Maybe he was missing a couple things, but it's not far off. Go to college for a major that has high economic value. Continue building your skills after college. Live below your means. I'd like to see data on people who do all of those things and how they end up.
This is the real question :) Of course it will be by some far left leaning person. Zuckerberg said they have content moderation and consult with many many groups and the interviewer asked for ONE example of a conservative group they consult with, he had no answer.
Not intended to derail this, but could someone point to/recommend conservative groups who a) have denounced white supremacy, and b) are reasonably data- or analytically-driven?
No, though it's a better reply to my comment elsewhere in the thread where I said Trump doesn't actually condemn white supremacy.
The handful of examples in the video that are post-Charlottesville are a nice start, but they've clearly ended up being lip service. He says "I condemn white supremacy" and then goes back to race-baiting at his rally just days ago. [0]
Also, it doesn't kill the narrative. It's entirely consistent with the narrative that Trump lies when it's convenient.
No, I can see what you mean. The problem is with your claim that no matter what he says I'll say it's disingenuous. That's not true.
I do have reasons to believe Trump is disingenuous. (And if you don't see those, that's your own confirmation bias at play.) But if Trump consistently refused to say racist things and proactively worked to address racial injustice, I'd absolutely believe those statements!
Instead, you've got a huge number of examples of Trump being racist and a handful of examples of him saying the words when a reporter presses him. But where's Trump's Philadelphia speech? What did he have to say about John Lewis's legacy? Where is his leadership on addressing the pain and poverty of Black families?
That's literally exactly what happened. Why even ask? What response could you have possibly gotten that would have changed your mind?
I have seen a ton of examples where people think trump is being racist, then I see them, and he's clearly not. I am 100% open to changing my mind, racism is terrible. Please provide specific and clear examples. Calling everything racism really weakens the argument.
You also provide another example of your clouded judgement: "and a handful of examples of him saying the words when a reporter presses him." This type of thinking shows that you just want to confirm your pre-existing idea that he is a racist. When he then says he is not, you say "oh he really is, he was just saying that because he had to". That means there is no possible thing he can do to change your mind.
As I said above, if someone can provide specific examples, and not just of behaviors they don't like but of how they are actually racist, I am more than happy to denounce him. Also, in case you missed it, under Trump (pre-Covid), black unemployment was at an all time low.
I did provide some examples at the end of the post. He could honor people doing racial justice work, rather than attacking them. He could stop stoking fear of immigrants and tell the truth about them, which is that they tend to be more educated and more determined than average. He could insist on full investigations of police violence toward black people, rather than equivocating. But he doesn't actually do substantive work on race.
Thanks for the response! This really shows the lack of clarity in your thinking. We can review each item quickly:
1. He could honor people doing racial justice work - Does not doing this make someone a racist? Silly. Also, here is a direct quote from February 2020 (see how I use actual evidence) "We’re here with some of the black leaders of our country and — people that are highly respected and people that have done a fantastic job and, for the most part, have been working on this whole situation with me right from the beginning." Does that sound like something a racist would say?
2. He could stop stoking fear of immigrants - This is not a specific example.
3. He could insist on full investigations of police violence toward black people - This isn't the responsibility of the president. If he got involved in police business people would say he is overreaching. This is again a subjective thing you "feel" he could do. The agencies that are supposed to be involved are.
I try to stick with concrete facts to base my opinions on. This has been a great example where you really want to think he's racist because of what you see in the media but have so far provided 0 objective evidence for your claim.
Yes, it does sound like something many racists say. You treat "racist" like it only means someone who uses racial epithets. That's the tip of the iceberg. Looking at how people empower and disempower those of other races is the far more substantial and important measure.
I am laughing at your dismissal as "not a specific example". I linked to a very recent one upthread, and many many more are easily available and uncontroverted. He talked up a Muslim ban and campaigned on building a wall. You are being willfully blind on this one.
It absolutely is the responsibility of the president. He leads and sets the tone. He has influence over, for example, Daniel Cameron, and used it to encourage a lack of police accountability. He can control grant programs and discretionary spending in the area of policing. The DoJ can investigate police departments as part of their public integrity work, and has done historically little of that under this administration. And instead of calling Black Lives Matter a "symbol of hate" for reacting to a problem that his own Attorney General acknowledges (that there is systemic bias against black people in policing) he could press Congress and state leaders to address the issue.
