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

You were on point with original guess.

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.

Just more evidence that the Biden open borders policy is out of control.

https://static01.nytimes.com/newsgra...y-proposed.jpg

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.

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/docu...ical-standards
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/a...ntl/index.html

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

Irish once again no longer white.

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.

That's the point

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.

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.

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?

why do you think that, both countries had less racial violence than what happened with BLM in the USA in 2020

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.

Despite there being much less protesting and violence, both countries seem much more prone to respond with draconian authoritarian measures, at least to combat "right wing" movements.

Fair enough. At the minimum certainly not until they can take away all the guns. No point in formenting a civil war you are likely to lose.