This is amazing. The womens marches over the weekend and these seem to be an indicator of a very sudden awakening.
Then there's the anger and fear from what appears to be fascist, authorities tendencies in Trump. That's one reason why a President Pence doesn't scare me (and apparently others who are calling for Trump's impeachment). Sure Pence won't work for liberal interests, but at the same time I don't believe he'll be actively working to gut non-partisan areas such as a free press, due process, a free and fair voting process, etc.
- he threatened legal action against the NYT [1]
- he said he would 'open up those libel laws' [2]
- he lies about falling subscription numbers at the 'failing NYT' [3]
- in his first press conference in the White House he attacked a reporter as 'fake news', and refused to answer questions by CNN [4]
- he tweets [5] incorrect ratings numbers about Fox vs CNN, calling CNN 'fake news'.
- he's been singling out and attacking/mocking individual reporters [6], [7]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/politics/donald-trump-...
[2] http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-...
[3] http://fortune.com/2016/11/17/trump-new-york-times-subscript...
[4] http://uk.businessinsider.com/president-elect-donald-trump-c...
[5] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/82407841721374720...
[6] http://fortune.com/2016/11/03/donald-trump-katy-tur/
[7] http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-r...
[3] How is it a lie?
> is losing thousands of subscribers
You interpret this as net subscriber count to suit your narrative.
Now if the NYT lost subscribers during the election which they almost certainly did then the first part of the statement is literally correct.
Now the "because" phrase implies causation of "poor coverage". This would be difficult to work out unless the NYT had an exit survey and that data was public.
Without information, Trump is inferring that this is a reason. So if 1000 people left because of poor coverage, his statement is still literally correct.
So I do not understand how you can say it is a "lie" when the statement is "literally" correct.
If you wanted to say that it is "incorrect" then you must argue for your interpretation based on relevance.
If you wanted to say "vague" then you can also say that.
It seems very common place to call everything a "lie" these days, when there is never enough information to evaluate the factuality of it.
Modern "fact-checking" is a scary thing because depending on how you want to define things, you can "prove" any statement true or false how you like. This is a very scary thing.
[5] FOX 8.7M vs CNN 2.6M
[7] didn't happen. That is fake news.
You think it is ok for a presidential candidate to make those statements? Do you know of any other democratically elected leaders making those statements? You do not think this could have a chilling effect on the free press?
> So if 1000 people left because of poor coverage, his statement is still literally correct. > So I do not understand how you can say it is a "lie" when the statement is "literally" correct.
You assume it is literally correct, after admitting that there is no evidence for it.
A literally correct statement can still be a lie. From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of lie
1 to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive <She was lying when she said she didn't break the vase.> <He lied about his past experience.>
2 to create a false or misleading impression <Statistics sometimes lie.> <The mirror never lies.>
In some of the other tweets in that article he is claiming readership is way down, and they are failing. I can not find any evidence for that, quite the contrary: their digital subscribers are way up and even though profits are down, they still aren't losing money.
I personally do not think it will. And I don't think anyone can make that argument that is has as of yet.
But if it does, what objective measures can we point to, to say that it has?
> You assume it is literally correct, after admitting that there is no evidence for it.
No hard evidence. But are you going to make the argument that 1000 ppl did not leave NYT over the course of the campaign. No, its a pretty reasonable churn rate for a newspaper.
Did they leave because of poor coverage? I personally noticed the coverage deteriorate, and tracking the sentiment against the NYT from Twitter, Reddit, etc. I believe this statement to be true. Am I certain of it. No. But do we need hard evidence of everything we say? No. Only if it matters. And this, simply does not matter. The question is would you hold a similar statement by Hillary or Obama with to the same standard. Depends what side of politics you are on.
> A literally correct statement can still be a lie.
If you had 100% proof (voice recording) that someone knew something, and then they stated publicly that they didn't, what do you call this? I would call it a lie.
Calling everything else a lie that cannot be proved is like the boy crying wolf. The word loses its meaning and is less effective at pointing out proven lies which both sides of politics could agree on. The left likes to cry wolf a lot over sexism, racism, etc. These words are almost meaningless now - whilst there are still proper racists in the world.
> Can you agree that saying the NYT is losing thousands of subscribers without saying they are at the same time gaining 41,000 net new subscribers is misleading?
They could be gaining 41K left wing supporters while losing moderates. Personally, I feel that they are losing a lot of moderates and republicans, and accruing a new base of progressive leftists because the paper has headlines that they agree with and don't want to question. So I don't think its misleading. It can be read as saying that the Times reader base is shifting, and the people who are reading it now are just looking for something to confirm their narrative. So in this scenario, net numbers don't matter so much. You can agree or disagree with that, but all I am arguing is that using lie is too strong and if you call everything a lie it has no meaning anymore.