For godsakes the Republican party freed the slaves and voted for the civil rights act. It's the democrat party that should have to denounce it's history... except they let people like Ralph Northam continue to govern despite being photographed in a KKK hood. And before you start say "Oh the great switch" the part that's never explained by that bs theory is how one day people who had been fighting for civil right woke up and decided to undo everything they had fought for for the last 100 years. You're being taught to hate people that aren't hateful because then it makes it easier to justify the means of seizing power.
> For godsakes the Republican party freed the slaves and voted for the civil rights act.
Civil Rights Acts, many of them, starting in the 19th century; sure, and all that was great. But after that the Republican Party decided to seize on the rift created in the Democratic Party when LBJ also backed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which was essential to it being passed into law, because Republicans didn't have a veto-proof majority backing it) to subsequently, starting particularly in the 1968 Presidential election and continuing thereafter, to target the white racists (particularly concentrated in the South) that were disenchanted with the Democratic Party on that issue, in order to make sure that that split wasn't temporary as it was when the Dixiecrats revolted over Truman's integration of the military. And to do that, they started pandering, and have ever since, to the racism of the disaffected group they were courting.
It's precisely because there was 100 years in between that no Reconstruction Republican woke up and voted for Goldwater. You think things can't change over that time frame you haven't been paying attention to the last fifty years, or even twenty.
That's quite plausible. I'd expect that most American Southern Blacks (outside the South the parties were quite different and the issue is more complicated) that identified with a major party between the founding of the Republican Party and the Republican Southern Strategy of the late 1960s and beyond, which King was murdered too soon to be influenced by, were Republicans.
The parties of today, despite sharing the same names, aren't ideologically the same parties as when King was alive (or, a fortiori, any earlier time), though.
That's not at all clear, historically speaking. Even if he were, that would make perfect sense as a Southerner. We think of politics these days as relatively nationally uniform, but then-Democrats were the racists that the Southern Strategy sought to woo.
So they started voting for the people responsible for the KKK and Jim Crow laws thinking they were going to making things better? Honest question, are you high or just incredibly naive? Secondly, in 1860s republicans freed the slaves and in 1960s they passed civil rights despite democrats voting against it. Thats 100 years of progress so what are you talking about? What did the democrats do other than burn crosses?
Edit: I love downvotes without a rebuttal because I know Ive won.
> So they started voting for the people responsible for the KKK and Jim Crow laws
No, the people who still supported the KKK and the ideology behind Jim Crow laws switched major parties, if they were associated with a major party, from the Democrats to the Republicans between the late mid-1960s and the mid-1990s, because of disaffection with the Democrats (initially particularly President Johnson) backing civil rights, but also because the Republicans started actively campaigning to their racist interests to leverage their disaffection with the Democrats.
In some cases, the people switching parties were literally the same people who had bolted temporarily from the Democratic Party in the 1940s over Truman's integration policies, but who had come back because they had no other major party to go to, and their own separate party had failed. (Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrat Presidential candidate in 1948, is a notable, highly-visible example.)
And as this process continued it was self-reinforcing, because the more White supremacists left the Democratic Party for the Republicans, the stronger the Democratic support for the interests White supremacists opposed could be.
This theory is garbage because it totally forgets that REPUBLICANS passed the civil rights act and were still overwhelmingly less racist than their democratic counterparts. What you are saying is the equivalent of AOC voting for Trump because the party isnt radical enough. It’s a lie. Its always been a lie. Thats why democrat run cities since that day are some of the most destitute for black people. Democrats use them and its sickening. I’m a republican and I abhor any sort of racism. There are a lot more of me than you think and well find-out in November. One thing is for sure, Stop fighting hate with hate
Based on the percentages it's blatantly obvious which party was more in favor of civil rights for minorities, Republicans. So why would the Racist democrats, the ones that voted no, want to join the party that was much more unanimous than the party in which they currently reside? What you are saying is like Nancy Pelosi becoming a republican because Trump became a democrat. It's absurd. You've been taught a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Okay... why did a Republican, nominee of the party "more in favor of civil rights for minorities," vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? And why did Nixon, a Republican, follow his lead in the following election, emphasizing law and order, an end to protests, and a war on drugs? Why did Strom Thurmond, a Democrat, join the Republican party?
Given the way Trump has captured the following of the conservative community, despite being a radical populist and having few policy accomplishments besides inflaming racial tensions, yes. It's reasonable starting assumption about any group that continues to express support for Trump.
