Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Monday April 30, @10:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-internet-is-forever dept.

Joy Reid, an MSNBC host, apologized in December for "homophobic content" on a "now-defunct blog". This month, a Twitter user found similar material by using Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, although robots.txt is now in effect. This time around, Reid blamed hackers (archive) for inserting these posts into the blog, before admitting that it could not be proven (archive) that the blog had been hacked/manipulated:

Joy Reid, the MSNBC host who accused hackers of inserting homophobic posts into her now-defunct blog, said on Saturday that while she continued to deny having written the offensive language, security experts could not conclusively say her blog was breached. "I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things, because they are completely alien to me," she said on her morning show, "AM Joy." "But I can definitely understand, based on things I have tweeted and have written in the past, why some people don't believe me." She hired a cybersecurity expert to see if her former blog had been manipulated, she said, but "the reality is, they have not been able to prove it."

The posts containing the offensive language, which Mediaite wrote about on Monday, said that "most straight people cringe at the sight of two men kissing" and that "a lot of heterosexuals, especially men, find the idea of homosexual sex to be ... well ... gross." They also allegedly showed Ms. Reid arguing against legalized gay marriage and criticizing commentators who supported it, including Rachel Maddow, who is now one of Ms. Reid's colleagues at MSNBC.

The Internet Archive responded to claims that its database might have been manipulated:

This past December, Reid's lawyers contacted us, asking to have archives of the blog (blog.reidreport.com) taken down, stating that "fraudulent" posts were "inserted into legitimate content" in our archives of the blog. Her attorneys stated that they didn't know if the alleged insertion happened on the original site or with our archives (the point at which the manipulation is to have occurred, according to Reid, is still unclear to us).

When we reviewed the archives, we found nothing to indicate tampering or hacking of the Wayback Machine versions. At least some of the examples of allegedly fraudulent posts provided to us had been archived at different dates and by different entities.

We let Reid's lawyers know that the information provided was not sufficient for us to verify claims of manipulation. Consequently, and due to Reid's being a journalist (a very high-profile one, at that) and the journalistic nature of the blog archives, we declined to take down the archives. We were clear that we would welcome and consider any further information that they could provide us to support their claims.

Also at CNN.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @10:52AM (65 children)

    The posts containing the offensive language, which Mediaite wrote about on Monday, said that "most straight people cringe at the sight of two men kissing" and that "a lot of heterosexuals, especially men, find the idea of homosexual sex to be ... well ... gross."

    Dunno about the rest because I can't be arsed to click links until I get some more coffee in me but the above is not homophobic, it's scientifically proven fact [tandfonline.com].

    --
    "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by qzm on Monday April 30, @11:10AM (7 children)

      by qzm (3260) on Monday April 30, @11:10AM (#673668)

      Yes, sadly I do have to agree, it seems more of an opinion than homophobia (which would be a poorly chosen word anyway, personally I now use the term 'sexist' for any discrimination of any
      attack targeting someone based on gender and/or sexual preference, because that is far more correct).

      But this is the world we live in, where some forms of expression are protected and others are attacked.
      At worst the use of the words 'most' and 'a lot of' could be challenged (although as you say, there is evidence that it is true).

      If it had said two men kissing was *wrong* or *bad* it would be somewhat different, however it did not.

      The saddest part is that media personalities now feel they cannot even express/defend such a statement, and instead have to run and hide.

      IMHO the need to hide from the statements is more damning than the statements themselves.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @12:08PM (5 children)

        By the study it seems just as likely a hard wired physiological reaction as an opinion. Chemical composition of saliva isn't something controlled at a conscious level, so it's either unconsciously mental or purely physical.

        --
        "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday April 30, @01:22PM (1 child)

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @01:22PM (#673708)

          From the journal article abstract:

          This result held across the full sample, regardless of individual levels of prejudice.

          that would imply strictly biological response, like insulin levels an hour after carb dosing not being tremendously affected by your politics or the books you read.

          The odds of a whole bunch of random brains all along the spectrum having a linear unconscious response smells fishy to me. That's the kind of input-output response you expect with biochemical physical stuff like "eat salt / pee salt" kidney response or whatever. A typical unconscious mental response is the seemingly random response due to uncanny valley issues with common circus clowns, some people just can't tolerate them. Santa is another good random response, just freaks out X% of little kids makes them cry. Dogs, thats another good phobia vs maternal reaction vs male dominance response that's surprisingly random.

          If its deeply enough unconsciously mental I guess that IS purely physical, in another way of looking at it, unless you're stuck with souls and dualism and vitalism and all that non-scientific stuff.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @01:39PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @01:39PM (#673716)

          Chemical composition of saliva isn't something controlled at a conscious level...

          You know what α-amylase [wikipedia.org] does in one saliva? Doesn't the thought of a nice sponge cake with a creamy chocolate ganache let you mouth watering?

