Reason Roundup

Everyone Got the Dutch Teen 'Euthanasia' Story Wrong

Plus: Oakland decriminalizes mushrooms, and the ethics of "doxxing"

|

Yes, The Netherlands allows physician-assisted suicide in certain circumstances. But 17-year-old Noa Pothoven's tragic story of sexual assault and subsequent mental health problems did not come to an end with the state permitting a doctor to kill her—despite what many in English-language media have reported.

Pothoven did indeed apply with a clinic for The Netherlands' legal euthanasia process, but physicians reportedly denied her request, saying she was too young, her brain was not fully developed yet, and she should try more trauma treatment first.

Her recent death came after a long struggle with anorexia and depression, in which the teen ultimately refused to consume food, water, or anything to keep her alive.

News of this tragedy reached international audiences via a flurry of media reports that implied or outright said that the state had officially granted Pothoven's euthanasia application. But initial reports in Dutch media said no such thing, as POLITICO Europe reporter Naomi O'Leary was the first to point out.

Outlets such as The Daily Mail (London), The Daily Beast, and EuroNews "are all wrong," tweeted O'Leary. On Wednesday morning "It took me about 10 mins to check with the reporter who wrote the original Dutch story."

The Dutch reporter, Paul Bolwerk of De Gelderlander, wrote in a lengthy 2018 profile of Pothoven that she had previously requested legal euthanasia without her parents' knowledge but was turned down. Many on social media have been shaming the parents for allegedly "allowing" her to go through state-sanctioned assisted suicide; they did no such thing.

Hurling insults at Pothoven's poor parents is only one strain of the strange moral panic and tribal vitriol that this story quickly spawned.

Conservative writer David Marcus suggested the story was emblematic of the divide between newly popular Catholic theocrats and more traditional conservatives like David French, positing both that the very pro-life French and others like him would roll over for pro-teen euthanasia policies in America and that this will likely be on the liberal agenda soon.

Not only is that all bizarre and unlikely, it bears no relation to what actually happened in this extremely sad story that everyone wants to paint their culture war all over.

As Bolwerk's original story noted, and O'Leary summarized: "The family had tried many kinds of psychiatric treatment and Noa Pothoven was repeatedly hospitalised; she made a series of attempts to kill herself in recent months. In desperation the family sought electro shocktherapy, which was refused due to her young age."

Pothoven—who had been sexually assaulted as an 11- and 14-year-old and wrote a book about her struggles afterward—was set up with in-home care but, at the beginning of this month, began to refuse all food and fluids. After watching her struggle and trying so many different options for years ("we have tried everything," they told Bolwerk), her parents made what was surely a heart-wrenching decision not to keep her alive through force-feeding.

Decisions like these have long been controversial, and surely many will still disagree with (but can hopefully find compassion for) her parents and doctors in this situation. But as O'Leary pointed out, "a decision to move to palliative care and not to force feed at the request of the patient is not euthanasia. Dutch media did not report Noa Pothoven's death as a case of euthanasia. This idea only appeared in English language pickups of Dutch reporting."

Ultimately, we have an anorexic and depressed survivor of sexual assault, near legal adulthood, who chose to stop struggling and her parents who, after exhausting many options, chose to accept that. Whatever you think of that, please stop politicizing this private tragedy.

FREE MINDS

How much privacy can we rightfully expect? Writer and Reason contributor Cathy Young asks an interesting question about media versus social media culture and the expectations of online activists and content creators.

FREE MARKETS

Shrooms OK in Oakland. Following Denver's lead, the city of Oakland, California, just moved to decriminalize the consumption or possession of hallucinogenic mushrooms and their ilk. "The City Council voted unanimously to decriminalize the adult use and possession of magic mushrooms and other entheogenic, or psychoactive, plants and fungi," reports NBC News.

Advertisement

NEXT: Rutgers Defunds Student Paper Because Referendum Turnout Was Too Low

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Everyone Got the Dutch Teen ‘Euthanasia’ Story Wrong

    It’s what the internet is for.

    1. “DutchTeen Euthanasia” was our band name in college.

      We weren’t good…

      1. It was a dead end.

    2. Hello.

      Either way. Sad story.

      1. I don’t get permitting her to die but prohibiting shock therapy. Maybe slip some shroom tea in that IV?

        1. People shouldn’t need permission from the government for stuff like this.

          Free people anyway.

