19 Comments
User's avatar
John Didrichsen's avatar

This article characterizes what Internet Dad Scott Adams (RIP) termed "One Screen, Two Movies". People with polar opposite political views see the same video of Renee Good being shot to death and come to starkly different conclusions. Those in political tribes have developed their partisan brain muscles to such an extent that they can instantly download their sides' conclusions into their pre-frontal cortexes and commence shouting, nuance be damned.

Someone should put partisans in separate rooms and show the same controversial video, then poll viewers about their thoughts on camera. Afterwards, show the other side's thoughts to each group. Finally, put them all in the same room and show the controversial video again.

Would this enlighten anyone? I'm skeptical.

doug's avatar
Jan 22Edited

"a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." Simon and Garfunkel.

I think of this line often today. Its pretty sad to think that its by and large true

Just Too Cold's avatar

It wouldn’t matter if we were all looking at the same “screen”. Every time I ask a question about an article, I get an angry teenager type answer & blocked. They want to believe whatever crap they are fed.

Michele T Fry's avatar

Obviously, free speech without rules is untenable. Bring back libel laws. Require a permit to protest in public places. Authorize inn keepers, preachers and business managers to oust troublemakers without further ado. Do your protesting in designated areas.

Society without a common core of values is unstable, including the sanctity of privacy and property. Put them on a poster. Install them in every public place. Teach them to our children in public schools. Let this be a voice everyone hears.

News media where every voice is an anchor, is just a cacophony of noise . . . a "primal scream", driving everyone to madness., and apart from each other.

Humans have not evolved to the point where strong leadership, and serious consequences for misbehaving, can be done away with. For example, every single protester who broke into that church should do jail time, pay a steep fine (including Don Lemon). They all challenge the basic tenets we in America live by, and are enemies of human prosperity and personal happiness.

doug's avatar

In todays world, if you did a story on Pearl Harbor showing the pics of the people who attacked, it would be considered racist.

Running Burning Man's avatar

Listeners: Go to the text version off this article. Some of the comments Arte spicy and Taibbi does a great job of swatting them down,

Joey Lafferty's avatar

Can’t wait for Matt to divert once again from the murder that happened in Minnesota today. Was good hearing Sam Harris on his recent podcast call out Matt specifically and his type generally. The “I can’t cover and have an opinion on EVERYTHING” presentation (we see ya buddy, you’re not clever) as we get articles about state flags and the occasional false equivalency. Keep lining your pockets dude, just stop placing yourself above a lot of the hacks you mock on the regular. You’re one in the same.

Would love to know Matt’s thoughts on RFK’s “medical expertise” and the long term damage being done, but we’d get a huge article about big pharma greed (yes they are greedy, but it doesn’t change the fact that RFK has no idea what he is talking about… see how that works ;) ).

Karen's avatar

Still can’t admit that you were sooooo wrong in 2024 and that Trump is an incompetent moron? That he’s losing his mind and needs to be hauled off by nice men in white coats to a nursing home where he can rot to death peacefully? The man you voted for because you detest everything even vaguely female and want women eliminated from public life doesn’t know the difference between Iceland and Greenland and has made a complete fool of himself and the United States on the world stage this week.

Honestly I hope you’re getting paid by Putin because the thought that an adult American could prefer Trump to.Harris is too humiliating to bear.

P.S.'s avatar

Her own party didn't want her..

Karen's avatar

And yet you think Dementia Don and his gang of murderous Nazis are great.

P.S.'s avatar

How does that change my comment?

Karen's avatar

You’re a Trumper. You have zero moral authority and deserve only contempt.

P.S.'s avatar

How does that change my comment? You people didn't want Kamala when she ran. Now you whine..I'll take contempt over stupid any day .

Karen's avatar

All Trumpers are stupid. If you weren’t all bigoted nitiwts you wouldn’t be Trumpers.

Dick Minnis's avatar

Just for the record: The 2002 Homeland Security Act which created ICE also authorized "warrantless seraches" for ICE agents. You can debate the necessity or value but not the legality of "warrantless searches".

Dick Minnis

removingthecataract.substack.com

Scott Lawton's avatar

Regardless of what the written law is, how does it withstand a 4th Amendment challenge?

Dick Minnis's avatar

I agree that the 4th Ammendment is critical. The distinction is that a warrantless arrest is actually based on a nonjudicial warrant issued by immigration authorities. Case law is currently being decided through numerous lawsuits working their way towards the Supreme Court. Here's a good reference: https://reason.com/volokh/2026/01/22/can-ice-enter-a-home-to-make-an-arrest-with-only-an-administrative-warrant/. An Illinois judge, Jeffrey I. Cummings, extended a 2022 consent decree that restricts ICE from making warrantless arrests without documented probable cause and evidence of escape risk, So that judge thought it acceptable under restricted parameters which I thought reasonable. However, I would also state it's a gray area that bears careful watching and also SCOTUS needs to weigh in.

Dick Minnis

removingthecataract.substack.com

Scott Lawton's avatar

Thank you. But, God Almighty, I need a journalist's account of the events of each case underlying the abstracted principles Volokh shows swirling in legal arguments. I won't trouble you for that. I'm just saying how complex it gets, so I'll wait to see what the Supremes say, although I don't feel sanguine about it.