NYT was going to publish home address of Fox news reporter

[Ansarre]

Also the slate star codex issue.

You mean the case where the NYT didn't publish an article with his name?

I feel like there's something about the underlined which undermines your point...

wow its almost as if public backlash makes them reconsider their shitty behaviour who would've guessed

[Gravlen]

You mean the case where the NYT didn't publish an article with his name?

I feel like there's something about the underlined which undermines your point...

wow its almost as if public backlash makes them reconsider their shitty behaviour who would've guessed

I also have this rock that keeps away tigers, if you're interested.

But be that as it may, let's sum up:
The claim is they've doxxed someone before. You weakly attempt to support the claim by showing an example of them not doxxing someone.
In conclusion: The claim is unsupported and can safely be dismissed. Bravo.

[Ansarre]

wow its almost as if public backlash makes them reconsider their shitty behaviour who would've guessed

I also have this rock that keeps away tigers, if you're interested.

But be that as it may, let's sum up:
The claim is they've doxxed someone before. You weakly attempt to support the claim by showing an example of them not doxxing someone.
In conclusion: The claim is unsupported and can safely be dismissed. Bravo.

Let's sum up:
Two instances of people claiming the NYT are going to publish their personal information.
Both instances result in public backlash against the NYT.
NYT don't publish it.

In conclusion: The NYT is full of shitty people who have no regard for the well-being of others, as demonstrated by their history.

Or we can believe there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the NYT!

[Ifreann]

I also have this rock that keeps away tigers, if you're interested.

But be that as it may, let's sum up:
The claim is they've doxxed someone before. You weakly attempt to support the claim by showing an example of them not doxxing someone.
In conclusion: The claim is unsupported and can safely be dismissed. Bravo.

Let's sum up:
Two instances of people claiming the NYT are going to publish their personal information.
Both instances result in public backlash against the NYT.
NYT don't publish it.

In conclusion: The NYT is full of shitty people who have no regard for the well-being of others, as demonstrated by their history.

Or we can believe there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the NYT!

Grand conspiracy to tarnish their reputation? Probably not. Attempt by Tucker Carlson to distract from the sexual harassment in which he is named? Much more plausible.

[-Astoria-]

I also have this rock that keeps away tigers, if you're interested.

But be that as it may, let's sum up:
The claim is they've doxxed someone before. You weakly attempt to support the claim by showing an example of them not doxxing someone.
In conclusion: The claim is unsupported and can safely be dismissed. Bravo.

Let's sum up:
Two instances of people claiming the NYT are going to publish their personal information.
Both instances result in public backlash against the NYT.
NYT don't publish it.

In conclusion: The NYT is full of shitty people who have no regard for the well-being of others, as demonstrated by their history.

Or we can believe there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the NYT!

> Bari Weiss

[Vassenor]

I also have this rock that keeps away tigers, if you're interested.

But be that as it may, let's sum up:
The claim is they've doxxed someone before. You weakly attempt to support the claim by showing an example of them not doxxing someone.
In conclusion: The claim is unsupported and can safely be dismissed. Bravo.

Let's sum up:
Two instances of people claiming the NYT are going to publish their personal information.
Both instances result in public backlash against the NYT.
NYT don't publish it.

In conclusion: The NYT is full of shitty people who have no regard for the well-being of others, as demonstrated by their history.

Or we can believe there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the NYT!

So you have evidence that they actually were going to publish in both cases then?

[Ansarre]

Let's sum up:
Two instances of people claiming the NYT are going to publish their personal information.
Both instances result in public backlash against the NYT.
NYT don't publish it.

In conclusion: The NYT is full of shitty people who have no regard for the well-being of others, as demonstrated by their history.

Or we can believe there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the NYT!

Grand conspiracy to tarnish their reputation? Probably not. Attempt by Tucker Carlson to distract from the sexual harassment in which he is named? Much more plausible.

It's so weird how you're quick to believe those accusations but totally dismiss the idea that the NYT were going to publish his personal information.

[Ansarre]

Let's sum up:
Two instances of people claiming the NYT are going to publish their personal information.
Both instances result in public backlash against the NYT.
NYT don't publish it.

In conclusion: The NYT is full of shitty people who have no regard for the well-being of others, as demonstrated by their history.

Or we can believe there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the NYT!

So you have evidence that they actually were going to publish in both cases then?

Do you seriously expect everyone to record every phone conversation they make?

[Fartsniffage]

Grand conspiracy to tarnish their reputation? Probably not. Attempt by Tucker Carlson to distract from the sexual harassment in which he is named? Much more plausible.

It's so weird how you're quick to believe those accusations but totally dismiss the idea that the NYT were going to publish his personal information.

Tuckers own lawyer argued last month in court that the claims on his show should not be treated with the same credibility as what the NYT says.

viewtopic.php?p=37431916#p37431916

[Ifreann]

Grand conspiracy to tarnish their reputation? Probably not. Attempt by Tucker Carlson to distract from the sexual harassment in which he is named? Much more plausible.

It's so weird how you're quick to believe those accusations but totally dismiss the idea that the NYT were going to publish his personal information.

It's weird that you think you're on to a winner by arguing that if we believe that Tucker Carlson engaged in workplace sexual harassment then we must, necessarily, also believe his conveniently timed claims that the NYT were about to dox him.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Or we can believe there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the NYT!

You are right now trying to tarnish the reputation of the NYT.
No, I don't think you're a conspiracy theorist.
I think you're just engaged in political debate with the aim of "tarnishing the reputation of the NYT"

When you finally admit that you're failing, are you going to go find a third example of NYT doxxing someone?