          1. You only need government permission if you ask for it. I will never ask if I decide it is my time to go.

        2. mdma saves the day.

        3. It’s outright malpractice. Electroconvulsive therapy is the gold-standard therapy for persistent treatment-resistant severe depression.

          But I suspect the malpractice was political malpractice, a law or regulation that prohibited a minor getting it, enacted by politicians whose view of ECT was formed by One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

          1. It had a very good outcome in Death Wish II

    3. What do The Netherlands have to do with youth in Asia anyway?

    4. It’s what plants crave.

    5. We can’t believe our media and there is no reason to trust the media of other nations that either especially since there media is controlled by government regulations

      1. So what should we do? Just assume that we are absolutely ignorant of anything we don’t personally experience?

  2. In this case, I’m not sure what the guy was doing counts as “public life.”

    An attack on the good name of one of our political leaders is an attack on us all! (Even if no one seriously believed the video was genuine.)

    1. I propose all legislators must perform a field sobriety test and blow into a Portable Breath Test device before making any public appearance. It’s the only way we can be sure whether a video is doctored or not.

      1. Lives are at stake!

    2. The media’s mini moral panic over someone dating to mock Pelosi because it was a prominent female Democrat being ridiculed is the actual concern here.

      If it was a member of of any other party this was done to, it is hard to imagine them working themselves into such a state of dudgeon.

      1. And Reason falls right into line with the rest of the journo-activists. Off with his wrong thinking head!

  3. The City Council voted unanimously to decriminalize the adult use and possession of magic mushrooms and other entheogenic, or psychoactive, plants and fungi…

    Oakland puts the fun in fungi.

    1. Serious question: Are only the plants per se decriminalized? For instance, will you still be jailed for cocaine?

      1. If mushroom tea is decriminalized then why not?

  4. Do you have a right to be an online activist and maintain anonymity?

    are we talking “right” as in protected by government? or “right” as in protected by common decency? seems like there would be very clear differences in answers, here.

    1. You cannot expect left leaning reporters to have common decency for those who disrupt the Narrative.

      1. Getting stomped, deservedly, in the culture war seems to have made you cranky, Mickey Rat. How do you expect to prevail in political debates if you are unpleasant and on the wrong side of history?

        1. Being on the “right” side of history has meant being on the side that wishes to stomp on human faces forever. I am not so arrogant as to want to be a part of that.

          I will stand with those athwart history, yelling “stop!”.

        2. Hey Kirkland, I’ve been meaning to ask…would you mind listing a couple of urban areas you consider to be “on the right side of history”?

        3. “Getting stomped, deservedly”

          Always about advocating violence with you.

        4. Kirkland: There is no sentient jar of gall bladders of failed dictators behind the curtain! Continue to speak to the puppet head. Clingers!

    2. or “right” as in protected from Trump’s mean tweets against journalists?

  5. please stop politicizing this private tragedy.

    FTFY

    1. Are you trying to put Twitter out of business?

      1. Now, *that* would be a tragedy!

    1. Online distribution will do that.

  6. “The House voted Tuesday to protect so-called Dreamers and establish a path to citizenship for more than 2 million immigrants without legal status.”

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/446970-house-passes-bill-to-protect-dreamers

    I’m sure “principled” pro-immigration people around here are mortified at this–since they believe in the “principle” that Congress has no legitimate right to weigh in on immigration policy–no matter what the Constitution says.

    Oppose a bill that would cut $772 billion from a socialist entitlement program like Medicaid because you’re opposed to ObamaCare on principle.

    Refuse to vote for the candidate that will prevent an authoritarian socialist from taking the White House because you’re a principled libertarian capitalist.

    Oppose Congress when it exercises its constitutional powers to give Dreamers a pathway to citizenship–because the right to cross our borders is incompatible with democracy on principle.

    Isn’t that how it works?

    With “principled” libertarian thinking around here, who needs progressives or socialists?

    1. Pro immigration Libertarians have one principle; let the alien into the country no matter what. Everything else is just fluff.

      1. I consider myself to be pro-immigration on principle.

        I just don’t consider the idea that naturalization policy shouldn’t be set by Congress as a reflection of the voters’ will to be a libertarian principle at all. Quite the opposite!

        That’s what I was trying to get at.

