mrangle

33 ms·

361.
by mrangle 3y ago
It isn't. The central pillar of democracy is a press that follows the guidelines and ethics traditionally associated with the institution. A press that deviates from those ethics and guidelines is no longer such an institution except i
362.
by mrangle 3y ago
>How could a Washington-based writer not know this They know this. The obvious point is the mundane and folksey.
363.
by mrangle 3y ago
I enjoyed the summary but not the lame styling of the article nor your response. See how this useless tack works?
364.
by mrangle 3y ago
Yes, in a free-market democracy we want to blame others for pissing off the wrong powerful people. In this instance, by not allowing the said powerful to dictate company policy lest they threaten to ruin the businesses of those who do busin
365.
by mrangle 3y ago
Exactly why the value dropped was advertiser pullout due to a partisan pressure campaign. Which was not a free campaign in terms of political currency.
366.
by mrangle 3y ago
Fortunately for the miners, economic prosperity is about to see a massive rebalancing from the coasts back to the interior.
367.
by mrangle 3y ago
"Shakeup" is generous.
368.
by mrangle 3y ago
Generally speaking, people in charge shift a lot of blame for what may be pinned on them (interest rates in this instance) to other crises. Some of the manufacture of which can be traced back to said people. The case of Ai in this context i
369.
by mrangle 3y ago
Maybe, maybe not. But what is true is that the experience is supposed to be the most brutal. Some desperate people will always do what is necessary. A lot won't do this no matter what.
370.
by mrangle 3y ago
When was Congress overthrown? Which Congresspeople were harmed? Which Grandmas with American flags, now with criminal records, meant to take over the US government? Yes, there are a lot of people in prison. They have been subject to norm-br
371.
by mrangle 3y ago
>They are are not allowed to pressure local officials to “find” votes, Really? Show evidence of "pressure" that has any legal standing. Show me where it is illegal to use the language "find votes". Show me. Don't
372.
by mrangle 3y ago
I can help you. Authenticity is a synonym for trust, in the context of elections. Its the core of voting preference. That is, the candidate who wins is the one who the voters best trust to represent them. Inauthentic candidates are seen as
373.
by mrangle 3y ago
Who violently overthrew Congress? Gaslighting doesn't help your argument. Is the "markeptplace of ideas" like when the Media and the DNC incited mass riots for eight full months before the 2019 election, mass-terrorizing Amer
374.
by mrangle 3y ago
Yes, it is an opinion. People are allowed to contest elections. There is no legal requirement to admit loss. He tried to get no one to "falsify votes". That's spin. None of that amounts to "a treason". Your narrativ
375.
by mrangle 3y ago
No one on either side is going to see opposition investigations, prosecutions, and tactics as legitimate. They only make a candidate "flawed" in the eyes of those who already viewed them as flawed. For everyone else, its even a ne
376.
by mrangle 3y ago
You prior wrote "well educated".
377.
by mrangle 3y ago
That's absolutely a political opinion: dependent on a particular narrative and presentation of facts that is different from others. Just like it is one that the 2019 riots were eight months of pre-election terrorism incited and protect
378.
by mrangle 3y ago
There are, in fact, at least two positions on most issues that the English speaking world cares about. But why move the goal post from voter education to a discussion on the subjective badness of the two main parties? That is, if your aim i
379.
by mrangle 3y ago
Which are they, assumably devoid of regularly appearing propaganda and of emotional partisans?
380.
by mrangle 3y ago
"one of"
381.
by mrangle 3y ago
Lying by omission is observably a central ethic of media.
382.
by mrangle 3y ago
Social media is "the place" with the propagandist bots and partisan screamers? As opposed to where? There are at least two significant red flags in this article: a. It cites five studies, which it does not critique, instead of bei
383.
by mrangle 3y ago
Humans ingest said inforrmation, and then write further articles based on it to resell. The economics may not work, but my point is that media companies are going to have a lot of difficulty in parsing exactly who and what is able to utiliz
384.
by mrangle 3y ago
I disagree that it is a weird take. As your logic is incomplete, respectfully. I didn't mean to imply that being convinced of therapeutic benefit always means that there isn't any. There could even be a lot of benefit. I meant to
385.
by mrangle 3y ago
"Ignorant" is strong language given that for-profit media companies, who are complaining, are rarely citing let alone paying their sources. The takeaway not being that they should start, but that their complaint is likely on shaky
386.
by mrangle 3y ago
By that logic when you regurgitate a summary of your understanding of anything, you are potentially violating the copyright of your sources. Or when a writer plys their trade, the same. Now what if they charge for the article? Much of what
387.
by mrangle 3y ago
Perception of psychotherapeutic progress does not equal progress. Anyone can convince themselves of almost anything, for any number of reasons. Including convicning themselves of a therapeutic effect. Conversely, "therapeutic" pro
388.
by mrangle 3y ago
Zero measurable impact on emissions. I find myself becoming less climate sympathetic with every article that wants to use it to justify every manner of ostensibly related regulation.
389.
by mrangle 3y ago
Foreign Policy is a trash site, since its inception. I'm no AI stan, but in no manner is AI similar to file sharing. The article amounts to legacy media whining about their moat.
390.
by mrangle 3y ago
Got it. Thank you.

More ›