mcantelon

Might take a lot of lawsuits to get them to verify info before acting on it.

SEAL Team Six is best known for a raid during the Obama administration. Modern progressives seem to have less of a problem with the military than old school leftists (and less of a focus, politically, on foreign policy) hence simple glorification of the military seem pretty centrist.

If you something seems to have propaganda embedded in it then that really means it's not propaganda? Of course.

Sounds unworkable, but is likely a pretext for some other effort (like undermining anonymity).

This article is pretty incoherent.

Anxiety sells and social media enables every person to play a part in signal boosting it.

Mass migration is another factor possibly contributing to increasing cases of communicable diseases.

The scale was massive, yet no one noticed this astroturfing campaign until the election... and this astroturfing campaign dwarfed all other competing astroturfing campaigns by other states/NGO factions?

All this talk of Russia astroturfing without any additional context, as if they're the only party astroturfing (Democrat-affiliated ShareBlue, for example, was kicked out of a large subreddit due to astroturfing)...

The knife is considered the most important tool of all time... perhaps not to eat with, but handy in general:

https://www.forbes.com/2005/08/31/technology-tools-knife_cx_...

Socialization seems to be turning knives into taboo things to carry and use out of the kitchen.

Canada did the same last year, by the looks of it:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-po...

Probably a good time to torrent what with the intertubes unburdened.

>there are far more elegant and explanatory frames of reference for discussing the phenomenon Kundera describes (mostly drawn from psychology).

Such as? I thought "kitsch" perfectly summed up the essence of a restricted, infantilized worldview.

Bogus moral considerations are a great rationalization for censorship, charging Marie Le Pen for sharing photos of reality being a good example.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/marine-le-pen-...

Outsourcing and automation still have much of the economy to eat in America and the rest of the West.

Pretty good way to launder money and, via the Art in Embassies program, smuggle anything anywhere.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-w...

True. Societies may, however, be hesitant to follow our footsteps towards atomization and low birthrate.

The birthrate in most of the West is sub-replacement. Inter-generation testosterone decreases, and cultural factors, likely play a part. Youth suicides have gone up considerably in the last decade.

>Because it is blatantly obvious "both sides"-ism nonsense that should not pass the smell-test with anyone, unless they've been desensitized from being neck-deep in shit for ages perhaps.

The idea that one side is lily white and the other is wholly corrupt doesn't pass the smell-test. Politics is a dirty game and confirmation bias is especially easy when folks stay in partisan bubbles.

>since more people voted for Hillary than Trump, is "universal" loathing actually a problem for presidential candidates?

Evidently so seeing as getting the most votes in total isn't what was required to win.

Both parties are irrational, but about different things. Both largely shaft their base and serve different segments of the oligarchy.

Informed gun advocates can actually make a pretty compelling case against gun control, but few are interested in listening. Canada's gun control IIRC isn't that much stricter than the US's, yet there's significantly less gun crime. As Michael Moore pointed out in "Bowling for Columbine" culture seems to play a significant part.

>Why not create a new republican party?

The system is heavily weighted in favor of the duopoly (televised debates, etc.). Fixing that might increase the odds a third party would be able to be a genuine contender, rather than simply splitting one side's vote.

"government maximizes the freedom of the people by preventing the infringement of such freedom except in cases such that there is a mass consensus of its merit" seems pretty clear. The argument is that the freedoms the founding fathers wanted to preserve are protected by making it hard for corrupt politicians to take them away. The vision of the founding fathers is taken seriously because they were very smart and America has been very successful in many respects.

>Targeted voter suppression campaigns have prevented people from voting who would have tipped the scales in favor of Democrats.

And the Democrats have spun reasonable measures, such as requiring some sort of identification to vote, as "suppression", possibly so those who aren't citizens can vote. Who cheats more? Who knows.

The low-hanging fruit for the Democrats is, however:

1) Prioritize lower/middle class economic concerns over progressive identity politics

2) Push the DNC not to scuttle candidates, like Bernie, that people don't universally loathe

If those two things get done, the Democrats have a good chance going forward. Otherwise, who knows.

And then there was also that whole Eich purge fiasco.

You're right, of course. The Democrats seem more for protection in the private realm. Hopefully the motivation isn't simply to preserve the deep state's monopoly, under a national security pretext, on the power to violate the privacy of enemies of their agenda (like Trump).

Obama admin did little about NSA domestic spying (and James Clapper perjured himself, but is amazing still considered credible by the media), so the idea that neither party cares about privacy is, indeed, correct.

The folks calling for Crockford to be disinvited weren't complaining about his talk quality, they were complaining about his behavior. And there really isn't much beyond what this blog post mentions that they are complaining about. One person cited a post of his from 9 years ago about weight loss as being evidence of him fat shaming. They also cited a GitHub comment from 4 years ago where he said some code was "stupid". My guess is the campaign against him is rooted in personal animosity.

I'd guess people with lots of social capital in the JS community told the conf orgs Crockford had to go and the orgs decided disinviting him would be less risk than having Crockford's enemies campaign against the conference.