        There isn’t anything principled about a libertarian capitalist refusing to vote for Trump if he’s the best way to prevent an authoritarian socialist to take the White House. I’m such a principled libertarian capitalist that I won’t vote to stop authoritarian socialism is a total betrayal of principle–if you oppose authoritarian socialism on principle, you should vote for Donald Trump and set your pride aside.

        Same thing with immigration. Those creeping around the comments section here who oppose Congress setting immigration policy on “principle” are only supporting the principle of inflicting an immigration policy on the American people over their objections and against their will. Just to demonstrate, I suspect their objection to Congress getting involved breaks down when Congress is passing immigration policies they like. In contrast, I support Congress’ rightful place in setting immigration policy–even when they set policies that I oppose.

        That’s what really being principled looks like.

        1. Being principled looks different depending on what the principles are.

          1. If you’re betraying the principle of opposing authoritarian socialism and claim it’s because you’re a principled libertarian capitalist, then the principle involved is quite clear.

            If you oppose what the Constitution says about the separation of powers on principled grounds–but only when Congress is doing something you don’t like–then the principle involved is quite clear.

            People betraying their principles is not generally a matter of perspective when the only apparent excuses for betraying their principles are pride and a childish desire for purity–neither of which are principled at all.

            Being principled is about sticking to your ideals even when there’s a steep price to pay for them. Being principled is not about abandoning your principles because they require you to do something that makes you uncomfortable.

        2. Those creeping around the comments section here who oppose Congress setting immigration policy on “principle” are only supporting the principle of inflicting an immigration policy on the American people over their objections and against their will.

          The thing is if you think of freedom of association as a natural right, then it deserves to be inflicted against the will of the American people. It’s amazing that someone that claims to believe in positive rights could even make the argument of populism or democracy as something that’s a greater goal than individual freedom.

          Believing in individual freedom, even when it’s not popular, is what I consider “really being principled looks like.”

          1. I fully support freedom of association–even with non-citizens.

            No, you can’t freely associate with people in prison or rather they can’t freely associate with you. If you want to freely associate with people in another country, you may need to go to that country.

            Regardless, setting immigration and naturalization polices is within the proper purview of democracy with declaring war among other things. These few things are places where democracy is essential to the functioning of a free society. No, you cannot inflict a war on the American people over their objections and without their consent by way of their representatives in Congress. Immigration and naturalization polices are the same way.

            I can oppose wars that are properly declared by Congress, and I can oppose immigration and naturalization policies that are properly passed by Congress and signed by the president, too. Just because we don’t like a war or a policy is no reason to pretend that Congress and democracy aren’t necessary in certain areas if we’re to have a free society, and the “libertarians” who pretend their principles are such that they oppose the separation of powers and the proper purview of democracy are not principled at all–especially if they’re unwilling to condemn the House for passing naturalization polices they like.

            1. Regardless, setting immigration and naturalization polices is within the proper purview of democracy with declaring war among other things.

              Says you.

              Naturalization is most certainly a positive right. It requires me to acknowledge that you are a citizen and it requires government to grant you the privileges that come with it. Nobody is saying it’s not a proper role of federal government to regulate naturalization. In fact it’s explicit in the Constitution.

              Immigration is a negative right. Someone’s ability to cross a line somewhere requires no action from you or me. It’s not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and in fact was a power bestowed upon Congress through the courts.

              One need only separate the two — immigration is not naturalization — to find a principled solution that is based on individual liberty. Democrats refuse to do so, primarily because they would like to import more voters. Republicans refuse to do so, primarily because they lose the debate on welfare benefits if you simply take that off the table.

    2. I’m sure “principled” pro-immigration people around here are mortified at this–since they believe in the “principle” that Congress has no legitimate right to weigh in on immigration policy–no matter what the Constitution says.

      Is this where I point out that this bill is about naturalization which does not equal immigration? The dreamers have already immigrated, no? The entire question is about what to do with them now that they’re here, through whatever “fault” of their parents.

      You’re usually concerned with pragmatism. Extending a pathway to citizenship for the “Dreamers” is a pretty popular position, even among Republican voters. This hardly seems like the hill that Republicans should want to die on.

      1. By the way, the “principled” position should have been mortified by the Executive power grab of Obama to weigh in on naturalization policy with respect to the Dreamers. It’s a proper role of Congress to weigh in on such a matter, and a good opportunity to check the ever-expanding powers of the Executive.

