Regrettably, I cannot source this so I consider it a rumor. Hopefully, someone else can actually find the case.
The story is that a bestselling author sued the NYT stating his bestselling book was not on their list of bestsellers, and the NYT's defense was their list of bestselling books was not intended to be a list of bestselling books.
I posted this a ways back. The case in question was when William Blatty (author of
The Exorcist) sued the NYT for excluding his book, claiming that they were harming him economically by not putting him on when his book was selling well enough to earn him a spot. The Times' defense was that the Bestseller List was an "editorial product" and protected speech as (basically) an opinion piece. This defense held up all the way to the Supreme Court and still stands to this day.
I have no idea how something called the "Bestseller list" can be interpreted by a reasonable person as something other than "a list of best sellers," but I'm inclined to think that, like the "actual malice" standard, the courts carving out special exceptions for the press is just one corrupt institution doing favors for another (change my mind.)
Hmm, now I wonder why oh why this would ever be a problem for her. Also, fun to note, if she'd gone through with her pregnancy, her child (She said it was a girl in the documentary but I don't know if she actually knew and was just guessing) would be twelve this year.
View attachment 2030199
Refresh my memory, but aren't the BreadTube crowd atheists or some really squishy minority religion (Islam, Judaism) if they need more intersectional Pokemon Points? They seem pretty much opposed to any kind of serious religious/metaphysical thought.
What I'm saying is that Linday shouldn't believe in souls
at all, so her getting her granny panties in a twist over the portrayal of something that she doesn't believe exists just because it acknowledges the views of people she disagrees with... christ, how self-centered can you get? It's even better when you remember that she claims to be a serious critic, but won't even engage a piece of fiction because she doesn't like how a fictional metaphysical construct is implemented. Way to do your job.
You have to love the contempt the modern political discourse has created.
I can hear her voice and the spite in it at the mention of "Pro Life Crowd".
The Right is guilty of this too. Hell I'm guilty of it. I'm just sick of this constant "FUCK THOSE DIRTY PIGS" attitude that everyone seems to have these days.
Defection cycles suck like that. The only thing worse is
not defecting, which is why the American right manages to be simultaneously immense and powerless.
I thought the point of the ending was "the future is what you make of it", which is why they didn't show wat happened to Joe or 22.
Here's the thing: Lindsay and other leftists have a complete fundamental failure to understand how people can like, much less not hate, the things they despise. Some on the right have that too, but there are times where the right can at least concede how the thing they hate can be appealing to some. The left can't do that so they feel everything they hate needs to be destroyed straight away and replaced with their ideal things.
If you believe Haidt's moral foundations theory, that's exactly what's happening: WEIRD liberals exist in only two moral dimensions, while conservatives (even WEIRD ones) have those two plus the remaining three/four. Basically, right-wingers can understand left-wing moral values, but the reverse isn't true (this is supported by ideological Turing tests going all the way back to the 70s.) So to people like Lindsay, a moral judgment that doesn't reference her stunted moral system looks like insanity and/or evil, which is probably one of the reasons they constantly attribute ulterior motives to people who disagree with them.
