NY Times editorial bombshell

[Roger Ramjets]

NYT is fake news ( one example -- they had an article about a year ago that waited until paragraph 18, I believe, before stating they were unable to confirm anything in the above 17 paragraphs)... There are only a few people here who seem to be skeptical about anything.

I am skeptical about everything, but not blindly. Skepticism isn't just a matter of not accepting anything you don't have overwhelming evidence for - it also involves using logical deduction, historical and general knowledge, experience and intuition.

So when someone tells me that 'there are only a few people here who seem to be skeptical about anything' I am mildly skeptical, since it's doubtful they made any effort to quantify it. However when in the same breath they tell me that the NYT (a highly respected news organization which has been awarded 125 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspaper) is fake news - based on a single article that doesn't even support their claim - I become highly skeptical.

Then I review their post history and see a pattern of partisanship with many uncritical claims, and I realize they are just following the standard conservative playbook:- when you can't think of any way to denigrate or deflect an inconvenient fact, retreat into 'skepticism' and claim that anything you can't personally verify is 'fake news'. This isn't skepticism. It's rejecting evidence out of hand just because you don't like it.

So what do they do to hide this lack of skepticism? Accuse others of having the same flaw they pretend to be free of. Projection - another standard tactic straight out of the conservative playbook.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You know what I find offensive about the Op-Ed?

This:

Those haven't been Republican ideals in a long time. Free minds? Free to believe in a certain brand of Xianity, is what they mean. Free markets? The right has been screaming about NAFTA for years. Free people? Sure, as long as they aren't black, or speak Spanish, or are Muslim, or are gay or trans.

And this:

Pretty much speaks for itself. Let the banks rob the public; and the coal companies pollute the air and water. Give tax breaks to gazillionaires. Pump money into the M-I complex
I kind of hope the loser gets outed.

I'm leaning in this ^ direction. The op-ed author comes across as a dick, looking out for themself, and especially claiming, "it's not me, they did it".

 

[acbytesla]

The smarter ones are working what's known as "the long con".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick#Short_and_long_cons

The smartest ones have an entire life that's a series of very long cons which are largely never detected or proven.

Trump isn't necessarily trying to 'con' or 'cheat' his customers, he just doesn't care about the truth. He'll say anything to close a sale. Whether it's true or false is irrelevant. I've heard it said what he does isn't 'lying'. They say he's BSing since he doesn't actually know if it's true or false. This may be Distracted's point. But I don't buy it. If you pulled the info out of your ass, you would know that it isn't info you can vouch for. To me, that is lying.

 

[kellyb]

I don't know what the data shows, but I would bet that intellect and personality disorder are independent variables. A narcissist might actually be a genius, or might have a low intellect.

Trump's always been involved in corruption, conning people, various mob characters that I imagine go beyond the Russian oligarch mob. He has people around him that take care of the details like Cohen and other lawyers.

Was he ever an intelligent narcissist, or always simply a narcissist with real estate connections that actually intelligent mobsters et al manipulated to their benefit? Trump was born into that real estate enterprise.

If he ever was intelligent, then he's lost a lot of his skills as his brain aged. Putin and other people in the crime enterprises surrounding Trump are probably giddy over the gem they got elected.

I don't see any evidence Trump is currently super-intelligent. Other people are carrying the water for him.

I think the moon and stars just lined up in an extraordinarily fortunate way for Trump, with just enough of the American electorate being brainwashed and dumbed down by hate radio and Fox over the decades and making them ripe "easy pickings" for his particular brand of con-artistry re-tooled into an effective political campaign. That combined with decades of conservative economic neoliberalism outsourcing jobs and decreasing financial security, and making certain people more prone to desire a "strong man" leader.

 

[kellyb]

Trump isn't necessarily trying to 'con' or 'cheat' his customers, he just doesn't care about the truth.

"Trump University" is about as blatant of a classic con/scam as it gets.

 

[Meadmaker]

The NY Times described it as "causing a stir". Would you agree with that?

This White House is in a constant state of stir, and every stir is described as a tempest by the media. This is a little bit bigger stir than most.


If they find out who wrote it, they'll be fired and Trump will write a couple of tweets in all caps.


The fact that there's someone in the White House who would do such a thing is undoubtedly causing Trump to a slightly higher level of agitation, but the point of the editorial is that Trump goes into tirades on a regular basis, and the point of my post is that we already knew that he goes into tirades on a regular basis.

I don't know. You never know what might actually cause him to lose it to the point that his public behavior is considered so far off the deep end that people who voted for him might actually come to regret it. So far, though, it's really kind of business as usual.

 

[Meadmaker]

The Bonbshell is that somebody in the Trump White House wrote it.
Anyway, in terms of the impact it is having on Trump, it IS a Bombshell.

If someone in the Obama or Bush White House had written something similar, that would have been a bombshell.


The fact that someone would write it about Trump, not so much.

 

[kellyb]

I don't know what the data shows, but I would bet that intellect and personality disorder are independent variables. A narcissist might actually be a genius, or might have a low intellect.

