Hate Sells category archive
The Rittenhouse Rules, Reprise 0
Via C&L, which notes, in part, that
Follow the link for the rest of their report.
As the Twig Is Bent . . . . 0
. . . and, boy! these twigs are bent.
None Dare Call It Terrorism . . . 0
. . . but it is.
All the News that Fits, “What If” Dept. 0
Aside:
Methinks the author, in some sort of inane gesture to bothsiderism, grossly overestimates the influence of MSNBC.
MSNBC has viewers (of which I am not one, by the way, as I gave up on television news a long time ago–except when there’s a snow storm). Fox News has disciples.
Dis Coarse Discourse 0
The editorial board of the Las Vegas Sun asks a (rhetorical) question:
Follow the link to see how they answered it.
All That Was Old Is New Again 0
As my two or three regular readers know, I’m a bit of a mystery buff.
I’ve recently reread one of Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe novels, Champaign for One, which was first published in the mid-1950s. Prominent in the plot is a “home for unwed mothers,” a place where expectant unwed mothers could go to hide their shame until their children were born and given up for adoption, once a common practice. (The one featured in the story, the Grantham Institute, was no Magdalene Laundry by any means, but a gracious and humane institution, but that’s neither here nor there. A true Magdalen Laundry does feature in one of Kerry Greenwood’s Phrynne Fisher stories.)
Rebecca Watson fears a return on such institutions (Magdalene Laundries, that is, not Grantham Institutes) may be in the offing.
The Card Has Been Dealt 0
Joe Patrice argues that the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse bodes ill for the rule of law.
The devolution continues.
Monster Mash-Up 0
At The Roanoke Times, Robert F. Boyd muses on what led our polity to its present state, which he refers to as a “Trumpenstein” monster. Here’s a bit:
Follow the link to see how he answer that question.
“Snowflakes” 0
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has little patience with those who would deny history and the teaching thereof.
Facebook Frolics 0
In responding to a post by psychology professor Madeleine A. Fugère, Dr. Ravi Chandra considers the implications of the “Facebook files.” He makes several thoughtful observations that shed light on dis coarse discourse and the Zuckerborg’s contribution thereunto, including the following:
1. Sensationalistic information that plays to user fears propagates virally and overwhelmingly.
2. Mental health concerns have been minimized.
3. The drive for growth and engagement online is problematic at best.
Follow the link for a details discussion of the above, as well as his other observations.
