one race to benefit at the expense of another. Surely you would agree with the statement that whites have in the past benefited at the expense of other races. Do you think it's fundamentally impossible for other races to ever benefit at the expense of whites? If so, what is your reasoning?
> Do you think it's fundamentally impossible for other races to ever benefit at the expense of whites?
I'm generally against rules and regulations where one race benefits over another.
> Do you have any evidence that white nationalists deny the existence of non-zero sum games?
Evidence? Nah, just an anecdote about my experience. White Nationalists refuse to understand that all races can benefit from proper policy decisions, and turn everything into an "us vs them".
For example, a common white nationalist refrain is "They took our jobs". While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take", or perhaps "More jobs for everybody creates more jobs for everybody". After all, the economy expands when more people have money, because more people start spending it on more services.
Yes: if illegal immigrants spend more money, then the local economy benefits and more jobs can be created.
For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there exists a path for everybody to benefit in society.
> Surely you understand that it's perfectly possible for one race to benefit at the expense of another.
Yes. Racial quotas are an example of that. But good policy decisions don't necessarily have to resort to quotas to fix the issues of dwindling inner-city opportunities for people in poverty.
A proper policy framework and law structure can ensure that everybody benefits. A rising tide lifts all boats.
A wall, deportation-based policy, and other such policy decisions FORCE the discussion to become a zero-sum game. A bit of creativity and foresight however can demonstrate far better fixes that are better for society overall.
>I'm generally against rules and regulations where one race benefits over another.
Sure, but you don't make the rules. Do you have evidence to suggest everyone is opposed to such policies? And I don't just mean they say they're opposed to them. I mean they truly oppose them, and that they agree with you on which criteria should be used to determine whether a rule or regulation meets that definition, and that they're totally unbiased in the application of those criteria?
>White nationalists refuse to understand...
They deny the theoretical possibility of such a rule? Or did they deny that the particular rules you discussed fit that description? Or did they deny that such rules were likely to be the only ones produced as a result of other racial groups having more political power, and that the more likely result would be rules which benefit those other racial groups?
>While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take",
And the counter-counter-argument is that if wages were not being driven down by immigrants, especially illegal ones who are more likely to hide their income, then the tens of millions of out of work Americans would have an incentive to move to the places where those jobs are available.
>After all, the economy expands...
There is no reason to believe that the benefits of the expanded economy are distributed evenly. There is actually quite a lot of reason to believe those benefits go mostly to people at the top of the income bracket whose wages are not driven down by immigration and whose businesses benefit enormously from the reduced labor costs.
>For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in...
Why would you expect that path to be the one we go down when every racial group has an incentive to act selfishly? What invisible hand is guiding them to work together for the benefit of all racial groups, rather than focusing their efforts on benefiting at the expense of others? Especially once the low hanging fruit on the latter tree has been picked?
>A wall, deportation-based policy...
The point of the wall and deportations is to stop the tide of changing racial demographics. Control over government authority is a zero sum game. You either win or lose office. Why would white people expect other racial groups not to use that power to further their own racial interests at the expense of white racial interests? Even if they pursue some policies which benefit everyone, why would anyone expect those to be the only policies they pursue?
> Control over government authority is a zero sum game.
Indeed. But only one side seems to be interested in advancing the "white race". And that's the side I'm interested in making SURE they lose. Note, I'm also against any sides that advance the "black race" above and beyond anything that's fair. (Ex: "Black Power", Racial Quotas, etc. etc.)
The political concept here is simply an issue of fairness and race neutrality. The Government should be race neutral and racially blind, and ideally so should society.
Let the best man (or woman) win the job, if said human is Black, White, Yellow, Purple, or Red... gay, lesbian, male, female or transgender. If the best people are chosen for each job without any bias, then the USA will be in a far stronger position than any other country in the world.
The side that is working on making sure EVERYBODY wins is the side I'm on. What side are YOU on?
-------------------
There are certain governmental policies that only benefit the white race. Unfortunately for you, I'm not white. I've got plenty of white friends and I'd hate for them to feel uncomfortable about the future and all, but I'm not going to do anything that benefits white people only. And most of the white people I know don't want an unfair whites-only advantage and/or policies either.
I agree that there are proposed policies that do nothing but hamper white people. And said policies (ie: Racial Quotas), are awful and terrible. We don't want to "hurt" anybody in our quest to improve this country.
-----------------------
> The point of the wall and deportations is to stop the tide of changing racial demographics.
Erm, that's horrifying that you care about dominance of your race above all else and so casually support this idea.
>The side that is working on making sure EVERYBODY wins is the side I'm on. What side are YOU on?
I think this gets at the root of what you're not understanding, so I'll just address this. It doesn't matter what side you're on. It doesn't matter what side I'm on. What matters is that people in general are biased. It is unreasonable to anticipate that they will act otherwise. Do you agree with that?
There are policy choices which must be made by governments in which there is no option which will result in equal benefit to all races. Indeed, there is no definitive way to even measure that which everyone would agree to. Do you agree with that statement?
>Erm, that's horrifying that you care about dominance of your race above all else and so casually support this idea.
Please try to stick to the topic at hand. I haven't expressed any preference one way or the other, and I certainly haven't given you any reason to believe I care about the dominance of my race above all else. If you only read what you want to read rather than what's actually written, you're never going to have a productive conversation.
> What matters is that people in general are biased. It is unreasonable to anticipate that they will act otherwise. Do you agree with that?
Yes.
So whenever people start discussing policies which benefit one race over another, I give them the finger. Whether they're "Black Power" or "White Supremacists", its all the same to me. Unfair advantages towards one race will always be met with skepticism from me.
I'm not an idiot. There will always be selfish people who want to advance their own race above all others. And my response to them, whether they're Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Red or Purple, is the same. A giant middle finger.
My political aim is for equality for all.
> There are policy choices which must be made by governments in which there is no option which will result in equal benefit to all races. Indeed, there is no definitive way to even measure that which everyone would agree to. Do you agree with that statement?
Of course. The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfect policy decisions to be made all the time.
Take for example the current opioid epidemic. By and large, Opioid deaths have shown a great correlation to rural white women deaths. So any Opioid related legislation will naturally benefit rural white women more than other races and subgroups. (See here: https://wire.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/women-bear-greater...)
However, the Opioid epidemic affects us all. So I would support any fair legislation that deals with Opioids across the country (even if disproportionally, rural white women would get the primary benefit).
So even if "one race" or subgroup gets an unbalanced benefit (and in this case rural white women), the general cause of destroying the Opioid epidemic is a cause I can rally behind. Some issues affect us all, even if they affect some of us unequally. And that's where the power of fair governance comes into play.
