mozz

Dude Biden went up at the debate and tried to fumble his way through explanations of how his record on working class progress was honestly pretty good

And all everyone wanted to talk about was how he was clearly old as fuck

I think Harris is doing what our brain damaged media landscape requests of her

I remember voting for Sanders a couple different times

Biden did quite a bit for the working class, although quite a lot more would be fuckin fantastic. But I do get your point. I feel like maybe you are confusing “get to vote for” with “get to have on a silver platter without needing to play on the tilted table that is US politics and actually get the dude or dudette elected”. I don’t think there has ever been a country where the ruling class will let go of power and give the people a fair shake just because they stand up and say “better candidates pls I don’t like these ones.”

In other words what’s your alternative, just give up and wait for things to get worse until we all starve or go to the camps?

In the footsteps of Napoleon, the shadow figures stagger through the winter
Falling back before the gates of Moscow, standing in the wings like an avenger
And far away behind their lines, the partisans are stirring in the forest
Coming unexpectedly upon their outposts, growing like a promise
You'll never know, you'll never know, which way to turn, which way to look, you'll never see us
As we steal into the blackness of the night you'll never know, you'll never hear us

And the evening sings in a voice of amber
The dawn is surely coming
The morning road leads to Stalingrad, and the sky is Softly humming

-Al Stewart

(I wonder if Putin has been nervously watching the Gaddafi video at all, recently)

Not so funny when it’s you, is it

Come on let’s talk about how foreign nations shouldn’t be interfering in US elections

And about how the “Persians” chumped the Obama administration on the nuclear deal until you got the best of them and now they fear and respect you and only you

You nincompoops

Two whole groups of people can be bad at the same time

Hamas is horrifying villains, and Israel’s government and military are horrifying villains. There is room for all

Honestly I LOVE being able to have Ctrl and Cmd be different modifiers.

Ctrl-C is break, Cmd-C is copy. And so on. All the Unixy stuff respects Ctrl and ignores Cmd and vice versa for the Mac stuff. Honestly it’s the best keyboard setup I have experienced and the only one which never manages to irritate me.

(Personally I am fine without a dedicated copy/paste key; the only ones I like having dedicated keys for are things like volume up/down for which I’m not aware of a universally understood key combination for)

And, that 37k is only directly verifiable deaths - an honest estimate for the actual number of people killed, verifiable and not, is in the hundreds of thousands.

I was going to link to the same Lancet study you did, but you already took care of it for me.

The one time the UN looked in detail into this theory, it turned out it was crap. Hamas and civilians are sometimes next to each other just because they all live in Palestine, but the claimed thing where they would deliberately gather up some civilians and have them stand next to their installation, as if this would deter the Israelis or as if there was any shortage of non-artificial civilian casualties and so it was useful on any level to create some artificially, was it turned out a bunch of hooey.

raises hand

Question

Does that mean that if Likud has a headquarters near some civilian installation, that it's okay to blow it up and the civilians along with it?

(Not that I necessarily believe that Hamas had a command center next to all of the children, but even if they did, I don't think that automatically means that blowing up all the children in the school becomes okay)

(Responding to your response about my edit)

Hm, I didn't know about the Times doing A/B tests before deciding what headline to run. Yeah, I guess I am wrong about it ever happening -- although it still sounds like once they settle on one digital headline they stick with it for everyone and drop a note in the "updated X ago" line if they change it. For reference here's exactly what they said:

Digital headlines often evolve after a story has been published online, too. A writer might file an update containing new information that changes the focus, for instance, or an editor may decide to update a headline so that search engines will find the article more easily. “In a competitive news environment, there’s value in changing a headline when the story changes, because it keeps you up in search,” Ms. Taylor said.

The Times also makes a practice of running what are called A/B tests on the digital headlines that appear on its homepage: Half of readers will see one headline, and the other half will see an alternative headline, for about half an hour. At the end of the test, The Times will use the headline that attracted more readers. “People think if you change a headline, that it’s some kind of ‘Gotcha!,’ and it’s just not,” said Mark Bulik, a senior editor who oversees digital headlines. “People who think it’s a ‘gotcha’ just don’t have a full understanding of news in the digital world.”

But in any case, I think the point still stands -- Reuters was clearly doing that first-paragraph thing here, updating to remove the Israeli viewpoint (possibly because they had time to gather more information themselves and determine that the Israelis were talking bullshit about what had happened and there wasn't a need to report their claims). I don't believe that they have one version of the headline that represents one set of facts and another that doesn't and they serve them both simultaneously, and archive.is and the Twitter guy just happened to see them transforming in opposite directions, with lies underneath where it says "Updated 4 mins ago". It sort of looks to me more likely that Twitter guy / OP is just lying about what happened, to make Reuters look bad for reasons unknown.

Certainly the thesis that at the current time it's transformed into Israeli propaganda is dead wrong, and that is relevant.

It sounds like they were modifying the headline to be more pro Palestinian and more in line with the facts, and edit out some things Israel was saying which turned out to be lies. I fail to see how that matches up with the thesis that Reuters is slanting the story for Israel, or that their headline was getting more pro-Israeli over time, or the broader argument that Reuters is slanting its coverage to manufacture consent (e.g. look at their current front page).

I do recognize that both of those scenarios involve Reuters changing the headline, yes. You don't have to keep explaining that concept to me; I can grasp it. I was asking OP about some of the details of when they saw these intermediate headlines that they were using to paint a picture that seemed to me to be backwards from the reality.

Quick question, what do you think has happened to working class wages in the last 4 years, and what to income inequality?