He was renoved as Chairman at the same time (close enough that they were announced together, and presumably linked in cause, though possibly a separate vote) as Altman was removed as CEO.
New evidence was released in the DOJ vs Google case. The judge for the case called this evidence "embarrassing" to Google.
It's a bad headline. There's no a complete sentence here. "DOJ vs. Google evidence release" is a noun phrase ("release" here is used as a noun), modified by the clause "that judge calls embarrassing exhibit". In that clause, "judge" is the subject, "calls" is the verb, "that" is the direct object, and "embarrassing exhibit" is an object compliment, which refers to the same thing as "that". So basically we just have a big noun phrase.
It does make sense. "Begging the question" is a term of art from philosophy meaning to assume the thing you set out to prove--e.g. God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible must be right because it is the literal word of God.
This shift towards using the phrase to mean "raise the question" makes it harder for a writer to tag a claim as being guilty of that particular logical fallacy.
But your first point is right: language changes, and we have to accept new usages, even bad ones.
> This shift towards using the phrase to mean "raise the question" makes it harder for a writer to tag a claim as being guilty of that particular logical fallacy.
No, it doesn't; the petitio principii fallacy sense is inherently intransitive in structure (with no direct object), the “raises the question” sense is necessarily transitive (has a direct object, specifically, the question raised). They are unambiguous (and the intransitive sense cam be rationalized as a special case of the transitibe sense where the unstated object is the justification for the original claim, which is convenient since otherwise that sense is completely opaque in terms of any relation between the constituent words in current English and the meaning of the phrase.)
So put more simply, what you're saying is that the reader can tell by the context. When the writer says "this begs the question", if that phrase is followed by an actual question, the reader knows the writer is using it in the newer sense. If it isn't, the reader knows the writer meant it in the older, logical fallacy sense. I understand that. My claim that it makes it harder still stands. The reader must use context to determine meaning when he didn't have to before.
exactly correct. The question is not: "was software bloated in the 90s". It's: "given that hardware capability increased in by several orders of magnitude, did software quality/speed see a similar increase?" The answer is a resounding no. It would be like moving from a tricycle to a supersonic car and somehow taking longer to get from point a to point b.
I'll concede that we're not going supersonic, but our speed is maybe more at 100mph than slower. Computers (including phones, accomplishing the same tasks that desktops were) are absolutely faster than they were.
We also have better UX, more functionality, and better quality.
If people want to run the software of the mid-90s on modern hardware, I'm sure they can figure out a way. The upside is that when it crashes or you have to switch back and forth with modern software with greater functionality, the underlying system will let you do that very quickly.
A bit lost. In what way did I shit on it? And why do I need an app to understand how much reading 20 min a day is? I'm simply suggesting larger, richer books are often best absorbed when you have more time to enjoy them and get involved in the plot which often takes longer to unfold. I could be wrong it just struck me as a bad fit for a 20 min/day. exercise. I could be wrong.
There are really short chapters and really long chapters. I agree that some of the longer chapters, especially the battle scenes, are probably too long for a 20 minute reading session.
You'll note that trust varies widely by political party, with 18% of Republicans trusting the media vs 57% of Democrats. So the post in the op seems to equate "educated" with "democrat" perhaps. Even if that's valid (don't really have the facts to dispute it personally) 57% is nothing to brag about.
Another interesting poll on this subject here: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/americans-m..., which asked people what their political affiliation was and what their main source of news was. Of those that said Fox, 93% leaned Republican...no surprise there. But what's striking is that of those that said MSNBC, 95% leaned Democrat. The NYT, 91%. NPR, 87%! Kind of makes me wonder what the trust numbers would be if the media outlets weren't increasingly becoming echo chambers.
It surprised you that MSNBC, NYT, and NPR have primarily left-leaning audiences? Their coverage leans left like Fox News leans right, particularly MSNBC. If you asked the surveyed Republicans how much they trust Fox News specifically, I’m sure the stats would be a mirror image. Similarly, democrats trust a news industry which, outlet-for-outlet, is more aligned with what they want to hear. After all, it’s never “our” news we mistrust, it’s the other guys!
Truthfully, I think the smart folks on both sides of the aisle know the news media is a for-profit business whose interests are tangential to telling the truth.
> After all, it’s never “our” news we mistrust, it’s the other guys!
You imply this is some kind of hypocrisy or other character flaw, but this will always be true when there's uncertainty. If someone holds the same prior beliefs as you, it is rational to trust them more. Otherwise you would be assuming your own beliefs are wrong which makes no sense by definition.