Problems in our culture generally for some reason only plague one race or subculture at a time. Its the result of an imperfect world. So I understand that.
> I certainly haven't given you any reason to believe I care about the dominance of my race above all else.
"Stop the tide of changing racial demographics."
You said it, not me. You said the wall is a racial issue. Fundamentally, the wall is an immigration issue, but YOU chose to turn it into a racial issue.
At a certain point, when someone quacks like a white-supremacist, I start to think they're a white-supremacist. A typical conservative would have kept the discussion racially neutral, but YOU chose to turn it into a race issue.
If you want me to think of you differently, choose your words more wisely.
Your solipsism is preventing you from understanding my point.
It does not matter what policies you support. It does not matter who you give a middle finger to. You are not the supreme emperor. What you support does not become law. Laws come about through a process involving great numbers of humans who are acting as a consequence of their biases.
>The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfect policy decisions to be made all the time.
That's, again, not the point. The point is that policy decisions which affect all races equally are not available in many cases, no matter who you give the finger to.
>And that's where the power of fair governance comes into play.
What power? Who decides what constitutes fair governance? Who makes sure fair governance is what happens? Please do not reply by saying you give a middle finger to everyone who doesn't support fair governance. That is not an answer.
>You said the wall is a racial issue
It's an issue which affects the racial demographics of the United States, which over the past 50 years have been changing dramatically. Those are not controversial facts.
This discussion has been racial since the comment I initially replied to which suggested Donald Trump has a "solid pulse on scared white men".
> What power? Who decides what constitutes fair governance?
This is a democracy. You and I do.
The only question therefore, is if you support policies that I support. If you do not, then we do not work together and instead we work against each other in the system that has been created.
Just as "Black Power" advocates get a say, you and I get a say in the governance system of this country. As do "White Supremacists". But MY ideal is a system where no race is superior to any other race.
That's really all I'm trying to convince you of, that working on the ideal of equality for all is worth fighting for.
> It's an issue which affects the racial demographics of the United States, which over the past 50 years have been changing dramatically.
I can tell you aren't an idiot either. But come on, I know what you're going for.
> This discussion has been racial since the comment I initially replied to which suggested Donald Trump has a "solid pulse on scared white men".
Well congrats then, you've been played and trolled. Some would call this effect "getting triggered".
And you've continued to keep it racial instead of diverting it to more important, universal issues. For example, when I discuss the wall its typically about immigration policy, the needs of the labor force, and projections of the number of jobs we need.
"Racial Demographics" is very, very, very low on the list of shit I care about. I don't see why anyone should give an F about a 45% White population vs a 55% white population. But maybe you can explain to me why this is an important issue for you?
Or is that REALLY what you want to be talking about?
-----------------------
Look, I understand the cause of propagating a US Culture where people speak English. I'm actually more conservative on this issue than most people are.
For example: there are plenty of examples of non-English speaking people getting in trouble in the local Bay in my State. Locals have issues communicating with them that a storm is coming in, and next thing we know, a few non-English speakers are lost in the stormy waters.
So I do have a belief that standardizing on English speaking in this country would be beneficial, especially in local / rural areas where its impossible to find a translator. There are truly cultural issues at hand to talk about that can benefit society as a whole.
---------------
Now that I've given you an example of my perspective, I expect you to be able to "sell" this "protecting racial demographics" thing to me. What the hell are you talking about?
Right, a whole bunch of biased people. You're making my argument for me. They don't all agree on what fair governance means. Even if they all say they support it, and they mean what they say, when it comes down to specific issues, they will be viewing those issues through their biased lens.
>I don't see why anyone should give an F
I've tried to explain that. If you expected that other racial groups were going to use their political power to benefit their own race at the expense of your race, which is a totally reasonable outcome to expect, you might be concerned for the well-being of your descendants.
>Now that I've given you...
I'm not trying to sell you on anything. I'm trying to explain why people might have a reasonable concern about changing racial demographics.
> I'm not trying to sell you on anything. I'm trying to explain why people might have a reasonable concern about changing racial demographics.
To be honest, your explanation doesn't seem very reasonable to me.
> I've tried to explain that. If you expected that other racial groups were going to use their political power to benefit their own race at the expense of your race, which is a totally reasonable outcome to expect, you might be concerned for the well-being of your descendants.
Seems to me the problem is unreasonably biased people. And yes, I agree they exist. The issue is you're stuck thinking that any other race is your enemy.
That's not how it works. Most Muslims, African Americans, and whatever minority is out there, just want equality. And yes, white-people too. In general: most people want equality. This isn't a racial issue. Equality is a concept that unites everybody.
There are a few bad apples out there: ISIS, Black Power, White Supremacists, NeoNazis, etc. etc. These people are all jackholes who favor their own race (or in ISIS's case: religion) over all others.
We should create systems to find and demonstrate "Hate Groups" and creators of racial tension and use our abilities to stamp them out.
------------
The minute you start talking about "racial demographics are weakening my race" however, you break the peace and you've broken the idea of racial equality. Its not demographics that are a problem, its the individual jackholes and jackasses who manipulate our political system for their gain.
Fortunately for America, these "haters" are in the gross minority. They're loud, they're proud and they show up in virtually every news story / protest. But their viewpoints are incredibly fringe.
>The issue is you're stuck thinking that any other race is your enemy.
I am certainly not "stuck" thinking anything, and I never suggested anyone was my enemy. All I've suggested is that different policies will benefit or harm different races unevenly, and that in general people will be biased toward their own race.
>just want equality
You're not paying attention. I've already been over this. Even if they really do want equality, that's just a vague concept. It means different things to different people. There is no agreement over what objective criteria should be used to decide whether something meets the definition. When it comes down to deciding whether some policy promotes "equality", people are going to be influenced by their bias. You haven't once addressed this point.
>Equality is a concept
Exactly, it is just a concept. There are no clear, unambiguous, universally agreed upon criteria we can apply to some particular policy such that we would all come to the exact same conclusion. There is a whole lot of gray area, and that is where bias comes into the picture, even in the ideal scenario in which everyone is pro-equality.
>These people are all jackholes...
These people are the ones that publicly embrace their bias. They are not the only ones with a bias. Everyone has a bias. Not everyone is biased in favor of their own race, but most people are, consciously or not.
>you break the peace
The imaginary peace, which I have conclusively demonstrated cannot exist.
> Even if they really do want equality, that's just a vague concept.
Well yeah. Justice, Equality for all, everything is a vague concept. There are entire books, parodies, and movies on this subject.
