Live data from Hacker News

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

cpb.org

411–420 of 596 posts

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of conservative is conserving the monarchy during the french revolution. From the start it was and remain to this day an ideology for those currently in power to conserve their power.

Oh please, not a single person besides you thinks of "conserving the monarchy during the french revolution" when using the word "conservative" besides you.

While it is overly specific for modern use, it is actually much closer than what the prior poster suggested to the way the term has always been used as a political label and accurate as to its origin as one (more generally, it originally was protecting the power of the aristocracy and religious establishment against the encroachment of bourgeois liberalism; IIRC the liberal/conservative terminology was in use in regard to British politics even prior to the French Revolution, to which it was also applied; the French Revolution is where we get the Left/Right terminology that originally corresponded pretty directly to liberal/conservative though left and liberal have split a bit in more modern use, as the locus of elite power has moved, and liberalism has to a certain extent become associated with status-quo-ism related to that new locus of power), which has always been distinct from how "conservative" is used as anything other than a political label.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unswayed by that argument too, but I don't think it's an accurate characterization of what's happening. A government that arbitrarily withholds funds based on political favoritism is increasing its power, even if aggregate spending goes down because too many people weren't willing to do favors.

Yes, that is why I said more authoritarian. We need to acknowledge other authoritarian or authoritarian-lite practices that have gone under the radar for decades, like funding elite colleges (is that political favoritism?), or political influence through NGOs, or even "doing things for the greater good" through unaccountable NGOs like "broadband equity", where there is no explicit charter for the government to do suc…

Why do we need to? It seems to me that many of these efforts to “acknowledge” other controversies in the past are in fact distraction tactics to sneak in controversial premises about the current ones. Funding research grants is absolutely not political favoritism.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The executive branch has ignored the courts a few times, basically saying "What are you going to do about it?". I feel like it has to lead to a standoff of some group with guns saying they're following the courts/defending the constitution against another group with guns saying they're following the orders of the president (just like those Nazis who were "just following orders"). I need to print t-shirts with "Is it…

The President controls the most powerful military on Earth. What do the courts control? Where are their guns?

Judges/Courts control the offices that control the military and the executive. Without the rule of law, you do not have a military, you have a militia. If you think a military staffed by patriots, 70% minorities and 1st generation American immigrants, are going to bow down to a dictator and their illegal, immoral orders, you probably watch too many movies and play too many games...

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “admission” was not part of the original publication. They added both that note and changed the title well after the fact. https://archive.is/2020.08.27-191914/https://www.npr.org/sec... The mere fact that they platformed such an extreme, insane viewpoint is the issue. If you can find a similarly sympathetic platforming of a far right nutter by NPR, maybe I’ll take you seriously. Show me one NPR story about the J…

The "admission" is irrelevant and was plainly included to appease readers like yourself. Did you actually read the piece? It's unmistakably an interview - not an article, and certainly not an editorial. It's difficult to understand how anyone could read it and arrive at such a distorted conclusion.

Right — they’re lending credibility that leftwing extremism is a valid viewpoint, but you’re unable to name a similar example of rightwing extremism they’ve hosted.

That’s classic bias.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#415
post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. There are dozens of other moments through the past ten years of Trumpism that the supposed guardrails were to prevent and did not, and in the wake of each one the custodians of those guardrails shrugged and went "oh well... I guess that's Trump." Emoluments, tax returns, the porn star, lying under oath, J6, "fake news", losers and suckers, bone spurs, snubbing Carter, crowd size bullshit, grab em by the pussy…

> Emoluments, tax returns, the porn star, lying under oath, J6, "fake news", losers and suckers, bone spurs, snubbing Carter, crowd size bullshit, grab em by the pussy, obvious nepotism, lock her up, separating families at the border, "very fine people on both sides", "stand back and stand by", sparring with Fauci, now jailing judges, deporting people off street corners, letting Musk gut government agencies, etc etc.…

I don't think this kind of middlebrow cynicism is helpful— "ah yes, well, all politicians have their scandals, just another day in government."

What other major US politicians in our lifetimes has had even a quarter of this and retained their office through it? Do you think after all this that Trump would go down for spying on political opponents (like Nixon in the 70s) or receiving sexual favours from an intern (like Clinton in the 90s)? It seems pretty clear to most observers that he would not, and that means the goalposts have shifted, perhaps quite considerably.

Therefore, it is a serious matter and worthy of thoughtful consideration about how to deal with in the present and safeguard against the future. Not something to be waved away with "just more burning".

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Show me a similarly soft pedaled, deferential NPR interview of a right wing extremist. Someone else in this thread posted a diffed view of the interview demonstrating how NPR reshaped the article a week after publication. Very, very instructive.

> Show me a similarly soft pedaled, deferential NPR interview of a right wing extremist. Steve Inskeep did 30 minutes with Steve Bannon this week. They did a piece with Chris Rufo yesterday (he's the guy that got right wing media to start freaking out about CRT, and then DEI). But please, do go on clutching your pearls about the WORST POSSIBLE THING EVER: PROPERTY DAMAGE!! Nope, not civil rights violations or gleeful…

Harvard and UNC lost at the Supreme Court when sued over their DEI programs being illegal discrimination.

Comparing calling out that illegal bigotry to people trying to justify looting is precisely what people are saying is biased.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is known as platforming

That’s true, they had someone on for an interview. If that’s your biggest gripe, some random topical interview they had several years ago, then I’m not really sure what you’re looking for.

A similar rightwing interview.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The President controls the most powerful military on Earth. What do the courts control? Where are their guns?

That's why the only "viable resistance" would be a high-ranking military-person with a tank battalion and thousands of soldiers who are willing to follow his conviction of "I'm going to perform insubordination because I believe my commander in chief is an enemy of the constitution, follow me if you believe the same", and then have a plan to besiege the White House/Capitol. Anything smaller will just be someone which…

What are they fighting a civil war for? Cheaper gas? More fast food? There is nothing now or in the near future that would fracture the country enough to fight. Once commerce stops, people will lose their collective minds. You cant tell Americans how to park, how to dress let alone what to eat or drink or do. Good luck with the collective will needed to fight for an ideologue in the 21st century.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convincing yourself that Trump is just dumb is a big part of why we're in this mess. Trump knows very well how to achieve his goals. The problem with Trump is his lack of any discernible ethics, morality, or compassion. Not his lack of ability to gain power and accomplish his goals.

If you listen to him speak, he is not a smart person. What baffles me is how and why you'd think he was anything but an idiot. Everything about him and his actions and words reek of stupidity. He does not hold any understanding of the complexities of anything. He does not write. When he does, he misspells and uses incorrect grammar. He does not read. He has rudimentary understanding of basics. Etc. So why is it that…

And none of that has kept him from achieving his goals.

He has a genius for communication and persuasion that is undeniably effective. He understands the weak points in our political system and attacks them directly.

He's dumb when it comes to things educated people care about. But he's smart when it comes to getting what he wants.

Re: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order

#420
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do the courts enforce their rulings if the executive branch is wholly beholden to the president? That's the point of the separation of powers.

separation of powers require the people in gov't to enforce the separation. If the whitehouse is using federal agents to force an action that is directly contrary to court judgement, those agents should have refused orders tbh. They need to know what separation of power is, and the citizens need to also be outraged regardless of political affiliation. The problem is that some citizens _are not outraged_ (at least, no…

Like I said, that's the point of the separation of powers. Enforcement isn't a power the judiciary has.

I'm not quite clear on how your comment responds to mine?

Post reply on HN