100 people to to the doctor and get an opioid after a procedure. About 95 will never use again.
A lot of us are exposed to extremist content. Most of us don’t get radicalized.
An extremely important point that seems to be completely missed in the discussion of disinformation.
We are exclusively focused on the *supply chain*. We neglect the *demand* for this content.
The truth is that people searched for an excuse, or opening, to be radicalized.
Keep in mind: Hitler launched the campaign of lies and evil that brought the Holocaust in an age when the Internet was yet to be even dreamed of.
— Brent Staples (@BrentNYT) January 11, 2021
100 people to to the doctor and get an opioid after a procedure. About 95 will never use again.
A lot of us are exposed to extremist content. Most of us don’t get radicalized.
So maybe the question is less about how they got the supply and more why they find it so appealing.
That’s tougher.
But again drugs suggest that those quick supply cuts don’t work.
When you cut supply, people who want drugs *will* find drugs — and often more dangerous drugs.
This is where my insight ends.
More from For later read
I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
Stephens goes on in his column (which never saw light of day) to cite famous Lee Atwater quote that uses racial slur, and which NYT has cited \u201cat least seven times.\u201d
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
"Is this now supposed to be a scandal?\u201d he asks.
...
Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB
That is correct. In his draft he quotes Atwater using the word (4 times) and he does not redact it.
— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 11, 2021
For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.
That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.
In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