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @01:47PM (1 child)

            That would be consciously invoking an unconsciously controlled response. Like the response caused by deliberately thinking about some Donald/Hillary Rule #34; you only indirectly control the physiological results in either your stomach or your crotch, depending on how twisted you are.

            --
            "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday April 30, @05:32PM

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @05:32PM (#673828)

              I couldn't decide whether to mod that funny or insightful, and I can't upmod and unmodded comment...so, Thanks, that comment was a combination of funny and insightful.

              --
              Put not your faith in princes.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday April 30, @07:05PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @07:05PM (#673862) Journal

        Not sure if you read TFA. I get that what constitutes "homophobic" is a matter of perspective, but on of the linked articles (Mediaite, which apparently originally made this a big story) lists a bunch of other statements that apparently were on this blog -- some of which seemed quite clearly homophobic by most standard definitions.

        If it had said two men kissing was *wrong* or *bad* it would be somewhat different, however it did not.

        Whoever wrote this stuff in the blog agreed with other commenters that said homosexuality was "immoral," disparaged gay men who indoctrinated young people "into the lifestyle" as "immoral," made bad jokes about celebrities and questions about whether they were/weren't gay, etc. (The last one may just be more distasteful rather than homophobic, but it speaks to a general pattern that is directly critical of homosexuality, rather than just stating an opinion about how some straight people feel.)

        The stuff in the summary isn't everything there... obviously.

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Monday April 30, @11:12AM (42 children)

      by c0lo (156) on Monday April 30, @11:12AM (#673670)

      From the linked with my emphasis

      The current study sought to examine how Utah men’s physiological reactions to viewing same-sex public displays of affection

      I don't know, man, those Mormons are a weird bunch.
      And that's a single article.
      And is in the 'psychology science' area.

      And those Sicilians [wikipedia.org] are a murderous kind - what if the study included only Italian Mormons and the detected reaction was fear?

      And you haven't had enough coffee. (grin)

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @12:04PM (18 children)

        Believe me when I say I would not have linked it if it had been what normally passes for "science" in psych fields. It was proper science.

        --
        "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday April 30, @12:48PM (11 children)

          by c0lo (156) on Monday April 30, @12:48PM (#673693)

          What makes you think is proper science?
          Besides, why should I believe you?

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @12:57PM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @12:57PM (#673700)

            Proper science comes to conclusions that one is comfortable with.

            Science should be used to uphold traditional values and gender roles.

            Or something.

            • (Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @01:26PM (4 children)

              Proper science deals in provable facts and doesn't give a damn about politics.

              --
              "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday April 30, @01:51PM (3 children)

                by c0lo (156) on Monday April 30, @01:51PM (#673721)

                Fact: watching two men kissing triggers elevated levels of the same enzyme the body uses to breakdown starch, in a sample of unknown representativeness and size of Utah men. Other hypotheses considered for these elevated levels investigated are unknown. No explanation provided on why the level of α-amylase is considered an appropriate metric to associate with stress. No other replication of the study/results is known.

                Interpretation: yet another phack** psychology study that got acceptance as real science by TMB because of unexplained/unknown reasons.

                Sciency enough for you?

                ---
                ** From the abstract, while waiting for a certain hub to be functional:

                A series of paired-samples t-tests was performed and found that sAA responses to images of same-sex kissing (t(98) = 3.124, p = .002) and universally disgusting images (t(98) = 2.128, p = .036) were significantly greater than sAA responses to the slide show depicting everyday items.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @02:03PM (2 children)

                  You appear to misunderstand science. You see, when someone goes and proves something with actual data, you have to prove why they're wrong or find a critical flaw in their methodology if you disagree. This study wasn't a thirty year study on a third of the population but its methodology was quite passable for the sample size it did have.

                  --
                  "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
                  • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday April 30, @02:27PM

                    by c0lo (156) on Monday April 30, @02:27PM (#673739)

                    You appear to misunderstand science.

                    While it may be so, I doubt it.

                    You see, when someone goes and proves something with actual data, you have to prove why they're wrong or find a critical flaw in their methodology if you disagree.

                    I don't disagree, I only use the facts that I have available. Yes, availability (and the lack thereof**) is a big factor.
                    And your "Trust me" doesn't help with facts.

                    but its methodology was quite passable for the sample size it did have.

                    Passable (=acceptable but only barely so) for you. And even you cast a shadow over the representativeness of the sample.

                    ---
                    ** (damn'd. The twin.<name>.is is still not resolving)

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @06:12AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @06:12AM (#674057)

                    You appear to misunderstand science

                    They certainly misunderstand what p-hacking is (reporting a p value != p-hacking).

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @01:41PM (4 children)

            I read the paper. The core methodology and results are passable even if some of the prior assumptions aren't. I'd give you a sci-hub link but that could cause trouble being as I'm staff.

            Because I never earnestly say anything I know to be untrue. I may be less precise than I should or just be flat wrong but I do not lie. For comedic purposes is another matter entirely but that is not relevant to this discussion.