I'm not a fan of identity politics, I generally try to ignore race, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But at this point it's awfully hard to not conclude that Trump is a race baiting bigot. My final straw was the FUD about Kamala Harris's birth certificate. Apparently "birth certificate" really is just a simplistic dog whistle for pointing out that someone is Black.
I'm a libertarian and think that both parties screw the People similarly, but after four years of this destructive ignorant bullshit enough is enough. It's time to take our country back.
A politician (or any human being for that matter) consists of a bunch of dimensions.
American society also has many dimensions , some being representative of the structure and institutions of the society, and then also all the people within the country who are affected by governance, and each individual person is also multidimensional (inside of which is lots of complexity, that drives political decisions within the overall system).
The makeup of a politicians dimensions affects the manner in which they ~govern, with respect to the societal dimensions, and in turn acting upon those dimensions.
Within this system we have "democracy", then within there we have "politics", which consists of this weird multidimensional, ~"interactive dance" that consists of "facts", "logic", rhetoric (perspective/narrative building (and advertising/distribution), framing, hyperbole, motivated reasoning, post-hoc rationalization, propaganda, destroying people with facts, "the news", "debates", memes(!), trolling, shitposting, etc), axioms, principles, "visions", and various other silliness. But all for a good cause, with the best of intentions in mind (to the degree that each individual is capable of that).
When it comes to election time, citizens are given one vote, a binary choice of two candidates. To make this choice, each individual voter crushes down all the complex dimensionality of their personal model of the world (which they mistake for shared reality) and out comes their decision who to vote for.
The purpose of all the absurdity and chicanery in the interactive dance above, is to influence the manner in which each individual crushes their dimensions. More specifically, the purpose of the dance is to influence the makeup/configuration/contents of each person's model - or, alter their perception of reality.
I would say that what the arguments we individuals engage in on social media "is", is simply a part of this dance. In this case, I reckon that you are responding to your model of the world, and interacting with others within the system, hoping to influence their model (an illustration of the viral nature of ideas). More specifically, you are (in all good faith, I presume), ~"deploying a persuasive meme/perspective", something roughly along the lines of:
"Donald Trump's model contains a dimension labelled 'Literally Racist', and it's value is '100%'. Furthermore, *because(!)* anyone who 'is' 'racist' 'should' 'be shunned by society, absolutely, full stop', *then therefore(!)* you must(!) vote for Joe Biden."
If the individuals "political team" (the leader, and all teammates) has done a good enough job in influencing the model of the individual deploying the meme, the person will perceive their action as being righteous, composed of critical thinking, exercising logic, doing the right thing, being an adult in the room, etc. But what it really is, is just this weird dance. And there's no need to feel bad about it, because it seems to be a fairly innate, evolved behavior of human beings, so we all do it (if to varying degrees, and in different styles). I'm doing it right now (in response to you doing it). The whole big thing is just this weird dance, and what ultimately comes out the other end, is a new or reelected President (in part driving the ongoing future evolution of the overall model), and the whole thing starts anew.
> When it comes to election time, citizens are given one vote, a binary choice of two candidates. To make this choice, each individual voter crushes down all the dimensionality of their personal model of the world (which they mistake for shared reality) and out comes their decision who to vote for. The purpose of all the absurdity and chicanery in the interactive dance above, is to influence the manner in which each individual crushes their dimensions
I'm 100% in agreement on this. I've previously made the argument that one bit of input is small, thus the overall function of voting is actually to make winning voters think they wanted all their candidate's policies. I formed during the Obama years, after arguing against blue tribe friends arguing for corporo-statist health care. To be clear, this is the first time I will be voting for a major party candidate for President.
> "Donald Trump's model contains a dimension labelled 'Literally Racist', and it's value is '100%'. Furthermore, because(!)* anyone who 'is' 'racist' 'should' 'be shunned by society, absolutely, full stop', then therefore(!) you must(!) vote for Joe Biden."*
This does not represent my perspective at all.
First, I've been slow to come around to labeling Trump a simple racist. As I said, my last straw was Harris's "birth certificate". Back in May, I was still arguing with a friend who was claiming Trump's malevolence on Covid came from his desire to see brown people die. Focusing on race begets racism. I've been trying to find non-racial explanations the whole time.
