Whitlock out at Fox Sports

I'd argue Clay Travis - the man of no shame - has the platform he did in part because of a middle ground is very hard to occupy, and Travis, who indeed has no shame, can brand himself a truth-teller (he's often not) because the general mainstream perspective is left-to-way-left-of-center. Same thing with Portnoy. Same thing with Tucker Carlson, I would guess, not being terribly familiar with his work. (Though I saw he shit on Sesame Street?)

On both sides, it feels deeply political, all the time. I post the Taibbi critque - Taibbi's no Republican - and he's a bad guy. His critique might be right but they're focused on the wrong things. Raise a concern about the odd level of groupthink on the left and it's now do Trump. These are not arguments against the points themselves. They are cheap little bits of bad-faith arguments that resist and reject any nuance, as if the left, in world history, has never metastasized into something deeply unpleasant for the population under its control, or has always been a force for good in the US.

 

Which is pretty tired at this point.

 

This is such dishonest summary of what I actually wrote. I'm sorry it hurt your feelings? I conceded that I agreed with all of Taibbi's points, and I also thought they mattered little in what ails modern media. This is called "attempting to engage in a debate with you." Instead of addressing any of what I said, you've decided to pout ever since. If anything, I'm one of few liberals here who is happy to engage in good faith debates in the name of journalism, and I'd point to my immediate rejection of the Rolling Stone gang rape piece as pretty clear evidence of that. I know you are heavily invested in this professorial tsk-tsking of modern liberals, but if you want to have a debate, let's have a debate. You can engage my points without doing the very thing you're accusing me of doing, ignoring any nuance. I've said multiple times that Taibbi is mostly correct in that piece, particularly about what happened to Fang, and for fuck's sake, I posted that Washington Post blackface/Halloween embarrassment right after the Taibbi debate and said it was extremely problematic, but sure, all you get in return for your Socratic methods are "bad-faith arguments that resist and reject any nuance." Noted.

 

I addressed what you said in the below post 10 days ago. I don't think I was pouting, but anyone can judge the post.

At any rate, trust me (or not, or whatever) you're not the one doing "now do Trump." A post can critique groups of people.

 

I'll gladly concede he's an ass. I think his absolute inability to trust anyone - or engender trust from anyone - is about as bad a quality as a president can have. Right now, institutions all over are struggling from a distinct lack of trust and, as it relates to Trump, with good reason: He is manifestly untrustworthy. He's also a vulgar man, but we've had those in the White House - see LBJ - and got some good things done. Trump is shot through with dishonesty.

 

Where in the photo is the garage pull cord?

 

To the left side of garage 4 is a white rope that appears to be shorter than the corresponding one on garage 5. This is being used as "proof" that the noose was actually just a small loop at the end of the cord that is present on all the pull cords, and that the one in stall 4 has been cut. This assumption leads to the assumption that the tiny loop was cut off because it was mistaken for a noose in a fit of woke hysteria and that there was no actual noose. It is all very stupid, but don't worry, clay travis isn't saying it was faked, he's just asking questions.

 

Got it. Thanks.
Wouldn't it be in NASCAR's best interest to debunk this theory if it can? Or is it afraid of walking down a slippery slope by giving it credibility and inviting a series of successor stories?

 

In the middle of an FBI investigation, no one is going to say much.

 

Yeah, I don't know. Someone apparently removed it before Wallace arrived and saw it, so out of decency I would think they NASCAR wouldn't come out with pictures of the noose. And those same people would find a reason to still call it fake.

When LeBron's house was vandalized, the offense was painted over before pictures became public. Actual reporters saw the pictures, but that didn't stop clay from "just asking questions" about whether it was a hoax, and a good percentage of the replies to his tweet today reference the LeBron incident as if it definitely was a hoax.

 

Seems like the FBI has reached the same conclusion, so i will go ahead and begrudgingly give clay this one: Joint Statement from U.S. Attorney Jay E. Town and FBI Special Agent in Charge Johnnie Sharp, Jr. Regarding the Noose Found in NASCAR’s Bubba Wallace’s Garage at Talladega Superspeedway

 

Why begrudgingly? Not a matter of begrudgingly even if he takes a victory lap.

Had nothing to do with racism toward Bubba.