Yeah, RT is Russian state propaganda. Take it for what it is.

A venture capitalist on breaking up the big tech companies

I'm not sure that we ought to be doing anything as a matter of policy here, but I like this idea quite a bit.

I find it interesting that AOC made a statement that politicians should not be allowed to be lobbyists after, and I don't see a lot of buzz around this from either the left or right wing media on this.

But I am sure the next time she says something incendiary on a culture war issue, it is going to make a lot of noise in predictable fashion. If one were inclined to look for conspiracies, one might think we have one here; where we love to spend so much time talking about culture war issues that divide the proletariat classes, and not a lot of time talking about common causes.

Can't be a conspiracy if it occurs in the open in plain sight.

Certainly seems like a better option relative to breaking up the companies. I can’t really understand how you would break up Facebook, practically speaking. Would you just create separate, competing Facebooks?

I'd expect that AOC's proposal would be popular, if polled. I'd be fine with it. I doubt it would accomplish anything earth-shattering though, and if it gets little attention I'd guess that's partly why.

I think to some large extent we love culture war issues just because they seem deeply significant in relation to issues of identity and worldview that are otherwise largely taken for granted until challenged. I don't think it requires a conspiracy to get people to be interested in a lot of those topics, including people in media.

But it does seem to be true that there's an increasing focus on those issues recently. But then, given that Trump's campaign and success highlighted so many related topics, this also seems like something driven more spontaneously rather than being the result of conscious motivation.

I agree with you, but would also add there is an argument culture war issues trigger hardware in the human psyche that probably is not as adaptive as it once was.

You guys are both wrong/crazy to discount the role the media has in shaping debate and informing us of what issues are "important" and what issues (like permanent war) are not important. To not think that this is done willfully by pushing social issues means that I have a lot of work to do.

To talk about social construction on one hand and then to think that everything surrounding the information we receive is purely organic I don't understand.

por que no los dos

Puede ser. And I agree completely that Trump has heightened those issues. I think that is a part of the purpose of Trump--to reinstall a belief in the two-party system that was in jeopardy during the 2016 election. Had it been Jeb vs HRC everyone would know the Republicans and Democrats are hopeless "corproratists" but Trump came along with his nascent white-nationalism and shook everything up.
So as far as Trump era identity politics goes then he deserves the credit. But we shouldn't at all pretend like the media hasn't been mostly vacuous war-mongers our entire lifetimes.
And to think the because the NYT is now "woke" like that article you posted now suggests--like that means progress is being made--seems like quite wishful thinking.

I don't think the person who compiled those NYT stats thinks that it represents progress, to be clear, and I wasn't citing it by way of arguing for "progress" either. I'm ambivalent about that. I linked it because it does seem to provide some support for the thesis that increased interest in these topics is driven by media.

Yeah I think as far as social justice stuff specifically I would agree.
I think as far as social issues in general--the approach has always been to give them a bigger prominence than issues surrounding foriegn policy. Take abortion for example and the role that it has played in divving up the left and right over the last 30 years.
I'd argue the social stuff is needed in order to differentiate the parties that are more or less the same when it comes to issues of trade, war, and immigration (i.e. foriegn policy). So social issues get played up in order to more or less fool people into thinking that they are making a choice when they go to the polls.
To the extent that the media is now simply bigger and that news consists of more than just three networks, perhaps the social justice movement is the inevitable result of the emphasis that the media has given to social issues--since you couldn't fill all of the additional airtime with abortion coverage you need to expand it to other things like who is peeing where, transgender story time controversy, stuff about wrestlers, etc etc. Anything to divide people and take the focus away from actual atrocities. And whether it is the dividing people or the value of distraction that is most important; I do not know.

I like to call those issues "low impact, high drag". Anything the general public can latch onto while some other **** is going on. The Charlotte bathroom incident conveniently took over the nation while some shady stuff was going on... Saudi weapon deal, maybe? No one seemed to care, whatever it was. There are ~650,000 abortions a year, so you are talking about half a percent of the population (generously rounding up) being directly affected. But, it goes back to Womens rights, equality, and general freedoms. Its obviously going to be a hotbed of opinion as it can be a very emotionally charged subject. Still, anytime a touchy subject sweeps the nation I start to wonder what might actually be going on.

Its probably just a lack of empathy

Ok well I would just like to say that if there are going to be rules and guideliness changes, then the sticky should be colorful and in All-caps bc I did not, in fact, read it first before posting.

/Contrarian its your fault, not mine

I wouldn't be opposed to one of those 1997 style horizontally-scrolling marquees in a rainbow color. That would be sweet :P

Is it possible to still read the old threads from the ex-forum? Somebody help me computer

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41/politics/

Search function still works, I believe. It's difficult to quote posts, however.

Ty kindly

Duverger's Law, the political theory that combination of First Past the Post and single member districts create two party systems, only seems to hold up in the US and seems to be a product of the US legal system than some iron clad political theory

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...s-law-is-dead/

I like that blog post because it supports my preconceived biases

I can't look at the forum on my phone without it being overtaken by oppressive ads

There's an atf thread for complaints about ads. It seems there's been a lot of problems lately.

I use Tapatalk Pro and don't get any

So the census thing is a good win win situation for Republicans. If they get the census question in then it'll reduce responses from minorities relatively increasing white and therefore Republican power, and it sets up the next move

Left wing political correctness is out of control!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/u...tory-hour.html