Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Clovis is 100% correct though, like here are a bunch of other headlines used by youngcons:
Liberals are saying these 6 words are the new N-words
Here are the 8 words the man who shot at George Zimmerman said seconds after the incident
Trump Nat’l Security Adviser Ends WH Briefing With 7 DEVASTATING Words Aimed Directly At Iran
They've also done the thing before where the headline on site doesn't contain this "x words" formulation, but it's in the metadata. For instance, this article is headlined "Trump’s Dying Brother Told Him, “Don’t You Dare Ever Drink”" but buried in the metadata is this:
So this is a clickbait formulation commonly used by youngcons. While it's not beyond the bounds of reason that this time they deliberately used the number 14, it seems likelier to me that this time 14 was what happened to come up.
What is certain is that linking Palin to the whole thing is ludicrous, because:
- The person choosing to share the article would not have known until they hit the share button that the "14 words" thing would be the title.
- Palin did not post the tweet herself (any tweets personally posted are signed "SP").
She may still not even know the tweet is there, and she's obviously not going to take it down now, because this has become another circus act where they get to whine about the "liberal media" attacking youngcons for no reason. Taking the tweet down would look like admitting that there was malice intended in the post in the first place.
Obviously I'm not a fan of whatever youngcons is (and it basically looks to be a derposphere version of Buzzfeed or Upworthy or something) or of Palin, but it's supposed to matter to the left what is true. We're not supposed to obsess over pizzagate-esque coded messages that our cartoon villain opponents are nefariously trying to slip into articles for... well, no doubt some complex evil plan. Get a ****ing grip.
14 words is sort strange, though, since like -- that's kind of a lot of words, sort of highly specific (as opposed to five, seven, eight) -- and there's not really a quip or sentence in Trump's speech that is 14 words.
As was always *my* point here (I don't know about everyone else's): there is basically ALWAYS some minimally plausible innocuous explanation for casual and coded racism. Hence the effectiveness of the Raised by Wolves Defense. Why we leap behind the Veil of Ignorance to defend it is highly strange. Take it in a more Bayesian fashion:
- Trump's speech was pretty fascist, clearly written by Miller and itself containing a bunch of white supremacist-y buzzwords and wink/nods
- Sarah Palin is a right-wing populist trying for years now to ingratiate herself to that crowd and build herself a little cottage media industry and notoriety as a defender of the angry white
- the YoungCons are basically a poor man's Breitbart, and their business model is providing right-wing racist claptrap in exchange for clicks
I mean, how *complex* is this, REALLY? Isn't it simply:
- dumb angry whites enjoy racist drivel and
- clickbaiters and media celebrities who share them want their clicks and eyeballs
That's the plan, full stop. That's the entire episode and all you need to know about the potential motivations and incentives of those involved.
That seems markedly different from assuming Hillary Clinton is covering up a child-raping crime syndicate in a pizza store.
Like your post is bad, man. And I like your posts. But this is some pretty ridiculous false equivalencies.
In sum:
- the Raised By Wolves/Feral Child Fallacy is always meant to disquiet conclusions about the truth in cases where *the truth* depends on someone's motivations which can be hard to suss out in isolation and where "well, they're just dumb and clueless?" could always serve to explain any behavior. Taken alone, it can always be true. That's why we let all this information we know about Trump's speech, the YoungCons, Palin, their business model, their audience, their history, etc. enter into the calculation before we make our conclusion. That's *sound* reasoning.
- the critics of Palin need no grand conspiracy other than Palin, clickbaiters, the right-wing ecosystem, etc. sell racism for fun and profit. That also squares and comports with what we know.
Yet again the grand liberal tradition and our search for truth allows us to believe a theory which takes all available information and reconciles with other things we know are true: Sarah Palin sells racist grievances and white people redemption stories to fellow traveler right-wingers and headlining your product with notable racist taglines is part of the business to attraction attention.