Noam Chomsky is being targeted by the left haha

"encouraging open debate dialogue"

 

scandalous! Why read the letter hidden behind a link when a bunch of random's saying crazy shit on twitter is right there amirite?

 

 

If more right liberatarians would nut up and read one of his books they'd realize how much they like Chomsky.

ringworm -
cyberc92 - 
ringworm -
Kirik - 
cyberc92 - 

He was the commencement speaker at my graduation. 


I went to Quaker school with his daughter :-)


Sorry to do this Kirik, but my impression of Quaker schools are that they're stocked with the children of horrible rich white leftists. This just kind of adds more confirmation. I was driving with my wife and saw a Mercedes SUV with a Quaker school bumper sticker on the back. I pointed to it and said: look look; that's exactly the type of person who sends their child to Quaker school.

I can give you my experience as I sent my son to Quaker school. I would say overwhelmingly the majority of the parents were white and seemed to be wealthy. I am Puerto Rican and I was given subsidized tuition based on a number of factors. The tuition on a yearly basis was about $1k a month. The schooling was great and nurturing with  monthly field trips. They had a campus that was nicer than any other campus I had seen for a school. There was state of the art equipment for children to learn. I took my son out because I couldn't afford to send all of my children there once they all became school age. This was about 4 years ago. I was treated very well and have no complaints about the experience. However, to your point I did notice the same thing. Also, the person who recommended I send my son to the school was a rich (mutli-millionaire) white man lol. 


Understand, I'm not saying horrible in every way. One thing I noticed is that they tend to be in pretty strong denial about their own position in the world, and that just feeds into the 'horrible'ness.

For example, I don't remember exactly what the other stickers on the Mercedes were, but they fell into a general category that would have included "namaste" and "live simply". A lot of Quakers are the type of people who could have millions in assets and still think they were being held down by "the bourgeoisie".

I'm sure the school had a lot to recommend it. Every Quaker meeting house or school I've ever driven past looked amazing. Pretty much all of the expensive private schools are way better than public schools in most ways. I just wouldn't send my own kids for fear that they would come home and start spouting the ideology.

Question: Did you ever get the vibe that people there were being extra nice to you because you're Puerto Rican?

This post makes me laugh because I noticed some of the things you mentioned as well. Many cars in the parking lot were covered in stickers and I do recall seeing a lot of yoga influenced stickers. Their facilities were amazing and the education was great but they were very very liberal. I was told my son was not allowed to wear any "camo" colored clothing as that was a sign of aggression because they were anti-war. They were very into nature and the environment and built an eco-friendly playground area for the kids. 


I did notice that they were out of touch with the cost of the education because I mentioned that I had to take my son out because I couldn't afford $24K a year to send my kids there. They told me they would give me the same break that I got for my first son to attend which I told them would still cost me $24K. The full tuition is $21K per child. 


My wife went to the meeting house where they have their moment of silence and people occasionally speak up. She told me that she felt as though many didn't realize how privileged they were in a sense. She felt that many of the faculty and students didn't realize how well they had it in fact and she was a little put off by the totally left leaning views.


As to your last question, I did notice people were especially nice to me but I didn't think it was because of my ethnicity. To be honest, I felt that they feel they had to be overly nice overall to people. Looking back now, I can see where people might get the "cult" vibes from but at the time I dismissed that as them just being welcoming. 

For all the mouthbreathers saying Chomsky is a "Marxist" or pushes Marxism. 

 

"Well, I guess one thing that’s unattractive to me about “Marxism” is the very idea that there is such a thing. It’s a rather striking fact that you don’t find things like “Marxism” in the sciences — like, there isn’t any part of physics which is “Einsteinianism,” let’s say, or “Planckianism” or something like that. It doesn’t make any sense –because people aren’t gods: they just discover things, and they make mistakes, and their graduate students tell them why they’re wrong, and then they go on and do things better the next time. But there are no gods around. I mean, scientists do use the terms “Newtonianism” and “Darwinism,” but nobody thinks of those as doctrines that you’ve got to somehow be loyal to, and figure out what the Master thought, and what he would have said in this new circumstance and so on. That sort of thing is just completely alien to rational existence, it only shows up in irrational domains.

