Sunday Roast special: Exposed! Media employs single cell organisms to write articles...

You may think that I'm being hyperbolic using this as a title.
You'd be wrong.

snap (6) - Copy.jpg

I'd say that by describing Andrew Marantz as a 'single cell organism', will be deemed offensive to 99% of all amoeba alive today.
I apologize unreservedly, to any amoeba reading this... I am not, nor ever will be, amoeba-ist.

Here's the unadulterated pile of excrement posing as information, if you really want to read here...

I've dissected 80% of it - (they are the underlined sections below).

I would say enjoy, but I think 'endure' is more apt.
(I've thrown in some humor, to lighten the burden along the way...)

Andrew Marantz is a prize 'A' , word salad, wanker.

cam girls.jpg

Mr. Marantz, a New Yorker staff writer, is the author of the forthcoming book “Antisocial.”
Oct. 4, 2019

Here we go....Endure....

There has never been a bright line between word and deed.

Erm, yes there has. Yes there is.
Shit, this isn't getting off to a good start for an article, by stating a categorical truth as untrue.
This doesn't bode well, and raises much larger questions right from the off.
Questions such as : Should really stupid people be allowed to write?
(and should teaching idiots to write, be a punishable offense of no less than 231 years in prison?)

He goes on... (oh, and he really does , go on).

... the early years of this decade, back when people associated social media with Barack Obama or the Arab Spring, Twitter executives referred to their company as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress.
No one believes that anymore.

Obviously this guy might deserve some degree of pity. (he might, but I'm not giving him any.).
Imagine putting this sentence together, with no one around him to point out how stupid this statement makes you look.
Does he have no friends, at all? (I can easily imagine him not having any friends. He seems to be a bit of a twat).
Have you ever heard that saying of 'sticks and stones....but the internet was surely only a force for progress' - from anyone – ever?
No, me neither.
Did he just make it up, to sound clever? He failed miserably.

Having spent the past few years embedding as a reporter with the trolls and bigots and propagandists...

(He must spend time in the New York Times offices, obviously)

...I no longer have any doubt that the brutality that germinates on the internet can leap into the world of flesh and blood.

cam girls.jpg

He also has no doubt that there is no line between actions and words.....Mmmmm.

He seems to be having a lot of trouble disseminating the 'action' and 'word', thingy. Either that - or he's a disingenuous word salad wanker....

The question is where this leaves us. Noxious speech is causing tangible harm.

Assumptive sentences are not a sign of intelligent reasoning, but rather more a sign of a manipulator on the wrong side of an argument, trying his best to persuade gullible people to agree with him.

Yet this fact implies a question so uncomfortable that many of us go to great lengths to avoid asking it.

It only implies any kind of question if you're a low IQ guppy with sheepish tendencies. Implying a question from a false statement only implies a lack of being in touch with reality, and nothing more.

... 'Noxious speech is causing tangible harm'....
If you can't spot this blunt attempt of manipulation away from reality - from two hundred miles away -you have problems...
'You're fat' could be construed as 'noxious speech causing harm'. It doesn't change the fact that you are fat though, does it?

Edit: Really bad breath could , feasibly, cause some tangible harm. ...

I knew a guy once, who's bad breath could stop an angry elephant on a rampage, dead in it's tracks.
( the harmful effects of noxious breath therefor, are not to be sniffed at).


Lets move on quickly, I'm gettin' swamped down in bad breath jokes...

....Some speech might be bad, this line of thinking goes, but censorship is always worse. The First Amendment is first for a reason.

See how he now throws in some truths along the way, to legitimize his lunatic ramblings?
You will. Read on.
He goes on to say...

After one of the 8chan-inspired massacres — I can’t even remember which one, if I’m being honest — I struck up a conversation with a stranger at a coffee shop.

He still can't work out the very big – very humongous – difference, between action and words, so remembering anything is probably a synapse too far...
Notice how he talks to a stranger... Does this confirm that he has no friends? Possibly.
(Pulling out your own teeth without any anesthetic would be preferable, in my mind, than to listen to this word salad moron go on..and on...and on...)

We talked about how bewildering it was to be alive at a time when viral ideas can slide so precipitously into terror.

Ah, the 'amoeba flocking', phenomenon!

Then I wondered what steps should be taken. Immediately, our conversation ran aground. “No steps,” he said. “What exactly do you have in mind? Thought police?” He told me that he was a leftist, but he considered his opinion about free speech to be a matter of settled bipartisan consensus.
I imagined the same conversation, remixed slightly.

I.E's not going to be the same conversation at all .

What if, instead of talking about memes, we’d been talking about guns?

Yup, he's still struggling on the differentiation between the 'words' and 'actions', thing.
Don't worry, he'll try to word salad his way out of it.
Pssssst! I wont let him...

Memes are memes. They are not guns.
This is a fact.
cam girls.jpg
Another fact: If you print the meme off, and then beat them to death with a piece of paper, it then becomes an action and is not words - it is no longer a meme, but a tool.
A gun is already a tool. ( unless you have to 3D print it first...but I digress).
The action is the person enacting something, using a tool.

What if I’d invoked the ubiquity of combat weapons in civilian life and the absence of background checks, and he’d responded with a shrug? Nothing to be done. Ever heard of the Second Amendment?

This is a logical statement, and must be rebuked at all costs....
Oh, and by the by - This now has nothing to do with anything concerning free speech.
A totally false equivalency designed to confuse the issue - and is the word salad wankers' first line of attack..

Question: Should the chopping off of both hands, and the pulling out of the tongue(just to be on the safe side), be mandatory for idiots that write word salad ramblings?
It could be seen as a mercy chopping...

Using “free speech” as a cop-out is just as intellectually dishonest and just as morally bankrupt.