Unless you're seriously suggesting to me that YOU don't understand the concept behind equality. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that you think no one else believes in Equality, or something.
> All I've suggested is that different policies will benefit or harm different races unevenly, and that in general people will be biased toward their own race.
And all we gotta do is work on politics and demonstrate viewpoints where things truly are equal, in a way that many people can agree upon.
Its really not that hard. Bullies calling African Americans the N-word? That's not cool, chastise those guys. Racial Voting suppression going on in a certain area? F-those guys too, we shouldn't be trying to make one race have an easier time voting than another. Racial Quotas being suggested to be part of college-acceptance? That seems a bit like a bad idea to me.
I mean, these are REAL issues that are addressed all the time in Politics. Each time, "equality" may be up for debate but society comes to a general, sane conclusion.
---------------
I don't expect everyone's definition of "equality" to perfectly match. For the most part, I just don't want people to advocate the advance THEIR race at the detriment of other races.
And politics is work. That means I have to work to figure out people's opinions, analyze their viewpoints, and make decisions based on that.
>Justice, Equality for all, everything is a vague concept.
So then you understand there is plenty of room for bias to create disagreement, which can have real world consequences, as I've been saying?
>The issue is that you think no one else believes in Equality, or something.
It's the "or something" bit, which I've explained very clearly, repeatedly, but which you won't address because it annihilates your argument.
>And all we gotta do...
Ya, all we gotta do. Easy as 1 2 3. Just tell mean white people not to call blacks the 'N' word and poof! Everyone will agree on the precise definition of equality.
>Racial Quotas being suggested...
You understand that a whole lot of people disagree with you about whether that promotes equality, right? All we gotta do is get them to agree with you, right? Just give the finger to people who engage in racial voting suppression, and bam! The exact definition of equality will get slammed into everyone's mind so hard they won't be able to disagree. As long as there are a few cases which you think no one could disagree with, even though people have disagreed with them rather strenuously in the past, the precise, universally agreed upon definition must be right around the corner, right?
>but society comes to a general, sane conclusion.
You understand society came to the conclusion 200 years ago that equality didn't even apply to other races, right? They believed in equality, they just meant something a little different by it than you do.
>I don't expect everyone's definition of "equality" to perfectly match.
So then you understand there's room for reasonable disagreement among reasonable people, and that their human biases will generally result in them preferring the answer which is better for their own race?
>For the most part, I just don't want people to advocate the advance THEIR race at the detriment of other races.
No one cares what you want. You not wanting it doesn't mean it's not going to happen. People are going to be biased toward their own race, consciously or not, and that's going to have real world consequences. Your hopes and feelings don't change reality.
Wow. Erm, okay. You really are dense. Let me simplify my previous post down so that even you can understand it.
"Goodbye".
Feel free to close out on a snarky note. I'll give you another chance to come up with something better. But the patheticness of your last response has pulled me back. If your final words are sufficiently snarky, I'll leave you alone. Or you can just leave too, that's cool.
Using HN primarily for political or ideological battle isn't allowed here, so we've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break the site guidelines with.
I think it's shocking how normative the culture is today. Fringe media says exactly the same things - pro-social justice, pro-a large social safety net, deep concern about climate change - as the major media. The only actual "counterculture" seems to be Breitbart et al, which is ... a change.
Paper Magazine, the New York Times, and Gothamist now mostly reflect the same cultural ideals. It's fascinating. Was this what the 80s was like?
Funny that you mention Breitbart. Their founder Andrew Breitbart claimed that he helped start Huffington Post in an effort to show that mainstream news sources (NY Times etc) actually share most of the views of groups toward the far left, ie the former counterculture.
Was he successful? He certainly convinced most of the people on the right, but they were already on his bandwagon anyway... As someone in the middle, it's looking more and more like he had a point. (Even if the site that bears his name has become.. well, whatever it is, now.)
Is that true? It's not like effective counter-culture stuff is ever easily recognizable by older generations. Otherwise it wouldn't be fun. Remember ever cool word/ term you knew as a kid and how they immediately stopped being cool once you heard your parents use them?
>And, at the same time, there are no young/anti-establishment people of today of any consequence
LGBTQ spaces and movements? Black Lives Matter? Occupy Wall St and the subsequent progressive upswell which led to Bernie Sanders, an unknown independent from Vermont, to garner nearly as many votes as one of the most well-known politicians on the planet?
Those are so tame, popular and media-friendly that are their own part of the modern establishment. Furthermore, they focus on small niches (gender, police brutality, etc) and are otherwise totally content with modern society. And OWS died before it was even born -- the best it could manage to was to prop up an alternative Democratic candidate (that would have given the same kind of fake "Hope" Obama ended up delivering to those that believed in him).
If tame middle aged people who listen to Enya and mass media outlets can root for your cause, you're not exactly a counter-culture.
> Furthermore, they focus on small niches (gender, police brutality, etc)
Neither of these is a small niche. Police brutality is a huge, huge issue. It may seem like a small niche to people who are not members of targeted demographics, though.
> and are otherwise totally content with modern society.
What leads you to believe this? From my personal experience this couldn't be more wrong
Anyway, if you want real counter culture that middle aged people will still clutch their pearls over... what about Antifa?
>It may seem like a small niche to people who are not members of targeted demographics, though.
I'm not saying it's not important -- but as a request for change it is niche in scope, that is constrained to a small area of life (even if you are one of the targeted demographics).
>What leads you to believe this?*
Well, some internet ranting and rare protesting aside I don't see any alternative lifestyles there (or only very trite ones, the "fair trade coffee" equivalent of politics). It's all business as usual otherwise.
>Anyway, if you want real counter culture that middle aged people will still clutch their pearls over... what about Antifa?
Better in the shocks middle aged people respect, but scores less points on "culture". It's a reaction-based group, not an alternative cultural force.
Police culture and worship is incredibly ingrained in mainstream America. How can you say its a "small area of life" when the police have authority in nearly every matter of your life? The police have the power to kill you indiscriminately. They can legally rob you. They are omnipresent in America and the NFL and FOX continually blast pro boys in blue imagery. To even talk ill of cops is seriously shunned - I grew up in a small town and the police were absolutely worshipped and had obscene amounts of power.
To argue, as BLM does, that we should restructure the entire policing system (some say even dismantle it) is to conduct a reimagining of what power and authority means in this country.
In a place where "law and order" (one of Trump's favorite phrases) and the administration of "justice" is upheld as the highest ideal, to decisively argue against normative ideas of them is certainly counter culture.