So Marxism, Freudianism: anyone of these things I think is an irrational cult. They’re theology, so they’re whatever you think of theology; I don’t think much of it. In fact, in my view that’s exactly the right analogy: notions like Marxism and Freudianism belong to the history of organized religion. So part of my problem is just its existence: it seems to me that even to discuss something like “Marxism” is already making a mistake. Like, we don’t discuss “Planckism.” Why not? Because it would be crazy. Planck [German physicist] had some things to say, and some of them are right, and those were absorbed into later science, and some of them are wrong, and they were improved on. It’s not that Planck wasn’t a great man-all kinds of great discoveries, very smart, mistakes, this and that. That’s really the way we ought to look at it, I think. As soon as you set up the idea of “Marxism” or “Freudianism” or something, you’ve already abandoned rationality.

It seems to me the question a rational person ought to ask is, what is there in Marx’s work that’s worth saving and modifying, and what is there that ought to be abandoned? Okay, then you look and you find things. I think Marx did some very interesting descriptive work on nineteenth century history. He was a very good journalist. When he describes the British in India, or the Paris Commune [70-day French workers’ revolution in 1871], or the parts of Capital that talk about industrial London, a lot of that is kind of interesting — I think later scholarship has improved it and changed it, but it’s quite interesting.5

He had an abstract model of capitalism which — I’m not sure how valuable it is, to tell you the truth. It was an abstract model, and like any abstract model, it’s not really intended to be descriptively accurate in detail, it’s intended to sort of pull out some crucial features and study those. And you have to ask in the case of an abstract model, how much of the complex reality does it really capture? That’s questionable in this case — first of all, it’s questionable how much of nineteenth-century capitalism it captured, and I think it’s even more questionable how much of late-twentieth-century capitalism it captures.

There are supposed to be laws [i.e. of history and economics]. I can’t understand them, that’s all I can say; it doesn’t seem to me that there are any laws that follow from it. Not that I know of any better laws, I just don’t think we know about “laws” in history.

There’s nothing about socialism in Marx, he wasn’t a socialist philosopher — there are about five sentences in Marx’s whole work that refer to socialism.6 He was a theorist of capitalism. I think he introduced some interesting concepts at least, which every sensible person ought to have mastered and employ, notions like and relations of production …

For the record, Chomsky is an anarchist, not a Marxist. These two tendencies have always fought, sometimes ideologically and other times militarily, dating back to the days of Marx himself. Although there are a lot of genuinely revolutionary people attracted to anarchism, the ideology's leaders are characterised by a deep conservatism disguised by leftist talk. They are liberals dressed in radical clothes, "revolutionary phrasemongers", as Marxists have often called them. Leftists opposing an anarchist like Chomsky is just history repeating itself.

 

Below is just one example of Chomsky spouting conservatism, calling on Americans to vote for Biden.

Proteus The Invincible -

For the record, Chomsky is an anarchist, not a Marxist. These two tendencies have always fought, sometimes ideologically and other times militarily, dating back to the days of Marx himself. Although there are a lot of genuinely revolutionary people attracted to anarchism, the ideology's leaders are characterised by a deep conservatism disguised by leftist talk. They are liberals dressed in radical clothes, "revolutionary phrasemongers", as Marxists have often called them. Leftists opposing an anarchist like Chomsky is just history repeating itself.


 


Below is just one example of Chomsky spouting conservatism, calling on Americans to vote for Biden.


see if proteus hates him he's not that bad!

Chomsky must feel like he walked into an episode of Black Mirror.
Or like Doctor Frankenstein getting killed by his own creation

cyberc92 - 
ringworm -
cyberc92 - 
ringworm -
Kirik - 
cyberc92 - 

He was the commencement speaker at my graduation. 


I went to Quaker school with his daughter :-)


Sorry to do this Kirik, but my impression of Quaker schools are that they're stocked with the children of horrible rich white leftists. This just kind of adds more confirmation. I was driving with my wife and saw a Mercedes SUV with a Quaker school bumper sticker on the back. I pointed to it and said: look look; that's exactly the type of person who sends their child to Quaker school.

