51–60 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alt-right elected a president against incredible legacy media opposition...
The alt-right didn't get him elected. Good ol' American racism did. They certainly helped. But what helped more was he had a solid pulse on scared white men.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You either die a counterculture or you live long enough to become the culture." The young/anti-establishment people of the 60's and 70's are the old/establishment people of today.
And, at the same time, there are no young/anti-establishment people of today of any consequence. Not in any such numbers as to constitute an actual counter-culture anyway...
LGBTQ spaces and movements? Black Lives Matter? Occupy Wall St and the subsequent progressive upswell which led to Bernie Sanders, an unknown independent from Vermont, to garner nearly as many votes as one of the most well-known politicians on the planet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be unaware of some of the good journalism on non-music current affairs that they have published, e.g. Matt Taibbi.
The only reason I ever go to RS online is to read Matt Taibbi, who has been a valuable documenter of our era of too big to fail bank antics and the bizarre US political circus. The rest of it seems run of the mill corporate entertainment shilling and promotion...
What about, going back a bit, but David Foster Wallace's piece on John McCain's election campaign?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When the captain of a Navy ship has an accidental collision, his career is over. Is that always true? I'm not so sure. And even if it is true, perhaps it should not be so. All kinds of professionals have accidents or errors and continue to work. There's this apocryphal story that makes some sense. Tom Watson Jr., CEO of IBM between 1956 and 1971, was a key figure in the information revolution. (...) A young executi…
Easy to find examples: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/08/23/remain... Start at the top and start firing. "Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin, who headed America's Asia-based 7th Fleet, has been relieved of his duties following the damage to the USS John S McCain." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/asia/fitzgerald-col... Next up is the commander of the ship and the senior officers. Being relieved of du…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alt-right didn't get him elected. Good ol' American racism did. They certainly helped. But what helped more was he had a solid pulse on scared white men.
Scared? Or don't think the change in demographics is in the interest of their descendants?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scared? Or don't think the change in demographics is in the interest of their descendants?
To your second statement I think the term you're looking for is scared. The more fringe will throw in race war as if the rest of humanity has a vendetta against your average white male.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alt-right didn't get him elected. Good ol' American racism did. They certainly helped. But what helped more was he had a solid pulse on scared white men.
Not just white men - trump won with all categories of people identifying as white
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To your second statement I think the term you're looking for is scared. The more fringe will throw in race war as if the rest of humanity has a vendetta against your average white male.
Are you scared of everything you don't think is in your interest?
There's nothing scary about gay marriage, even if it advances the interests of people who are barely connected to me (I only have a few publicly gay friends, and most of them managed to get married by traveling elsewhere... like Canada).
The whole "white nationalism" thingy with them freaking out about "advancements of other races" is kinda creepy to me. Just because one group of people benefit makes no difference to the strength of my position. Its like they don't understand the concept of "non-zero sum games".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you scared of everything you don't think is in your interest?
I'm not gay, and therefore gay marriage and other LGBT issues have absolutely no positive effect on me personally. There's nothing scary about gay marriage, even if it advances the interests of people who are barely connected to me (I only have a few publicly gay friends, and most of them managed to get married by traveling elsewhere... like Canada). The whole "white nationalism" thingy with them freaking out about "…
First of all, how many people do you think are "scared" of gay marriage?
Second, whether that's true or it isn't has no bearing on this discussion. That is a different situation with its own particular set of circumstances. There is no need to complicate this discussion by talking about that. Do you have any evidence that white nationalists deny the existence of non-zero sum games?
>Just because one group...
Surely you understand that zero sum games do exist. Surely you understand that it's perfectly possible for one race to benefit at the expense of another. Surely you would agree with the statement that whites have in the past benefited at the expense of other races. Do you think it's fundamentally impossible for other races to ever benefit at the expense of whites? If so, what is your reasoning?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also do not think the author or editor were removed from their positions
Why should they? Should everybody that makes a mistake in their job be fired? The magazine retracted the story and apologized. The author apologized as well. The editor handed over their resignation (it was not accepted). What do you want, to have them be some parriahs that never find journalistic work again?
First, there's a difference between malpractice and a mistake, even a serious one. The problem with the rolling stone incident, as I understand it, was that the editors failed to take the most basic, widely recognized steps to ensure integrity in a situation where they were unusually essential.
There's a difference between making a mistake as a lawyer, for instance, and breaching ethics, basic procedures, or committing "gross incompetency" in a way that gets you disbarred.
Furthermore, there's a huge difference between temporary disbarment and becoming a pariah that never works again in the field.
Now, law isn't journalism, there isn't a "bar" or a specific concept of disbarment, and rules are looser in journalism. But the journalists and editors behind this story do seem, by the standards of their profession, to have committed far more than a mistake. This was really, really serious, and goes deep into gross incompetence and breach of ethics.
In spite of this, and how outrageous it was, I do think the day could come where they'd be reasonably welcomed back into their profession as full members. But this was really serious, and I do think removal from their positions, and an extended period of working as a proofreader under the supervision of a journalist with a better track record, certainly isn't unreasonable.
In fact, it might be the sort of thing that would actually help the journalists and editors to re-enter their field again in the future, with trust.