About the above part, I agree. The way I think of it is, it's kind of a natural scale of altruism-integrity on one side, and narcissist-sadist-selfish on the other.

IQ is completely independent of where people fall on the scale.

 

[kellyb]

I'm leaning in this ^ direction. The op-ed author comes across as a dick, looking out for themself, and especially claiming, "it's not me, they did it".

Sounds like Nikki Haley to me!

 

[Distracted1]

Trump isn't necessarily trying to 'con' or 'cheat' his customers, he just doesn't care about the truth. He'll say anything to close a sale. Whether it's true or false is irrelevant. I've heard it said what he does isn't 'lying'. They say he's BSing since he doesn't actually know if it's true or false. This may be Distracted's point. But I don't buy it. If you pulled the info out of your ass, you would know that it isn't info you can vouch for. To me, that is lying.

I am sorry for causing this derail in the first place.
The only point I was making was an off-the-cuff observation to your statement that Trump was an example of "the most dishonest person you had ever,ever,ever encountered"
What I was trying to express was not anything that disputed his dishonesty- it is laughably obvious. Instead, I was pointing out that we all likely encounter extremely dishonest people at some point in our lives, and come away thinking highly of them because they are so much better at being dishonest (up to and including being dishonest about their own nature). I apologize for muddying my own point.

That Trump is so bad at hiding his nature, yet seems to actually believe he is clever, suggests to me that he has simply been surrounded since birth with "yes men" types and has internalized the b.s. they have fed him. They have been telling him what a stable genius he is for so long that he believes it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Somebody in the Trump administration, which technically covers the entire executive branch. Depending on how loose the NYT is with their definition of "senior official", it could be any agency director, assistant director, or even department head. Which makes more sense than it being one of Trump's cabinet picks.

It could even be the coffee boy or the janitor, someone who knows nothing about what's really going on. Yeah, that's it. We can all relax and ignore the 'fake news' now that we know it didn't come from anyone of importance.

People around here like to make a big deal about the effect things have on Trump. But I think it's mostly just a comforting fantasy.

Comforting for some perhaps, but for many of us it's pure entertainment - not just the Trump administration's comedy act, but also watching partisan supporters tying themselves in knots attempting to defend the indefensible without appearing to do so (hint - it's not working...).

 

[Distracted1]

It could even be the coffee boy or the janitor, someone who knows nothing about what's really going on. Yeah, that's it. We can all relax and ignore the 'fake news' now that we know it didn't come from anyone of importance.

Comforting for some perhaps, but for many of us it's pure entertainment - not just the Trump administration's comedy act, but also watching partisan supporters tying themselves in knots attempting to defend the indefensible without appearing to do so (hint - it's not working...).

It is not impossible to conceive of a strategy wherein a low-level staffer is convinced or coerced into sending in the op-ed as "bait" with the intent to reveal him/herself later and make the whole thing seem like an overblown "tempest in a teapot". That could serve to knock the NYT down a peg or two.

Remember the Rachel Maddow hype about having Trumps' tax returns?

I am offering that up as a possibility-not necessarily as a probability. I would hope an institution like the NYT would be too savvy to fall for something like that, but it is not inconceivable.

 

[acbytesla]

I am sorry for causing this derail in the first place.
The only point I was making was an off-the-cuff observation to your statement that Trump was an example of "the most dishonest person you had ever,ever,ever encountered"
What I was trying to express was not anything that disputed his dishonesty- it is laughably obvious. Instead, I was pointing out that we all likely encounter extremely dishonest people at some point in our lives, and come away thinking highly of them because they are so much better at being dishonest (up to and including being dishonest about their own nature). I apologize for muddying my own point.

That Trump is so bad at hiding his nature, yet seems to actually believe he is clever, suggests to me that he has simply been surrounded since birth with "yes men" types and has internalized the b.s. they have fed him. They have been telling him what a stable genius he is for so long that he believes it.

I just don't believe the highlighted part. I might be impressed at how 'slick' they are, but feel desperately in need of a shower. I can dig a good storyteller and someone who knows how to charm. A skill I am always working at, because people buy from people they like. But the cheat, the con guy, the socially amoral individual, I tend to detest them with fire of 1000 suns.

And to me, this is Trump to a 'T'.

I agree about your assessment of Trump. I see him as someone who is weak. Someone who is constantly puffing himself up because he really doesn't believe it. He's massively insecure and he assuages that insecurity by insulting others and puffing himself up. If he wasn't such a privileged menace, I would actually feel a little sorry for him.

 

[Distracted1]

I just don't believe the highlighted part. I might be impressed at how 'slick' they are, but feel desperately in need of a shower. I can dig a good storyteller and someone who knows how to charm. A skill I am always working at, because people buy from people they like. But the cheat, the con guy, the socially amoral individual, I tend to detest them with fire of 1000 suns.

And to me, this is Trump to a 'T'.