I can give you my experience as I sent my son to Quaker school. I would say overwhelmingly the majority of the parents were white and seemed to be wealthy. I am Puerto Rican and I was given subsidized tuition based on a number of factors. The tuition on a yearly basis was about $1k a month. The schooling was great and nurturing with  monthly field trips. They had a campus that was nicer than any other campus I had seen for a school. There was state of the art equipment for children to learn. I took my son out because I couldn't afford to send all of my children there once they all became school age. This was about 4 years ago. I was treated very well and have no complaints about the experience. However, to your point I did notice the same thing. Also, the person who recommended I send my son to the school was a rich (mutli-millionaire) white man lol. 


Understand, I'm not saying horrible in every way. One thing I noticed is that they tend to be in pretty strong denial about their own position in the world, and that just feeds into the 'horrible'ness.

For example, I don't remember exactly what the other stickers on the Mercedes were, but they fell into a general category that would have included "namaste" and "live simply". A lot of Quakers are the type of people who could have millions in assets and still think they were being held down by "the bourgeoisie".

I'm sure the school had a lot to recommend it. Every Quaker meeting house or school I've ever driven past looked amazing. Pretty much all of the expensive private schools are way better than public schools in most ways. I just wouldn't send my own kids for fear that they would come home and start spouting the ideology.

Question: Did you ever get the vibe that people there were being extra nice to you because you're Puerto Rican?

This post makes me laugh because I noticed some of the things you mentioned as well. Many cars in the parking lot were covered in stickers and I do recall seeing a lot of yoga influenced stickers. Their facilities were amazing and the education was great but they were very very liberal. I was told my son was not allowed to wear any "camo" colored clothing as that was a sign of aggression because they were anti-war. They were very into nature and the environment and built an eco-friendly playground area for the kids. 


I did notice that they were out of touch with the cost of the education because I mentioned that I had to take my son out because I couldn't afford $24K a year to send my kids there. They told me they would give me the same break that I got for my first son to attend which I told them would still cost me $24K. The full tuition is $21K per child. 


My wife went to the meeting house where they have their moment of silence and people occasionally speak up. She told me that she felt as though many didn't realize how privileged they were in a sense. She felt that many of the faculty and students didn't realize how well they had it in fact and she was a little put off by the totally left leaning views.


As to your last question, I did notice people were especially nice to me but I didn't think it was because of my ethnicity. To be honest, I felt that they feel they had to be overly nice overall to people. Looking back now, I can see where people might get the "cult" vibes from but at the time I dismissed that as them just being welcoming. 


Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was because of your ethnicity.

I haven't talked to any Quakers in years, but I'm still Facebook friends with a Mennonite. I've realized that the Mennonites are fracturing into two camps: One that acts like they always acted, and another one that acts more like Quakers.

All these woke left Christian WASP groups kind of cluster together in a bunch of things. One of those is that they don't have a lot of real world experience with poor people, crappy neighborhoods, or physical violence. When they opine on how to solve problems that relate any of these things, it's like listening to a 12 year old boy lecture a middle aged woman about gynecology.

Another thing about these groups is that they offer absolutely zero appeal to brown people. I think a big part of that is the supper somber meetings and lack of any kind of music with rhythm... but that's only part of it.

These people are all 'anti-racist', but don't have any brown friends because they don't have any interests or shared experiences in common with people outside of their bubble. When you show up and they have a chance to be friends with a Puerto Rican: bam super welcoming cult vibes ensue.

Brockback Mountain - 

https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/hmzfsp/a_letter_signed_by_chomsky_among_other/fx8a4ss/


 


 


Even the chomsky subreddit is calling him a transphobe! LOL 



Holy crap, the level of cannibalism in that shit-storm of a thread!

Even Chomsky’s use of “arithmetic” to justify voting for Biden is simply a repeat of history, long ago discredited both by Marxists and historical experience. This is exactly the same ruinous strategy that anarchist leaders proposed in the Spanish Civil War, i.e., the so-called Popular Front. The forces of the left must unite with the liberal big capitalists against the fascists, because basic addition proves that more numbers equals more strength. This absurd strategy of trying to ally with the liberals, who themselves were backing the fascists, led to the victory of fascism in Spain. Leon Trotsky refuted Chomsky’s anarchist arithmetic nearly a century ago:

 

“The theoreticians of the Popular Front do not essentially go beyond the first rule of arithmetic, that is, addition: 'Communists' plus Socialists plus Anarchists plus liberals add up to a total which is greater than their respective isolated numbers. Such is all their wisdom. However, arithmetic alone does not suffice here. One needs as well at least mechanics. The law of the parallelogram of forces applies to politics as well. In such a parallelogram, we know that the resultant is shorter, the more component forces diverge from each other. When political allies tend to pull in opposite directions, the resultant prove equal to zero.