Second no, I don't think racists should be outright shunned by society. People that do must not love their grandmothers. Racism is like farting. Everyone is going to develop some of it, but we should try to keep it to ourselves and spare each other the unpleasantness. It's problematic when people bring it up and make it part of their identity, either as oppressor or oppressed.
And lastly no, my decision to support Biden does not come from modus ponens on policies. Rather, I've been trying to find any reason why it would make sense to support Trump, to give his supporters the benefit of the doubt. For context, I was the one explaining to blue friends back in 2016 that Trump would likely win, because he was speaking to a lot of concerns that they casually wrote off.
While he's still talking about red tribe concerns, he has done little to actually address them. If he had improved the economic situation in the middle of the country, I'd get it. If he were devoutly religious, I'd get it. If he had reformed some aspect of the healthcare system towards a functioning market, I'd get it. If his trade policies could actually preserve American jobs, I'd get it. If he had actually built that wall, I'd get it. I wouldn't necessarily agree, but I would understand.
What has he actually done instead? He's continued to reject expert advice regarding Covid, leading to 210,000 American deaths. Rather than trying to calm the situation after George Floyd (even if it just resulted in some token reforms), he drove the division. He's setup tariffs that could only have worked twenty years ago, and has chosen to compete with China by adopting China's app censorship totalitarianism. He has withdrawn from foreign diplomacy to let China and Russia conquer unhindered.
The only charitable narrative I can come up with is that his supporters are still buying into his narrative as an opposition candidate, despite his past four years of office and his lack of results on goals they claim to care about. As they continue to be directly harmed by his actual actions, that becomes less plausible.
> thus the overall function of voting is actually to make winning voters think
More generally, the specific implementation of "democracy" in America was probably done with the best of intentions, but the rise of various forms of communication have now enabled and created the need/desire for more sophisticated forms. I would propose some reasonable form of more direct democracy, or at least comprehensive direct polling (non-binding) on individual issues - this way we'd at least have a half decent model about what people's beliefs are. Unfortunately, this may be unpalatable to certain parties who enjoy the ability to project what they want people to think other people's beliefs are.
That people have not been provided this improved (over one vote every 4 years, and then some other low-resolution voting here and there at other levels, all of which rarely results in changing much, or pleasing a large portion of the public) seems to have resulted in a situation where people have decided to take influence into their own hands, with the tools they have available: meme wars.
> This does not represent my perspective at all.
I may have estimated you erroneously.
>> Do you automatically presume any conservative group is white supremacists by default?
> Given the way Trump has captured the following of the conservative community, despite being a radical populist and having few policy accomplishments besides inflaming racial tensions, yes. It's reasonable starting assumption about any group that continues to express support for Trump.
Upon reconsideration, my interpretation has not changed. Can you possibly explain where you think I may have gone wrong in interpreting the above exchange? My sense of what you are saying is that because I have awareness of racist tendencies in Trump's model, then therefore I should reject him (as opposed to considering his racism as just one dimension among millions of others).
> And lastly no, my decision to support Biden does not come from modus ponens on policies. Rather, I've been trying to find any reason why it would make sense to support Trump, to give his supporters the benefit of the doubt.
I interpret this to mean that you are unable to see how someone could possibly evaluate the multidimensional nature of Donald Trump and (all things considered) decide to vote for him, without ~being similarly racist, or at least to some noteworthy degree? This is literally how I interpret your words, did you mean something completely different and I missed it?
> He's continued to reject expert advice regarding Covid, leading to 210,000 American deaths.
I don't like the manner in which he's done this, but I am very displeased with the way this pandemic has been marketed (for many reasons), so I am "ok" with his buffoon-like performance.
> He's setup tariffs that could only have worked twenty years ago, and has chosen to compete with China by adopting China's app censorship totalitarianism.
Here we disagree, significantly.
> He's withdrawn from foreign diplomacy to let China and Russia conquer unhindered.
Also here.
Other than these points, and then also our final decision on who to vote for, I believe you and I are largely in agreement on everything else you've written.
> My sense of what you are saying is that because I have awareness of racist tendencies in Trump's model, then therefore I should reject him (as opposed to considering his racism as just one dimension among millions of others).
No, but you did get what I'm saying with this next quote:
> I interpret this to mean that you are unable to see how someone could possibly evaluate the multidimensional nature of Donald Trump and (all things considered) decide to vote for him, without ~being similarly racist, or at least to some noteworthy degree?