I agree about your assessment of Trump. I see him as someone who is weak. Someone who is constantly puffing himself up because he really doesn't believe it. He's massively insecure and he assuages that insecurity by insulting others and puffing himself up. If he wasn't such a privileged menace, I would actually feel a little sorry for him.

If you are getting a "slick" vibe from someone, they are not very good liars.
Do you wonder if people got a feeling of "slickness" from Bernie Madoff? Or Ted Bundy?

How can you be so certain that you are always spotting the lies?

 

[kellyb]

I just don't believe the highlighted part. I might be impressed at how 'slick' they are, but feel desperately in need of a shower. I can dig a good storyteller and someone who knows how to charm. A skill I am always working at, because people buy from people they like. But the cheat, the con guy, the socially amoral individual, I tend to detest them with fire of 1000 suns.

You never knew you got played. That's how they operate when they're good at it.

 

[kellyb]

I think it was someone who wants to be the next Henry Kissinger, like they were putting in their application with the illuminati with this stunt. lol

Someone else thinks like I do.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-am-part-of-the-resistance-inside-nyarlathoteps-death-cult

But it’s important Americans know there are still some of us upholding the tenets envisioned by the original Necro-Party. We are part of a different kind of Resistance, one that still supports the foundations scrawled within the Tome of Infernal Torment, and not the whims of a Mad Anti-God who cares not for the literalist interpretations we hold so blasphemous. We believe the Tome is, was, and will forever be instrumental in wresting reason from the minds of the multitude. It may provide faint solace, but we felt we owe it to our fellow subjugates to let them know all is still very much for naught.

The root of this problem, we believe, is in Nyarlathotep’s very essence. It is a being incapable of viewing Its servants as anything other than playground toys or troublesome fleas. Many may argue that we should have known this to be the case for the Stalker Among the Stars. And that might well prove true, to a point. We summoned the God of a Thousand Forms assuming the weight of responsibility would rein It in slightly, remind It to adhere to the Necronomicon’s nightmare prophesies first and foremost. If it was foolish to assume the Outer God would care so little about this dimension that it wouldn’t even acknowledge the Tome’s existence, well, call us fools. We still believe utter ruin can be brought to the land through the proper rituals and unhallowed traditions, not by this fly-by-the-seat-of-your-tentacles kind of governing.

Don’t get me wrong. We still willingly choose to show up each and every day in order to carry out Nyarlathotep’s sins. Its Administration has produced things we are truly proud of — instituting monthly public desecrations, a complete reform of the tax system now requiring every other family’s firstborn — we still maintain this will eventually benefit Middle America — and increasing the defense budget. The entirety of our armed forces is now morphed into a singular, gargantuan oozing mass of shrieking teeth and eyes. Nyarlathotep campaigned on veterans’ reform, and by golly, we sure got it, if for a price some of us did not anticipate.

But we are not giving up so easily, readers. We do not renege on blood vows — we literally can’t, apparently, unless we want our innards sucked out by that inter-dimensional parasite. There are those of us still wandering the labyrinthine halls of the mutated Capitol Building, looking for ways to constructively appease Nyarlathotep, despite continual smear campaigns by the elitist, now underground press. For instance, we replaced the orphans It absorbs every “morning” with migrant laborers, and It didn’t seem to notice. When Its appetite turned to Idaho, one of us directed Its soulless gaze up towards the moon. No more moon, of course, but no one can say we ever turned our back on our core constituents.

 

[acbytesla]

If you are getting a "slick" vibe from someone, they are not very good liars.
Do you wonder if people got a feeling of "slickness" from Bernie Madoff? Or Ted Bundy?

How can you be so certain that you are always spotting the lies?

I agree with you somewhat on this. But I have worked with the liars and the cheats.

Always? I dont know what that is. But my experience is there is almost always something to tip you off. Something not right. I'm more likely to not trust you when I maybe could have then get taken by you. But maybe that's because I have seen more than a few scams. So many of the new ones are just reworked versions of old ones.

 

[acbytesla]

You never knew you got played. That's how they operate when they're good at it.

Maybe, but when you have lost thousands of dollars, I tend to do an audit of what happened. But then again I'm not Doyle Lonnegan. So maybe.

 

[kellyb]

I agree with you somewhat on this. But I have worked with the liars and the cheats.

Always? I dont know what that is. But my experience is there is almost always something to tip you off. Something not right. I'm more likely to not trust you when I maybe could have then get taken by you. But maybe that's because I have seen more than a few scams. So many of the new ones are just reworked versions of old ones.

Have you ever known someone for a really long time, over a year, before you realized what a terrible person and liar they are?

 

[kellyb]

Maybe, but when you have lost thousands of dollars, I tend to do an audit of what happened. But then again I'm not Doyle Lonnegan. So maybe.

People use other people for things other than money directly. Some people will flatter you, pretend to be your friend, etc just to blind you to what they're doing with something else, or to gain access to other people, etc. "Malignant social climbing" takes a lot of forms.