      2. And we’re all so excited to pay for it. Three cheers for higher taxes to pay for the expanding welfare base!

        Libertarianing so hard right now

        1. Do you have data that shows Dreamer welfare participation vs native citizen? It would certainly be interesting to see.

          However, I would agree in general that we should reduce ALL welfare for citizens and non-citizens alike. Ideally we could get it to zero, so I think we have a common goal.

          Would you accept much more open immigration if the immigrants weren’t eligible for programs like food stamps, etc? Unfortunately, nobody seems to be proposing that, Republicans or Democrats, but it seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

          1. Would you accept much more open immigration if the immigrants weren’t eligible for programs like food stamps, etc?

            On the condition that said immigrants and their offspring to the third generation never advocated for welfare programs, with the penalty of deportation for doing so, sure.

            1. It’s interesting to me that Republicans push so much harder for limiting immigration over limiting welfare, especially when their stated position is that welfare is the problem.

              I guess stoking us vs them mentality on nationality is easier than on economic class given their rural voting base?

              1. It’s interesting to me that Republicans push so much harder for limiting immigration over limiting welfare, especially when their stated position is that welfare is the problem.

                Importing more welfare recipients doesn’t do much to help reduce welfare.

                1. When was the last time that Republicans even proposed welfare reforms? I seem to remember a couple of times where they controlled all of the government since the welfare reform in the mid-90s.

                  1. On that topic, I, personally, find it interesting that the last time that Congressional Republicans proposed welfare reforms, was when they teamed with Bill Clinton to almost pass a law but held off and watered it down because the catholic(whoops) moral majority members blinked because they were afraid that if you went all the way with cutting off AFDC a bunch of dirty sluts(whoops) low income women would decide to get abortions instead of having children that the rest of us would have to pay to raise.

                  2. That sort of proves my point, doesn’t it?

      3. “Is this where I point out that this bill is about naturalization which does not equal immigration? ”

        Imiigration is part of naturalization.

        ” The dreamers have already immigrated, no?”

        No. Immigrate doesn’t mean move. If you’re going to insist on hyper-literalism for “naturalization” you don’t get to discard it for “immigration”

        1. So you’re not a constitutional originalist?

        2. “Imiigration[sic] is part of naturalization.”

          No, it is not. There are thousands (if not millions, I admit I’m not exactly sure) of legal residents aliens who are living and working inb the USA who are not citizens and have absolutely no intention of ever becoming any such thing.

          Traditionally, the majority of those called “illegal aliens”, AKA, “wetbacks” who entered across the southern border had no intention of becoming permanent residents, let alone citizens. Mostly they came to earn high American wages for a few months or, possibly, a few years before returning to Mexico to live out the rest of their lives.

          Cracking down on border crossings has had the affect of many families crossing rather than individuals coming for a few months and returning when the big money ran out.

    3. You tell us, Ken. You are a principled pro-immigration person.

      1. I’m really mystified by his silence on further discussion on this subject, considering how verbose he generally is.

  7. “Florida ex-deputy faces charges over school-shooting inaction”
    […]
    “…Peterson, then a Broward County deputy, was on duty as the school resource officer during the February 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School but never went inside while bullets were flying. Seventeen people died and 17 others were wounded…”
    https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/jun/05/florida-ex-deputy-faces-charges-over-sc/

    If you are not willing to put yourself in harm’s way, why are you wearing that uniform and carrying that gun?

    1. Another source is a bit less circumspect:

      “TALLAHASSEE — Former Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson, who hid for 48 minutes while a gunman fired on Parkland students and teachers, was arrested Tuesday and will face criminal charges for failing to act during the school shooting.”
      https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2019/06/04/former-parkland-school-deputy-arrested-on-11-charges-tied-to-shooting-1041191

      Why, you might say he ‘cowerd’…

    2. I was skeptical of this until I remembered that most states make it a crime for a police officer to fail to make an arrest for a felony committed in their presense. Cops take the badge and the authority that comes with it but assume the criminal liability of not acting when necessary.

      1. It’s an interesting case because as I recall courts have explicitly ruled they don’t technically have a duty to protect you either. So I could see going either way. Bottom line is the man is a coward and had no business being a cop but if the police had standards of not being a coward there probably wouldn’t be too many cops.

