In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
Ok
I'll start here: where did the media touch you?
I say let all propaganda flow unimpeded from all sources. We're sure af never going to ascertain that we've sidestepped a pitfall for media savvy.
Only the fantasy is there. Post-truth lmao not much more to say.
I'd be interested in an instance of media bias/deception watever... and the tangible consequences
Not some vague influence over any particular idea, over time
I'm going to put you down for a 7.
I think the media just watched and took notes while the elites touched him
lol
OK. Fun debate or something
Apropos of nothing in particular (other than watching a couple of youtube vids), I am revising my prediction for SBF's sentence to 15-18 years committed.
FWIW the presentence report is recommending 100 years and his lawyers are asking for about 6.5.
You were on point with original guess.
Former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes was sentenced to 13 years, which I think has now been reduced to 11 years. Keeping things simple, I figured SBF would get about double that sentence so ~ 25 years.
SBF was sentence to 25 years.
Yep, you were bang on as well. I wasn't taking into account some of the stuff the judge mentioned during sentencing, mostly related to his post-arrest conduct. That really didn't help him any.
Losing to wreckem stings lol.
https://static01.nytimes.com/newsgraphic...
So the Biden administration is expanding the racial categories for future census takings. Off first glance a couple things seem odd:
1. South East Asia, which represents almost 2 billion people (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) gets the same box as Ireland (5 million total population).
2. Would someone with Spanish or Portuguese ancestry really consider themselves Hispanic/Latino as opposed to white? Maybe Luckbox can weigh in on this.
3. Are people of Arab Israeli/Palestinian descent supposed to click Israeli, or is that just for Jews?
4. Are White Americans, many of whom have ancestry coming from 4+ places (if they even know) supposed to name them all?
--Given how much America really is a melting pot (except for this weird thing where we use the 1 drop rule for anyone with black ancestry) all these racial sub classifications really seem unnecessary, regressive and counterproductive IMO.
https://static01.nytimes.com/newsgraphic...
So the Biden administration is expanding the racial categories for future census takings. Off first glance a couple things seem odd:
1. South East Asia, which represents almost 2 billion people (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) gets the same box as Ireland (5 million total population).
2. Would someone with Spani
Here's the link to the Federal Register asking for public feedback on the categories. It states that the example form shown is just one of many being looked at but at the moment was the favorite of board members.
https://www.federalregister.gov/document...
As to your questions:
1. The countries selected for check boxes were based on their representation in the US, not the entire world.
2-4. People are instructed to select as many categories and subcategories as they feel is appropriate. So there is no need to select just one. So however many categories someone feels best describes them is fine. For example, someone may just select white. Another, white, then irish, german; and another person even more.
Milei called the Colombian president a "terrorist murderer"
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/28/ameri...
Petro was a member of an armed guerrilla terrorist movement (who killed policemen, kidnapped people and so on) for like a decade so I am not sure why anyone is surprised if he gets called a terrorist murderer but here we are
https://static01.nytimes.com/newsgraphic...
So the Biden administration is expanding the racial categories for future census takings. Off first glance a couple things seem odd:
1. South East Asia, which represents almost 2 billion people (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) gets the same box as Ireland (5 million total population).
Irish once again no longer white.
2. Would someone with Spanish or Portuguese ancestry really consider themselves Hispanic/Latino as opposed to white? Maybe Luckbox can weigh in on this.
I don't know how Europeans feel but there is definitely a debate amongst Brazilians about whether they should be considered Latinos or not. I think most want their own unique cultural identity and don't want to be lumped in with the Spanish-speaking-Americas.
--Given how much America really is a melting pot (except for this weird thing where we use the 1 drop rule for anyone with black ancestry) all these racial sub classifications really seem unnecessary, regressive and counterproductive IMO.
That's the point
Here's the link to the Federal Register asking for public feedback on the categories. It states that the example form shown is just one of many being looked at but at the moment was the favorite of board members.
https://www.federalregister.gov/document...
As to your questions:
1. The countries selected for check boxes were based on their represen
Encouraging and codifying "racial identity" awareness still seems like a bad idea. Even if you are a liberal and think that focusing on racial identity is a good thing as long as it isn't white people doing it (which I obviously dont agree with); it would still seem obvious this kind of attitude will only further encourage right wing white identitarianism.
I just dont think America is going to have much of a future if we become a nation of tribes where individuals are only interested in their narrow tribal interests, which it seems like how things are going.
Seems like it is going to turn us into Iraq; where it took a ruthless, sadistic, fascist, authoritarian homicidal maniac to get all the different tribes mostly in line, and the second he was gone everything devolved into sectarian chaos.
Encouraging and codifying "racial identity" awareness still seems like a bad idea. Even if you are a liberal and think that focusing on racial identity is a good thing as long as it isn't white people doing it (which I obviously dont agree with); it would still seem obvious this kind of attitude will only further encourage right wing white identitarianism.
I just dont think America is going to have much of a future if we become a nation o
That's the idea.
idk, the directions seemed pretty straightforward to me.
in theory there could be a chance to pull a Switzerland for the USA, with different states becoming beacons for different identities, representing them in the federation.
racially for now that's a big no-no (even if in reality some states are much whiter than the average and viceversa) , but for political/cultural identities, that already seems to be the case tbh.
but if state rights are allowed in full, at least for culture/politics you can have super pro LGBTQ rights states, and others with very different laws, super pro abortion states, and the opposite, and so on.
Which maybe was one of the founding fathers ideas as well.
all it takes is for people who strongly believe in something to accept they can have a place where they belief are backed by the law, while others they consider evil can have their space, with their laws regarding those topics.
The only problem is people like me who will fill in nonsense. Or will they just not count the Polish / Iranian / Tongans?
I have heard it argued that there is a conspiratorial effort by elites to create racial discord as a pre-condition to justify authoritarian takeover to ostensibly mitigate the discord. Are you of the opinion something like this may be going on, where we can see countries like Canada and UK that are further along in this stratagem.
in theory there could be a chance to pull a Switzerland for the USA, with different states becoming beacons for different identities, representing them in the federation.
racially for now that's a big no-no (even if in reality some states are much whiter than the average and viceversa) , but for political/cultural identities, that already seems to be the case tbh.
but if state rights are allowed in full, at least for culture/politics you can
Do you have the slightest idea of where you are living?
You live in a country that is founded as a 'Constitutional Republic'... Do have an inkling as to what that even means?
Are you aware as to the reason there exists an 'Electoral College'?
Do you have the slightest idea of where you are living?
You live in a country that is founded as a 'Constitutional Republic'... Do have an inkling as to what that even means?
Are you aware as to the reason there exists an 'Electoral College'?
I don't live in the USA but yes I am aware of what the electoral college is, why it exists, and you might re read my post because I wrote a pro-state rights post so I guess we agree?
I have heard it argued that there is a conspiratorial effort by elites to create racial discord as a pre-condition to justify authoritarian takeover to ostensibly mitigate the discord. Are you of the opinion something like this may be going on, where we can see countries like Canada and UK that are further along in this stratagem.
why do you think that, both countries had less racial violence than what happened with BLM in the USA in 2020
I have heard it argued that there is a conspiratorial effort by elites to create racial discord as a pre-condition to justify authoritarian takeover to ostensibly mitigate the discord. Are you of the opinion something like this may be going on, where we can see countries like Canada and UK that are further along in this stratagem.
I think it's simpler than that and that they just want to keep people divided. Perhaps at one point in time a little pre-Trump they had dreams of fomenting civil war but I doubt they see that as realistic.
