mAEStro-paNDa

> and he stopped it.

Assume what you want, but that claim is just false. He also defended it for years even after it was ruled unconstitutional.

Stop and frisk is only the tip of the iceberg, by the way.

Stop & frisk.

> What a fascinating choice between two New York billionaires.

Sounds more like a lack of choice.

> Are many looking to read what the Waltons say?

Have you ever been inside a Business College?

This is an important point. One could argue, and some have, that the center of US political discourse is actually firmly right of center, especially when compared to European nations for example.

Buzzfeed has never really enjoyed a reputation of being a trusted news source[1], so this notion that anyone countering your outright dismissal of the publication is defending it is just silly. It's also just disproportionate considering outlets which are more widely trusted are given the benefit of the doubt despite egregious errors or lies. (such as NYTimes)

[1] - https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/appendix-c-trust-and-d...

It was rebranded "public relations", as noted in the referenced documentary. A central figure in the film is Edward Bernays, who was referred to as "the father of public relations".

It's insane to me how quick some folks are to dismiss what they deem "bullshit degrees".

It's our culture that has turned education into some kind of "investment" in future job prospects. To put it simply, education was never intended to be that way, nor should it. It's as if studying the arts is some kind of luxury for those who are already financially well-off.

Education is supposed to be about learning just for the sake of learning, which benefits all of us. If there is not a place for people from certain fields of study, that's a failure of our economy and priorities. Yet it seems that too many have just accepted the current reality as "just the way things are".

Can you provide examples?

> Myself and others will step up and defend that right to any who attempt to take it.

I want to hone in on this particular statement you made for some clarification. Are you referring to violence here? If the state or law enforcement are involved, what's the response?

Just trying to get an idea of what "defend that right" is supposed to mean here, since I hear it an awful lot in regards to this specific topic.

I don't fully agree with the comment you're replying to in that Manufacturing Consent has nothing to do with those movements.

However, I completely disagree with your statements that:

>The mechanism is exactly the same.

>People don’t just wake up and change their minds. These opinions are filtered down to them.

People do in fact change their minds, for various reasons. These mechanisms are not the same because of power. Large institutions in the media that have lots of reach and authority act as gatekeepers to what is or isn't discussed. This idea that movements are propelled from sympathizers who are popular or have authority just misses how movements form and grow to begin with.

Yes they start out small, but they aren't cleared by the media or any figure before they grow. Movements grow with pressure through direct action to a point where the media cannot ignore it anymore. It is a challenge for every movement that exists.

I'm talking about NAFTA and other trade deals like it. You referenced automation as taking jobs from Americans, when in reality trade deals arguably had much more of a role in doing that. I misread the second point, but I'm not sure what VAT has to do with anything here.

Why not ban all advertising? Isn't that the discussion we should be having?

If we're going to accept that advertising is an ever-existing industry in our lives, then shouldn't the conversation be not about what kinds of advertising we should ban, but media awareness in general?

Bans should be reserved for the most egregious, such as products that kill (tobacco) or explicit incitements to violence, for example.

> including automation taking away jobs from Americans

What about the explicit intentional policy?

> along with regulatory capture that has allow bad policy and ability to pay $0 in taxes like Amazon

Don't you mean the lack of?

How exactly do you think she will execute that plan?

Voter ID laws have been enshrined in some states through ballot measures voted on by the public, for example.

Not only that, turnout and money in politics are arguably more of a priority to tackle, in that they would make addressing voter ID laws or gerrymandering much easier.

Overall I'm not sure her "plans" to solve these issues goes far enough, or gives enough detail of how they would be executed.

This is only a "mess" because of undemocratic push-back against a ballot measure that was voted on by the people.

It isn't limited to just voting rights either. Look into the push-back in Arkansas over a ballot measure passed last year to raise the minimum wage.

If you just pay attention to Twitter and/or the media it's very easy to internalize that narrative.

However, if you actually spend some time on the ground with advocacy groups, unions, non-profits, etc, you'll find the actual story is much different.

This is a very cynical and broad statement that enforces the common myth that people on welfare are somehow lazy or don't want to work. Also a general disregard of people who are working and receive said benefits to make ends meet.

It doesn't appear to me that the parent implied that these salaries come from thin air. It seems much more obvious that this person is pointing out just how disproportionate it is compared to other very crucial professions, with no obvious labor differences for why this is.