        1. I think the difference here is that it involved minors. Remember, most states make it a crime to not report child abuse. So if it is a crime for a private party to stand by and do nothing in the presence of abuse of a child, it certainly is one for a police officer to do so.

      2. I thought SCOTUS ruled that police aren’t obligated to protect anybody (which kills dead the entire premise of gun control). If that is correct, he cannot possibly be convicted.

        …and nobody can say gun control is needed or a good idea.

        I love that David Hogg applauds this. When Dana Loesch mentioned this problem during the CNN Nazi Rally against guns, she was booed viciously for saying it.

        1. “I thought SCOTUS ruled that police aren’t obligated to protect anybody (which kills dead the entire premise of gun control). If that is correct, he cannot possibly be convicted”

          I believe that ruling only applies in cases where there is no law requiring them to do so.

  8. “Here’s a question: Do you have a right to be an online activist and maintain anonymity? My inclination would be to say no. You participate in public life, your identity is fair game. In this case, I’m not sure what the guy was doing counts as “public life.”

    —-Cathy Young

    I often disagree with Cathy Young, but I think I agree with her here.

    It’s just that if we’re talking about that, why not have a thread or a link to a story about the FTC coming to make Zuckerberg spin off Snapchat or the Justice Department coming after Google to make them spin off YouTube, etc.?

    Oh, and those of us who have been talking about the de-platforming and collusion angle, take a glance, sometime, at the people sitting on the board of Facebook.

    I know Thiel was an early investor in Facebook, a founder of PayPal, and neither of those things is a crime. That being said, if I’m a government regulator looking for evidence of collusion when PayPal and Facebook dump a content creator at the same time for the same reason, that relationship right there is the first one I’d want to understand. When the FTC investigates Facebook for collusion with entities like PayPal, if they don’t talk to the founder of PayPal–who’s currently sitting on the board of directors at Facebook–then they’re not doing their job.

    1. Young is as she often is completely wrong about that. Anonymity is a touchstone of free speech. If people cannot speak anonomously, they will not speak unpopular views. The whole point of free speech is to allow people to speak all views regardless of popularity. If you insist on people identify themselves, then truely unpopular views often won’t be spoken for fear of the harm that will befall the speaker.

      To give you an example, suppose a cop is sleeping in his car in front of my house and I see it. I really don’t feel like getting into a pissing match with the local police. So, I take a picture of it and put it on the internet anonomously. If I can’t do that as Young argues, then I am not going to do it because I really don’t want the entire local police force to have a reason to hassle me. That is just one example but you can think of tons of others.

      1. Not just wrong, but extremely biased. Who gets to define “online activist”? Media people like her, of course. How convenient! So, if you want to be anonymous, don’t do or say anything she doesn’t like.

        1. Exactly. If this guy is an “online activist” just who isn’t? What an elitist phony bitch.

        2. I’m not sure that revealing the truth should be illegal, certainly, and I think you do subject yourself to an assumption of risk.

          It’s like going after a candidate’s kids. If the candidate points to his kids and says that voters should support him because he’s been such a great father that his kids grew up to be fine, upstanding teenagers, then he opens the door to pointing out that his son killed someone at 17 while driving drunk and his drug addict daughter had two abortions before the age of 17.

          If you’re going after a politician, it’s probably not untoward for the opposition to try to find out who you are, and if your situation may have some impact on the criticism you made, I think that’s fair game. I mean, like payday lending, it’s not the most ethical thing in the world. Revealing something like that isn’t something I’d be proud of, but we’re not talking bout ethical people here.

          We’re mostly talking about journalists, and they have the ethics of reptiles anyway.

          1. Don’t you understand the chilling effect that has on people’s willingness to speak?

            If you’re going after a politician, it’s probably not untoward for the opposition to try to find out who you are, and if your situation may have some impact on the criticism you made

            That is just ad hominem. You can judge the validity of a statement without knowing the source. Moreover, this was satire. What difference does the name of the person doing it make?

            1. Are we talking about ethics or the law?

              You’ve seen more go after people like Robby for posting video of a mentally disabled kid getting beaten up on the subway for no good reason.

              It should be legal to print things that are true.

              If printing things about you in the media that aren’t true causes you pain, you should sue them for libel.

              1. We are talking ethics. I would not support a law making it a crime to dox someone.

                1. Like I said below, I don’t think Cathy was talking about doxing anybody. She was referring to “anonymity”.

                  A journalist telling people who someone is and a journalist giving out someone’s home address are two different things.