            --
            "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
            • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Monday April 30, @02:00PM (1 child)

              by c0lo (156) on Monday April 30, @02:00PM (#673727)

              I'd give you a sci-hub link but that could cause trouble being as I'm staff.

              Unfortunately, the site mirror that I still can use is malfunctioning for the moment, the onion one is mostly unusable from here.

              Because I never earnestly say anything I know to be untrue.

              I trust you to hold a sincere belief the article is true.
              Unfortunately, your belief in its truthfulness doesn't necessary translate in an actual truthful article.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @02:08PM

                How many science articles have I nit picked about methodology and such on? I'm not exactly known for being generous with my forgiveness of poor science. This one was done with some assumptions/presuppositions that shouldn't have been made but I'm unable to see how they could have influenced the results. The experiment and results themselves seem solid, barring evidence of a flaw.

                --
                "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 30, @07:14PM (1 child)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @07:14PM (#673866) Journal

              Eh, you never say anything you believe to be untrue. Belief and knowledge aren't the same thing.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @08:21PM

                Yeah, I covered that a couple sentences later. Finding out you're wrong on something should be one of the great pleasures of life. It gives you an opportunity to correct the wrongness and actually be as right as is currently possible. Unfortunately that is something we all have to put the effort into keeping in mind. Very few people can manage it even half the time.

                --
                "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @01:58AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @01:58AM (#673999)

          Two glasses of mead and a martini in me and I still know better than to trust your judgement about science.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 01, @02:44AM (4 children)

            Yes, you should never trust someone's judgment on science when they base it something as foolish as following proper scientific method. By all means, review the results and attempt to reproduce or refute them.

            --
            "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @03:37AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @03:37AM (#674026)

              That's assuming you can recognize the scientific method if it bites your arse. From your posts, I'm convinced that's not the case.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 01, @10:33AM (2 children)

                This is most likely because you believe reality should or must conform to your preconceived beliefs. Reality doesn't work like that though. You are a very tiny and unimportant speck in it and it gives not a single fuck about your beliefs.

                --
                "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @05:00PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @05:00PM (#674205)

                  Now repeat this to yourself every morning for the rest of your life

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by tizan on Monday April 30, @01:07PM (22 children)

        by tizan (3245) on Monday April 30, @01:07PM (#673702)

        Isn't Utah the state that searches a lot for lesbians on porhub ?

        There is claim of what they dislike to see in public but facts what they search to see !

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 30, @01:13PM (2 children)

          by c0lo (156) on Monday April 30, @01:13PM (#673704)

          Isn't Utah the state that searches a lot for lesbians on porhub ?

          A citation would be interesting, thanks.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by tizan on Monday April 30, @01:52PM (1 child)

            by tizan (3245) on Monday April 30, @01:52PM (#673722)

            I did not put it because ..although the web page seems safe for work...it is hosted on porhub.com

            Just google "porhub statistics insight Utah".

            Truely i go there to read the articles.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @01:26PM (2 children)

          You mean there's a state that doesn't?

          --
          "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday April 30, @02:15PM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) on Monday April 30, @02:15PM (#673735)

            An almost SFW infographic [phncdn.com] - the domain name doesn't bear an immediately obvious ring of the parent site, the infomap is safe.

            The TL;DR: while the "lesbian" is indeed the widest geo-represented, the "step sister" and "step mom" seems to haunt the usian kinky sense in significant territorial proportions.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 30, @05:22PM

              by bob_super (1357) on Monday April 30, @05:22PM (#673822)

              > the "step sister" and "step mom" seems to haunt the usian kinky sense in significant territorial proportions.

              For my own personal ... research ... I do need to point out that every fucking video seems to be getting labelled as some form of (near-)incest these days. That probably biases the numbers a good amount.
              Clicking on those videos doesn't mean one (a friend, obviously) is actually interested in the "story" or a kink which only shows in the title, as the same exact video can be titled as BF/GF, step-sibling, sisters' (boy/girl)friend, foreign exchange student...

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday April 30, @02:08PM (15 children)

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @02:08PM (#673733)

          Utah's not really all that Mormon, more so that other states are Catholic or whatever. Admittedly some states like Massachusetts are a totalitarian Universalist Unitarian theocracy, but most of the states are not like that.

          I worked with a guy who lived in Utah trying to convince me its a great place to move to, he did accurately point out that I grew up in a state about 25% Lutheran and had no problem fitting in as a non-Lutheran, likewise Utah is about 40% Mormon so it'll be a little harder to fit in as a non-Mormon but not significantly so.