Also antifa is not reactionary. Many members of antifa orgs run community kitchens, organize reading groups, or build small farms or communes.
Sounds pretty. but i dont really buy it. Maybe SOME of their ideas have been absorbed into western cultures, but many have not, many continue to be anti-establishment ideas today.
Private Eye was never really countercultural. When Richard Neville, founder of the legendary 1960s countercultural newspaper OZ, moved to London, he met with Private Eye staff thinking that they might be on the same wavelength. Instead, he found they were very classist and old-fashioned (and homophobic). The counterculture wanted to utterly tear down the establishment. Private Eye might have poked fun at some establishment figures, but that doesn’t mean it had the same revolutionary aims as the true counterculture.
I think it's partly an issue with retractions. Information can be kind of insidious, even when the consumer knows it is false. Fox news does tons of retractions (of course), but it's the way they do it that really tells you what they are about.
I'm all for free speech, but I wish we could get a handle on people saying completely wrong things for profit.
Perhaps this is why the Rolling Stone is for sale then?
Author and Editor fail to validate highly sensitive claims in an incredibly amateur fashion. * they did not even ask the accused for comment*.
Rather than separate from the author and Editor, and help them find a career elsewhere, the publication gives a pretty weak apology and doubles down on two individuals who obviously failed to follow basic journalism standards.
They don't need to be "parriahs", but I do think it rubbed readers the wrong way when RS continued to defend their work and ultimately gave a sour retraction ('we were hoodwinked!') and weak "sorry!".
All mistakes are not the same, and there are ones that ought to end a career. When the captain of a Navy ship has an accidental collision, his career is over. A sufficiently bad news article can wreck the lives of multiple innocent people, and kill public trust in the newspaper and the author. In this way, a bad editor or writer can do more damage in one decision than they can make up for in the entire rest their career.
I don't have an opinion on this case in particular, but there are cases where no amount of apologizing is enough. Becoming a copy writer for the rest of one's career does not strike me as a particularly cruel and unusual punishment.
>When the captain of a Navy ship has an accidental collision, his career is over.
Is that always true? I'm not so sure. And even if it is true, perhaps it should not be so. All kinds of professionals have accidents or errors and continue to work.
There's this apocryphal story that makes some sense.
Tom Watson Jr., CEO of IBM between 1956 and 1971, was a key figure in the information revolution. (...) A young executive had made some bad decisions that cost the company several million dollars. He was summoned to Watson’s office, fully expecting to be dismissed. As he entered the office, the young executive said, “I suppose after that set of mistakes you will want to fire me.” Watson was said to have replied,
“Not at all, young man, we have just spent a couple of million dollars educating you.”
"Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin, who headed America's Asia-based 7th Fleet, has been relieved of his duties following the damage to the USS John S McCain."
Next up is the commander of the ship and the senior officers.
Being relieved of duties doesn't mean firing though. Could be that they become paper pushers. The next step would be court martial.
But yes, there are career ending mistakes. Especially when they cause the death of 7 people and takes a 9000 ton, $1.5 billion ship out of commission. The Arleigh Burke class also forms a good chunk of an aircraft carrier group's defensive perimeter, so by taking out these ships, these mistakes (whether one mistake or many mistake doesn't matter) puts approximately $30 Billion worth of military assets (not to mention the 5000+ people) at risk.
Doctors kill patients, despite their best intents. It might be exhaustion after 14 hours of constant stress, it might be negligence, or simply lack of necessary data to make a better decision in tiny time window available to save somebody with cardiac arrest. Often its caused indirectly and there is more than 1 person to blame.
If we fired and imprisoned every doctor with this experience(s), hospitals would be empty and people would be dying from easily preventable causes. There are almost no doctors that are doing clinical medicine for long enough that don't have this 'mark' on their soul. Got a solution for that from your high horse?
I am talking about deaths happening daily in every hospital around the world. Sorry you were saying what?
> What do you want, to have them be some parriahs that never find journalistic work again?
By the time the correction is issued, the false information has spread worldwide. There are still people who believe dumb conspiracy theories because the early coverage of events like Katrina and 9/11 got it wrong.
And the correction will never go viral the way the wrong-headed reporting will.
So yes, they shouldn't work again. And maybe if we burn enough people in such a way editors will pump the brakes a little on breaking news in such a way to avoid printing bullshit and infecting the public further.
They used their position with the public's trust to irrevocably harm people. Then when caught didn't seem to change much. That's an indication of an organization not to trust anymore.
But the real problem? It's just crappy journalism. Taking some half-assed, re-hashed current political narrative being peddled by somebody with emotional problems, forgetting the editing and fact-checking, and running with it front-page. They suck at their job. That's an indication of an organization that doesn't care about quality.
The best defense I can come up with for RS is that we live in a tough-as-nails media market, and everybody's having to cut corners and pump stories far past reason. Doesn't mean they suck any less, just that they suck as much as many other news outlets. They got caught.
Good journalism is rare and getting rarer. Whether RS fired anybody or not isn't very important. What _is_ important is that their publishing of the story and reaction to it forms a not-so-pretty picture of where the overall industry is.
Erdely did not just make "a mistake". The evidence is that she was grossly and willfully negligent in the very basics of journalism, e.g. soliciting information from the accused.
First, there's a difference between malpractice and a mistake, even a serious one. The problem with the rolling stone incident, as I understand it, was that the editors failed to take the most basic, widely recognized steps to ensure integrity in a situation where they were unusually essential.
There's a difference between making a mistake as a lawyer, for instance, and breaching ethics, basic procedures, or committing "gross incompetency" in a way that gets you disbarred.
Furthermore, there's a huge difference between temporary disbarment and becoming a pariah that never works again in the field.
Now, law isn't journalism, there isn't a "bar" or a specific concept of disbarment, and rules are looser in journalism. But the journalists and editors behind this story do seem, by the standards of their profession, to have committed far more than a mistake. This was really, really serious, and goes deep into gross incompetence and breach of ethics.
In spite of this, and how outrageous it was, I do think the day could come where they'd be reasonably welcomed back into their profession as full members. But this was really serious, and I do think removal from their positions, and an extended period of working as a proofreader under the supervision of a journalist with a better track record, certainly isn't unreasonable.
In fact, it might be the sort of thing that would actually help the journalists and editors to re-enter their field again in the future, with trust.
We published the article with the firm belief that it was accurate. Given all of these reports, however, we have come to the conclusion that we were mistaken in honoring Jackie's request to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. In trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault, we made a judgment – the kind of judgment reporters and editors make every day. We should have not made this agreement with Jackie and we should have worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story. These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie. We apologize to anyone who was affected by the story and we will continue to investigate the events of that evening.