 

[T]he political alliance between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, whose interests on basic questions in the present epoch diverge at an angle of 180 degrees, as a general rule is capable only of paralysing the revolutionary force of the proletariat.

 

[…]

 

The workers and peasants can assure victory only if they wage a struggle for their own emancipation. Under these conditions, to subordinate the proletariat to the leadership of the bourgeoisie means beforehand to assure defeat in the civil war."

Limited hangout. 

Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -

God damn The Gateway Pundit is lowbrow. Is it worse to publish an article based on random Twitter users commenting on some shit, or being someone who consumes the article?

It's about the standard you would find at the NYT, Huffpo, or NBC news. 


 


I'd point out the article I spent better than a week shitting on regarding some bot-farm that got deleted off twitter, with no posts shown and an anonymous source suggesting that it had unspecified ties to "alt-right" groups that no less than half a dozen leftists here posted. 


 


That was NBC...at least the gateway pundit put up some manner of evidence, and at this point it's fair to consider twitter mobbing some type of activism.  It's clearly happening, that's for sure.


 


 

CavemanDave - 
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -

God damn The Gateway Pundit is lowbrow. Is it worse to publish an article based on random Twitter users commenting on some shit, or being someone who consumes the article?

It's about the standard you would find at the NYT, Huffpo, or NBC news. 


 


I'd point out the article I spent better than a week shitting on regarding some bot-farm that got deleted off twitter, with no posts shown and an anonymous source suggesting that it had unspecified ties to "alt-right" groups that no less than half a dozen leftists here posted. 


 


That was NBC...at least the gateway pundit put up some manner of evidence, and at this point it's fair to consider twitter mobbing some type of activism.  It's clearly happening, that's for sure.


 


 


no 


it's 


not... lol. I am not reading past your first sentence. You have lost your mind. 

Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -
CavemanDave - 
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -

God damn The Gateway Pundit is lowbrow. Is it worse to publish an article based on random Twitter users commenting on some shit, or being someone who consumes the article?

It's about the standard you would find at the NYT, Huffpo, or NBC news. 


 


I'd point out the article I spent better than a week shitting on regarding some bot-farm that got deleted off twitter, with no posts shown and an anonymous source suggesting that it had unspecified ties to "alt-right" groups that no less than half a dozen leftists here posted. 


 


That was NBC...at least the gateway pundit put up some manner of evidence, and at this point it's fair to consider twitter mobbing some type of activism.  It's clearly happening, that's for sure.


 


 


no 


it's 


not... lol. I am not reading past your first sentence. You have lost your mind. 

Yes I know you believe that PSL, it's why I wrote it.  You want to believe the institutions you hold in high regards aren't rooting around in the pig-shit like everybody else. 


 


The problem is they are, it's obvious, and you are now part of an ever shrinking minority that cannot see that.

Thelonious -

For all the mouthbreathers saying Chomsky is a "Marxist" or pushes Marxism. 


 


"Well, I guess one thing that’s unattractive to me about “Marxism” is the very idea that there is such a thing. It’s a rather striking fact that you don’t find things like “Marxism” in the sciences — like, there isn’t any part of physics which is “Einsteinianism,” let’s say, or “Planckianism” or something like that. It doesn’t make any sense –because people aren’t gods: they just discover things, and they make mistakes, and their graduate students tell them why they’re wrong, and then they go on and do things better the next time. But there are no gods around. I mean, scientists do use the terms “Newtonianism” and “Darwinism,” but nobody thinks of those as doctrines that you’ve got to somehow be loyal to, and figure out what the Master thought, and what he would have said in this new circumstance and so on. That sort of thing is just completely alien to rational existence, it only shows up in irrational domains.


So Marxism, Freudianism: anyone of these things I think is an irrational cult. They’re theology, so they’re whatever you think of theology; I don’t think much of it. In fact, in my view that’s exactly the right analogy: notions like Marxism and Freudianism belong to the history of organized religion. So part of my problem is just its existence: it seems to me that even to discuss something like “Marxism” is already making a mistake. Like, we don’t discuss “Planckism.” Why not? Because it would be crazy. Planck [German physicist] had some things to say, and some of them are right, and those were absorbed into later science, and some of them are wrong, and they were improved on. It’s not that Planck wasn’t a great man-all kinds of great discoveries, very smart, mistakes, this and that. That’s really the way we ought to look at it, I think. As soon as you set up the idea of “Marxism” or “Freudianism” or something, you’ve already abandoned rationality.


