Wikipedia doesn’t receive any federal funding, what leverage does the House of the current administration have without money to withhold?
Not directly but I have seen some people (senators) claim that at least one of their funds is "democratic dark money."
"Dark money" is a term of art meaning partisan donation dollars that aren't itemized or tracked by the FEC. Dark money isn't illegal. It's "dark" because it's unregulated. When Republicans call money that doesn't end up in a campaign general fund "dark", they're literally saying they have no authority to regulate it.
How has it worked already? Dragging people for public spectacles in Congress, lawfare through frivolous lawsuits, frivolous investigation through a variety of agencies, wasting the orgs time in court, allies doxxing org members to intimidate them with stochastic terrorism. If you haven't been paying attention to how Trump and Co have been weapoinzing government to silence critics or pressure private orgs, you haven't…
Harvard is extensively grant funded; that was the administration's leverage. CBS's owners were existentially dependent on DOJ approval of an impending merger. 60 Minutes is a CBS property. Nothing has happened to ActBlue. So again I ask: how exactly is the House supposed to accomplish anything with Wikipedia?
maybe step back and think about what this targeted, repeated, deeply meticulous sequence of challenges to this very narrow topic of conversation is communicating about you, and is achieving in the net sense
is this the right application of your time and energy? perhaps that time and energy is more usefully spent fighting against the actively malicious current US political administration, than deconstructing arguments in that same vein?
Harvard is extensively grant funded; that was the administration's leverage. CBS's owners were existentially dependent on DOJ approval of an impending merger. 60 Minutes is a CBS property. Nothing has happened to ActBlue. So again I ask: how exactly is the House supposed to accomplish anything with Wikipedia?
maybe step back and think about what this targeted, repeated, deeply meticulous sequence of challenges to this very narrow topic of conversation is communicating about you, and is achieving in the net sense is this the right application of your time and energy? perhaps that time and energy is more usefully spent fighting against the actively malicious current US political administration, than deconstructing arguments…
No, I think I'm just going to continue having the discussion we're having here.
Preach. How much time and money will Wikipedia have to waste defending this? Don’t these people have anything better to do? Like lowering prices for everyday Americans instead of running up baseless legal bills?
From what I understand this is just a "polite" request, not a supeona, so Wikipedia can ignore it if they want.
This is McCarthyism. You take a polarizing word, then you attack your enemies by claiming they are that thing, and couch the whole thing in an "investigation" whose outcome is predetermined. There is no merit to discussing if the target is that thing, it doesn't matter. It's an ideological attack. If you take it on its face then the attackers win because you're treating them as if they were honest participants in a d…
This is McCarthyism. You take a polarizing word, then you attack your enemies by claiming they are that thing, and couch the whole thing in an "investigation" whose outcome is predetermined. There is no merit to discussing if the target is that thing, it doesn't matter. It's an ideological attack. If you take it on its face then the attackers win because you're treating them as if they were honest participants in a d…
That’s the point of all this polarization: the era of mass dissemination of information revealed the horrors, mistakes, and transgressions of past regimes and histories that some parties would rather not be widely publicized. The result is a group who wishes to reauthor facts and data to fit their narrative, and the rest who want to act on quality data in good confidence. It’s not a partisan fight, it’s a fight over…
Game theory would say that if you're looking to move the overton window, anything less than max would be a missplay. That is to say, anything except total polarization would fail to move the overton window the max amount in any given direction, since with max polarization, the possibility exists to move it the full amount, whereas a more nuanced claim that moved it only a little bit would only ever move it 'that little bit.'
This is McCarthyism. You take a polarizing word, then you attack your enemies by claiming they are that thing, and couch the whole thing in an "investigation" whose outcome is predetermined. There is no merit to discussing if the target is that thing, it doesn't matter. It's an ideological attack. If you take it on its face then the attackers win because you're treating them as if they were honest participants in a d…
[flagged]
your accusations of progressives is basically describing actual christian americans