As someone who actually clicks the links on the article it is clear that the guy is antisemitic and racist. The article deliberately pulls the most egregious racist elements of the texts. Poor journalism. Take note Unherd.
BB’s problem is that masses of its huge commenter community think that Gonzalez is right, both through their btl posts or upvotes for grossly antisemitic comments btl. I followed this closely for several years until I withdrew for my own sanity. The irony is that the site that hosts them has Jewish founders and CEO.
BB’s problem is that masses of its huge commenter community think that Gonzalez is right, both through their btl posts or upvotes for grossly antisemitic comments btl. I followed this closely for several years until I withdrew for my own sanity. The irony is that the site that hosts them has Jewish founders and CEO.
Milton Gibbon
10 months ago
As someone who actually clicks the links on the article it is clear that the guy is antisemitic and racist. The article deliberately pulls the most egregious racist elements of the texts. Poor journalism. Take note Unherd.
Raphael A
10 months ago
Apples and oranges. I taught high school for a while, and there was a long period where white high school students sang along to every word of a rap song. It was hard to determine, from the New York Times article, whether the girl was innocently, singing along or being defiant and breaking a taboo. It struck me as the former, and her punishment did not seem to fit the crime.
I don’t see how anybody expects anything they exchange in a so-called private forum to remain private in this day and age. There are just too many examples that have demonstrated that it isn’t so. Remember JournoList? If Ezra Klein really expected for the rest of the world not to discover how genuinely boring he and his reporter friends are, that strikes me as truly native. We know that the North Koreans can hack into the exchanges of studio executives, whining about starlets. There’s always a huge difference between what should, and what is.
Last edited 10 months ago by Raphael A
Raphael A
10 months ago
Apples and oranges. I taught high school for a while, and there was a long period where white high school students sang along to every word of a rap song. It was hard to determine, from the New York Times article, whether the girl was innocently, singing along or being defiant and breaking a taboo. It struck me as the former, and her punishment did not seem to fit the crime.
I don’t see how anybody expects anything they exchange in a so-called private forum to remain private in this day and age. There are just too many examples that have demonstrated that it isn’t so. Remember JournoList? If Ezra Klein really expected for the rest of the world not to discover how genuinely boring he and his reporter friends are, that strikes me as truly native. We know that the North Koreans can hack into the exchanges of studio executives, whining about starlets. There’s always a huge difference between what should, and what is.
Last edited 10 months ago by Raphael A
R Wright
10 months ago
I am not quite sure who Breitbart is trying to pander to by attacking right wing figures. Did they just assume some Guardian readers might convert and begin subscribing? The contents of two years of group chat taken out of any context are just not particularly interesting to me.
I am not quite sure who Breitbart is trying to pander to by attacking right wing figures. Did they just assume some Guardian readers might convert and begin subscribing? The contents of two years of group chat taken out of any context are just not particularly interesting to me.
Steve Murray
10 months ago
Hmm… the boundaries between private and public conversations. Whilst we all understand the need for privacy, should our public persona differ to such a degree from our private ‘self’ that the public one becomes actual deception?
Of course we may express ourselves more candidly among (those we think are our) friends, but that can’t include expressing views that differ from our public discourse. That’s a difference in kind, not in tone.
What online media provides is a major “looking glass” effect regarding the ‘self’. It may well be that internet natives are unable to distinguish any difference between the two; their ‘selves’ exist online. That would possibly explain the seemingly greater prevalence of mental unwellness, as no inner resources become sufficiently developed to cope with the obvious hurdles that life puts in all our paths.
More profoundly perhaps, in what sense does the ‘self’ exist, except through external discourse? These relatively trivial online examples which segue into ‘real life’ pose the possibility of the ‘self’ becoming indistinct for future generations. It’s a form of evolution, of non-biological origin but with consequences just as vital. It’s always been possible to lead a life of deception, and self-deception: we can now watch it happening.
Last edited 10 months ago by Steve Murray
Steve Murray
10 months ago
Hmm… the boundaries between private and public conversations. Whilst we all understand the need for privacy, should our public persona differ to such a degree from our private ‘self’ that the public one becomes actual deception?