That said, parent didn't say Trump is already doing all these things; they said that people fear he will, based on his actions and statements so far.
True at saying the people fear he will, but the fear is really bases on nothing and out-of-context quotes.
> More hard-line senators such as Phil Gramm, R-Texas, House Republicans and the Heritage Foundation saw the Chafee bill as an unacceptable compromise.
[1] http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/...
I agree that an awakening is overdue given that for instance, America’s child poverty levels are worse than in any developed country anywhere, including Greece and only Slovakia, Chile, Mexico and Turkey have worse infant mortality rates. Median adult wealth is 27th out of 27 high-income countries; internet speed and access is 16th out of 34 countries and for people living below the poverty line - US is 36th out of 162 countries, behind Morocco and Albania.
However the US does score a first in its prison population. It comes #1 out of 224 countries. Only China comes close.
You do realize how ridiculous that stat looks right?
Are you arguing the poor are worse off in the US than in Morocco?
And let me guess, the poverty stat is excluding income transfers?
I swear to god politics has gotten even nuttier in the US than it has been. And it was nutty before! Facts don't matter, crushing your opponent matters. Truth be damned!
*Speaking as an American.
So: sure, ridiculous if you came to the stat looking for "worse off," I guess?
What else could that comment be claiming? It wouldn't really make much sense if the claim was "more people live under the poverty line in the US than Morocco, but they are among the most wealthy people in the world."
I honestly don't understand why intersectionality has become this bogeyman for mainstream liberals. It attempts to bring people together to fight for common interests.
I'm not a fan of this meme.
If it were kept in universities I wouldn't care, but it's infected left wing politics and HR departments everywhere.
I'm much more worried about left wing authoritarianism in the near future than a rather bland right wing authoritarianism today.
A major tenant of third wave feminism is intersectionallity, which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what your just said.
Third wave feminists are also being divisive when they label and villify those who challenge their dogma.
First off some context for this rant: a lot of people don't realize it but we are a lot closer to a post-scarcity world than the world would have you think. Check out this chart which shows GDP per capita since the 1950's. The productivity gains since the 1950's have been absolutely incredible, and the quality of life back then was pretty good. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA
So, have you ever noticed there's never any dialogue about encouraging men to be stay at home dads, or reducing the overall household number of hours worked per week? Never. The dialogue is always about the "wage gap" and "women have value too" and "rape culture" and "microaggressions". Men who are stay at home dads still get shamed just as much as they did during the 1950's. This is how you know it's a sham - there is never any serious dialogue about actual equality. Income has in no way, shape, or form, kept up the with the GDP per capita shown in the chart above. There's never any explorations of policies that would actually increase equality, like restricting the number of "investment properties" a man or woman can own, behavior which is clearly parasitic. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_productivity_and_...
It's not in corporate interests to have people have actual equality. Increasing the labor pool without discussions of actual equality makes it so that people can be kept in debt, wages go down and the nexus of power moves away from the family and towards the corporation, which is what is happening.
There's also the constant screaming of "women have value too". The implication here is that if you are not working for money you have no value. Despite common belief, in fact it IS possible to generate value outside of a money context. Many of the world's greatest achievements have occured outside a money context, eg. the discovery of calculus, wikipedia, linux, countless famous works of art, literature, and philosophy. By saying that you only have value if you earn money is throwing many of the world's most accomplished people under a bus. The reason why "money is the only form of value" is such a horrible mentality is that it leads to people like Mozart dying in poverty and being thrown into a ditch, which actually happened.
Check out charts of combined household numbers of hours worked, you'll see it's going way UP not down, despite the GDP per capita chart shown above. There is clearly something dark in that picture. http://www.bls.gov/opub/working/chart17.pdf
I don't think these are idle complaints - feminism in its current form (money above all) is an ideology that's on a direct collision course with the whole 'robots are about to take all the jobs' reality, which I think is going to come a lot sooner than we realize, and when these two phenoma collide, what's going to happen is that it's not going to be equality (sorry folks) it's going to be Brave New World, an immensely stratified society.
What's incredible to me is that someone predicted this nearly 100 years ago. Aldous Huxley, you are a genius.
I should just buy a ticket to Iceland already.
Actually, I've noticed dialogue on both of these points, and even some modest, narrow policy progress (e.g., states that have adopted gender-neutral paid family leave, and some expansions in overtime coverage [0].) But, yes, it doesn't get enough focus.
[0] overtime rules mandate extra pay, but their fundamental purpose isn't to increase pay as much as to incentivize employers to limit the use of hours over the cap, and expand the size of the workforce in preference to longer hours where ongoing needs and available skills exist.)
Not to mention the whole idea of the march is based on identity politics.