          IF you cherry pick the weirdest Mormon stuff its maybe a little weirder than the weirdest Lutheran stuff. Its not that much worse. As kids we were pretty impressed with some (false?) story about Luther being tempted by satan while taking a dump, the book of conchord vs the bible, Luther was pretty
          "woke" by modern American standards on the Jewish question, etc. Another good one is the Lutherans think the Catholics are crazy because they have papal infallibility, whereas the Catholics think the Lutherans are crazy because they do not have papal infallibility, yup thats right the "pope of the lutherans" who I believe is called the president is little more than a chief financial officer and does not have divine right and authority to rule despite having the responsibility to rule, the Lutheran equivalent of cardinals won that war so they have what boils down to "cardinal infallibility". With a side dish of the Lutherans like to pretend they're soooo different than the Catholics so they renamed everything without really changing anything. Lutheran's pope-equivalent on the job experience must be like herding cats.

          Not that the Catholics are without weirdness. You can trigger the hell out of them by pointing out they're not really Catholic but more like disguised Collyridianism and the real Catholics in the sense of following the faith in the small "c" catholic sense are ironically our Orthodox bros. I'm a little fuzzy on the exact demarcation point between outright Collyridianism and mere Marian devotion; frankly I think most Catholics are also pretty fuzzy on that distinction. "Mary Gardens" aren't icons, altars, or druidic, really, uh huh? It would be easier to convince me Alister Crowley's antics were Catholic, depending on your local definitions of the word "is" or "catholic". Nothing wrong with having a favorite saint, but eventually a line is crossed where the Catholic is not doing Christian worship and is doing something more like pagan worship of Apollo except its Jesus's Ma instead of Apollo. Oh and the Catholic invention of purgatory, thats quite a fascinating product they invented there along with indulgences in the old days.

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 30, @02:54PM (10 children)

            by tangomargarine (667) on Monday April 30, @02:54PM (#673753)

            yup thats right the "pope of the lutherans" who I believe is called the president is little more than a chief financial officer and does not have divine right and authority to rule despite having the responsibility to rule,

            Lutheran's pope-equivalent on the job experience must be like herding cats.

            There's one dude in charge of all of Lutheranism? I was raised Lutheran and this is the first I've heard of it.

            There are a million different denominations that all do their own thing, in varying levels of agreement and disagreement with each other. Nobody is in charge of everything.

            and does not have divine right and authority to rule despite having the responsibility to rule,

            See, this is part of why Lutheranism is a thing in the first place. The Pope should not be ruling anything. It's not the job of the church to rule shit. "My kingdom is not of this world"

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday April 30, @03:19PM (1 child)

              by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @03:19PM (#673764)

              Yeah, and without rule, see my comments on the topic of "must be like herding cats", oh boy does that sound like a fun job to have

              Another example of those, each side thinks the other side is crazy, like the example of papal infallibility being either a brilliant idea or insane and little opinion in between. It is highly likely that inside the different cultures that have developed in both systems, the maximum effective optimum solution to problem X might end up the opposite the other sides solution.

              As for the trivia I see the ELCA has a "presiding bishop", whereas the WELS synod (which is like saying ATM machine) has a "president", and the ELS which is right next door also has "presidents".

              I could make a tongue in cheek joke meant in good humor that someone who finds the national Orthodox church networks to be too straightforward cooperative and easily understandable, could level up by trying the challenge of mapping out Lutheranism, which seems to be something like at some point in history everyone disagreed with everyone else about every item.

              The Pope should not be ruling anything.

              Rule in the sense of a billion people in theory could, at least in theory, present pope excluded perhaps, high five the pope in some kind of agreement that his plan is close enough to the right way to worship to not sweat it too much, which is a kind of cool way to worship by some points of view, whereas the long history of Lutheranism seems to be that every time you get three Lutherans talking together in the same room, four opposing synods get created. I'm sure they're very happy, worshipping almost individually and alone, at least compared to a billion Catholics all in one big "happy" family. Or maybe the Lutherans are just more honest about the implementation of real small scale human politics, LOL.

              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 30, @03:33PM

                by tangomargarine (667) on Monday April 30, @03:33PM (#673771)

                Rule in the sense of a billion people in theory could, at least in theory, present pope excluded perhaps, high five the pope in some kind of agreement that his plan is close enough to the right way to worship to not sweat it too much, which is a kind of cool way to worship by some points of view, whereas the long history of Lutheranism seems to be that every time you get three Lutherans talking together in the same room, four opposing synods get created. I'm sure they're very happy, worshipping almost individually and alone, at least compared to a billion Catholics all in one big "happy" family. Or maybe the Lutherans are just more honest about the implementation of real small scale human politics, LOL.

                Insert joke about Windows vs Linux here? ;)

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday April 30, @05:38PM (7 children)

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @05:38PM (#673829)

              I thought Lutheranism was a thing because Luther didn't like selling indulgences.

              --
              Put not your faith in princes.
              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 30, @06:14PM (6 children)

                by tangomargarine (667) on Monday April 30, @06:14PM (#673842)

                Directly traceable to the 95 Theses, yes. I'm just saying that there's also a reason why Lutherans don't have a pope, because a lot of the popes were kind of dicks back in the day, and arguably too concerned with worldly issues instead of spiritual.