Of course we may express ourselves more candidly among (those we think are our) friends, but that can’t include expressing views that differ from our public discourse. That’s a difference in kind, not in tone.
What online media provides is a major “looking glass” effect regarding the ‘self’. It may well be that internet natives are unable to distinguish any difference between the two; their ‘selves’ exist online. That would possibly explain the seemingly greater prevalence of mental unwellness, as no inner resources become sufficiently developed to cope with the obvious hurdles that life puts in all our paths.
More profoundly perhaps, in what sense does the ‘self’ exist, except through external discourse? These relatively trivial online examples which segue into ‘real life’ pose the possibility of the ‘self’ becoming indistinct for future generations. It’s a form of evolution, of non-biological origin but with consequences just as vital. It’s always been possible to lead a life of deception, and self-deception: we can now watch it happening.
Last edited 10 months ago by Steve Murray
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
I think there is a big difference between Gonzales and Groves. Gonzalez is an adult who works in the media, and he should know better. Nothing you say online is private. Groves was a kid when she made the comment. Kids say stupid things all the time – they’re kids.
However, I do agree that publishing the Gonzales comments is cheap, spiteful and immature. If he actually said something truly anti-Semitic, it might be more acceptable. This looks more like a smear job.
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
I think there is a big difference between Gonzales and Groves. Gonzalez is an adult who works in the media, and he should know better. Nothing you say online is private. Groves was a kid when she made the comment. Kids say stupid things all the time – they’re kids.
However, I do agree that publishing the Gonzales comments is cheap, spiteful and immature. If he actually said something truly anti-Semitic, it might be more acceptable. This looks more like a smear job.
Penny NG
10 months ago
I have remained a believer in avoiding pseudonyms an avatars. Providing one’s name when posting one’s opinions promotes accountability, which often requires courage.
Penny Noland Gaffney
Penny NG
10 months ago
I have remained a believer in avoiding pseudonyms an avatars. Providing one’s name when posting one’s opinions promotes accountability, which often requires courage.
Penny Noland Gaffney
*ahem* Jonah Goldberg is no conservative.
*ahem* Jonah Goldberg is no conservative.
As someone who actually clicks the links on the article it is clear that the guy is antisemitic and racist. The article deliberately pulls the most egregious racist elements of the texts. Poor journalism. Take note Unherd.
BB’s problem is that masses of its huge commenter community think that Gonzalez is right, both through their btl posts or upvotes for grossly antisemitic comments btl. I followed this closely for several years until I withdrew for my own sanity. The irony is that the site that hosts them has Jewish founders and CEO.
Gradually you began to hate them
Gradually you began to hate them
BB’s problem is that masses of its huge commenter community think that Gonzalez is right, both through their btl posts or upvotes for grossly antisemitic comments btl. I followed this closely for several years until I withdrew for my own sanity. The irony is that the site that hosts them has Jewish founders and CEO.
As someone who actually clicks the links on the article it is clear that the guy is antisemitic and racist. The article deliberately pulls the most egregious racist elements of the texts. Poor journalism. Take note Unherd.
Apples and oranges. I taught high school for a while, and there was a long period where white high school students sang along to every word of a rap song. It was hard to determine, from the New York Times article, whether the girl was innocently, singing along or being defiant and breaking a taboo. It struck me as the former, and her punishment did not seem to fit the crime.
I don’t see how anybody expects anything they exchange in a so-called private forum to remain private in this day and age. There are just too many examples that have demonstrated that it isn’t so. Remember JournoList? If Ezra Klein really expected for the rest of the world not to discover how genuinely boring he and his reporter friends are, that strikes me as truly native. We know that the North Koreans can hack into the exchanges of studio executives, whining about starlets. There’s always a huge difference between what should, and what is.
Apples and oranges. I taught high school for a while, and there was a long period where white high school students sang along to every word of a rap song. It was hard to determine, from the New York Times article, whether the girl was innocently, singing along or being defiant and breaking a taboo. It struck me as the former, and her punishment did not seem to fit the crime.