It seems to me the question a rational person ought to ask is, what is there in Marx’s work that’s worth saving and modifying, and what is there that ought to be abandoned? Okay, then you look and you find things. I think Marx did some very interesting descriptive work on nineteenth century history. He was a very good journalist. When he describes the British in India, or the Paris Commune [70-day French workers’ revolution in 1871], or the parts of Capital that talk about industrial London, a lot of that is kind of interesting — I think later scholarship has improved it and changed it, but it’s quite interesting.5


He had an abstract model of capitalism which — I’m not sure how valuable it is, to tell you the truth. It was an abstract model, and like any abstract model, it’s not really intended to be descriptively accurate in detail, it’s intended to sort of pull out some crucial features and study those. And you have to ask in the case of an abstract model, how much of the complex reality does it really capture? That’s questionable in this case — first of all, it’s questionable how much of nineteenth-century capitalism it captured, and I think it’s even more questionable how much of late-twentieth-century capitalism it captures.


There are supposed to be laws [i.e. of history and economics]. I can’t understand them, that’s all I can say; it doesn’t seem to me that there are any laws that follow from it. Not that I know of any better laws, I just don’t think we know about “laws” in history.


There’s nothing about socialism in Marx, he wasn’t a socialist philosopher — there are about five sentences in Marx’s whole work that refer to socialism.6 He was a theorist of capitalism. I think he introduced some interesting concepts at least, which every sensible person ought to have mastered and employ, notions like and relations of production …

Didn't he also go after Foucault, Derrida, and Zizek?


 


If so, this was just a matter of time?

CavemanDave -
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -
CavemanDave - 
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -

God damn The Gateway Pundit is lowbrow. Is it worse to publish an article based on random Twitter users commenting on some shit, or being someone who consumes the article?

It's about the standard you would find at the NYT, Huffpo, or NBC news. 

 

I'd point out the article I spent better than a week shitting on regarding some bot-farm that got deleted off twitter, with no posts shown and an anonymous source suggesting that it had unspecified ties to "alt-right" groups that no less than half a dozen leftists here posted. 

 

That was NBC...at least the gateway pundit put up some manner of evidence, and at this point it's fair to consider twitter mobbing some type of activism.  It's clearly happening, that's for sure.

 

 

 

no 


it's 


not... lol. I am not reading past your first sentence. You have lost your mind. 



Yes I know you believe that PSL, it's why I wrote it.  You want to believe the institutions you hold in high regards aren't rooting around in the pig-shit like everybody else. 


 


The problem is they are, it's obvious, and you are now part of an ever shrinking minority that cannot see that.



I lean right and look at the gateway pundit the same way I look at vox or huffpost

I stan Chomsky.

Pumpkin Spice Lazarus - 
CavemanDave - 
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -

God damn The Gateway Pundit is lowbrow. Is it worse to publish an article based on random Twitter users commenting on some shit, or being someone who consumes the article?

It's about the standard you would find at the NYT, Huffpo, or NBC news. 


 


I'd point out the article I spent better than a week shitting on regarding some bot-farm that got deleted off twitter, with no posts shown and an anonymous source suggesting that it had unspecified ties to "alt-right" groups that no less than half a dozen leftists here posted. 


 


That was NBC...at least the gateway pundit put up some manner of evidence, and at this point it's fair to consider twitter mobbing some type of activism.  It's clearly happening, that's for sure.


 


 


no 


it's 


not... lol. I am not reading past your first sentence. You have lost your mind. 


Are you saying more mainstream consumed MSM sources don't report on "outrage" via social media?


Or that individual reporters haven't stirred controversy via twitter that is then reported on by other sources?


Say for instance covering stories about people being cancelled due to woke twitter?


 


Noam being attacked on social media and places like reddit means the very active partisans are speaking up, and it will be a story, whether you deem the source credible or not.

