Tuesday, February 22, 2022

To trust Google

Consider this.  I was checking the definition of 'grifter', just to make sure.  It's one of those words you know, but when I saw it used in a comment on another website, I wanted to make sure it was used appropriately before I responded.  You know, make sure there was no nuance or alternate definition running about. 

Anyway, I put grifter in Google.  The word immediately popped up.  I was going to type in 'definition' just to get the proper entry when, lo and behold, what to my wondering eyes did appear but this:

See that?  That pop up came out of nowhere showing four images related to grifter. Elizabeth Holmes was charged with major fraud.  The show and movie that showed up both involve plots or characters described as dishonest or actually as a grifter.  

Put Candace Owens?  How did she come up in the sidebar with just the word 'Grifter' in the search engine? I tried to find any case where some list of articles labeled her a grifter, or something in her biography where she says she was once a professional grifter.  

I was unable to locate anything.  Maybe I'm missing something.  Maybe others who know more about Ms. Owens know exactly why she considers herself a grifter, or there is some official title of grifter that has been given to her.  Otherwise, I'm at a loss.  That is, I'm at a loss if I ignore the likely reason. 


  1. Ok so let me explain...

    No, there is too much, let me sum up.

    First, obvious point that anybody who makes money around movements nowadays can and will be called grifters. Often times just as much by people on the same side as on the opposite.

    So once upon a time Candace Owens wanted to create this project called "Social Autopsy." Believe it or not, at this time she was on the left and the idea of the project was to catch and shame trolls to put an end to their troublesome behavior. This was around the time of gamergate so needless to say there's a lot of intense feelings about this time period and a whole lot out there depending upon perspective.

    Now Candace's side of the story is that she was attempting this project to help the women attacked by the movement when one of them contacted her begging her to not do the project. Candace refused and then claimed after she did so she began getting trolled and harassed. She feels quite certain it was by those same people she was trying to help, meaning that quite possibly a lot of the "trolling" at this time was self-inflicted.

    Two articles on this from opposite sides.

    Essentially her experience in this incident set her on the path of conversion from generally leftist to on the right. From here, it is my opinion she's entered a feedback loop. She was gaining popularity on the right for her conversion (plus as AOC has proven, being fairly attractive helps too), which led to the left hating her more, so then she grows even MORE popular on the right and so on.

    That is the larger debate. Those who know of her origin ask if the conversion is genuine or is she feigning being on the right for money and attention? (And of course since the Left believes nobody can honestly disagree with them, automatically assume she's doing it for money and attention.)

    More info can be provided if needed, but that should hopefully be a decent overview.

    1. I remember her making waves some years ago when she came out against the BLM narrative and was ripped apart for her troubles. Some of the things said about her would have been labeled sexist and racist if said by conservatives against a pro-BLM black woman. Once again exposing the general hypocrisy and lack of actual concern for non-conforming minority groups. With that said, I can't put my finger on what her gig is. Granted, I don't follow her or listen to her much. Often I'm seeing reaction to her by her detractors. So she's saying send troops into Canada today. A week or so ago, people were saying she claimed the moon landings were a hoax. Don't know how true it is, but sometimes you can't help but wonder.

    2. I'm starting to call it "forced conversion."

      Like one of the concerns with Trump - heck it was one of mine when he first started running - is that he would be so intent on making deals that the left would basically finagle and compromise with him into getting everything they wanted anyway. Then they apparently went off the deep end, declared compromise haram, and demanded all or nothing. They way ended up pushing Trump further right than he would have been in an earlier year.

      I don't really wonder, I think something is similar at work with Candace. She's obviously not a born & bred right-winger, sometimes she still reverts back to her old left-wing style of thinking. But then the left will just go so crazy and unhinged on her she'll get pushed more and more right.

    3. As I said, I don't really follow the professional pundit profession one way or another, so I can't really say. I do remember her getting grilled for challenging the BLM narrative and that's when I took notice. But she seems, perhaps, more of a liability than an asset. One of those who if she was a liberal would be ignored by the press. Which is something I sometimes think about. If this conservative was a liberal, would the press be elevating them or ignoring them?

    4. The press will only ever elevate the worst conservative and the best liberal - that's what bias means. We can do simple searches to prove it. Pick someone who you like, pick someone you consider an asset and not a liability and we can do some searches & comparisons of how often they show up in reports compared to Candace or anyone else.

      I mean I like Larry Elder a lot (got one of his books) and when he ran for governor of California they called him the black face of white supremacy while dressing up as a gorilla and throwing stuff at him. Heck as some of my links should show, the press was liking Candace when she was originally a liberal and going after the targets they liked until that changed.

  2. She wrote something which bothered some nosepicker in the apparat at Google. Switch to Duck Duck Go.

    1. Unfortunately DuckDuckGo may not be a "good guy" for long...

      I can't believe it but I've had increasing luck with bing of late.

      We'll know the world is really ending when askjeeves returns.

    2. Never heard of that one. Like Nate said, it may only delay the inevitable.

  3. Google bombing is a thing. It has been for some time. So no, it is not safe to trust Google without engaging your mind. But then, it is not safe mindlessly to trust the Encyclopedia Brittanica, either, nor the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Even the Bible, though trustworthy, requires thought, or we'd all be lacking at least one hand and at least one eye.

    1. Oh sure, that goes without saying. But there is a difference between the Bible, which requires thought, and Mein Kampf, which requires honesty about its reliability. No amount of thought will make that any more reliable. While the Bible, or Britannica (depending on the date of publication) will generally be enhanced by engaging one's mind. I'd say with Google, no matter how you engage intellectually, it's purposeful bias and agendas means you will never be in a state to trust its mechanisms.

    2. Yeah the problem with google (and related) is that they've learned the secret is not to say "this book is bad" but to pretend the book doesn't exist.


    3. And yet your blog is a free service provided by Google.

    4. Yep. Life's full of ironies. I don't particularly trust car salesman, yet I keep buying cars from them.


Let me know your thoughts