391–400 of 618 posts
"Sometimes it seems life can’t get any worse in this country."
Yes, there are astonishingly brash, illegal actions being taken by police departments. Yes, we're still in the middle of a pandemic.
But that statement is absurd, and childish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can swap "left" and "right" in your comment and it would lose no substance and it's meaning would not change.
What are the right's social initiatives? Can you name three?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This is exactly what I was talking about. You make a bunch of assumptions about peoples' political opinions that are incorrectly portraying them as centrists and supporters of nazis if they don't adopt your world view. "Us or them" is killing America. Lack of nuance and intelligent discourse is destroying us. There's more to the extreme left than "Everyone deserves to be treated equally and with dignity." Politics in…
The problem is that even suggesting that equality and dignity are valid as bedrock communal values in business, politics, law, and economics is considered an aggressively extremist ultra-left position in the US - and not a sane and mature common sense centre-left view, as it is in parts of Europe.
There's a reason for this, and it's to do with the real bedrock values of US culture.
Bottom line is the Left in the US operates the same way as the rest of US culture does.
And the underlying problem is understanding why, not complaining about superficial dynamics that are actually consistent with the way the culture operates as a whole.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
[2] https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93YWtpbmd1cC5saWJ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Again, the focus isn't only on cops. There's plenty of time, effort, money, etc. spent on minimizing "normal" violence and crime. Society is quite capable of doing more than one thing at once, even if the media likes to focus.
And they're not even wrong. Policing in the US is in serious need of reform.
But you're doing the thing you're saying you're not doing. If we can do both things at once, then why shouldn't we do both things at once? Why are we dismissing people who want to do the other thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Economist has high quality news. It has a slight free market/neoliberal bias on economic issues, but for politics it's just the facts. Wikipedia is actually a decent free news source too, since articles about current events get updated and reviewed frequently.
The Economist is completely biased, they just have a way to write that somehow tones it down. You could probably write a National-Socialist or Marxist-Leninist publication in the style of the Economist.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People also seem to be unaware that howling mobs move on ...you just have to wait them out. Stand firm and they'll quickly find another target to bully.
Case in point: remember last year when the governor and the AG (I think?) of Virginia were caught in blackface 30 years ago and the lieutenant governor was revealed to have raped a woman in college 20 years ago? And they all refused to resign? Everyone forgot about that a month later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, the focus isn't only on cops. There's plenty of time, effort, money, etc. spent on minimizing "normal" violence and crime. Society is quite capable of doing more than one thing at once, even if the media likes to focus.
You can't realistically claim that the focus isn't on the police right now. And they're not even wrong. Policing in the US is in serious need of reform. But you're doing the thing you're saying you're not doing. If we can do both things at once, then why shouldn't we do both things at once? Why are we dismissing people who want to do the other thing?
Nobody is going to dismiss you for wanting to fix Problem A. But that's a very different thing than intruding on conversations about Problem B to tell people to focus on Problem A instead.
The Black Lives Matter movement is explicitly about dealing with systemic racism and state violence against Black people. If you want to contribute to solving other issues (and there are many other issues), go for it, but I don't see what that has to do with Black Lives Matter.
For those in the comments that haven't read the article, I highly recommend you check it out. While the comments are talking about the survival of news media and "tone-deaf" titles, the bulk of the article is about the Overton window[1] shifting to the point where rigerous journalism questioning outrages of the time is becoming untenable, weakening the news overall. It's a very good read. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org…
I’ll cite a specific example to make this case. See this paragraph:
> Cotton did not call for “military force against protesters in American cities.” He spoke of a “show of force,” to rectify a situation a significant portion of the country saw as spiraling out of control. It’s an important distinction. Cotton was presenting one side of the most important question on the most important issue of a critically important day in American history.
What Cotton actually said:
> One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers.
(Emphasis mine)
It’s very clear to anyone reading Cottons article that the call is to deploy troops to subdue he largely peaceful protests, which are painted as overwhelmingly violent in the beginning of the article. The author of the current article is simply using selective words to further his argument.
The other arguments are similar in nature. So while it appears to be a good read, it actually is not.