Live data from Hacker News

The American Press Is Destroying Itself

taibbi.substack.com

341–350 of 618 posts

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The political system doesn't work like this either. All governments and political bodies are capable of dealing with multiple issues simultaneously. As far as I'm aware, none will deny you your rights or restitution just because "hey look, some people who look like you have done bad things, too."

> All governments and political bodies are capable of dealing with multiple issues simultaneously. If that were true there would be equally prominent protests and proposed legislation on both issues simultaneously. > As far as I'm aware, none will deny you your rights or restitution just because "hey look you've done bad things, too." You're talking about the legal system again.

In what way does being capable of considering multiple issues simultaneously require protest for all of these issues, or equal prominence for all of these issues? I have no idea what point you're trying to make, really.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#342
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it's not like taibbi is speaking up for child molesters Unlike, say, the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-diso...

Your characterization of the linked article could not be more wrong. They write about acknowledging the disorder of sexual attraction to prepubescents (=pedophilia) to prevent child abuse. Last sentence: > Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children fr…

Is espousing sympathy for pedophiles better or worse than the guy who was (probably) fired for tweeting that non violent protests work better than violent protests.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#343
post #276
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This viewpoint makes zero sense to me: - protesting starts - some protestors get violent - President says "let's use the military to end violence" And you come away with "our president literally said to use violence against protestors protesting bigotry" . What?

Your president literally ordered a military attack on peaceful citizens for a photo-op.

This is factually correct for anyone complaining. You can argue about some other places, but this was an obvious authoritarian play for a photo-op.

Military officials are condemning this - why is this up for debate? (hint, its not.)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-guard-troops-deploy... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/us/politics/military-nati... https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-threatens-to-mobiliz...

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is deeper than just the press. These identity flame wars are sponsored by almost all big (non-news) corporations. The reason is clear. While there is distraction, the real issues are unaddressed and they can keep putting their hands in your pocket when you aren't looking. Also, excessive pseudo-socialism is a great tool to drive down wages and have the whole world compete against each other. Locus…

What is "excessive pseudo socialism" and "Locust capitalism?" Also, I see your account was created an hour ago.

In the same way that decaf is coffee without the caffeine, (and phone-sex is sex without sex), pseudo socialism is socialism without genuine socialists. In the USA -- and increasingly in Europe -- we've seen the socialists' ranks get eroded by our societies' blind pursuit of ever-greater profits at the expense of the common good. This has resulted in the subordination of most aspects of life -- including most aspects of political life -- to the central mechanics of the market. Politicians cannot win elections without capital, which subordinates them to the capitalists. This is why they routinely support corrosive policies (like hobbling healthcare, turning a blind eye to the opioid crisis for decades, decreasing taxes, regulatory capture, etc) and oppose policies meant to better the public uniformly (like free healthcare, free education, net-neutrality, higher and transparent taxation, independent and effective regulatory bodies, etc). In short, they are obligated to support policies that will generate profits for their wealthy patrons, at the expense of everyone else.

Socialism is meant to be a counter-force to unrestricted capitalism. America lacks this counter-force. Instead, America has a (so called) Left that is afraid of being branded "socialist". Because they cannot embrace genuine socialist policies for fear of upsetting their very wealthy and powerful patrons, they are trying to win votes by appealing to people's pathological tendency to form rival tribal groups. This is quite the irony, considering that socialism's original rallying cry was the (inherently trans-tribal, trans-national)"Workers of the World, UNITE".

True socialism looks for opportunity in horizontal social partitions (the social classes), whereas nationalism looks for opportunity in vertical social partitions (ethno-linguistic and religious segregations). This is why nationalism is the capitalist class's preferred evil -- it directs the dissatisfaction and anger of the lower classes against each other, away from the wealthy. Both the American Left and American Right are focusing on the vertical (tribal) partitions -- it's just that the Left is very polite and composed about it.

This is what (I believe) the GP tried to imply with the term "pseudo socialism".

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#345
post #277

On a side note, does anyone subscribe to any good news/information site? I would like to subscribe to something good and know I'm supporting it.

I've recently discovered The Hill (https://thehill.com/). It's very refreshing. No sensationalized language in titles and I haven't been able to detect a bias for the left or right. They seem to present information pretty objectively.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The protests are about systematic discrimination of black people. No one questioned that black people can also be perpetrators - it's just irrelevant to the topic at hand. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? There is something to be said for asking someone to start by getting their own house in order.

I'm not sure I understand your comment correctly. Are you saying that black communities should be reasonably crime-free before they can expect institutions not to systematically discriminate them and enact retributionless, extralegal violence upon them?

What I'm saying is that when black people kill more than ten times more black people than cops kill black people, somebody is not wrong to ask why the focus should only be on the cops.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel like there are many parallels between being a Jew in 1939 Germany and being a black person in 2020 USA?

That's not how analogies work, so this is completely missing the point. For example, if you say the Colosseum is to Rome what a roller coaster is to an amusement part, you are not saying that the Colosseum is similar to a roller coaster. No, what you're comparing is the Colosseum's relationship to Rome and the rollercoaster's relationship to the amusement park. xg15's analogy isn't meant to equate Black people in Ame…

This was no analogy, as my point illustrated - not any more than name dropping any atrocious historical event into the discussion for rhetorical shock value.

The article discussed here specifically builds a significant part of its argument on the way violence inside black communities is silenced because it does not fit the current narrative. The article does not talk about police brutality itself, but about the way reality is bent and picked to fit a minority viewpoint.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All governments and political bodies are capable of dealing with multiple issues simultaneously. If that were true there would be equally prominent protests and proposed legislation on both issues simultaneously. > As far as I'm aware, none will deny you your rights or restitution just because "hey look you've done bad things, too." You're talking about the legal system again.

In what way does being capable of considering multiple issues simultaneously require protest for all of these issues, or equal prominence for all of these issues? I have no idea what point you're trying to make, really.

> In what way does being capable of considering multiple issues simultaneously require protest for all of these issues, or equal prominence for all of these issues?

Because that's what considering means. It takes more than just declaring that something is under consideration while not really paying attention to it or doing anything about it.

We don't actually consider all issues at once equally. That's why it makes sense to question their relative importance.

Post reply on HN