                But I suppose that would inevitably happen to any organization that ends up with a billion members. Power corrupts and all that.

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 30, @07:21PM (5 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @07:21PM (#673872) Journal

                  Good thing nothing like that has ever happened in any Protestant denomination, nope. Definitely not. There are certainly no Protestant groups in bed with the secular powers in, for example, the USA, with plans to bring about Dominionism or other theocracy. Nope. Boyyyy howdy...

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 30, @07:28PM (4 children)

                    by tangomargarine (667) on Monday April 30, @07:28PM (#673875)

                    But I suppose that would inevitably happen to any organization that ends up with a billion members. Power corrupts and all that.

                    Pretty much what I said, but I've never credited you with a knack for subtlety, Azuma.

                    --
                    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 30, @08:35PM (3 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @08:35PM (#673910) Journal

                      I'm capable of subtlety, I just choose not to use it here. The menfolk (TM) seem to need points driven home with the rhetorical equivalent of a 30-pound rubber sledgehammer...

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 01, @12:35AM (2 children)

                        We don't need it exactly, we just prefer it that way. Saves wasted mental effort on social niceties that could be put to use on the issue at hand.

                        --
                        "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @07:20PM (1 child)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @07:20PM (#674272)

                          Ah yes, who has the time for civilization? It is sad to see men who are still brainwashed by the "real men" tropes that cause such internal mental discord.

                          Simple and direct communication does not necessitate brutality or a lack of tact. I guess some people just want any excuse to be accepted for their poor behavior.

                          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 01, @09:18PM

                            You think politeness at all costs is the same as civilization? How idealistic and wrong. Civilization is nothing but shouting at people rather than killing them. Truth must always trump anyone's feelings or the civilization in question will end. Violently.

                            --
                            "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
          • (Score: 5, Informative) by OrugTor on Monday April 30, @04:58PM (2 children)

            by OrugTor (5147) on Monday April 30, @04:58PM (#673808)

            Mormons are different. Firstly, They are politically active. Mormon voters vote how they are told to vote by their bishops. They have high turnout. The church fields Mormon candidates wherever there is enough Mormon influence to win the primary. The result is that the LDS church has political control way beyond their numbers in the electorate.
            The second difference is that Mormons act the way they did at the outset. They ignore gentiles except for conversion efforts. They take their business to Mormons whenever possible. The consequence for the gentile is that in a Mormon area the gentile has a reduced pool of potential friends and contacts. If the gentile owns a business that business has a limited pool of potential customers. You can project other negative consequences for yourself.
            I make these statements based on my experience living 20+ years in an LDS-dominated area.
            So far as dogma is concerned, IMHO Mormon beliefs are far more ludicrous than even those of Catholics. They were made up by an uneducated convicted fraudster and are predictably silly. Much of it is falsifiable, a big no-no for dogma. If you are not familiar with LDS dogma check it out. It makes Papal infallibility look trivial.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 30, @07:17PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @07:17PM (#673868) Journal

            >> UU Theocracy

            ...you...don't know what words mean, do you? That right there is a prime example of the output of a mind that has long since reached peak stupid.

            And "the weirdest Mormon stuff" is waaaaay the fuck weirder than "the weirdest Lutheran stuff." Planet Kolob, Yahweh and Jesus as separate beings, the two of them having started as something like us, patently impossible migrations of Israelites to the continental US, golden tablets covered in hieroglyphics what has to be read through a "seer stone," and let's not forget the magic Mormon underwear (doo-dah, doo-dah).

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by VLM on Monday April 30, @12:57PM (3 children)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @12:57PM (#673698)

      it's scientifically proven fact [tandfonline.com].

      Science and reality have nothing to do with leftist politics... you can't use rationality as a root password against a fundamentally religious belief. If you use facts, reality, or science, those are just hate facts and you're a hateful person for not agreeing with their religious view. For some other good examples, talk to them about race, or IQ, or crime rates, or economics, or ecology, or climatology/meteorology, or geology, or sexuality, or diet, or lifestyles, or religion ...

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @03:24PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @03:24PM (#673767)

        People who understand the science behind race and IQ disagree with you. You have only yourself to blame for being ignorant enough to buy into that shit. Odd how science is beyond criticism when it says what you want, but it is a liberal ivory tower conspiracy to punish wrong think when you don't like the conclusions. I wish it was easy to compile all the discussions and get some data points on your waffling.

        I'll be fair to you and agree that there are plenty of people who will not listen to facts (gun control issues are an easy one) that disagree with their beliefs. However you should by now realize you are one of them!

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 01, @01:16PM (1 child)

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 01, @01:16PM (#674124)

          People who understand the science behind race and IQ disagree with you.