Chalking it up to it being the "market rate" sort of ignores how the market has failed for these other professions. They have to deal with the cost of living just like people in tech. The issue with the new grads, as the parent pointed out, is the attitude. Most could care less about this. That deserves critique.

I should also add that this dynamic does play out in other parts of the country. In other states in the US with much lower costs of living, nurses and teachers for example still have an average salary that is much lower than that of those in the tech industry, especially software development.

Honest discussions and reporting around anything involving China is quite difficult to come by these days. I would very much recommend everyone take any Western reporting with a grain of salt, especially from obvious pro-U.S. sources. Much of the coverage of the situation in HK can be seen as evidence of this. On this topic specifically, Wired's recent article over this was a breath of fresh air[1] for the overall state of news reporting when it comes to China.

Some clarification: First, when I talk about this slant in reporting Chinese affairs, it's not from a pro-CCP or pro-China position. Discussions about Chinese media and bias are still essential to have, but has nothing to do with the point I'm making here. Next, this issue isn't limited to just US media. There is arguably an observable bias even when it comes to Western academics that study or cover China in some capacity.

I'm sure aspects of this system in China earns a healthy dose of criticism and skepticism. However, it's important to consider the way this may be reported in the West, especially as tensions heat up between China and the US. Just think, for example, that it would not be very difficult to cover the US's credit score system as authoritarian, racist, or Orwellian. In fact, such cases have been made in the past and have some weight to them.

Just a thought.

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/china-social-credit-score-system...

> The reporters designation of "figured out" seems to stem more from the fact that the solution fits his own view than any actual real evidence.

It's an opinion piece.

Real estate is a very poor example considering countless cases of landlords neglecting repairs and maintenance. In some states in the US, there's little or no accountability for this.

My interpretation of the initial comment you replied to was that pointing out that there are consequences of "vocal minorities" in the past that have led to great improvements and considering such examples almost always have significant pushback implies the possibility that perception is misplaced.

However, I see where you are coming from and thank you for clarifying.

>That it is due to a vocal minority doesn't mean it is due to this vocal minority. Not all vocal minorities are equal, and nor should all vocal minorities be treated alike.

This is obvious and should go without saying. The parent comment gave an example of a positive consequence of an instance of this so-called "vocal minority", since the grandparent comment left no room for any positive angle on this.

I'm seriously confused how this translates into treating all "vocal-minorities" equally or that they all result in a positive.

With this topic it's important to remind people that while individual actions to address climate change are good, and encouraged, it's going to take serious systemic action and cooperation to address this to the degree it should be.

There was a climate scientist not long ago calling for a "world war-like mobilization" in regards to addressing climate change and that's exactly what needs to happen. Buying an electric vehicle and slapping a solar panel on your roof simply isn't enough.

Can you elaborate on what specific policy proposals would be "as bad" as extinction?

>I really doubt anyone times their quitting to the start of the month. People just up and quit because they don't want to work.

I won't defend the specific scenario given but the second sentence there is a huge generalization. You're correct that insurance plans don't start immediately, but that also leaves people in a difficult, even if temporary, situation.

Europeans however are correct to think that the healthcare system in the US is abysmal, because it is. All this goes without saying that employment-tied insurance puts people in precarious positions, which is obvious.

So this has mostly to do with a non-complete clause. The author is pretty explicit in their view:

> This clause is, to be direct, abusive.

As far as I'm aware this is something that has been apparent for quite some time, and isn't limited to just Amazon. I can't personally conceive of why anyone subject to one of these would have any reason to believe that this isn't just another tool that benefits the company alone, and could perhaps even be used against you.

A discussion about clauses such as this is well needed in general, not just the tech industry. Honestly, the real story that perhaps has more relevancy to tech is having (as the author correctly recognizes) the kind of privilege to turn down a job with Amazon. I'm no fan of Amazon but that would be something very difficult to turn down.

>I think this statement is completely wrong

then

>I cannot and don't want to deny the problems you are describing

Not only that, but the parent comment wasn't suggesting restricting speech in any capacity, explicitly or implicitly.

Normally I'd ignore a one-off dishonest or misleading comment, but this post has many different comments by you that could be categorized as such.

For everyone claiming bias, it's pretty clearly stated in the first sentence:

>...according to a new study by New American Economy, a bipartisan pro-immigration group.

What I'm not seeing much of in the comments is how the debate around immigration has come to a very alarming place, with most of it having nothing to do with what actually occurs in reality. In my honest opinion, that discussion is far more important than the specifics of this study.