Of course media outlets tend to go beyond just filling in the blanks with biased guesses, but still people will be more forgiving if they seem "sensible" generally.
> If someone holds the same prior beliefs as you, it is rational to trust them more.
It may be rational, but that makes them terrible providers of news for the people they agree with. They have the same blind spots and are looking to support the narratives you both already believe.
I would even say it's not rational, but cult like. Rationality is based on logical skepticism. More often than not, it's swimming against the tide questioning generally accepted axioms.
I agree. Rationality includes avoiding confirmation bias (the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values).
Favoring information that confirms one's prior beliefs is the opposite of rational.
> Their coverage leans left like Fox News leans right, particularly MSNBC.
I don't think it detracts from your points, but the coverage of all these outlets leans Democrat, but not left. They are centrist papers. Left voices (think Chomsky) are almost completely absent from mainstream media.
The context is different when referring to politics in a two-party system like the US, versus political philosophy. In the US political system, the center is relative to where the two parties are - there is no “absolute truth” of the center. The democrats are the party of the left like republicans are the party of the right — meaning political views will roughly trend according to party membership. Centrists are defined by being able to keep a foot in both sides, so democrats are by definition not centrist anymore than republicans. Either party may be comprised by more or less centrist politicians, but if that holds it just moves the center over time. Both parties change their stances on issues periodically in ways that would seem to violate first principles of a philosophical left/right philosophy. But political philosophy is always more accurately measured in a quadrant system[0] than a linear one. In a two-party system, or one of a forced synthesis/aggregation of viewpoints and dialectic conflict, a Democrat will tend to hold views left of center in the US, or at least support politicians who hold such views, and the reverse for Republicans.
[0] the intersection of two axes measuring social and economic positions, popularized as the “political compass”
Politics in the US is not limited to the two parties. The population of the US has a wide range of political opinions that don't neatly aligned to the mainline Democratic or Republican views. Especially in the US, with its system of primaries, the real politics of the population are relevant even when the official election essentially only offers 2 candidates.
And in the real US, the Democratic party is to the right of a vast majority of its own voters' views, on issues such as Medicare for All most prominently, but others as well. It's even to the right of the views of large swaths of Republican voters on many issues, such as withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democratic party is much closer to the Center of the political opinions of the US population, at least on economic and foreign policy matters (I would say it's well in the center-right of American political views actually on those matters). It may well be on the 'real left' on social and family matters, to be fair.
Not to mention, there are many other political forces and voices, which form a clear left pole far to the left of the Democratic party (I gave specific examples), and they have large amounts of increasingly organized support. They will likely pull the Democratic party to the left instead of establishing a pure leftist party, but that is far from having happened. You can look instead at how much the extreme right has been pulling the Republican party right to see the mechanisms
So the way I see it, the US population has left leaning people, right leaning people, and centrists. Looking at the relative opinions of the population, the Democratic party is overall in the Center, and the Republicans are well on the right (these are overall generalizations). Of course, in the absence of better choices, leftist voters will generally vote Democratic, as the Center is preferable to them than the Right.
More importantly for this claim, papers like the NYT and networks like CNN are explicitly cultivating centrist beliefs (especially on economic and foreign policy matters), often leaning far more to the right on such issues compared to the majority of the population (look at Brian Williams repulsive praise of the 'beauty of our weapons' on MSNBC[0] as they were reporting on a US missile attack on a Syrian base).
In practical terms the US is limited to two parties. Name the last time a third party won the Presidency. This is woven into the structure.
This doesn't limit the spectrum of opinions of individuals by any means but it does compel some degree of consensus and organization to mount a serious campaign.
> They will likely pull the Dem party to the left
Yes, the parties vacillate in how far left or right they are, and the center moves accordingly. Still, the center of US politics isn't defined by some "objective truth" it's defined by the relative position of the two political parties. Some ideas that have been centrist in the past are now extremist, some ideas that have been considered extreme in the past are now considered the accepted consensus.
In the end this is just a matter of definitions. For my own understanding, I define left and right and center in terms of the relative opinions of the population, not the parties. You define them by the parties' positions - that's fair of course, it's a workable definition.
I do think there are advantages to my definition - by your definition, the majority of the US population has an extreme left position on Medicare for all, as an example.
Depends on where you are from. In most, if not all, western democracies the Democrats pass as centrist. People like Bernie pass as slightly left of center in Germany for example. And passes as left parties over here would considered full-blown communist in the US.