          LOL, no.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @08:11PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @08:11PM (#674294)

            LOL you're still an idiot lacking education and critical thinking skills. Have fun being avoided by the majority of people who spend more than 10 minute with you.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @02:38PM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @02:38PM (#673745)

      Hahahaha, oh boooy the irony is thick. All that noise about the heatwave and coral die off but THIS you find scientifically rigorous and acceptable? You are such a shitbird hypocrite who TRUUUULY values feelz over reals.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @02:59PM (8 children)

        Yeah, I know it's silly to judge science on the merits of the work done. We should just set up a Ministry of Truth so that we can all know what to think.

        --
        "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @03:14PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @03:14PM (#673761)

          Oh it has nothing to do with wtong-think. I find the idea intriguing that we may have some hard wired responses as they claim. I simply am pointing out that this study has a ton of psychological factors that could be social artifacts and not inherently biological, but you ignore your usual condescension for psych studies and claim this one is rigorous enough for EVEN YOU to accept?

          Wow. New levels of narcissism today.

          • (Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Monday April 30, @03:31PM (2 children)

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @03:31PM (#673770)

            I find the idea intriguing that we may have some hard wired responses as they claim.

            Presumably millennia before we had modern leftism to indoctrinate us as to the only correct way to have sex and the only permissible way (by them, anyway) to talk about sex, our existing today implies our ancestors figured out the right way to insert tab A into slot B to pop out descendants on a fairly regular basis, so it seems rather likely that sometime in between microbe reproduction by sex and Obama era legalization of gay marriage, there was a transition from instinct informing species how to do it the right way, and now, where only the nicest people are in charge of forcing our culture to tell each other the very specific right way to have sex. So surely at some point in evolution the experimental result is an obvious conclusion, but surprisingly it goes right up to and including modern people, even the weirdly indoctrinated ones. And the experiment even used real chemistry and statistics which is unusual for social sciences where the scientific method is usually subservient to politics. Its an interesting unexpected journal article.

            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @03:57PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @03:57PM (#673780)

              You reinforce my point while stuffing some old clothes full of straw.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @10:25PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @10:25PM (#673947)

              You have your sequence of events backwards (shocking)

              there was a transition from instinct informing species how to do it the right way, and now, where only the nicest people are in charge of forcing our culture to tell each other the very specific right way to have sex.

              There are gay animals so obviously you're biology education is severely lacking. It was religious nutjob humans who decided there is a specific right way to have sex. Nowadays liberals don't tell people how to have sex but they do demand that people such as yourself butt out of other people's sex lives.

              The cognitive dissonance that goes on here makes me think you're just a troll trying to cause conflict, it seems better than you being a real person.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @05:01PM (3 children)

            No claim was made as to whether the results were psychological or biological in nature that I noticed. Can you quote the bit that said they were definitively one or the other?

            --
            "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @06:13PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @06:13PM (#673841)

              You are correct, the research article you linked to did not make a claim and even said they would discuss the sociological factors about same sex PDA.

              However, YOU said

              Dunno about the rest because I can't be arsed to click links until I get some more coffee in me but the above is not homophobic, it's scientifically proven fact [tandfonline.com].

              Scientifically proven fact? That infers that the reaction is a biological fact that can not be changed. However if it is simply a disgust response then that is highly dependent on the individual and as some others here have said even hetero PDA they find disgusting.

              By your same logic then it is OK to use racist terms for people because most people used such terms in the past and many still do today. Using a scientific study to try and prop up your righteous demand to be able to say whatever you want without people getting upset about it is not so good. What if someone said humans are a virus on the planet causing nothing but destruction and should be eradicated? If you disagree and call them a psychopath nazi, then they reply that it is a simple easily observable FACT, then do you back down? Do you then say "ok then lets eradicate all humans because the science shows we're bad for the planet"?

              The use of extremes is helpful because it illustrates the problem clearly, then you can more easily tie it back to the original question.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @08:32PM

                Dunno about the rest because I can't be arsed to click links until I get some more coffee in me but the above is not homophobic, it's scientifically proven fact [tandfonline.com].

                Scientifically proven fact? That infers that the reaction is a biological fact that can not be changed. However if it is simply a disgust response then that is highly dependent on the individual and as some others here have said even hetero PDA they find disgusting.

                Partially fair criticism. It infers nothing but that the response exists. It could be severely ingrained cultural evolution, purely physical evolution, or a combination of both. As a correction, feel free to mentally add ", though on what level is unknown" just before the period if my imprecision bothers you overly much.

                --
                "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @08:38PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @08:38PM (#673913)

                I felt like my point was missing something and I think it is the obvious rebuttal to my extreme case.

                No we don't kill all humans, we use our science and tech to heal the planet and start living more sustainable lives by recycling instead of mining and using way more solar. Bonus for making infrastructure more local and distributed.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by MostCynical on Monday April 30, @10:58AM

    by MostCynical (2589) on Monday April 30, @10:58AM (#673666)

    "My dog *rewote* my homework"
    in this case, the truth is:
    "My dogwhistle ate my credibility"

    --
    tau = 300. Greek circles must have been weird.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Monday April 30, @11:20AM (18 children)

    by cubancigar11 (330) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @11:20AM (#673672) Homepage Journal

    "most straight people cringe at the sight of two men kissing" and that "a lot of heterosexuals, especially men, find the idea of homosexual sex to be ... well ... gross.