Every individual decision is moderated by noise, lag, etc, but fundamentally yes this conclusion seems to be getting more and more valid. I've been trying to see the other dimensions but have been coming up increasingly short. For example when he's asked about his Covid response - he always comes back to talking about banning travel from China. It seems the only way he knows how to make policy is to claim some group is responsible for the problem, and exclude them. The concept of attacking the details of problem itself is beyond him.
So the deeper problem isn't merely that Trump has racist tendencies, but rather than it's the only lens through which he sees the world. In his mind, every problem is due to bad people disrupting things for good people. Stop the bad people and things will be good. But the world is much more complex than that.
I guess if you still believe his China policies, then it's possible to support his approach without being racist yourself. The problem is those policies also reek of the simple minded thinking of racism - tariffs to keep out bad Chinese goods, don't care about Hong Kong because it's Chinese, blaming Chinese apps specifically rather than data collection in general - and they will all be long term strategic failures that miss the big picture.
> I don't like the manner in which he's done this, but I am very displeased with the way this pandemic has been marketed (for many reasons), so I am "ok" with his buffoon-like performance.
If it were just the way he communicated I would get over it. But the real problem is the rejection of experts. He basically kneecapped the entire federal response, for which we've been paying a large amount of taxes, in favor of letting Covid spread unchecked. He's the leader and his job is to lead everyone - the "both sides" argument doesn't hold water. The standard politician thing would have been to defer to the experts and make sure he himself couldn't be blamed for errors. This culture is itself suboptimal, but would have produced much better results than what we got.
If he had listened to any experts, Trump could have easily gotten the wartime president boost rather than presiding over a needless disaster. The lack of PPE specifically would have dovetailed nicely into his call for domestic manufacturing, but instead crickets. If he were anything besides an empty suit, he would have figured this out by now.
> The concept of attacking the details of problem itself is beyond him.
Donald Trump's full capabilities are unknown to you. At best, you can form a model of them based on observations, but this also has a dependency on the comprehensiveness and accuracy (unintentional bias due to interpretation) of your observations.
> So the fundamental isn't merely that Trump has racist tendencies, but rather than it's the only lens through which he sees the world.
With all due respect, this seems hyperbolic, to be generous.
> In his mind, every problem is due to bad people disrupting things for good people.
This is speculation.
> But the world is much more complex than that.
This seems ironic.
> I do get if you're still hanging your hat on his China policies
This is a figure of speech that typically implies certain things.
> then it's possible to agree with his approach without being personally racist.
One can also be not racist and disagree with his China policies.
> Although those policies also reek of the simple minded thinking of racism - tariffs to keep out bad Chinese goods, don't care about Hong Kong because it's Chinese, blaming Chinese apps specifically rather than data collection in general
This is your personal interpretation.
> and they will all be long term strategic failures that miss the forest for the trees
This is a prediction of the future.
> He basically kneecapped the entire federal response, which we've been paying a large amount of taxes for, in favor of letting Covid spread unchecked.
This is suggestive that you posses highly accurate knowledge of the incredibly complex causation behind America's sub-optimal performance, and that there weren't many mistakes all over the place, as well as lacking acknowledgement of vast uncertainty involved, in general.
> He's the leader and his job is to lead everyone - the "both sides" argument doesn't hold water.
I've made no such argument.
> The standard politician thing would have simply been to defer to the experts and make sure he himself couldn't be blamed.
Perhaps. One might argue that he had an irrational/inappropriate response to fault being near-completely laid at his feet, and responded to that rashly. True causation of human behavior is incredibly complex.
> This culture is itself suboptimal, but would have produced much better results than what we got. Doing so would have also greatly benefited Trump, in that he would have gotten the wartime president boost rather than presiding over a needless disaster.
Agreed. Sometimes life sucks.
> If he were anything besides an empty suit, he would have wised up by now.
Perhaps, but this again speculates about the comprehensive nature of Donald Trump, as well as what optimum behavior is under the current circumstances.
I see where you're coming from - generally, your points are reasonable. Something for you to consider though, is the complexity involved in how people react to not just what is said, but how it is said. I very much do not like how you, or the media, or politicians describe reality. This would be an example of where I agree with one of your points: "This culture is itself suboptimal." I believe the style of politics and journalism we practice in the West is dishonest & misleading, irresponsible, and dangerous (but the danger in play is not properly realized, because Westerners seem to not like to think terribly deeply about things.....they like to "KISS").