That's just not true of the Democratic Party by any useful metric and likewise there is nothing about Bernie's platform that would be centre-left anywhere in Europe, the majority of his proposals being to the left of anything implemented anywhere.
If I understood the NYT article correct, the Democrats are put left, among other things, because of support for climate measures. Fun fact, the CSU, as far right as you get in Germany when you ignore the AfD, is also supporting measures to fight climate change now. The CSU also kind of opposes gay marriage, are among the more extremer views regarding abortion. And support public health care. They do not fight to make abortion illegal so. No do they with gay marriage. I see that as them being more "left" than anything I see coming from the GOP at the moment. And the CSU, as I said, considered the most right / conservative of our mainstream parties.
Bernie on the other hand would fit in perfectly well with the SPD, our social democrats. "Die Linke", the leftest one in the article, is a joint party of the SED (the former DDRs government party), some communists from western Germany and the far left wing of the SPD. They are as much left as the AfD is right.
I do see a lot of parallels between the AfD and the right wing of the GOP so. Especially regarding immigrants, muslims, the Covid pandemic and views of family values.
Do you see a situation where the word left means something different if you are talking about national politics versus international politics as a good idea? Because that is the situation you are in if you won't acknowledge that the Democrats are centrist. What then do you call left leaning politics outside the US? Left left? Foreign Left? Communists? This misuse and redefining of words is one of the reasons we have people crying Socialist or Communist of left leaning politicians.
Left and right are relative really. Wanting to shift to a constitutional monarchy was once "the left" or having only Chrisianity as first class citizens in comparison to only Catholicism or Protestantism.
International politics should be contextually anchored essentially. So you say "Party X from country Y is further left than part A from country B." That is putting aside "mixed political aspects". Is a communist country which outlaws homosexuality to the left or right of a free market capitalist country which has gay marriage?
Sure, but in my opinion you should base that on the political leanings of the population of the countrybypu are analyzing, not only on its political parties.
Mixed political aspects are a good argument to be careful in discussing 'overall' political leanings. There are real-world mixups like you describe - for example, Marine Le Pen, while a frighteningly far right extremist on social and foreign policy issues, was to the left of someone like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton on many economic policy aspects.
Well, personal freedom is neither left nor right but rather up (Libertarianism) versus down (Authoritarian). If you divide the political spectrum in a XY scatter chart you get both Bush, Trump and Obama at Top Right pretty close to each other in Authoritarian Right. Someone like Sanders is to the Left but still pretty Authoritarian in some ways, so not really what is seen as Left outside the US. Someone who is what is normally called Left (left and down) would be Jill Stein (or Noam Chomsky if not only looking at politicians). So in short, both your examples are likely in the Top Right; Right Authoritarians, if they are from the US.
>Wanting to shift to a constitutional monarchy was once "the left"
Yes, in many places they still have names from back then. For example one of the biggest political parties from Denmark is named "Venstre" which literally means "Left", even though they are to the Right (conservative-liberal). Quite funny that a close match from Norway is called "Høyre" which means "Right". They rooted for Joe Biden in the election though and had a big party back when Obama won, because US Left is their Right to center-right and the republicans are just way too extreme for their taste.
It's not, the US left is represented by papers such as Jacobin, intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, and politicians like Bernie Sanders, (who has only recently - ~last 10 years of his half a century career- joined the Democratic party), and organizations like the Nurses Union.
Sure, it's true that the Democratic Party is to the left of the Republican Party, and that there are actual leftists in the DP, such as Bernie or AOC, but the vast majority of the party is centrist at best, especially on economic issues.
On many economic issues, Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi are on the right of someone like Marine LePen or Viktor Orban.
Being aware of bias is in no way the same as being unaffected by it. In fact you can imagine the possibility where being aware of a bias allows one to believe that they are unable to be affected by it and thus pay less attention to whether their thinking is flawed.
So i guess "paying more attention" to flawed thinking is not part of the "smart" equation? See where this leads? I'll be direct: the concept of "smart" is vague and has different meanings to different people, and different measures, so to say "smart" people are like this or like that doesn't make sense.
I would have expected that these media have primarily left/right leaning audiences, but having the proportion be 95% of so is a bit surprising and even extreme.
There’s a phenomenon quite similar to the Gell-Mann amnesia effect: the bias of an outlet is quite obvious in the coverage of an event one is particularly familiar with. Of course then we flip a page and continue taking them at their word.