    Don't know about most but both of those statements apply to me - I cringe at the sight of two men kissing and find it gross. In fact, even in lesbian porn, rubbing of vaginas bores me. I don't care if that's homophobic or phillic - I was born this way!

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Monday April 30, @11:32AM (6 children)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Monday April 30, @11:32AM (#673674)

      I don't even like watching hetero couples kiss. Am I "anti-hetero"?

      --
      tau = 300. Greek circles must have been weird.
      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @11:36AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @11:36AM (#673676)

        Yes.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @01:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @01:15PM (#673705)

        I find people of whatever persuasion making out in public gross - specifically when it's OTT groping exhibitionism intended to provoke. Is it any more acceptable for me to respond by walking over, caressing my balls and initiating a conversation "Hi, how are you two doing?" No, that would clearly be "perversion" and "sexual exhibitionism" without any admission of hypocrisy.

        I saw headlines about the "homophobia" but I can't believe this is what they actually went after Joy Reid for and I'd have more respect for her if she'd simply stood her ground.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday April 30, @02:35PM (3 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday April 30, @02:35PM (#673744) Homepage

        You're probably anti-sex, asexual, or just prudish.

        Me, if I see somebody else snogging in public, or even doing more than that, I'm probably going to think either "Meh, whatever, just keep doing what I'm doing" or "That looks hot, I wonder if they'll let me join in", depending on how attracted I am to the people involved.

        --
        A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 30, @06:19PM (2 children)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday April 30, @06:19PM (#673847)

          Yeah, I have to agree, it depends on how attractive the people involved are. If they're hot, then it's a turn-on. If they're hideous, then it's gross.

          Following this line of reasoning, we should defer to the homophobes in a way, and create a law that only attractive people are allowed to marry.... (this might not go so well for the homophobes though).

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday April 30, @09:49PM (1 child)

            by Thexalon (636) on Monday April 30, @09:49PM (#673938) Homepage

            I don't think it's gross that people I'm not attracted to are enjoying each others' bodies, I just don't care.

            --
            A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 01, @12:43PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday May 01, @12:43PM (#674120)

              I don't think it's gross, and just don't care, if I can't see it. It's when I have to see ugliness that I'm grossed out. Of course, that doesn't mean I advocate any restrictions on them; that's my issue, not theirs.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @12:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @12:46PM (#673691)

      Don't know about most but both of those statements apply to me - I cringe at the sight of two men kissing and find it gross.

      I can't think of a straight guy that feels different. If I did, I would eye him as someone who has not yet "come out."

      In fact, even in lesbian porn, rubbing of vaginas bores me. I don't care if that's homophobic or phillic - I was born this way!

      I have to admit that two women going at it in porn excites me. HOWEVER, that is the magic of movies and reality probably would not stand up well to fantasy. Most of the lesbians I've met IRL, I wouldn't even care to watch in straight porn.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Atatsu on Monday April 30, @02:33PM

      by Atatsu (4251) on Monday April 30, @02:33PM (#673743)

      Just watch all of True Blood. It'll get you quite used to watching dudes make out.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 30, @07:20PM (8 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @07:20PM (#673870) Journal

      Got news for you, gay girls don't like watching guys kiss either, or at least this one doesn't. And tribadism, the term you're looking for when you *meant* to say "rubbing of vulvas," doesn't actually feel that great in and of itself. If you want to understand lesbian lovemaking, just remember this rule: "What straight men call foreplay *is* sex."

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30, @08:45PM (2 children)

        With the caveat that hetero foreplay is somewhat less likely overall to involve aftermarket products, yes. I wouldn't normally teach my grandmother to suck eggs but I feel fairly justified in agreeing with you since this is a matter I have done considerable study upon.

        --
        "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 30, @09:13PM (1 child)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @09:13PM (#673924) Journal

          Somehow I seriously, seriously doubt that last sentence...

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 01, @12:40AM

            The teaching grandma to suck eggs part, yes? Because putting considerable research into lesbian mating practices is a well known hetero male pursuit. Granted, most of us aren't particular that the material we're reviewing be genuine. I've long since soured on most paid portrayals though.

            --
            "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
      • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 01, @03:15AM (4 children)

        by cubancigar11 (330) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 01, @03:15AM (#674022) Homepage Journal

        If you want to understand lesbian lovemaking

        You lost me...

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 01, @04:28AM (3 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 01, @04:28AM (#674036) Journal

          Yeah, no surprise there. If you're straight or bisexual and you have a girlfriend/wife, I truly pity her. Because, and I'll let you have this one for free, lesbians do what straight men ought to be doing with their partners.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 01, @10:36AM

            Hopefully, anyway. It's not really a complex notion. If you want repeat business, give good service.

