User Profile

Forum Activity by DAWN OF THE YARN

DaMUEdit: Janson got there first.

Edit 2, restored: Regarding the Veritas story, it's a CNN producer who's involved with the "medical unit," i.e. he's not involved with the Russia stories, and James O'Keefe has been caught often in the past selectively editing videos to promote whatever narrative currently has him horny.

And regarding dead voters in the election, did you read the article you linked to? As best I can understand it, the story refers to someone working for the Democratic party who was trying to hit registration quotas and cheated his way there by registering dead people - the issue with dead voters is that living people still have to go to the polls and pretend to be the dead person to cast the vote and make the difference. So far, there isn't evidence that this has occurred (and as the article notes, it was limited to 18 fraudulent forms with easily disproven identification information).

As for Veritas, sure they're dodgy, but even assuming (which we should) selective editing, the video is damning and the person in the video is speaking of what is normal at CNN, specifically pushing the Russia narrative.

As for the other source, Janson claimed he had heard nothing of dead people in the election, as if this sort of thing is unprecedented in American politics.
Dead people, for example, were voting in the June California primary.


Jun 28, 2017 9:11 AM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNAnd 3 CNN journalists get pushed out for pushing a story without legs.

I also want to point out about this one, this is what accountability looks like. ?This is a sign that ethics still matter in professional journalism. ?When InfoWars and Breibart - much less the Trump administration - start firing people for pushing "a story without legs", then maybe the "fake news" beacon wouldn't look so dim.

"Whataboutism"?

Jun 28, 2017 8:41 AM
ergill sanchez
?DAWN OF THE YARN
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I've been avoiding you for months, if you haven't noticed. We're only arguing here, because of a drive-by mischaracterization you offered. Fuck balls, indeed.

You've been one of the best (and sometimes the worst) people to argue with. Shame if this turns out to be el fin. We'll always have Barcelona.

You'll always have my respect as an interlocutor. You are the standard to which the rest of us aspire. This is unfortunate, however, as it leaves you in the position of not profiting nearly as much as we do from these exchanges. As we are sharpened, you are slightly dulled. We all need something outside ourselves to keep us honest, but around here you don't really have that. Over time, this can encourage a certain laziness or overconfidence or mischievousness or even cruelty.

I too have lost faith in you as an interlocutor. You don't sense goodwill from me and I don't sense goodwill from you. It is what it is. I am habitually, indeed constitutionally, and possibly fatally, "game" for argument, so I will tend to engage when confronted, but I have been avoiding you, because I have the sense that our exchanges will breakdown and get ugly.
Jun 26, 2017 8:18 PM
sanchezHad a vacation here recently, and coming back to this now, I think I'll just cut it down to a closer. Since you're really keyed up over the accusation of sophistry, since there's overlap there with my estimation of your argumentation, and since it's sapped up the remaining interest of the debate, I'll address that.


I see. So, you're just going to punt on all that analysis that I offered. OK?

sanchezOn the one hand, I'd already granted that I was wrong saying you'd claimed, without qualification, that your goal in argument was to reduce your opponent to invective and contradiction. You did qualify at various points that you still felt like you were playing to an ideally rational judge.


But? Come on, there's gotta be a "but" here. And what about that business about you being so nice about letting me off easy on this? Hmm?

sanchezOn the other hand, I find it extremely difficult to care about your qualification or pearl-clutching demands for apology at this point because of how aggressively eristic your arguments have been in here and, lately, elsewhere.


There it is!

And what is this "elsewhere" of which you speak? This sounds a little creepy. Are you doxxing me? Following me around the internet? What the fuck?

sanchezI don't really believe the qualifications anymore.


From the same poster who spent years telling me to keep my psychological speculations to myself? It's not about what you believe. It's about what you prove.

sanchezWhatever affect this ideally rational judge is supposed to have upon your conscience and the substance of your arguments is showing through less and less. So to take one of the more egregious examples in here, there was you shitting the bed over a GatewayPundit link.


This again? Make the most of it.

sanchezThere might have been a modicum of grace in just dropping it,



And I would have, if the video itself were not still advantageous to my position and if you weren't so eager to claim that I was engaged in the speech-act of directly endorsing the headline, when the hyperlink merely asked a question (What's the story now?) and moreover when I had already clarified to Janson that it was only the embedded video in the article which was of interest to me as evidence. And you will note, that I have only stood directly on what Comey actually says in the video. If I weren't lazy, I would've simply linked from YouTube, but alas I did not. You got me. OK.

sanchezbut proving that you'll quibble literally everything to death,


This is rich! Sanchez complaining that a poster will quibble everything to death! You were posting walls of text before I ever arrived here, were you not?

sanchezin a sort of Trumpian doubling down on the patently wrong in hopes of projecting strength, you insist on beating the drum of a line of argument that was dead from the start.