Is it sad that I'm glad? It's sort of like the Simpsons for me, something that I once loved so much that has been ruined forever. Now they just seem like a cruel joke I'd like to end.
Jann Wenner was on a recent How I Built This podcast [1]: which was very interesting. He was very adamant there that his son was being prepped to take over. So this is a bit surprising.
[1] http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this
He struck me as prickly and on edge for portions of that interview.
While the question about lack of gender diversity in RS's writers seemed aggressive compared to the normal How I Built This "So a billion dollar valuation. That's a lot of money. What does it feel like to be...rich?", Wenner's response seemed out of touch and dismissive.
2 things caused me to decline a Rolling Stones subscription which I just cannot get over:
1. A Rape on Campus
2. the Marathon bomber on the cover looking like a rock star
The only reason I ever go to RS online is to read Matt Taibbi, who has been a valuable documenter of our era of too big to fail bank antics and the bizarre US political circus.
The rest of it seems run of the mill corporate entertainment shilling and promotion...
Outside, the magazine that just published a puff piece on Lance Armstrong that ended up on HN somehow? Yeah, that magazine has become about as vapid as RS has.
88 comments
[ 1.4 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadAlso amazing is that Time Out, which will strike most people today as an unremarkable and boring listing of events, was considered a key achievement of the London counterculture when it first came out. Apparently any countercultural vibe was gradually purged from it over the course of the 1970s.
The young/anti-establishment people of the 60's and 70's are the old/establishment people of today.
Not in any such numbers as to constitute an actual counter-culture anyway...
It has a few places people hang out, occasionally they organize this or that, and they have a good time.
Other than that just as insignificant, in influence, in power, in numbers and in mass appeal as the juggalo scene.
Not much to write home about.
There's nothing scary about gay marriage, even if it advances the interests of people who are barely connected to me (I only have a few publicly gay friends, and most of them managed to get married by traveling elsewhere... like Canada).
The whole "white nationalism" thingy with them freaking out about "advancements of other races" is kinda creepy to me. Just because one group of people benefit makes no difference to the strength of my position. Its like they don't understand the concept of "non-zero sum games".
First of all, how many people do you think are "scared" of gay marriage?
Second, whether that's true or it isn't has no bearing on this discussion. That is a different situation with its own particular set of circumstances. There is no need to complicate this discussion by talking about that. Do you have any evidence that white nationalists deny the existence of non-zero sum games?
>Just because one group...
Surely you understand that zero sum games do exist. Surely you understand that it's perfectly possible for one race to benefit at the expense of another. Surely you would agree with the statement that whites have in the past benefited at the expense of other races. Do you think it's fundamentally impossible for other races to ever benefit at the expense of whites? If so, what is your reasoning?
I'm generally against rules and regulations where one race benefits over another.
> Do you have any evidence that white nationalists deny the existence of non-zero sum games?
Evidence? Nah, just an anecdote about my experience. White Nationalists refuse to understand that all races can benefit from proper policy decisions, and turn everything into an "us vs them".
For example, a common white nationalist refrain is "They took our jobs". While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take", or perhaps "More jobs for everybody creates more jobs for everybody". After all, the economy expands when more people have money, because more people start spending it on more services.
Yes: if illegal immigrants spend more money, then the local economy benefits and more jobs can be created.
For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there exists a path for everybody to benefit in society.
> Surely you understand that it's perfectly possible for one race to benefit at the expense of another.
Yes. Racial quotas are an example of that. But good policy decisions don't necessarily have to resort to quotas to fix the issues of dwindling inner-city opportunities for people in poverty.
A proper policy framework and law structure can ensure that everybody benefits. A rising tide lifts all boats.
A wall, deportation-based policy, and other such policy decisions FORCE the discussion to become a zero-sum game. A bit of creativity and foresight however can demonstrate far better fixes that are better for society overall.
Sure, but you don't make the rules. Do you have evidence to suggest everyone is opposed to such policies? And I don't just mean they say they're opposed to them. I mean they truly oppose them, and that they agree with you on which criteria should be used to determine whether a rule or regulation meets that definition, and that they're totally unbiased in the application of those criteria?
>White nationalists refuse to understand...
They deny the theoretical possibility of such a rule? Or did they deny that the particular rules you discussed fit that description? Or did they deny that such rules were likely to be the only ones produced as a result of other racial groups having more political power, and that the more likely result would be rules which benefit those other racial groups?
>While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take",
And the counter-counter-argument is that if wages were not being driven down by immigrants, especially illegal ones who are more likely to hide their income, then the tens of millions of out of work Americans would have an incentive to move to the places where those jobs are available.
>After all, the economy expands...
There is no reason to believe that the benefits of the expanded economy are distributed evenly. There is actually quite a lot of reason to believe those benefits go mostly to people at the top of the income bracket whose wages are not driven down by immigration and whose businesses benefit enormously from the reduced labor costs.
>For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in...
Why would you expect that path to be the one we go down when every racial group has an incentive to act selfishly? What invisible hand is guiding them to work together for the benefit of all racial groups, rather than focusing their efforts on benefiting at the expense of others? Especially once the low hanging fruit on the latter tree has been picked?
>A wall, deportation-based policy...
The point of the wall and deportations is to stop the tide of changing racial demographics. Control over government authority is a zero sum game. You either win or lose office. Why would white people expect other racial groups not to use that power to further their own racial interests at the expense of white racial interests? Even if they pursue some policies which benefit everyone, why would anyone expect those to be the only policies they pursue?
Indeed. But only one side seems to be interested in advancing the "white race". And that's the side I'm interested in making SURE they lose. Note, I'm also against any sides that advance the "black race" above and beyond anything that's fair. (Ex: "Black Power", Racial Quotas, etc. etc.)
The political concept here is simply an issue of fairness and race neutrality. The Government should be race neutral and racially blind, and ideally so should society.
Let the best man (or woman) win the job, if said human is Black, White, Yellow, Purple, or Red... gay, lesbian, male, female or transgender. If the best people are chosen for each job without any bias, then the USA will be in a far stronger position than any other country in the world.
The side that is working on making sure EVERYBODY wins is the side I'm on. What side are YOU on?
-------------------
There are certain governmental policies that only benefit the white race. Unfortunately for you, I'm not white. I've got plenty of white friends and I'd hate for them to feel uncomfortable about the future and all, but I'm not going to do anything that benefits white people only. And most of the white people I know don't want an unfair whites-only advantage and/or policies either.