Or is two enough? One weak (slate star codex), and one almost non-existent (something TC said). We're supposed to just give in and admit the NYT is a shitty paper?

You don't like the stories NYT prints, and it's not hard to guess why.

Just don't read it then.

[Dogmeat]

So to rap up:
-They didn't do this thing
-There is no proof they were ever going to
-Except Tucker Carlson and Fox (who totally have done this) say they were.

And we should all just take them at their word?

[Ifreann]

So to rap up:
-They didn't do this thing
-There is no proof they were ever going to
-Except Tucker Carlson and Fox (who totally have done this) say they were.

And we should all just take them at their word?

Apparently we have to, yes.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

So to rap up:
-They didn't do this thing
-There is no proof they were ever going to
-Except Tucker Carlson and Fox (who totally have done this) say they were.

And we should all just take them at their word?

If only there had been a poll attached ...

[ ]I believe Tucker Carlson
[ ]I'm not sure about Tucker Carlson
[X]I don't believe Tucker Carlson

[ ]I believe the NYT
[X]I'm not sure about the NYT
[ ]I don't believe the NYT

Then I wouldn't have posted in the thread at all!

[Vassenor]

So you have evidence that they actually were going to publish in both cases then?

Do you seriously expect everyone to record every phone conversation they make?

So you have no evidence that they were going to publish Carlson's address until he exposed it.

[Gormwood]

Grand conspiracy to tarnish their reputation? Probably not. Attempt by Tucker Carlson to distract from the sexual harassment in which he is named? Much more plausible.

It's so weird how you're quick to believe those accusations but totally dismiss the idea that the NYT were going to publish his personal information.

So you assume FOXNews doesn't have an endemic sexual harassment problem.

[Gravlen]

I also have this rock that keeps away tigers, if you're interested.

But be that as it may, let's sum up:
The claim is they've doxxed someone before. You weakly attempt to support the claim by showing an example of them not doxxing someone.
In conclusion: The claim is unsupported and can safely be dismissed. Bravo.

Let's sum up:
Two instances of people claiming the NYT are going to publish their personal information.
Both instances result in public backlash against the NYT.
NYT don't publish it.

In conclusion: The NYT is full of shitty people who have no regard for the well-being of others, as demonstrated by their history.

Your conclusion don't follow from your premise. You're now claiming that because [x], we can conclude the NYT is shitty because [Y]. There is no link between the two so your argument is fatally flawed.

That said, while I won't contest your claim that Bari Weiss was a shitty person, I will ask why you think that NY Times explanation demonstrates anything? Ithink it's pretty reasonable:

The president and some of his supporters have attacked the credibility of the whistle-blower, who has presented information that has touched off a landmark impeachment proceeding. The president himself has called the whistle-blower’s account a “political hack job.”

We decided to publish limited information about the whistle-blower — including the fact that he works for a nonpolitical agency and that his complaint is based on an intimate knowledge and understanding of the White House — because we wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.

Legitimate reasons for giving more information - and notably not doxxing anyone or identifying them.

Or we can believe there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the NYT!

There's no "grand conspiracy", but there seems to be a cultural drive to tear down the credibility of the NYT. Interesting that you're trying to do so based on what they didn't do.

[Necroghastia]

Grand conspiracy to tarnish their reputation? Probably not. Attempt by Tucker Carlson to distract from the sexual harassment in which he is named? Much more plausible.

It's so weird how you're quick to believe those accusations but totally dismiss the idea that the NYT were going to publish his personal information.

You don't even need to believe the accusations. They exist, and Carlson, innocent or guilty, would have reason to distract people from that.

[Gormwood]

It's so weird how you're quick to believe those accusations but totally dismiss the idea that the NYT were going to publish his personal information.

You don't even need to believe the accusations. They exist, and Carlson, innocent or guilty, would have reason to distract people from that.

He has an inability to see the connection between "FOXNews" and "sexual harassment".

[Outer Sparta]

You mean the case where the NYT didn't publish an article with his name?

I feel like there's something about the underlined which undermines your point...

wow its almost as if public backlash makes them reconsider their shitty behaviour who would've guessed

Would you believe Tucker Carlson more than the NYT?

[Tornado Queendom]

This sums up my opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiGdOOWJWM

[W erp]

What about publishing the last name of a man who blogged only under the guise of his first and middle?

[Gravlen]

What about publishing the last name of a man who blogged only under the guise of his first and middle?

You mean the thing NYT didn't do? What about it?

[Juristonia]

This sums up my opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiGdOOWJWM

A video no one's going to bother clicking on whilst being to lazy to actually type out words?
Yeah, that generally sums it up quite well.

Or we can believe there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the NYT!

Or we believe that Tucker, who is a liar, was lying. Like liars tend to do.
Considering there's literally no proof the NYT planned to do what he claimed they were going to do and there's ample proof of Tucker being a lying liar who lies, like, a lot, Imma go with the option that involves Tucker being a liar, because that's what he is.

[Gormwood]

This sums up my opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZiGdOOWJWM

A video no one's going to bother clicking on whilst being to lazy to actually type out words?
Yeah, that generally sums it up quite well.

Or we can believe there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the NYT!

Or we believe that Tucker, who is a liar, was lying. Like liars tend to do.
Considering there's literally no proof the NYT planned to do what he claimed they were going to do and there's ample proof of Tucker being a lying liar who lies, like, a lot, Imma go with the option that involves Tucker being a liar, because that's what he is.

Tucker doesn't want people paying actual attention to his Matt Lauer roleplay.