I don’t see how anybody expects anything they exchange in a so-called private forum to remain private in this day and age. There are just too many examples that have demonstrated that it isn’t so. Remember JournoList? If Ezra Klein really expected for the rest of the world not to discover how genuinely boring he and his reporter friends are, that strikes me as truly native. We know that the North Koreans can hack into the exchanges of studio executives, whining about starlets. There’s always a huge difference between what should, and what is.
I am not quite sure who Breitbart is trying to pander to by attacking right wing figures. Did they just assume some Guardian readers might convert and begin subscribing? The contents of two years of group chat taken out of any context are just not particularly interesting to me.
Breitbart is a big Trump supporter – that is why.
Spot on. That’s exactly why Breitbart’s doing this. Looks like they’re getting the supporters they deserve. Dismal site.
Spot on. That’s exactly why Breitbart’s doing this. Looks like they’re getting the supporters they deserve. Dismal site.
Breitbart is a big Trump supporter – that is why.
I am not quite sure who Breitbart is trying to pander to by attacking right wing figures. Did they just assume some Guardian readers might convert and begin subscribing? The contents of two years of group chat taken out of any context are just not particularly interesting to me.
Hmm… the boundaries between private and public conversations. Whilst we all understand the need for privacy, should our public persona differ to such a degree from our private ‘self’ that the public one becomes actual deception?
Of course we may express ourselves more candidly among (those we think are our) friends, but that can’t include expressing views that differ from our public discourse. That’s a difference in kind, not in tone.
What online media provides is a major “looking glass” effect regarding the ‘self’. It may well be that internet natives are unable to distinguish any difference between the two; their ‘selves’ exist online. That would possibly explain the seemingly greater prevalence of mental unwellness, as no inner resources become sufficiently developed to cope with the obvious hurdles that life puts in all our paths.
More profoundly perhaps, in what sense does the ‘self’ exist, except through external discourse? These relatively trivial online examples which segue into ‘real life’ pose the possibility of the ‘self’ becoming indistinct for future generations. It’s a form of evolution, of non-biological origin but with consequences just as vital. It’s always been possible to lead a life of deception, and self-deception: we can now watch it happening.
Hmm… the boundaries between private and public conversations. Whilst we all understand the need for privacy, should our public persona differ to such a degree from our private ‘self’ that the public one becomes actual deception?
Of course we may express ourselves more candidly among (those we think are our) friends, but that can’t include expressing views that differ from our public discourse. That’s a difference in kind, not in tone.
What online media provides is a major “looking glass” effect regarding the ‘self’. It may well be that internet natives are unable to distinguish any difference between the two; their ‘selves’ exist online. That would possibly explain the seemingly greater prevalence of mental unwellness, as no inner resources become sufficiently developed to cope with the obvious hurdles that life puts in all our paths.
More profoundly perhaps, in what sense does the ‘self’ exist, except through external discourse? These relatively trivial online examples which segue into ‘real life’ pose the possibility of the ‘self’ becoming indistinct for future generations. It’s a form of evolution, of non-biological origin but with consequences just as vital. It’s always been possible to lead a life of deception, and self-deception: we can now watch it happening.
I think there is a big difference between Gonzales and Groves. Gonzalez is an adult who works in the media, and he should know better. Nothing you say online is private. Groves was a kid when she made the comment. Kids say stupid things all the time – they’re kids.
However, I do agree that publishing the Gonzales comments is cheap, spiteful and immature. If he actually said something truly anti-Semitic, it might be more acceptable. This looks more like a smear job.
I think there is a big difference between Gonzales and Groves. Gonzalez is an adult who works in the media, and he should know better. Nothing you say online is private. Groves was a kid when she made the comment. Kids say stupid things all the time – they’re kids.
However, I do agree that publishing the Gonzales comments is cheap, spiteful and immature. If he actually said something truly anti-Semitic, it might be more acceptable. This looks more like a smear job.
I have remained a believer in avoiding pseudonyms an avatars. Providing one’s name when posting one’s opinions promotes accountability, which often requires courage.
Penny Noland Gaffney
I have remained a believer in avoiding pseudonyms an avatars. Providing one’s name when posting one’s opinions promotes accountability, which often requires courage.
Penny Noland Gaffney