            --
            "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
          • (Score: 0, Troll) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 01, @10:41AM (1 child)

            by cubancigar11 (330) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 01, @10:41AM (#674103) Homepage Journal

            Funny enough, I actually charge money for imparting my knowledge and it has helped men more than whatever confused lesbos have been peddling for decades. Anyway... bye bye.

            • (Score: 2, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 02, @03:51AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 02, @03:51AM (#674438) Journal

              Sounds like I hit a nerve, Kyuubey...have a nice life, you walking trashfire.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday April 30, @12:07PM

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @12:07PM (#673684) Homepage Journal

    I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. Political correctness has gone much too far. I've been challenged by so many people and I don't, frankly, have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time, either. We have to stop being so politically correct in this country. We can’t afford to be politically correct anymore. So many Americans are seeing that. And taking a stand against political correctness. Against many kinds of correctness.

    Personally, I like the gays. The ones that are healthy (AIDS). They do good work, they keep themselves clean. Smelling nice. And when I'm moving on a woman, they don't cock block. Some folks don't like the gays, and that's fine. @VP [twitter.com] Pence won't touch them with a 10-foot pole. And there's nothing wrong with that.

    --
    #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
  • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday April 30, @12:18PM (1 child)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @12:18PM (#673689) Homepage Journal

    She said "Trump is an authoritarian of the FIRST ORDER, and he’s behaving like one." And she said "It seems Donald Trump has the tools of authoritarianism down. He has the dance of authoritarianism DOWN TO A SCIENCE." Thank you, Joy!!!!

    --
    #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday April 30, @01:02PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @01:02PM (#673701)

      Clown world is nobody can tell if that's a parody or a direct quote, or merely a paraphrase of the 24x7 coverage of Trump since the election on CNN and MSNBC. And that, in itself, is excellent salesmanship for Trump, the crazier the other side is expected to be, the more rational and sane he appears. As long as his tweets are less than 10% as weird as TV legacy media is all day long, he's golden.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday April 30, @03:20PM (5 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30, @03:20PM (#673765)

    This whole thread is a tangent when the real story is that she is an establishment Democrat ( https://resistancereport.com/politics/joy-reid-bernie-supporters/ [resistancereport.com] ) and as much as I'm a lefty type, I still believe that people should be able to express their thoughts without such being the end of their life on earth, but Reid is part of the group making that impossible and so to see her getting eaten by the monster she helped create is beautiful. Much schadenfreude.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @04:16PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @04:16PM (#673788)

      Not to ruin your schadenfreude, but the idea of ruining someone's life over their personal beliefs or traits is not a new thing created by Democrats. The religious section of the US has routinely come down quite hard on gays, minorities, socialist opinions, or even just having the wrong flavor of christianity.

      I wish we could go back to the news of the 70s/80s where professionalism was a thing. The arguing, yelling, and straight up school yard stupidity that goes on these days is depressing.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 30, @07:05PM (3 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday April 30, @07:05PM (#673861)

        Yeah, it's kinda weird looking back at the 70s, as it was a decade of contrasts. On one hand, the crime rate was through the roof, and America's sense of aesthetics was absolutely horrid (just look at the cars from the time, and don't forget the nasty shag carpets), but they sure engineered some amazing stuff back then (Moon missions etc.) and the journalism of the time was probably the best.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 01, @03:22AM (2 children)

          by cubancigar11 (330) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 01, @03:22AM (#674023) Homepage Journal

          Shag carpets should have been the sign for upcoming snowflake generation.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @08:16PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @08:16PM (#674296)

            Oddly enough it turns out the boomers are way more sensitive and irrational, hence why they latch on to "millenials!" as their explanation for why everything is going to shit. Sorry bud, your generation fucked everything up and we poor millenials are now having to pick up the ball and fix things. Sadly we're still blocked by the older generation who installed Trump, the young were once again disenfranchised by HRC pushing out Sanders.

            Go ahead, make your jokes, we're just waiting for you to die off and unblock civilization with your brainwashed bullshit.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @06:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, @06:18PM (#673846)

    Re: "She hired a cybersecurity expert to see if her former blog had been manipulated, she said, but "the reality is, they have not been able to prove it."

    Likely result:

    Consultants: "Okay, can we see your backup tapes?"

    Shop: "Uh, we...don't make...backups."

    Consultants: "I think we're done here."

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @12:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, @12:41AM (#673974)

    1. This was a news host who was caught making up a fake story. What else has she been lying to you about?

    2. The posts were not homophobic, but the news coverage is slanted pure bollocks to imply that they are a scandal. What's with these reporters?

    3. She went out of her way to make up a bullshit story when she had nothing to apologise for. What pressure was she under and from whom, or is she always like this?

    4. What is going on at the news station that ended with this person getting a job?

(1)