361–370 of 618 posts
If this is your introduction to Matt Taibbi, it's worth knowing he has a dog in the race when it comes to "cancel culture": https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-two-expat-bros-wh... .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I've also found some post-war narratives out of Germany to be downright bone-chilling, such as 'The Lives of Others.' Definitely recommend that one if you haven't seen it. Are there any specific points raised by 'Night and Fog' that you have in mind?
1: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-06/video-un...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Harsh enforcement of a numbing philosophical and social conformity, for starters (e.g., cancel culture).
If you hate the cancel culture on the left, your mind is going to be blown when you find out what the right has been doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't downvote, but similar pushes for message purity are happening in center-right media, just focused on complete political support for Trump. I think it is ill advised to silence critics. My instincts are to apply the same principles to political movements that we apply to political leadership. There always needs to be a place to voice dissent not because dissent is always beneficial, but because the lack of ci…
The right isn't attempting to control thought and speech though, not remotely to the extent that the left is.
Trump is threatening to regulate social media to be allegedly more fair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Doesn't it make them a Nazi enabler, though? Calling Trump a nazi seems incredibly disrespectful to people and their family who actually lost their lives to real nazis. Are you aware that you don't actually know what Trump supporters think? That your opinion is based on heuristics running on top of the absolutely tiny sample of the real world that you've been exposed to, much of it likely incredibly biased if not o…
I grew up with them. Trust me, I know what they think.
This period of history may or may not be what Joe Strummer prepared us for, but it certainly looks like the one Hannah Arendt, Milton Mayer, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn prepared us for.
I don't think they are. I think they are optimizing for survival. Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market. Few people would consume it (or even be capable of doing so), even fewer are ready to pay the real price of it. So they did the next best thing: they changed to please the market in a way that makes money. Grabbing a lot of attention, as cheaply as possible, so that you can sell it to the hi…
Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market. I suspect that's correct. It's hard now to find any news outlet now that sticks to "Who, What, When, Where, Why". This is a consequence of pay per click, probably. The left and the right now both have a checklist of mandatory positions required to avoid punishment. Those positions are in many cases contrary to fact. That's not good. Denial has become a cor…
The internet effectively broke this model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I think Klein is failing to engage with the core issue, that many of the positions now outside the bounds of acceptable discourse in newspapers are held by a majority of Americans and considered reasonable by a supermajority. If newspapers systematically refuse to represent views that most people hold, how can we trust their objectivity?
It gets even worse. If you ignore the problem by not talking about it and only fringes discuss it - people will go to the fringes to hear what they have to say. And you may get big surprises at the voting booth.
November is going to be interesting. Most mainstream pols seem to just be useless now, when any opinion right of the orthodoxy places you somewhere next to Mengele.
Fail to take a knee?? Clearly a Nazi. It is nothing new, normal Soviet propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I think Klein is failing to engage with the core issue, that many of the positions now outside the bounds of acceptable discourse in newspapers are held by a majority of Americans and considered reasonable by a supermajority. If newspapers systematically refuse to represent views that most people hold, how can we trust their objectivity?
Please tell me what the majority of americans support that is unacceptable to talk about? I'm guessing your idea of the super-majority is at best questionably a super-majority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been rightly critical of our government, and has been hit with pay cut after pay cut.
> rightly Case in point about the difficulty in covering politics in a manner most would consider neutral.
I don't think they are. I think they are optimizing for survival. Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market. Few people would consume it (or even be capable of doing so), even fewer are ready to pay the real price of it. So they did the next best thing: they changed to please the market in a way that makes money. Grabbing a lot of attention, as cheaply as possible, so that you can sell it to the hi…
It is not about the economics of the American Press, it's about the lynchmobs that have formed around thoughtcrime and the sometimes public hounding of people who don't push the proper narrative.
There might be economic factors intertwined with the push for more groupthink, but I think there is a link missing in the chain of logic from this article's subject matter and your reply.