SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 At least some of the examples of allegedly fraudulent posts provided to us had been archived at different dates and by different entities.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.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30 2018, @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?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30 2018, @06:13PM (2 children)
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
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 2018, @08:32PM
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.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30 2018, @08:38PM
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.