                  I do not believe Cathy was talking about giving out someone’s home address.

            2. I’d say we would need to define speech far more tightly.

              For example, if a masked person throws a milkshake at somebody, that isn’t speech. If a masked person silences other people’s speech, that shouldn’t be speech either. We define speech so broadly that the heckler’s veto seems to be an unavoidable issue.

            3. That is just ad hominem

              Exactly. The real problem is that only some of the population are familiar with the term fallacy, only a portion of those understand that it is a logical error, only a subset of those can identify an argument ad hominem, and a fraction of those are willing to acknowledge that it is unethical to use a fallacy in an argument.

              As if to make the point my browser’s spellcheck wants to change hominem to Eminem, but is fine with spellcheck, which isn’t even a fucking word.

              1. No one seems to understand what the term means or realize that even the worst liar can be telling the truth or even the most biased person making a valid point.

          2. Ken, you’ve said some things a lot of lefties would find repulsive. Do them a favor and post your address so they don’t have to do all the leg work. Also, the lefties want to know which flavor milkshake goes best on your head.

            1. Revealing someone’s home address is a different thing.

              Anybody who digs for my name is wasting their time.

              1. “Revealing someone’s home address is a different thing”

                So you don’t know what doxing is. Because that’s what doxing is.

                1. It’s not just the revealing – it’s the publication and broadcast of the address.
                  To what end?
                  There’s the key

                  1. Who’s advocating that?

                    “Do you have a right to be an online activist and maintain anonymity?”

                    —-Cathy Young

                    Does Cathy Young’s statement in any way endorse publishing addresses?

                    Did I miss something?

                    Publishing who you are and publishing your address are two different things, and I don’t see where Cathy Young advocated publishing anyone’s address anywhere.

                    I think you guys made that up in your head.

                2. “Do you have a right to be an online activist and maintain anonymity?”

                  Do you think not having anonymity only means no one knowing your home address?

                  I don’t believe Cathy Young meant it the way you said it. I work with dozens of people who know who I am but don’t know my home address.

        3. >>>Who gets to define “online activist”?

          this. same as “journalist” re the Shield Law.

          anonymity > everything else. Cathy is wrong.

      2. Thomas Paine published anonymously. What a tool.

    2. The other thing about this is that Young is endorsing ad hominem. What difference does it make who is saying something? I either find the video of Pelosi funny or I don’t. Who made it has no news value or anything substantive importance. What that information does do, however, is allow the mob to go forth and ruin someone’s life for speaking an unpopular view.

      It is so ironic that Young grew up in the Soviet Union. You would think that experience and seeing all of the ways the old USSR used social ostracism to silence dissent would cause her to value anonymity. But like all things involving Young, this question is all about class with her. The Beast is the right sort of people and one of her people and the forklift guy is just some piece of trash Young sees as beneath her. The rest is just rationalization.

      1. In regards to the ad hominem angle, people should be free to be stupid. That’s not the problem. We’re still free to point out that attacking the author personally is irrational, too.

      2. >>>Young grew up in the Soviet Union

        and questions anonymity for one second?

        1. Yup. Amazing isn’t it?

        2. That a former Soviet citizen understands the power of anonymity, but has no compunctions about stripping someone else of theirs does not surprise me in the least. The necessity to report aberrant behavior was an intrinsic part of Soviet education. Culture makes a difference and you can’t expect someone to just forget their upbringing.

          When you see something, you gotta say something, right? Even if you had to climb 2 fences and get on a ladder to see it.

          1. >>>Culture makes a difference and you can’t expect someone to just forget their upbringing.

            would think they’d run from it. guess not.

    3. I wrote “Snapchat” but I meant Instgram.

      You probably already knew that.

    4. What kind of hussy fit would the media of today have if faced with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers as they were originally published anonymously under pseudonyms?

      Anonymous political speech has a long history and reporters should have some respect for that as they do for keeping their sources anonymous.

      1. Anonymous political speech has a long history and reporters should have some respect for that as they do for keeping their sources anonymous.

        This is a fantastic point. If political speech cannot remain anonymous, fine–but in return, journalists should be forced to reveal who their sources are, or risk severe jail time, since most of these people are already engaging in de facto political speech.

