What’s everyone doing to celebrate January 6? (2 Viewers)

[Toe]

 

[ThomOsborneMD]

also might re arrange nancys guts

You mean change her ostomy bag?

 

[Baron Winnebago]

What book

Liar in a Crowded Theater | Hopkins Press

www.press.jhu.edu

 

[ThomOsborneMD]

Liar in a Crowded Theater | Hopkins Press

www.press.jhu.edu

Sounds good. Is it good

 

[Kaladin]

Sounds good. Is it good

If you order it today you could be the 10th person to read it

 

[Kaladin]

Watching Ben Hur, gonna see what this movie is all about

 

[Baron Winnebago]

Sounds good. Is it good

Haven't started it, but his books on Section 230 and anonymous speech were fucking bangers so I imagine it's fantastic

 

[Jay Bilzerian]

Watching Ben Hur, gonna see what this movie is all about

Fire up Saltburn on prime if Ben hut doesn’t do it for you

 

[HuskerDocCo]

You mean change her ostomy bag?

you sumbitch

 

[huskerj12]

 

[Mavsker]

If you order it today you could be the 10th person to read it
View attachment 32213

l started reading it. It's mildly interesting but the author approaches everything with a clearly lefty worldview. He also rarely justifies why A is a lie and B is the truth. You just have to take his word for it.

He also drops this: "Women, racial minorities, and others may have a harder time competing in the marketplace of ideas." He supports his position on racial minorities by saying they tend to be poorer and so don't have the resources to disseminate their messages (pretty questionable in the internet age, and would apply to an even greater extent to rural whites, living in internet dead zones). And his position on women is literally completely unsupported. He just says it lmao

 

[cwessel76]

l started reading it. It's mildly interesting but the author approaches everything with a clearly lefty worldview. He also rarely justifies why A is a lie and B is the truth. You just have to take his word for it.

He also drops this: "Women, racial minorities, and others may have a harder time competing in the marketplace of ideas." He supports his position on racial minorities by saying they tend to be poorer and so don't have the resources to disseminate their messages (pretty questionable in the internet age, and would apply to an even greater extent to rural whites, living in internet dead zones). And his position on women is literally completely unsupported. He just says it lmao

A poor, black kid living in the hood in Baltimore has infinitely less resources (and power) to spread the message than say a more privileged white kid living in Omaha. Internet be damned - social media isn’t the “great equalizer” here.

So there’s a lot of truth in that assumption.

 

[Mavsker]

A poor, black kid living in the hood in Baltimore has infinitely less resources (and power) to spread the message than say a more privileged white kid living in Omaha. Internet be damned - social media isn’t the “great equalizer” here.

So there’s a lot of truth in that assumption.

I'm not even disputing that. That's why my primary critique was contrasting to rural whites in internet dead zones. This is an obvious fact but is left out of the book because it doesn't fit his narrative.

And again, the entirely unsupported claim about women. Source is "trust me bro"

 

[Baron Winnebago]

l started reading it. It's mildly interesting but the author approaches everything with a clearly lefty worldview. He also rarely justifies why A is a lie and B is the truth. You just have to take his word for it.

He also drops this: "Women, racial minorities, and others may have a harder time competing in the marketplace of ideas." He supports his position on racial minorities by saying they tend to be poorer and so don't have the resources to disseminate their messages (pretty questionable in the internet age, and would apply to an even greater extent to rural whites, living in internet dead zones). And his position on women is literally completely unsupported. He just says it lmao

I'll have to read it. His previous two books were like 95+% explorations of topics in free speech, Section 230 and anonymous speech (he got a little soap box-y at the end of one or both), but both were pretty interesting. Maybe this one gets too soap boxy idk yet.

At some point re: truth/lie you just have to pick examples and the examples are less important than the logical structure around how legislating "misinformation" would work. A book about whether Pizzagate is real or trump actually getting pissed on by Russian hookers is a different book.

 

[Mavsker]

I'll have to read it. His previous two books were like 95+% explorations of topics in free speech, Section 230 and anonymous speech (he got a little soap box-y at the end of one or both), but both were pretty interesting. Maybe this one gets too soap boxy idk yet.

At some point re: truth/lie you just have to pick examples and the examples are less important than the logical structure around how legislating "misinformation" would work. A book about whether Pizzagate is real or trump actually getting pissed on by Russian hookers is a different book.

I only read like the first 30 pages or so. I'm also probably more sensitive than most to ideological bias from the left.

There's plenty of good in it I'm sure. One part that was interesting was he gave the history of the stolen valor act and the resulting 1A lawsuits. I honestly had no idea that as late as like 2012 the federal government was arguing that objective lies (e.g. stolen valor) are not Constitutionally protected speech and can be prosecuted.