One thing is clear: the "Stop The Steal" crowd was clearly radicalized into something openly violent and seditious. Mainstream news outlets that actively encouraged this violence must be shut down.
OANN/Newsmax delenda est
508 karma · joined December 24, 2013
OANN/Newsmax delenda est
Could you go more into the religious aspects of the Black Lives Matter movement?
If the alternative to traditional media is more Moldbug, I'll pass.
What do you mean by this? What does "traditional media" mean in this context? Anything that isn't self-published?
> Ms. Butler said she was not told how to make an official complaint; Ms. Sawyerr said she never spoke to an investigator and was not informed of the findings
“Absence of evidence” etc. etc.
How exactly is the Main Stream Media media weaponizing big Tech? The Myanmar genocide is not "fake news."
...are you not? Like, I get your "moral relativism" argument, but I don't think anyone besides "extra-principled" libertarians would think there is some hypocrisy between advocating against the censorship of news/political ideas and literal child abuse.
I think you're trying a bit too hard to dunk on the author. A lot of your conjecture here is somewhat unknowable, but I would assume the author of a book on minimalism would find something worthwhile in a documentary focusing on a typeface so closely associated with minimalist design.
This changes my view from "media bias websites are dumb and shouldn't be taken seriously" to "media bias websites are dumb and shouldn't be taken seriously, but are also potentially useful for reputation laundering."
I have played around with the idea of the "minimum viable journalism," given what private equity has done with Sports Illustrated. Generate 1000 word pieces via MTurk or GPT-3, host on Netlify, cheap DNS name, buy traffic on Fiverr. Would $50/mo be enough to be rated on one of these sites? Get on publisher ad exchanges?
"The only evidence is "everybody knows", or the U.S. intelligence community being "certain" of his fate."
This is obviously a silly statement. There is a ton of evidence, some more damning (CCTV screenshots, audio transcripts) than others (claims from Turkish officials that aren't backed up in the reviewed audio). Never did I state that I had access to non-public evidence, just that it was reviewed (by multiple independent agencies, I might add). But it is very much a fact that there is also public evidence that you yourself can review.
But I understand you conspiracy-types. What if it's a false flag op? We never saw footage of Khashoggi getting sawed in half. We all know that intelligence agencies are run by the "DEEP STATE," taking orders from a cabal of lizardmen. If your burden of evidence was actually met, obviously the evidence was forged.
But this is the dumbest form of conspiracy. "Admission of Guilt" is a form of evidence in US law, and Saudi Arabia has very much admitted to the fact that Khashoggi died while in the consulate, as well as to the premeditated nature of his death.
This is sometimes called an "isolated demand for rigour"[0]. There is worldwide governmental consensus that Khashoggi was murdered. The Saudi Arabian government admits to it using purposely euphemistic language. They even had a (closed) trial and sentenced five people to death in relation to this "horrible incident."
But then, you respond, have you actually seen video footage of the murder taking place? Well, then it's settled. We truly cannot know if Khashoggi was "murdered," and since no body was recovered, for all we know he's vacationing in the Seychelles, or deep in a Turkish prison. How is this different than the "weapons of mass destruction" that got us into the Iraq War?
> You may be mistaken thinking I'm defending a government and you seem to think you're producing evidence.
This passive-aggressive nonsense is ridiculous. You seem to clinging to some fiction that SA has not literally and materially admitted to wrongdoing. You operate in a worldview where everything that doesn't meet your arbitrary standard of truth is not "evidence-based," and therefore wrong. What you present as some sort of epistemic skepticism is just garden variety solipsism.
[0]https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...
"Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Fox News "the murder" had been a "tremendous mistake" and denied the powerful crown prince had ordered it.
Khashoggi was last seen entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
The Saudis, under intense pressure to explain Khashoggi's whereabouts, have offered conflicting accounts.
They initially said he had left the consulate on 2 October - but on Friday admitted for the first time he was dead, saying he had been killed in a fight. This claim met widespread scepticism."[0]
Is this a serious comment? The Saudi Arabian government has already admitted to murdering Khashoggi (but denied that MBS had anything to do with it)[0]. There was plenty of reviewed evidence, including CCTV footage, audio recordings, etc, not just "everybody knows".
[0] "After repeatedly shifting its account of what happened to Khashoggi in the days following the killing, the Saudi government admitted that Khashoggi had been killed in a premeditated murder"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog...
