TheSanSabaSongbird

Sounds like somebody needs to take an anthropology course or two. You are badly confused. You're not even wrong, you're just light years off base and clearly speculating with a kind of pure almost childlike ignorance of the subject.

You have a very generous definition of the word "worked."

It's just a simple fact that managed or hybrid capitalism produces by far the best results for the most people. I will never understand the need to see the world in black and white terms when it's quite obvious to nearly everyone that mixed economies provide the best allocation of resources together with the highest quality of life. This is a subject that mainstream economists see as largely settled, apart from the details.

I can't believe I'm seriously arguing with a communist. Maybe this is enough Internet for me for today.

You are simply describing the effects of political and social polarization. I blame it primarily on a decades-long process of consolidation of wealth, influence and opportunity in the hands of an elite few, but no doubt there are other factors at play as well.

On the flipside I am very much opposed to any theory of the case that has it as being somehow uniquely American. It's not an American thing; it's a human thing that can happen in any country and has in fact happened in many countries throughout history. It does not require that we posit some kind of national hysteria that's unique to Americans when we can, with far fewer assumptions, simply point to polarization.

Objectivity isn't meant to be a destination in the sense that it's a place that one's reporting can arrive at. It's meant to be a process, one that can never be executed perfectly, but one that has the effect of improving the final product over what it would otherwise be.

As for your question, "when did WWII start?" The answer is that it's an objective fact that there are a number of events that arguably mark the beginning of the war, all of which have varying degrees of merit. Complexity, or the fact that there is no one right answer to a given question, doesn't mean that we have to throw out any effort at objectivity. It just means that we have to dig deeper.

This is also what nearly killed off local newspapers. It's a huge problem and journalism as a profession is still in the process of adjusting to the new realities.

You obviously know nothing about Bukowski. Whatever Lemmy may think of it, the above quote wasn't intended as a political statement.

But they weren't war-crimes at the time and in fact, to the contrary, were very much in the spirit of war as it was being prosecuted by all of the belligerents.

There's been a lot of really good work on the history of air power and the logic that led to deliberately targeting civilians in WW2 on all sides. It wasn't necessarily as nakedly bloodthirsty as it appears to us now looking back. If you honestly believed that targeting civilians would shorten the war and ultimately result in less suffering, it was actually a moral decision, or at least morally ambiguous.

I think this is likely correct. Lemmy's users skew very young. It explains a lot about what opinions, sentiments and views are and are not popular around here. Obviously there are some oldsters like myself, but I think we're more the exception rather than the rule.

Their origins go back to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, so they would probably exist as an Islamic extremist terrorist organization in some form regardless, but obviously it would be in a completely different context and they probably wouldn't have anything like the support that they have now.

The first 3 are wire services. They do have staff reporters, but most of their content is generated by other news organizations that are subscribers to them. I wish more people understood how wire services work. It's part of being media literate.

Basically if I'm a subscriber to AP (true of Reuters and AFP as well) I can publish their content and edit it however I want, and I can contribute my own content (put it on the wire) as long as I use their in-house style-guides which for AP is the industry standard in the US anyway.

All of which is just to say that a wire service story may or may not have been reported by someone who actually works for that wire service. Usually, at least with AP and Reuters, it will say in the biline.

Good luck with that Johnson, you absolute fucking moron.

Let's see how far your far-right bullshit gets you.

The American people are sick and tired of your dysfunctional inability to get anything done.

How it's always worked in the past?

I dunno, do you have a better idea?