I wonder if my general impression of the entire system, is similar to your impression of Donald Trump: ~a complete joke, no respect whatsoever. I can easily appreciate how people disrespect Trump, but I cannot appreciate when those same people respect the general state of politics in the US.
> I wonder if my general impression of the entire system, is similar to your impression of Donald Trump: ~a complete joke, no respect whatsoever. I can easily appreciate how people disrespect Trump, but I cannot appreciate when those same people respect the general state of politics in the US.
That's my general impression of the entire system too, but I still think Trump represents a radical departure from even that. The status quo serving entrenched bureaucracy ("deep state") had at least been performing basic non-partisan functions such as pandemic response. Disrupting that with no replacement waiting is a short path to a completely failed state.
If I were the type of libertarian that thought moving to the middle of nowhere represented the pinnacle of freedom, the thought might appeal to be. But IMO the true measure of freedom is how it scales with society, and collapses have a terrible track record for freedom.
> Disrupting that with no replacement waiting is a short path to a completely failed state.
This is one potential outcome, and in a banana republic I may even agree that it is the most likely outcome. But the USA is a lot more robust than it appears, and I feel highly certain that the (largely manufactured) polarization that we observe is actually quite shallow. My concern is that if we throw Trump out and elect yet another insider, we will immediately resume the former status quo...lip service towards the genuine problems in the world, and plenty of catering to powerful corporations and the military industrial complex (I have the feeling way are waaaaaaaaay overdue for an "existential threat" from some tinpot middle eastern dictator). And then before too long: War with China.
It's not a good choice, and it is risky, but I continue to believe that the chaos Trump sows acts as sand in the gears of the powerful, and exposes the media and other politicians for the propagandists they are. Most people seem to be still fully under their spell (many to immediately fall into another trap: conspiracy theory, which is fixable, being mostly a symptom), but many have woken up.
What's missing is, the people that have woken up don't know what to believe, or believe in. The West has no vision for the future, other than the same old bullshit story politicians of both sides of the aisle have been selling people for decades (as our military lays waste to 3rd world countries over completely manufactured pretenses, while the media runs cover for them). We need a new story, and it has to be at least fairly true, and plausible, and acknowledge the real barriers to achievement, rather than making up a whole bunch of fantasy land fake problems.
This is interesting. I wish I were writing your comment. It seems like we're coming from a similar place but have much different read on the present situation - you're optimistic.
> I continue to believe that the chaos Trump sows acts as sand in the gears of the powerful
Arbitrary chaos tends to benefit the powerful, as they're able to take advantage of it. For example I had been hoping that the pandemic-induced economic slowdown would have unwound the debt treadmill by a bit. Instead the powerful just had the government print money to prop up asset prices. Meanwhile Main St continues to suffer.
> My concern is that if we throw Trump out and elect yet another insider, we will immediately resume the former status quo...lip service towards the genuine problems in the world, and plenty of catering to powerful corporations and the military industrial complex
From what I can tell, Trump has not stopped the sabre rattling and foreign military interventions. How are things better by not even paying lip service? Don't mistake upsetting specific individuals with upsetting the overall system.
> exposes the media and other politicians for the propagandists they are
He may call them for what they are, but his own reality distortion field prevents him from gaining any high ground. I had been working to keep an open mind on this, putting aside the media's complaints about Trump, and trying to see what he was actually doing (eg I appreciated when he scrapped the individual mandate). Covid itself was my breaking point, as it was an objective threat that he just rejected dealing with. I (still) agree the media is a giant propaganda operation, but in 2020, I listen to them over Trump.
> What's missing is, the people that have woken up don't know what to believe, or believe in. The West has no vision for the future, other than the same old bullshit story politicians of both sides of the aisle have been selling people for decades (as our military lays waste to 3rd world countries over completely manufactured pretenses, while the media runs cover for them). We need a new story, and it has to be at least fairly true, and plausible, and acknowledge the real barriers to achievement, rather than making up a whole bunch of fantasy land fake problems.
I agree with this in general. But IMO Trump looks like yet another conspiracy red herring rather than a productive path forward.
It depends where they're positioned. If they're on solid footing, agreed. But if they're 100 feet up on a highwire with no safety net, not so secure.
> From what I can tell, Trump has not stopped the sabre rattling and foreign military interventions.
It's a subjective call, but the only sabre rattling I've heard much from is Trump. It's when the media starts acting in unison (like when Trump suggested pulling troops from the middle east), that's when my ears perk up.