I agree that there are proposed policies that do nothing but hamper white people. And said policies (ie: Racial Quotas), are awful and terrible. We don't want to "hurt" anybody in our quest to improve this country.
-----------------------
> The point of the wall and deportations is to stop the tide of changing racial demographics.
Erm, that's horrifying that you care about dominance of your race above all else and so casually support this idea.
I think this gets at the root of what you're not understanding, so I'll just address this. It doesn't matter what side you're on. It doesn't matter what side I'm on. What matters is that people in general are biased. It is unreasonable to anticipate that they will act otherwise. Do you agree with that?
There are policy choices which must be made by governments in which there is no option which will result in equal benefit to all races. Indeed, there is no definitive way to even measure that which everyone would agree to. Do you agree with that statement?
>Erm, that's horrifying that you care about dominance of your race above all else and so casually support this idea.
Please try to stick to the topic at hand. I haven't expressed any preference one way or the other, and I certainly haven't given you any reason to believe I care about the dominance of my race above all else. If you only read what you want to read rather than what's actually written, you're never going to have a productive conversation.
Yes.
So whenever people start discussing policies which benefit one race over another, I give them the finger. Whether they're "Black Power" or "White Supremacists", its all the same to me. Unfair advantages towards one race will always be met with skepticism from me.
I'm not an idiot. There will always be selfish people who want to advance their own race above all others. And my response to them, whether they're Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Red or Purple, is the same. A giant middle finger.
My political aim is for equality for all.
> There are policy choices which must be made by governments in which there is no option which will result in equal benefit to all races. Indeed, there is no definitive way to even measure that which everyone would agree to. Do you agree with that statement?
Of course. The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfect policy decisions to be made all the time.
Take for example the current opioid epidemic. By and large, Opioid deaths have shown a great correlation to rural white women deaths. So any Opioid related legislation will naturally benefit rural white women more than other races and subgroups. (See here: https://wire.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/women-bear-greater...)
However, the Opioid epidemic affects us all. So I would support any fair legislation that deals with Opioids across the country (even if disproportionally, rural white women would get the primary benefit).
So even if "one race" or subgroup gets an unbalanced benefit (and in this case rural white women), the general cause of destroying the Opioid epidemic is a cause I can rally behind. Some issues affect us all, even if they affect some of us unequally. And that's where the power of fair governance comes into play.
Problems in our culture generally for some reason only plague one race or subculture at a time. Its the result of an imperfect world. So I understand that.
> I certainly haven't given you any reason to believe I care about the dominance of my race above all else.
"Stop the tide of changing racial demographics."
You said it, not me. You said the wall is a racial issue. Fundamentally, the wall is an immigration issue, but YOU chose to turn it into a racial issue.
At a certain point, when someone quacks like a white-supremacist, I start to think they're a white-supremacist. A typical conservative would have kept the discussion racially neutral, but YOU chose to turn it into a race issue.
If you want me to think of you differently, choose your words more wisely.
It does not matter what policies you support. It does not matter who you give a middle finger to. You are not the supreme emperor. What you support does not become law. Laws come about through a process involving great numbers of humans who are acting as a consequence of their biases.
>The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfect policy decisions to be made all the time.
That's, again, not the point. The point is that policy decisions which affect all races equally are not available in many cases, no matter who you give the finger to.
>And that's where the power of fair governance comes into play.
What power? Who decides what constitutes fair governance? Who makes sure fair governance is what happens? Please do not reply by saying you give a middle finger to everyone who doesn't support fair governance. That is not an answer.
>You said the wall is a racial issue
It's an issue which affects the racial demographics of the United States, which over the past 50 years have been changing dramatically. Those are not controversial facts.
This discussion has been racial since the comment I initially replied to which suggested Donald Trump has a "solid pulse on scared white men".
This is a democracy. You and I do.
The only question therefore, is if you support policies that I support. If you do not, then we do not work together and instead we work against each other in the system that has been created.
Just as "Black Power" advocates get a say, you and I get a say in the governance system of this country. As do "White Supremacists". But MY ideal is a system where no race is superior to any other race.
That's really all I'm trying to convince you of, that working on the ideal of equality for all is worth fighting for.
> It's an issue which affects the racial demographics of the United States, which over the past 50 years have been changing dramatically.
I can tell you aren't an idiot either. But come on, I know what you're going for.
> This discussion has been racial since the comment I initially replied to which suggested Donald Trump has a "solid pulse on scared white men".
Well congrats then, you've been played and trolled. Some would call this effect "getting triggered".
And you've continued to keep it racial instead of diverting it to more important, universal issues. For example, when I discuss the wall its typically about immigration policy, the needs of the labor force, and projections of the number of jobs we need.
"Racial Demographics" is very, very, very low on the list of shit I care about. I don't see why anyone should give an F about a 45% White population vs a 55% white population. But maybe you can explain to me why this is an important issue for you?
Or is that REALLY what you want to be talking about?
-----------------------
Look, I understand the cause of propagating a US Culture where people speak English. I'm actually more conservative on this issue than most people are.
For example: there are plenty of examples of non-English speaking people getting in trouble in the local Bay in my State. Locals have issues communicating with them that a storm is coming in, and next thing we know, a few non-English speakers are lost in the stormy waters.
So I do have a belief that standardizing on English speaking in this country would be beneficial, especially in local / rural areas where its impossible to find a translator. There are truly cultural issues at hand to talk about that can benefit society as a whole.
---------------
Now that I've given you an example of my perspective, I expect you to be able to "sell" this "protecting racial demographics" thing to me. What the hell are you talking about?
Right, a whole bunch of biased people. You're making my argument for me. They don't all agree on what fair governance means. Even if they all say they support it, and they mean what they say, when it comes down to specific issues, they will be viewing those issues through their biased lens.
>I don't see why anyone should give an F
I've tried to explain that. If you expected that other racial groups were going to use their political power to benefit their own race at the expense of your race, which is a totally reasonable outcome to expect, you might be concerned for the well-being of your descendants.
>Now that I've given you...
I'm not trying to sell you on anything. I'm trying to explain why people might have a reasonable concern about changing racial demographics.
To be honest, your explanation doesn't seem very reasonable to me.
> I've tried to explain that. If you expected that other racial groups were going to use their political power to benefit their own race at the expense of your race, which is a totally reasonable outcome to expect, you might be concerned for the well-being of your descendants.
Seems to me the problem is unreasonably biased people. And yes, I agree they exist. The issue is you're stuck thinking that any other race is your enemy.
That's not how it works. Most Muslims, African Americans, and whatever minority is out there, just want equality. And yes, white-people too. In general: most people want equality. This isn't a racial issue. Equality is a concept that unites everybody.
