21–30 of 317 posts
This confirms all my biases and comes from a source I don't recognize. That trips my anti-confirmation bias heuristics. Can someone do a journalism on this and get 1-2 other independent sources?
Not to be flippant, but why can’t you do that?
As a European this is just so terrifying and fascinating to watch at the same time. I really wonder (and hope for the best) what comes out of all this. With Trump and Musk and this agency that isn't one and all the presidential orders. Will we look at this some time later and think "well, that was really stupid, do not try again" or will the world burn down over this? Crazy times.
We'll look back on it as we do all of the other times people got away with things they shouldn't have gotten away with while holding the power of the state. I'll also add that there are absolutely people in Europe who aspire to see this kind of thing happen there, and that in some cases, it already has. See: Orban, Brexit, Le Pen, AfD, etc... and that of course doesn't touch on what happens in less-Western European c…
Yeah, that's exactly what I fear. Seeing this is a working example or a role model on how to do it here, too. And yes, you pointed out the most obvious of the bad guys.
As a European this is just so terrifying and fascinating to watch at the same time. I really wonder (and hope for the best) what comes out of all this. With Trump and Musk and this agency that isn't one and all the presidential orders. Will we look at this some time later and think "well, that was really stupid, do not try again" or will the world burn down over this? Crazy times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be flippant, but why can’t you do that?
Well, because I'm not a journalist. I don't have the resources or connections to go and find this out. That's why we have professional journalists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be flippant, but why can’t you do that?
A journalist might have contacts in FEMA. Who should Joe Doe contact?
I feel like journalism, as an occupation, has had a hard time communicating why it exists over the last 20 years or so while trying to keep up with all the changes.
edit: A free primer on standards, re: confirmation.
One source can, with caution, be the basis of an article, as long as it's presented as unconfirmed. This can induce other sources to reach out to their media contacts, so it's useful.
Two sources is considered confirmed as long as they're independent. Journalists have gotten in trouble with double confirmation when it came out one cited the other.
Three independent sources is considered golden.
There's variation here if the source is the source, with actual authority on the subject, but other sources can add context they might not be willing or able to talk about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress, lol
That. Or pitchforks. Or holes outside of towns[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42318504
https://theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/nra-accidentally-forgets...
These actions suggest that today the United States seems to have a de facto King with far greater powers than even those held by George III at the time the founders decided that America did not need a King.
They might not be called that, but they have the ability to exert behaviours akin to an English monarch not seen much since Henry VIII. Arguably, we're heading into Magna Carta territory.
The checks and balances are about to get a big test. I hope they work, and I'm proven wrong.
This is how a democracy slowly falls into fascism. Not because it's a overnight coup d'état, but because people freely give power away instead of resisting, and just agree to actions they never would otherwise.