3 ms·
"but if you consider all right wing people to be bizarre" Let's again define the terminology here. I'm a conservative. Many of my friends and peers are conserv
by endorphone 7y ago
"but if you consider all right wing people to be bizarre"
Let's again define the terminology here. I'm a conservative. Many of my friends and peers are conservatives. We traditionally would be "right wing". Only what has been co-opted as the right wing are an absolutely bizarre collection of group-thinkers who have circled the wagons around the abomination that is Donald Trump and tied their ego and identity to defending the same. It is absolutely bizarre, and hopefully will be studied for decades, in the same way that we study other maladies.
Never before has conservatism been so absolutely...deplorable. To be something to rightly be ashamed of.
"Here's an article that covers a series of severe factual errors in the New York Times"
A small selection of articles about Britain. See, I don't expect the NYT to have perfect coverage about Britain, nor do I expect Wired to have technically correct coverage of neural networks. Nor, for that matter, do I expect the NYT to be faultless -- thousands of articles a day, every day. Some of them are going to be wrong.
- jimhefferon 7y agoThank you for saying this. It was the case when I first joined HN that many posts were quite conservative. But here, and frankly across the US, there has been a shift to voices that are indeed deplorable. I admired Jim Lehrer no end. But a person can wonder if the rules alone are strong enough to withstand the assault.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoNo. Rules alone are not enough without moral character on the part of the reporter. Lehrer showed moral character in proposing the rules, and even more in acting on them in a consistent manner. But without the moral character in the reporters (and their managers), the rules are just wallpaper.
- thu2111 7y agoOK, so you consider some people to be bizarre, and you claim you don't see them in real life. Well, they're there. You know they're there because the turn up and vote. They just aren't talking to you. My point about HN stands. By the way, Trump isn't all that conservative, is he? He doesn't seem to care about deficit reduction for instance. I don't expect the NYT to have perfect coverage about Britain, nor do I expect Wired to have technically correct coverage of neural networks. Then your standards are much lower than mine. I do expect that if a news outlet writes about a topic, basic facts which can be checked using 5 minutes on Google have been checked. Otherwise what's the justification for that companies existence? Why should I subscribe? I can get blogging anywhere.