McBottery -
CavemanDave -
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -
CavemanDave - 
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -

God damn The Gateway Pundit is lowbrow. Is it worse to publish an article based on random Twitter users commenting on some shit, or being someone who consumes the article?

It's about the standard you would find at the NYT, Huffpo, or NBC news. 

 

I'd point out the article I spent better than a week shitting on regarding some bot-farm that got deleted off twitter, with no posts shown and an anonymous source suggesting that it had unspecified ties to "alt-right" groups that no less than half a dozen leftists here posted. 

 

That was NBC...at least the gateway pundit put up some manner of evidence, and at this point it's fair to consider twitter mobbing some type of activism.  It's clearly happening, that's for sure.

 

 

 

no 


it's 


not... lol. I am not reading past your first sentence. You have lost your mind. 



Yes I know you believe that PSL, it's why I wrote it.  You want to believe the institutions you hold in high regards aren't rooting around in the pig-shit like everybody else. 


 


The problem is they are, it's obvious, and you are now part of an ever shrinking minority that cannot see that.



I lean right and look at the gateway pundit the same way I look at vox or huffpost

So do I.


 


I also look at them the same way I look at NBC or NYT.   If you aren't, you will end up absorbing a load of well written horseshit.  I will admit the writing is better, the framing is brilliant... and the content is so much worse because of it.

Thage - 
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus - 
CavemanDave - 
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -

God damn The Gateway Pundit is lowbrow. Is it worse to publish an article based on random Twitter users commenting on some shit, or being someone who consumes the article?

It's about the standard you would find at the NYT, Huffpo, or NBC news. 


 


I'd point out the article I spent better than a week shitting on regarding some bot-farm that got deleted off twitter, with no posts shown and an anonymous source suggesting that it had unspecified ties to "alt-right" groups that no less than half a dozen leftists here posted. 


 


That was NBC...at least the gateway pundit put up some manner of evidence, and at this point it's fair to consider twitter mobbing some type of activism.  It's clearly happening, that's for sure.


 


 


no 


it's 


not... lol. I am not reading past your first sentence. You have lost your mind. 


Are you saying more mainstream consumed MSM sources don't report on "outrage" via social media?


Or that individual reporters haven't stirred controversy via twitter that is then reported on by other sources?


Say for instance covering stories about people being cancelled due to woke twitter?


 


Noam being attacked on social media and places like reddit means the very active partisans are speaking up, and it will be a story, whether you deem the source credible or not.


No. Comparing The Gateway Pundit to the NYT is egregiously wrong. Really. If Huffpo writes an article based on Twitter commentary -- okay. Maybe you make that comparison. I've never visited them for news and wouldn't know. That is not the same as comparing them to a news outlet with a layered editing process, journalists with more access to government entities that matter than any other, and one that routinely declines publishing sensationalized content that lesser outlets make a living off of. 


Just no. Stop. 

Thage -
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus - 
CavemanDave - 
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus -

God damn The Gateway Pundit is lowbrow. Is it worse to publish an article based on random Twitter users commenting on some shit, or being someone who consumes the article?

It's about the standard you would find at the NYT, Huffpo, or NBC news. 


 


I'd point out the article I spent better than a week shitting on regarding some bot-farm that got deleted off twitter, with no posts shown and an anonymous source suggesting that it had unspecified ties to "alt-right" groups that no less than half a dozen leftists here posted. 


 


That was NBC...at least the gateway pundit put up some manner of evidence, and at this point it's fair to consider twitter mobbing some type of activism.  It's clearly happening, that's for sure.


 


 


no 


it's 


not... lol. I am not reading past your first sentence. You have lost your mind. 


Are you saying more mainstream consumed MSM sources don't report on "outrage" via social media?


Or that individual reporters haven't stirred controversy via twitter that is then reported on by other sources?


Say for instance covering stories about people being cancelled due to woke twitter?


 


Noam being attacked on social media and places like reddit means the very active partisans are speaking up, and it will be a story, whether you deem the source credible or not.

I think what PSL is saying is:  trust the corporate press.  The corporate press is true.  The corporate press is honest.  The corporate press has no agenda.  The corporate press is unbiased.  Trust the corporate press.  Don't trust things that aren't within the wheelhouse of the well established corporate press.  If they aren't in the wheelhouse of the well established corporate press, they are probably not trustworthy.


 


Trust the corporate press.


 


Trust the corporate press.