Policy Director at the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office - why did they bury this pretty important conflict of interest information. Slate letting fucking cops write Copaganda disguising it as pro left reporting / opinions.

acab-3

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 34 points 3 months ago

Conflict of interests do not exist when publishing propaganda for the ruling class.

[+] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's called burying the lede. It should have been disclosed up front.

Burying the lede refers to the practice of hiding the most important and relevant information within a story, often by placing it towards the end or burying it beneath less crucial details. This technique can be used intentionally to manipulate the narrative or unintentionally due to poor storytelling.

[+] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I did read the article. It's copagada. Should I conclude anything else? Tightening the noose of the survailence state run by people whose life mission is to suck us dry and destory any leftist

IMO Slate, as an org, should have disclosed it next to her name in the header [Name, Profession, Disclosure, then the yadda yadda] as in traditional practice instead of 3 paragraphs down after some exposition. They knew people don't like cops, especially it's intended audience, so they need a hook to get you invested first so you don't dissmiss it outright which it should be anyways.

She's litterally a cop trying to "we hear you we see you" gaslight us into being comfortable a totalitarian surveillance state that historicallly has and is continued to be used against us on the left. I don't need to go into a long ass tirade about the history - especially in American context.

You may have a difference of opinion on that but doesn't mean you get to throw around "Well you just didn't read the article". No I read it and disagreed with the way it's presented and it's conclusions. I wanted people to know this piece is coming from a cop and should be looked at with scrutiny or scoffed at as it should be. Or as OP posted for - dunking and scoffing.

We've heard all her bullshit before "the benifets outwight the risks" maybe-later-kiddo be pragmatic. Yeah i remeber how much life SUCKS in this country post 9/11 and the damned PATRIOT Act. I have sworn off NY State, Texas, Illinois, Florida, most of California just because it is fucking creepy and fucked up. I stay in the house. Even when I do stay in the house all my electronics have backdoors and zero days. They can use my wifi to see in the house everywhere I go. They know everything I type, all the port I violate my Volcel Oath with. Every password. Everythin I say.

I don't want cameras everywhere tracking my every move slappped into a Skynet Minority Report precrime system. Just because we can doesn't mean we should especially given the trajectory of how it's been going so far with secret department and secret laws ans secret programs and "oh we would never" except after 20 years disclose "yeah we really were the whole time so we need this new security law to make the illegal unconstitutional shit we were doing legal to cover our asses".

Edit - oh and the State will magically turn them off, have things break, disappear, or destroyed if it has anything to do with embarssing or incriminating them. Aka Seth Rich who leaked DNC, Hillary emails guned down in one of the most survailed cities (DC) no clue to his assailant, or Jeffery Epstien under suicide watch in prison.

I wonder why people don't trust cops? Well if we can't rely on people because we have fucked our reputation then we're just going to take and do whatever and here's how that's a good thing and won't make things worse. jagoff