Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

special RW snowflakes


A simple fact- when the RW is screaming about, say, something like stolen elections, you can be certain that they are planning on stealing one.


It goes similarly with the "special snowflake" meme that assures folks within the echo chamber that those outside are unserious.


That's a diversion from the facts of the matter- that the alt-right has been extremely successful in convincing their herd that everyone previously regarded as an expert in some area or the other is actually just a propagandist out to undermine the native common sense of The Good People.


Nobody more special in the echo chamber than anyone who can remotely regard himself as an "emtrepreneur"- each and every one is John Galt embodied in the flesh.



26 Replies
Senior Advisor

Re: special RW snowflakes




When a company fails at its basic mission in a way that harms the public, and then tries to mislead the public about it, newspaper reporters can be counted on to immediately swoop in and demand that the company be held to account.

So what happens when the company in question is a major, highly influential newspaper? Let's see.

On Friday, the Washington Post published an earth-shattering report that Russian hackers had infiltrated the U.S. electricity grid through a Vermont utility.

The story's lede said that a "code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to U.S. officials."

It went on to say that while "the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter, the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."

"Officials said that it is unclear when the code entered the Vermont utility's computers," the story added.

This was huge news, and for good reason. If Russian hackers, or any hackers for that matter, had found their way into the U.S. electricity grid, there would be almost no end to the harm they could cause. Not surprisingly, the Post story spread like wildfire.

But it turns out that none of it was true. Zip. Zero. Nada.

There was no code, the grid was never at risk, and the "threat," such as it was, had nothing to do with Russia.

In fact, hours after the story posted, it was updated to note that the utility in question said there was only one computer involved — not "computers" — which wasn't in any way connected to the power grid. Strike one.

Three days later, the story fell apart completely. What actually happened: "An employee at Burlington Electric Department was checking his Yahoo email account Friday and triggered an alert indicating that his computer had connected to a suspicious IP address," the Post reported on Monday.

Strike two and three. In short, there was no story at all worth reporting.

Worse, the Post tried to bamboozle the public about what happened. The Post's top PR official, Kris Coratti, told Forbes contributor Kalev Leetaru that the reporters involved had reached out to both Vermont utilities before the story first posted Friday night. But Leetaru checked the original version of the story, captured by the Internet Archive, and found no evidence to back this up. An official at the utility in question told Leetaru that he didn't hear from the Post until after the story published. Had the Post talked to the utility before rushing onto the web, the story probably never would have seen the light of day.

"It is simply astounding that any newspaper, let alone one of the Post's reputation and stature, would run a story and then ten minutes after publication, turn around and finally ask the central focus of the article for comment," Leetaru wrote.

Then there's the broader political context to this story.

Just a few weeks earlier, the Post had to basically retract another story, this one claiming Russian propaganda officials had spread fake news in the run-up to the election to help Donald Trump. The Vermont utility story also directly tied the breach to the Russian's alleged hack of the DNC.

In other words, both of these fake news stories conveniently amplified the Democratic Party's narrative that Russia had tilted the election in Trump's favor. That's a serious breach of journalistic ethics if ever there was one.

So what's the Post's response to all this? Essentially, nothing.

In fact, when Washington Post blogger Erik Wemple  pressed his own paper for answers, he got the brushoff from the Post's PR department, which merely issued a statement saying, "We have corrected the story, prominently displayed the correct information after further reporting, evaluated what transpired, and had the appropriate discussions internally to make sure something similar does not occur again."

Reporters would never let an energy company or a toy manufacturer or any other major corporation get away with that sort of cavalier response after a similarly spectacular failure in carrying out its basic mission. They shouldn't let the Post off the hook either.

The public deserves a fuller accounting from a newspaper as influential as the Washington Post, and some clear evidence that it is taking concrete steps to ensure that it is honestly and fairly reporting the news, not making it up to help Democrats.

Senior Contributor

Re: special RW snowflakes



"Who is John Galt?"

Re: special RW snowflakes

He is the protagonist of the novel Atlas Shrugged which is a cult classic among anti-Christian christianists.

Senior Contributor

Re: special RW snowflakes


Senior Contributor

Re: special Leftist snowflakes

Senior Contributor

Re: special RW snowflakes

It's ironic you would post that.


The problem for the author is his field of expertise is not a science at all.   You can have two social scientist with equal expertise and diametrically opposed view points.   And it is completely impossible on most matters for either to prove the other wrong, ever, at all.     The lay person in this REPUBLIC chooses which expertise best fits their own notions, whatever they may base those notions on.      One overriding notion might certainly be that expertise is so often used as a lever of oppression.     If the expert comes with dictates and the guns of the government its not likely to be welcomed.       Expertise used as a tool of persuasion is valuable, as an excuse for force it should be rejected.   




Re: special RW snowflakes



And should any citizen of the Republic choose to believe the expertise of the 1% of climate SCIENTISTS who are funded by Koch organizations and reject AGW, that's their right.


You can walk to the very end of the cafeteria line and choose the beanie weenies if that suits you.

Senior Contributor

Re: special RW snowflakes

That is a perfect example.   Persuade, lead, people will follow, but  push  insult and they will kick your but.





Re: special RW snowflakes

They very intentionally moved to make you believe that you were being insulted a long time ago, via very well crafted identity messaging.


There is no persuading left to be done.