There are a few bad apples out there: ISIS, Black Power, White Supremacists, NeoNazis, etc. etc. These people are all jackholes who favor their own race (or in ISIS's case: religion) over all others.
We should create systems to find and demonstrate "Hate Groups" and creators of racial tension and use our abilities to stamp them out.
------------
The minute you start talking about "racial demographics are weakening my race" however, you break the peace and you've broken the idea of racial equality. Its not demographics that are a problem, its the individual jackholes and jackasses who manipulate our political system for their gain.
Fortunately for America, these "haters" are in the gross minority. They're loud, they're proud and they show up in virtually every news story / protest. But their viewpoints are incredibly fringe.
I am certainly not "stuck" thinking anything, and I never suggested anyone was my enemy. All I've suggested is that different policies will benefit or harm different races unevenly, and that in general people will be biased toward their own race.
>just want equality
You're not paying attention. I've already been over this. Even if they really do want equality, that's just a vague concept. It means different things to different people. There is no agreement over what objective criteria should be used to decide whether something meets the definition. When it comes down to deciding whether some policy promotes "equality", people are going to be influenced by their bias. You haven't once addressed this point.
>Equality is a concept
Exactly, it is just a concept. There are no clear, unambiguous, universally agreed upon criteria we can apply to some particular policy such that we would all come to the exact same conclusion. There is a whole lot of gray area, and that is where bias comes into the picture, even in the ideal scenario in which everyone is pro-equality.
>These people are all jackholes...
These people are the ones that publicly embrace their bias. They are not the only ones with a bias. Everyone has a bias. Not everyone is biased in favor of their own race, but most people are, consciously or not.
>you break the peace
The imaginary peace, which I have conclusively demonstrated cannot exist.
>Its not demographics that are a problem
Right, it's the fact that people are biased.
Well yeah. Justice, Equality for all, everything is a vague concept. There are entire books, parodies, and movies on this subject.
Unless you're seriously suggesting to me that YOU don't understand the concept behind equality. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that you think no one else believes in Equality, or something.
> All I've suggested is that different policies will benefit or harm different races unevenly, and that in general people will be biased toward their own race.
And all we gotta do is work on politics and demonstrate viewpoints where things truly are equal, in a way that many people can agree upon.
Its really not that hard. Bullies calling African Americans the N-word? That's not cool, chastise those guys. Racial Voting suppression going on in a certain area? F-those guys too, we shouldn't be trying to make one race have an easier time voting than another. Racial Quotas being suggested to be part of college-acceptance? That seems a bit like a bad idea to me.
I mean, these are REAL issues that are addressed all the time in Politics. Each time, "equality" may be up for debate but society comes to a general, sane conclusion.
---------------
I don't expect everyone's definition of "equality" to perfectly match. For the most part, I just don't want people to advocate the advance THEIR race at the detriment of other races.
And politics is work. That means I have to work to figure out people's opinions, analyze their viewpoints, and make decisions based on that.
So then you understand there is plenty of room for bias to create disagreement, which can have real world consequences, as I've been saying?
>The issue is that you think no one else believes in Equality, or something.
It's the "or something" bit, which I've explained very clearly, repeatedly, but which you won't address because it annihilates your argument.
>And all we gotta do...
Ya, all we gotta do. Easy as 1 2 3. Just tell mean white people not to call blacks the 'N' word and poof! Everyone will agree on the precise definition of equality.
>Racial Quotas being suggested...
You understand that a whole lot of people disagree with you about whether that promotes equality, right? All we gotta do is get them to agree with you, right? Just give the finger to people who engage in racial voting suppression, and bam! The exact definition of equality will get slammed into everyone's mind so hard they won't be able to disagree. As long as there are a few cases which you think no one could disagree with, even though people have disagreed with them rather strenuously in the past, the precise, universally agreed upon definition must be right around the corner, right?
>but society comes to a general, sane conclusion.
You understand society came to the conclusion 200 years ago that equality didn't even apply to other races, right? They believed in equality, they just meant something a little different by it than you do.
>I don't expect everyone's definition of "equality" to perfectly match.
So then you understand there's room for reasonable disagreement among reasonable people, and that their human biases will generally result in them preferring the answer which is better for their own race?
>For the most part, I just don't want people to advocate the advance THEIR race at the detriment of other races.
No one cares what you want. You not wanting it doesn't mean it's not going to happen. People are going to be biased toward their own race, consciously or not, and that's going to have real world consequences. Your hopes and feelings don't change reality.
If you don't care for my thoughts, then you don't need to have them.
"Goodbye".
Feel free to close out on a snarky note. I'll give you another chance to come up with something better. But the patheticness of your last response has pulled me back. If your final words are sufficiently snarky, I'll leave you alone. Or you can just leave too, that's cool.
What matters is how people actually behave.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Paper Magazine, the New York Times, and Gothamist now mostly reflect the same cultural ideals. It's fascinating. Was this what the 80s was like?
Was he successful? He certainly convinced most of the people on the right, but they were already on his bandwagon anyway... As someone in the middle, it's looking more and more like he had a point. (Even if the site that bears his name has become.. well, whatever it is, now.)
It might not be easily understood, but it's usually both easily recognizable and frequently condemned.
We're not talking about some secret society, but about major currents for change.
>Remember ever cool word/ term you knew as a kid and how they immediately stopped being cool once you heard your parents use them?
Yes. That's pop culture. Not anti-establishment culture.
LGBTQ spaces and movements? Black Lives Matter? Occupy Wall St and the subsequent progressive upswell which led to Bernie Sanders, an unknown independent from Vermont, to garner nearly as many votes as one of the most well-known politicians on the planet?
If tame middle aged people who listen to Enya and mass media outlets can root for your cause, you're not exactly a counter-culture.
Neither of these is a small niche. Police brutality is a huge, huge issue. It may seem like a small niche to people who are not members of targeted demographics, though.
> and are otherwise totally content with modern society.
What leads you to believe this? From my personal experience this couldn't be more wrong
Anyway, if you want real counter culture that middle aged people will still clutch their pearls over... what about Antifa?
I'm not saying it's not important -- but as a request for change it is niche in scope, that is constrained to a small area of life (even if you are one of the targeted demographics).
>What leads you to believe this?*
Well, some internet ranting and rare protesting aside I don't see any alternative lifestyles there (or only very trite ones, the "fair trade coffee" equivalent of politics). It's all business as usual otherwise.
>Anyway, if you want real counter culture that middle aged people will still clutch their pearls over... what about Antifa?