Intellectual dishonesty: the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So a person that makes his FIRST SENTENCE OF THE PIECE as intellectually dishonest as you can get (you know, the 'bright line between 'actions' and 'words', thing) is now claiming intellectually dishonesty from a principal.
For fucks sake.
Question : has this person reached puberty, and if not, should he ever be allowed to?
Edit: this not hate speech, or anti young people. Or sexist. Or puberty phobic. Or anti reachist. Or typing privileged. Or something....

And as for being morally bankrupt....For fucks sake, doubled!

Free speech is a principal. It cannot be morally bankrupt.
To be morally bankrupt, you must violate the moral values that you claim to follow.
A value in this context, is a product of a principal.
(Don't kill people is a principal, as it's morally wrong, that kind of thing)

Question: Does he use colored crayons, or pencils, to write? (I cannot imagine him being able to turn on a computer)

not all speech is protected under the First Amendment anyway. Libel, incitement of violence and child pornography are all forms of speech.

Now this one's a doozey....

Yet we censor all of them, and no one calls it the death knell of the Enlightenment.

For them to ever be censored , also means that the right to free speech has been initiated.

You can't take down some libelous article if it hasn't been written first! Lol.
The Free Speech principal still applies - except to postmodernist idiots that think they're, like, really clever...or something.
(now wait for it.... one of 'them' is sure to come along in steemit, and argue. They can't help it. Ego blinds them to their own idiocy)
Joke: What do get if you breed and sheep and a particularly egotistical (but very retarded), amoeba? A postmodernist. Boom! Boom! Baaaaahhhhh

I digress, lets continue destroying this idiot...

Free speech is a bedrock value in this country. But it isn’t the only one. Like all values, it must be held in tension with others, such as equality, safety and robust democratic participation.

Democracy without free speech (and truth is it's bedrock. ), is a total paradox. Without free speech and truth, informed decisions cannot be made.

I am not calling for repealing the First Amendment, or even for banning speech I find offensive ...

How very fucking noble of him!

...What I’m arguing against is paralysis.

Oh!, So He's having a go at the the physically impaired now! ....Ah.... no...., erm...I think I got that part wrong...

We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks.

snap (6) - Copy.jpg

Unscrewing a bottle of water would expose this dude to some real risks, if this content is anything to go by..
Question: Can he tie his own shoelaces, or does he wear slip on's?

Checked speech exposes us to risks far far greater than any unchecked speech will ever be able to do.

(see Eastern Europe, 1916 – 1988 for further references. Oh, and China. Oh and Cambodia...)

And we can take steps to mitigate those risks.

....I think he's quoting from Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, here. Sounds like it anyway...

The Constitution prevents the government from using sticks, but it says nothing about carrots.

Shit, now he wants to beat people up with bloody vegetables!
Nope - I got that one wrong also.
(Bloody hell, even reading this diatribe, is causing my brain cells to weep out of my ears...)

Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy,

He could probably use this program himself to good effect. (will you have to take your own crayons, or would they be supplied?)

...or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC.

I was tempted to tweet him and ask if he wanted a shovel to dig this hole deeper, after reading this gem of wisdom

snap (6) - Copy.jpg

BBC!!!!!!!!! = Pravda on steroids. LOL.

His word salad is starting to taste a bit old now, isn't it?

I'll skip a bit here....He goes on for a bit about how to fix some things – 'cos he's like really clever..

tech companies have scrambled to ban inflammatory accounts, take down graphic videos, even rewrite their terms of service. Some of the most egregious actors, such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos, have been permanently barred from all major platforms.

So he is now admitting to the reader that he does support the banning of free speech.
The world salad wanker is finally exposed – has always happens eventually...
(although seeing him expose himself, is not a very nice picture in my head, I can tell you..)

“We need to protect the rights of speakers,” John A. Powell, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told me, “but what about protecting everyone else?”

Free earplugs for anyone!!!! For those that don't want to listen, and maybe free blindfols for those who don't want to see anything on their screens....errr...oh, and free mouth plugs for those that don't want to.....errr.....I lost it there, ....sorry.
Moving swiftly on...

I should confess: I used to agree with the guy I met in the coffee shop, the one who saw the First Amendment as an all-or-nothing dictate.

(I think he would agree with anyone, to their face, to avoid any possible conflict)....

This allowed me to reach conclusions with swift, simple authority.

PRINCIPALS have that effect on people. They are simple.
That's why leftist hate principals.
It's all very simple for those with a brain - and all very _UN-manipulable, for the manipulators. (Egotistical simpletons, essentially).

In one of our conversations, Mr. Powell compared harmful speech to carbon pollution: People are allowed to drive cars. But the government can regulate greenhouse emissions, the private sector can transition to renewable energy sources, civic groups can promote public transportation and cities can build sea walls to prepare for rising ocean levels. We could choose to reduce all of that to a simple dictate: Everyone should be allowed to drive a car, and that’s that. But doing so wouldn’t stop the waters from rising around us.

He's totally gone off the rails, now!
I really think he should never be allowed to drive a vehicle of any kind to be honest....(maybe a bicycle one day - but only with stabilizers and always under adult supervision).

Andrew Marantz is a staff writer for The New Yorker.

Andrew Marantz is a staff writer for The New Yorker. total fucking idiot.

Edit: He is employed by someone? FFS. Seriously? What then, does that make his employers?

How do you rate this article?




If my name doesn't tell enough, I can't help you! lol. Philosophy, psychology, sarcasmolgy, humorology....oh and fiction. ...and anything else that tickles my fancy. If I wanted to be put in a box, I'd die already!

Send a $0.01 microtip in crypto to the author, and earn yourself as you read!

20% to author / 80% to me.
We pay the tips from our rewards pool.