Not going to directly engage with your argument, but this framing is frankly absurd. Alan Dershowitz is not "neutral" with regards to Trump, he was literally part of his legal defense team!
> Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (informally Booz Allen) is the parent of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., an American management and information technology consulting firm, headquartered in McLean, Virginia, in Greater Washington, D.C.
> No, of course not.
Awesome. So it follows that you would have no issue then with a coworker stating: "Police activity in SF has negatively impacted my ability to do work". Congratulations, you have a significantly broader definition of acceptable workplace speech than Coinbase.
While I generally agree, I think there is a tacit assumption that Armstrong's actions will work exactly as intended. 5-8% of workforce is...honestly I don't know if it's high or low, but is certainly non-trivial. These weren't strategic layoffs or restructurings, so certain business-critical projects might be delayed due to headcount issues/loss of senior staff. If we hear about another walkout at Coinbase 6 months from now, this might just look like a catastrophic management blunder.
Literally firing the walkout organizers would probably have led to a worse media cycle, but likely fewer staff quitting in protest (Google firing the walkout organizers seemed to have little to no effect).
> One day in March of this year, a Google engineer named Justine Tunney created a strange and ultimately doomed petition at the White House website. The petition proposed a three-point national referendum, as follows:
1. Retire all government employees with full pensions.
2. Transfer administrative authority to the tech industry.
3. Appoint [Google executive chairman] Eric Schmidt CEO of America.
> "But the Saudi government—a highly autocratic regime—has historically resisted taxing its citizens for a reason: Taxes empower people to demand more from their government, and they can often be a trigger for democratization. “Taxation plays a profound role in the rise of democracy,” Sven Steinmo, a political-science professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told me."[0]
[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/sa...
1) in an economic downturn, one would expect charitable givings to decrease due to economic contraction. I think the evidence from the 2008 recession is somewhat mixed on this topic. Most governments, not reliant on personal donations, do not face the same sort of budget issues (which is another debate).
2) Charities have the ability to discriminate. They can choose how to allocate donations in ways that can include or exclude certain segments. This is in some respects true as well for government spending, but once again boils down to the allocation problem.
3) economies of scale. Larger organizations are often less redundant than a group of smaller organizations, reducing overhead.
> My belief is that forcing somebody to do anything against their will is inherently immoral. Taxation is included in that. It's not that simple of course- it's all relative, and sometimes taxation can do enough good to outweigh that morality.
Since you are not fully opposed to taxation, would you accept a taxation scheme for a government program if an independent and well researched study showed that government spend outperformed private programs by 2.5x, 10x, etc.? Or is it more that any issue that could be addressed via private charitable organizations should be off-limits for the government?
"forcibly take money" I assume refers to levying taxes. I think you'll find that governments that don't levy taxes generally produce less liveable societies than those that do.
My point exactly. Aphorisms such as "Liberal consensus" don't exist in a vacuum, and are often used as an excuse for intervention rather than a protection against intervention.
> So, without knowing anything about me, would you guess I'm pro-blacklist, or anti-blacklist?
Do you think the Trump administration should outlaw certain subjects from being taught, such as Critical Theory? You surely would agree that the stranglehold certain departments have on academic discourse makes free speech impossible, correct?
The irony of course is that the "experiments with official truth in the 20th century" in the US were often defended on the grounds of protecting "liberal consensus" from opposing viewpoints. See the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals statement of principles, the trade group responsible for the Hollywood Blacklist:
"We believe in, and like, the American way of life: the liberty and freedom which generations before us have fought to create and preserve; the freedom to speak, to think, to live, to worship, to work, and to govern ourselves as individuals, as free men; the right to succeed or fail as free men, according to the measure of our ability and our strength.
Believing in these things, we find ourselves in sharp revolt against a rising tide of communism, fascism, and kindred beliefs, that seek by subversive means to undermine and change this way of life; groups that have forfeited their right to exist in this country of ours, because they seek to achieve their change by means other than the vested procedure of the ballot and to deny the right of the majority opinion of the people to rule."
I think you are letting your subjective moral lens cloud your judgement. The fact of the matter is certain immigration policies and directives are more effective and have lower political and social costs than other ones. A utilitarian immigration policy framework would perform significantly better than the current "border" rhetoric which has led to billion dollar make-work in the middle of nowhere.