On the contrary, that video is a valuable resource as it clarifies the nature of the opposition's proof. He is either unable or unwilling to say what the nature of the link is, leaving us unable to say what the nature of his alleged linkage is. Moreover, our ability to default to giving him the benefit of the doubt presumptively (i.e., assuming that he has it but isn't spilling it), is severely complicated by the politics surrounding this mess (I assumed Colin Powell had the goods. Turns out he didn't. And then we went to war.).

And you can either deal with the analysis on the evidence or you can continue to whine that I didn't wind up making the argument you wanted me to make.

sanchezLike a doddering uncle on Facebook, you linked some rightwing clickbait that spun Comey's statement toward the completely opposite conclusion and didn't look back. I said that Russia was responsible for the Podesta leaks. You posted GP claiming that Comey said Russia wasn't responsible. In the video they posted, he said exactly the opposite. Do we have to use a third-grade vocabulary here? Do we have to build an introductory truth table?


There we go. That's the sanchez I remember. No quarter! Tally ho!

I posted a hyperlink under a question. You have offered your answer to the question. And I have pointed out what is still crucially missing from that testimony.

Maybe the answer to the question wasn't as satisfying as I may have hoped. Oh well.

Maybe you will continue to act as if one unfortunate link in a chain of argument is a crucial proof that delivers you to the promised land? Make the most it. Actually, I think you just did.

sanchezI'm not about to start any new arguments with you if you consider this a viable one.


And why should I start one with you when you drop all other lines of analysis to focus all of your energy on a drive by link? LOL.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I've been avoiding you for months, if you haven't noticed. We're only arguing here, because of a drive-by mischaracterization you offered. Fuck balls, indeed.

sanchezApparently, the actual substance of the arguments matters significantly less to you than the effect of SPAMing your interlocutor into apathetic submission


This is delicious! How many of your interlocutors would accuse you of doing the same thing? Hmmm?

sanchezunder a barrage of ill-vetted responses.


So, the one link from Gateway Pundit is now a "barrage"? Or perhaps also the voting numbers I cited? The big "two" sources is a barrage? Who is pearl-clutching here?

sanchezIf, as you say, you argue here in order to hone your skills, and this is what you have to show for it, why bother? And that said, I'm content to bow out of the rest.
So there's your victory for you.


And I'll take it. Personal attacks? Whinging endlessly about one loose link as a way to dodge the rest of the analysis? You reek of the heuristics of defeat.

Jun 26, 2017 6:53 PM
BobHarrisSo Fincher's Zodiac is getting a DC in August, haven't watched it in quite a while, came across a story of a guy in San Francisco that made a low budget film in the early 70's that claims he met the real life person in the bathroom of a theater that had the film. So what's the consensus on Fincher's movie and the real life case?

Well, the surest way to find out would be to ask the Zodiac killer himself. Say, where is Nameless at anyhow?

Jun 25, 2017 10:02 PM
Ben OrganaThis hits like a .50 calibre to the face.

"The engine of American ideology drives Wonder Woman, which is in the end a movie about violence. It is also a surreal movie, because of the way it draws upon the world?s past to make a distinctly American fiction. Wonder Woman has no use for global history except as grist for American exceptionalism, which animates the storylines of so many heroes in the comic book universe, from Captain America to Superman. And so the surreality at the heart of American identity gets recycled, producing comic book movies to feed our least noble hungers."



At least it's not all bad:

" It?s great to watch a hot woman punch through walls. It was also a privilege to witness giantess-fetishes flower in so many young minds at the same time"

This is the sort of lazy "criticism" that writes itself.

Cultural criticism - put on your cultural goggles and kick into your confirmation bias.
Feminist criticism - put on your feminism goggles and kick into your confirmation bias.
Marxist criticism - put on your Marxism goggles and kick into your confirmation bias.

If you set out looking for anything, you are likely to find it. Hence the success of fortune cookies and astrology. And in today's "outrage" culture of victims calling fouls, these patterns often have a hair-trigger (sorry, should've put a "trigger-warning" there as my figuration is that of the function of a firearm). Such criticism reflects a rather cookie cutter attempt to deductively grind out conclusions from pet premises. Such criticism is of the variety any hack can perform. Once you learn the vocabulary, you just insert terms into your syllogism. Better criticism has a more of an inductive element to it and more interplay between impressing from the top-down and being impressed from the bottom-up.

By my lights, what is troubling about these movies is what they signal about our collective psyche.