    5. You definitely have a right to maintain anonymity. That doesn’t mean that everyone else has to participate in maintaining your anonymity.

      1. We are talking ethics here Zeb. I don’t think what the Beast did should be illegal. It is, however, an unethical thing to do and totally at odds with a free society. Both the Beast and the people like Young who are saying this is okay should be called out for that.

    6. I disagree with her underlying assertion, as well. Historically, there have been movements to divorce the ideas from the man presenting to avoid destructive bias. The Anti-Federalist papers, essays written and sent to local newspapers in order to discourage ratification of the Constitution, had the by-line of “Cato” and “Brutus.”

      The Federalist papers, famously, were authored under the pseudonym Publius.

      The idea at the time was that anonymous authorship meant you had to wrestle with an idea, avoiding the ad hominem fallacy or the “Appeal to authority” fallacy. If your discourse was at the level of “These are the words of Alexander Hamilton and we all know he’s a monarchist scoundrel,” it wasn’t worth listening to.

  9. >>>the expectations of online activists and content creators.

    bet they don’t expect King George to hang them if they’re exposed.

    ~~Publius

  10. Leftists love doxing people so their hate mob can destroy anyone stepping out of line. Cathy Young can’t wait to publicly persecute the next great meme generator, for the good of the people!

  11. “Shrooms OK in Oakland.”

    Even the insane city council of Oakland can get something right sometimes.

  12. Of the 3 sources mentioned in the Dutch euthanasia story, I have for years considered 2 of them to be amongst the leading purveyors of fake news. The other is one I consider to be less-than reputable. So, no much surprise here.

    What I’d be curious to know is how much overlap there is, if any, between those who were upset by the alleged teenage euthanasia and those who support the right of parents not to vaccinate their kids.

    ___

    P.s. This is my first post since the website revamp. While I find the overall aesthetic appeal to have improved, the comment entry field is still a stinking pile of horseshit. #LearnToCode

    1. It looks better but it is buggy as shit. I don’t understand why reason is so unable to create a stable commenting platform.

    2. What’s more instructive about this story is that it reveals how most journalism is done these days–retweeting fake news over social media until the fake narrative becomes conventional wisdom, instead of bothering to verify the facts.

      Crichton’s citation of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect is always instructive here.

  13. Nothing on Biden plagiarizing his climate policy?

    You’d think if ANYBODY would be careful about plagiarizing shit, it’d be Biden.

    But, just like touching young children inappropriately, he cannot help himself.

    1. To be fair, the guy’s what, 78 years old? I’m surprised he can remember to use the bathroom at this stage.

      One of the juicy bits of gossip that came out recently was from the Capitol Hill pharmacy revealing that a whole bunch of our Best and Brightest congressional minds are using various amounts of anti-Alzheimer’s medication.

  14. Also, should be news that Miley Cyrus made the image of a young, attractive woman in tight clothes seductively licking a food one of the most unappealing images I’ve seen in my life.

    That takes doing.

  15. […] Elizabeth Nolan Brown noted, "Many on social media have been shaming the parents for allegedly 'allowing' [Pothoven] to go […]

  16. “Unmask the Dissidents!”
    — Cathy Young

    “Libertarian Moment”

  17. “But 17-year-old Noa Pothoven’s tragic story of sexual assault ”

    If you want to extract reality from The Narrative, watch for what they strangely gloss over.

    “Pothoven wrote an autobiography called “Winning or Learning” in which she says she was assaulted at a school party at 11, then at another party a year later. She also said she was raped at 14 by two men. ”

    Assaulted at a school party, or raped by two men? Which seems more relevant to PTSD?

    Why doesn’t ENB use the word “rape” in her article? Is there something about those rapes which doesn’t fit The Narrative?

  18. […] It appears that the story was false. This from Reason: […]

  19. FACT CHECK WE DIDN’T KILL HER WE JUST WATCHED HER STARVE HERSELF TO DEATH.

  20. […] monthly magazine observed that the erroneous version of the story resulted in a “strange moral panic” and blank slate […]

  21. […] monthly magazine observed that the erroneous version of the story resulted in a “strange moral panic” and blank […]

  22. […] monthly magazine observed that the erroneous version of the story resulted in a “strange moral panic” and blank […]

  23. […] Everyone Got the Dutch Teen ‘Euthanasia’ Story Wrong […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.