> How are things better by not even paying lip service?
I believe Trump in all he does demonstrates how illusory our political system is, and how closely it is joined at the hip with the media. He's managed to get plenty of serious people to say very silly things, intentional or not, and I think a lot of people are starting to catch on that there is a curtain on the stage, and that there are in fact things going on behind that curtain. This is a stark contrast to Obama, who was an absolutely brilliant performer, like the David Blaine of politicians.
> He may call them for what they are, but his own reality distortion field prevents him from gaining any high ground....
Here I completely agree. Very often I cannot help wondering if he truly is as incompetent as people say, because sometimes it sure seems like it (covid, particularly opposing masks!!!??, the debates...all sorts of examples). At the very least, he is highly inconsistent. I imagine he is hyped up on amphetamines most of the time as well, which likely takes its toll some days, so perhaps that helps explain his truly incompetent days.
> But IMO Trump looks like yet another conspiracy red herring rather than a productive path forward.
Sometimes for a new forest to grow, you have to burn the old one down. Mother nature operates in mysterious ways.
But even if Trump can successfully derail the system, he is in no way a man with a vision for a new one that serves everyone's interests - "Make America Great Again" minus the bad stuff would be a huge improvement over now, but it is still fundamentally flawed, and I don't see a lot of people lined up with better stories.
Here's the president, leader of the conservative party, in his own words denouncing white supremacy, as covered a year ago by CBS https://youtu.be/DUdRS98R6B8
> The Daily Caller is one of Facebook’s official fact checker partners
That doesn't tell you how much they weight it compared to the others.
> And the top performing content on Facebook is dominated by right wing media figures
This is misleading for the same reason as Fox News being the most popular cable news network. There is only one right-leaning cable news network, whereas CNN and MSNBC split the left-leaning viewership even though together they're larger than Fox.
The same thing happens with links. Fox covers a story with their take, it gets N shares, CNN and MSNBC each cover the same story with their take and each get M/2 shares, and then Fox is at the top of the chart even if M > N.
The Facebook top 10 is dominated by a large set of right wing media figures, with it varying quite a bit which subset appears during any given period. Your splitting theory does not work.
The number of right wing media figures is smaller than the number of left wing media figures, which means they each get a larger proportion of their base. It's the same thing.
The conservative content that is popular on Facebook is not news, it’s people like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levine... and it’s not like there is a shortage of right wing media personalities.
You have to remember, a huge proportion of engagement on the Facebook Blue app are boomers and folks outside of large cities.
...... what? This is an example that capitalism does work. If someone wants to live in Random City A then Facebook will still have to compete with the local wages there to get people to work for them. The labor market is supply and demand driven. And of course Facebook decides the wages of their employees, how else would it work? The employment agreement is two sided, if people don't like the offer they can go work somewhere else.
Massive caveat: Facebook is an absolutely garbage company and the world would be better off if they didn't exist. But paying less based on location is reasonable.
> Massive caveat: Facebook is an absolutely garbage company and the world would be better off if they didn't exist. But paying less based on location is reasonable.
Mmm...would garbage companies also include any of these Tik-tok, instagram, snapchat? Would you care to point out some non-garbage companies as well? I'm not against your perspective. I've encountered a few times already just on this thread. I'm just curious to see what is considered a good company. Amazon, Tesla, AirBnb, Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, SAP? Or maybe there are no good guys.
It's a good question. By garbage here I mean their entire existence is based on wasting people's time and then making money by showing Ads. Their entire incentive structure is to get people as addicted as possible. They are not trying to add value to the world. Also, most people aren't aware of the trade-off they are making (data being sold), or how they are being manipulated, which makes it doubly terrible. Or that there are armies of behavior psychologists trying to get them to spend as much time as possible on the site.
"Good" is a sliding scale here, we each have our own subjective definition. I try to define it as "Is the world a better place because this company exists?" I personally would answer Yes for the companies you listed.
>> If someone wants to live in Random City A then Facebook will still have to compete with the local wages there to get people to work for them
This argument doesn't make sense in the context of remote work where the location of the individual has no bearing on the output capacity of the individual.
How does Facebook decide who deserves what salary? I thought it was entirely based on skill but clearly it is not.
+1. All the snowflakes will cry about "unfair" whine whine. And ignore reality. As per usual! There is no logical reason why they wouldn't pay based on location.