A leading theory of the function of dreams is that they are how our brains sort out the problem of the day and run simulations to help us survive the stresses of our environment. Ever notice how our nightmares are so often hard problems we cannot solve in the moment (e.g., the test you didn't study for, the hundreds of tables you have to serve, being impossibly late for work)?

Our waking fantasy life is also, to some extent, a mode of imaginative problem-solving. We can't solve all our problems, so it is gratifying to see them resolved in movies. Movies also provide a simulator of things we would not want to experience first hand. I can't tell you how many times, for example, I've watched a horror movie with friends and then had a detailed discussion about "What I would do in that situation!" Jason doesn't run you see, so you just don't turn your back to him so he can't materialize somewhere else and you just keep walking backwards. To the extent that cinema tells us something true of the human condition, it provides us with clues on how to approach human problems - mistakes to avoid, realities to accept, virtues to cultivate, challenges we should bravely accept. That is, not how avoid Jason, but what to do when you're on a jury with 11 angry men.

This is not to say that there is not or should not be puff entertainment where we solve problems with the video game cheat of going into God mode and cutting through them like tissue. This is the mode of fantasy of a child's daydream. It is not so much about problem-solving (after all, we can't fly, and unfortunate laboratory experiments don't give you heat vision) but about relieving tension. It is a safety valve, venting frustration at the big world with its big problems. Wouldn't it be nice to just be able to punch those bad guys into submission? As such, these films, are typically on the lowest rung of entertainment. They are not art that engages with, reveals our humanity, or transforms our view.

The safety-valve strategy is sustainable, so long as the occasional stressor is not so consistent and/or so great that the system itself is in trouble. Do these "hero" movies indicate a collective fantasy where that valve is being opened more and more frequently, or is this just business as usual (with capes instead of guns?). We certainly don't have grounds to freak out. Popular movies are for younger people spending money and the action movies of the 1980s solved problems with the steroidal masculinity of Stallone and Schwarzenegger firing bullets in baddies.

Panic aside, however, I am somewhat concerned.

Superhero movies and our youth literature have a pattern of showing us a protagonist who is better than everyone else and who is thus entitled to act extra-legally. " By virtue of their superior powers and their superior kit they get to break the law and pound evil into submission or oblivion. To extent that we identify with these protagonists we're invited to imagine ourselves better than everyone else and see ourselves using violence as an instrumental expedient, consequentialists with a blank check to punch the obviously bad people in the world. Such reasoning has been the prelude to purges, pogroms, invasions, slavery, etc.

What is nice, however, about our modern super hero movies is that the writers are consciously confronting this issue. We meet Tony Stark facing the consequences of being an arms dealer. Batman never stops being a fascist, but at least Nolan's films ask the question about where even the Bat must draw the line. The Marvel Universe has set its "civil war" on the hero's response to how they deal with the world insisting that they stop acting extra-legally and destroying entire cities. This is nice, as the genre subverts the fantasy by raising real-world questions as a palate cleanser just before HULK goes back to smashing. But HULK will always go back to smashing and the third act will always involve action pyrotechnics. Just as we can raise the question as to whether there can truly be such a thing as an anti-war movie, we can also question just how "adult" we can ever expect a superhero movie to be, despite the occasional narrative fig-leaf about how direct violence is problematic.?

This isn't the end of the world, but we've got a lot of this variety of junk food on the market these days. I know that it is meant to be junk food and that popular cinema has always largely been junk food, but it seems to me that there is a bit of a pattern of infantilization, of retreating from the world, of just needing to get catch a break. It seems to signal a collective mind which cannot imaginatively figure out to solve problems, which has lost faith in conventional solutions, which unreflectively endorses expedients, and which lack maturity.

On the other hand, I am getting older, so this might not be the world changing as it is me. Maybe I am just Sheriff Bell lamenting the dismal tide. Or maybe I am just looking for something to complain about. What matters as much as finding alleged patterns is looking for defeaters. Anyone can spin a yarn.

Jun 23, 2017 8:43 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNSure, Janson. Sure.

I'll go slow.

Since you cut my quote in half, my actual statement was "Because I have not seen a single person claim this, I'm going to guess that this is not an actual excuse that anyone worth listening to has made". ?The "excuse" part is due to your claim that these spending numbers were being used as an excuse for Ossoff's loss. ?The NBC article you provided is not using its numbers, two weeks out from the election, to excuse Ossoff's loss as the election was still polling too close at that point. ?Show me someone after the election who has claimed that the loss was due to Republicans outspending, and I'll also be happy to point out that they're someone not worth listening to.

OK, fair cop.
Jun 22, 2017 10:39 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNThere you go.

You know. ?Because it's hard to excuse a loss that you haven't lost yet.