Better in the shocks middle aged people respect, but scores less points on "culture". It's a reaction-based group, not an alternative cultural force.
The specter of police violence is not constrained to a small area of life for members of targeted demographics....
To argue, as BLM does, that we should restructure the entire policing system (some say even dismantle it) is to conduct a reimagining of what power and authority means in this country.
In a place where "law and order" (one of Trump's favorite phrases) and the administration of "justice" is upheld as the highest ideal, to decisively argue against normative ideas of them is certainly counter culture.
Also antifa is not reactionary. Many members of antifa orgs run community kitchens, organize reading groups, or build small farms or communes.
They didn't seem to understand (or care?) what they did wrong and thus didn't really apologize.
The magazine retracted the story and apologized. The author apologized as well. The editor handed over their resignation (it was not accepted).
What do you want, to have them be some parriahs that never find journalistic work again?
I'm all for free speech, but I wish we could get a handle on people saying completely wrong things for profit.
Author and Editor fail to validate highly sensitive claims in an incredibly amateur fashion. * they did not even ask the accused for comment*.
Rather than separate from the author and Editor, and help them find a career elsewhere, the publication gives a pretty weak apology and doubles down on two individuals who obviously failed to follow basic journalism standards.
They don't need to be "parriahs", but I do think it rubbed readers the wrong way when RS continued to defend their work and ultimately gave a sour retraction ('we were hoodwinked!') and weak "sorry!".
Obviously not. Else countless others shit-rags would also be.
In the era of fake news this is a misdemeanor.
Saying that bad journalism "is why the Rolling Stone is for sale" makes no sense when bad (and far worse) journalism does just fine everywhere.
I don't have an opinion on this case in particular, but there are cases where no amount of apologizing is enough. Becoming a copy writer for the rest of one's career does not strike me as a particularly cruel and unusual punishment.
Is that always true? I'm not so sure. And even if it is true, perhaps it should not be so. All kinds of professionals have accidents or errors and continue to work.
There's this apocryphal story that makes some sense.
Tom Watson Jr., CEO of IBM between 1956 and 1971, was a key figure in the information revolution. (...) A young executive had made some bad decisions that cost the company several million dollars. He was summoned to Watson’s office, fully expecting to be dismissed. As he entered the office, the young executive said, “I suppose after that set of mistakes you will want to fire me.” Watson was said to have replied, “Not at all, young man, we have just spent a couple of million dollars educating you.”
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/08/23/remain...
Start at the top and start firing.
"Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin, who headed America's Asia-based 7th Fleet, has been relieved of his duties following the damage to the USS John S McCain."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/asia/fitzgerald-col...
Next up is the commander of the ship and the senior officers.
Being relieved of duties doesn't mean firing though. Could be that they become paper pushers. The next step would be court martial.
But yes, there are career ending mistakes. Especially when they cause the death of 7 people and takes a 9000 ton, $1.5 billion ship out of commission. The Arleigh Burke class also forms a good chunk of an aircraft carrier group's defensive perimeter, so by taking out these ships, these mistakes (whether one mistake or many mistake doesn't matter) puts approximately $30 Billion worth of military assets (not to mention the 5000+ people) at risk.
How's that for a career ender?
If we fired and imprisoned every doctor with this experience(s), hospitals would be empty and people would be dying from easily preventable causes. There are almost no doctors that are doing clinical medicine for long enough that don't have this 'mark' on their soul. Got a solution for that from your high horse?
I am talking about deaths happening daily in every hospital around the world. Sorry you were saying what?
By the time the correction is issued, the false information has spread worldwide. There are still people who believe dumb conspiracy theories because the early coverage of events like Katrina and 9/11 got it wrong.
And the correction will never go viral the way the wrong-headed reporting will.
So yes, they shouldn't work again. And maybe if we burn enough people in such a way editors will pump the brakes a little on breaking news in such a way to avoid printing bullshit and infecting the public further.
But the real problem? It's just crappy journalism. Taking some half-assed, re-hashed current political narrative being peddled by somebody with emotional problems, forgetting the editing and fact-checking, and running with it front-page. They suck at their job. That's an indication of an organization that doesn't care about quality.
The best defense I can come up with for RS is that we live in a tough-as-nails media market, and everybody's having to cut corners and pump stories far past reason. Doesn't mean they suck any less, just that they suck as much as many other news outlets. They got caught.
Good journalism is rare and getting rarer. Whether RS fired anybody or not isn't very important. What _is_ important is that their publishing of the story and reaction to it forms a not-so-pretty picture of where the overall industry is.
First, there's a difference between malpractice and a mistake, even a serious one. The problem with the rolling stone incident, as I understand it, was that the editors failed to take the most basic, widely recognized steps to ensure integrity in a situation where they were unusually essential.
There's a difference between making a mistake as a lawyer, for instance, and breaching ethics, basic procedures, or committing "gross incompetency" in a way that gets you disbarred.
Furthermore, there's a huge difference between temporary disbarment and becoming a pariah that never works again in the field.
Now, law isn't journalism, there isn't a "bar" or a specific concept of disbarment, and rules are looser in journalism. But the journalists and editors behind this story do seem, by the standards of their profession, to have committed far more than a mistake. This was really, really serious, and goes deep into gross incompetence and breach of ethics.
In spite of this, and how outrageous it was, I do think the day could come where they'd be reasonably welcomed back into their profession as full members. But this was really serious, and I do think removal from their positions, and an extended period of working as a proofreader under the supervision of a journalist with a better track record, certainly isn't unreasonable.
In fact, it might be the sort of thing that would actually help the journalists and editors to re-enter their field again in the future, with trust.
We published the article with the firm belief that it was accurate. Given all of these reports, however, we have come to the conclusion that we were mistaken in honoring Jackie's request to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. In trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault, we made a judgment – the kind of judgment reporters and editors make every day. We should have not made this agreement with Jackie and we should have worked harder to convince her that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story. These mistakes are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie. We apologize to anyone who was affected by the story and we will continue to investigate the events of that evening.
False rape story with easily discoverable falsities and lies, yet incredibly lax editing
as a cover story with bold graphics
with real, innocent victims who had nothing to do with anything, yet were punished and their property vandalized.
While the question about lack of gender diversity in RS's writers seemed aggressive compared to the normal How I Built This "So a billion dollar valuation. That's a lot of money. What does it feel like to be...rich?", Wenner's response seemed out of touch and dismissive.
The rest of it seems run of the mill corporate entertainment shilling and promotion...
What about, going back a bit, but David Foster Wallace's piece on John McCain's election campaign?