Sure, Janson. Sure.
Jun 22, 2017 9:35 PM
Oxnard MontalvoRon Howard confirmed

The comments in the Reddit thread are great.
Jun 22, 2017 8:08 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNAt the very least, we know it was said.

I said no one who has said it as an excuse for losing was worth listening to. ?I still haven't.

There you go.
Jun 22, 2017 7:46 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARN
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNBut the linked source making the claim is from the 19th (three days ago).

No, Yarn. ?If you look at the article it is updated to the 20th, or the eve of the election.

From what I see, thenewcivilrightsmovement.com posted the article on June 19th. And that is not several weeks ago, is it?

Doesn't matter if their source is an article from the 12th. ?As I pointed out, there was a lot of last minute cash, mostly from Dems, infused into the campaign.

Uh....

JansonBecause I have not seen a single person claim this



Now you have. You can no longer deny this part.

If you want to deny that this is anyone of import, that's fine. I could dig up a few more, and you could say the same thing, no doubt.

At the very least, we know it was said.


Jun 22, 2017 7:35 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNWell, sports are kind of stupid too, so there's that.

Democrats need to get their house in order first and then go on the march.

What they need is tight D, a deep bench, more pick and roll, stick and move, and gumption and determination.

Don't forget to give 110%.

I find it hilarious that some athletes are now talking about giving 115% and 120% because the old figurative standard of the literally impossible wasn't good enough.

The only athletes I am pretty sure give it 100% are the ones that die. That runner, for example, in Ancient Greece who announced "NIKE" after running back to report the Battle of Marathon and then collapsed. Yeah, he gave it his all. That rower whose heart exploded while he was rowing a boat gave 100%.

Jun 22, 2017 7:33 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNBut the linked source making the claim is from the 19th (three days ago).

No, Yarn. ?If you look at the article it is updated to the 20th, or the eve of the election.

From what I see, thenewcivilrightsmovement.com posted the article on June 19th. And that is not several weeks ago, is it?

It's not that NBC is making the claim and fucking up, but "the new civil rights movement", specifically David Badash, and that does count as "one person" does it not?
Jun 22, 2017 7:28 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNGood thing I made that clear for you that it's not even really a question that the Democrats really lost, [i]again,.

There's a reason why I stopped posting in the sports threads. ?Trump loves this kind of zero-sum braggadocio, and obviously Bill Cosby does as well.

Well, sports are kind of stupid too, so there's that.

Democrats need to get their house in order first and then go on the march.
Jun 22, 2017 7:21 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARN
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNThere's the excuse that the Republicans outspent the Democrats (they actually spent about 7 million less).

Because I have not seen a single person claim this, I'm going to guess that this is not an actual excuse that anyone worth listening to has made.

NBC News last week reported that Republicans spent more than Democrats, and neither party has spent $30 million.

Not sure why you didn't just link directly to the NBC report, but it appears to be a couple of weeks old, and probably didn't account for the flush of last minute cash. ?Atlanta's own paper showed the numbers that have been reliably repeated by most of the post-election analysis that I've seen.

But the linked source making the claim is from the 19th (three days ago).

Jun 22, 2017 7:18 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNAnd I just pointed out how silly it is to even contend that it was a moral victory.

Good thing then that I didn't claim it was a moral victory. ?I only pointed out that it was the closest election in the district in a long time, and therefore the loss is not reason for Dems to lose all hope over it.

Good thing I made that clear for you that it's not even really a question that the Democrats really lost, again,.


Jun 22, 2017 7:10 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNThere's the excuse that the Republicans outspent the Democrats (they actually spent about 7 million less).

Because I have not seen a single person claim this, I'm going to guess that this is not an actual excuse that anyone worth listening to has made.

NBC News last week reported that Republicans spent more than Democrats, and neither party has spent $30 million.
Jun 22, 2017 7:08 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARNYeah, that's the ticket. It's a symbolic victory! Dumping in millions of dollars of money from the outside and performing worse than Hillary in the same area, VICTORY!

It's almost as if I pointed out some contentiousness over the wisdom of this strategy right in the quote there.

And I just pointed out how silly it is to even contend that it was a moral victory. They went for broke and came up short.

The moral victory will be when the party starts living up to its avowed ideals.
Jun 22, 2017 7:00 PM
Janson Jinnistan
DAWN OF THE YARN
Yes, and some are even legitimate.

Condolences on Georgia.

Which excuse there applies to Georgia, Yarn?

Oh, there are always excuses.

There the excuse that the rain kept people home. There's the excuse that African Americans didn't turn out. There's the excuse that the election was counter-historical. There's the excuse that Ossof lost because of the historical pattern of it being a Republican seat. There's the excuse that the Republicans outspent the Democrats (they actually spent about 7 million less).

Jun 22, 2017 6:59 PM