The same MSNBC that shat on AOC up till it was obvious she was going to be a progressive darling/favorite among a portion of MSNBC viewers, mocked Ron Paul repeatedly*, and have never covered Bernie Sanders close to the way they cover the Democratic establishment? MSNBC is nothing like the lefts Fox.
I completely agree with the point of hating the “other” guy’s news. I don’t think the vast majority of people distrust mainstream media. At least not their favorite outlets. NYT being beloved by a lot of my friends as one easy glaring example of typical highly educated well paid “liberal coastal elites”
* principled progressives/hard left have quite a bit in common with principled libertarians. Ron Paul being one. Not his son though. Chapo Traphouse for example can recognize Ron Paul being legit. Or Jon Stewart for a more mainstream example.
Most of those supporters still support Fox though, no? How many are actually against Fox, never watch it, and advocate against it?
Perhaps that number is bigger than I’m imagining, but I doubt it. Edgy comments online saying Fox sucks for a week because they didn’t do a good enough job isn’t the same thing. That’s still on Fox’s side.
I don’t think the comparison is the same. Maybe for Democracy Now and some progressive YouTuber/online shows.
From minor anecdotal musings of conservatives I know, they will sometimes say negative things about Fox and be more pro OAN/Newsmax, but they aren’t principally opposed to Fox or hate it out right.
TYT and Democracy Now overlap, but TYT is almost purely neoliberal stuff. Perhaps I don’t understand the nuance between OAN/Newsmax though.
It’s not hard to dislike MSNBC and not watch it while being into Democracy Now. It makes sense. If you’re into Chapo Trap House, you’re completely opposed to MSNBC.
You can see the differences just from seeing how Reddit’s Ohanion did a classic neoliberal move weeks before Chapo’s ban of saying his board seat should go to a minority. A move MSNBC would say congrats, work accomplished to. Unlike progressives.
You can also see the general difference of how things are viewed based on the attention The Donald subreddit got for their ban vs Chapo. Trump’s subreddit was a 4-5x bigger, but took up almost all the news cycle vs the other subreddits.
It’s not as simple as Democracy Now on left is a mirror of Newsmax on the right.
Either way, we are mostly in agreement. We are talking about details vs any bigger disagreement.
> if the media outlets weren't increasingly becoming echo chambers.
This conclusion doesn't stand up. If the most popular network skews 93% republican, the alternatives are going to skew democrat regardless of how balanced they are.
Negatory - the sets being compared aren't independent.
That is, the overall population is (roughly) half red and half blue. If you divide that population into groups - on whatever basis - and the largest group is 93% red, then it follows that some of the other groups are going to be mostly blue.
Compare median Republican and median Democrat in 1994 (earliest year in the data, pretty close together) to where they are in 2017 (the latest year in the data).
Is that graph set to keep the republican median constant and the rest relative from there? The associated link tells a much more nuanced story that I don't think really results in "mixed" being a fixed center point. But the article and graphic do show a deeply disturbing divide.
I agree the associated link doesn't really support the infographic, as it shows the changes in party mean, not the heterogeneity of views held by individuals. That said, it makes total sense to me. It seems inherent in the definitions of a conservative/traditionalist party and progressive/change based party.
On an anecdotal level, think about views and behaviors that were commonplace in the 80s and 90s, and how they are perceived today. Values of many on the right would be aligned with the older views, while many on the left have come to reject those views.
> It seems inherent in the definitions of a conservative/traditionalist party and progressive/change based party.
I don't really buy this. Despite parties using those terms, they don't really mean anything when any given thing had been the status quo at some point in history.
Were the people who opposed sodomy laws in the 20th century agents of change, or reactionaries pining for the way things were in the time of the Romans? Roe v. Wade has been the law for generations, so aren't Catholics who want to ban abortion now the agents of change?
If someone wants to cut federal spending as a percentage of GDP in half, are they a liberal (because it's a change from the historical practice since WWII) or a conservative (preserving the thing that existed before then)? Does it matter if the thing they want to cut is military spending or entitlements, when both are the long-term status quo? Is market competition liberal (a change from historical feudalism) or conservative (the existing system)? Is regulatory capture liberal or conservative?
Wouldn't the labels have to switch whenever a law is passed, since the advocates of change who achieved it would then become "conservatives" who want to preserve the change they made?
If the answer is that whatever your side wants to do is Change and any change the other side wants to do is Reactionary then you're just trying to justify a ratchet.
>I don't really buy this. Despite parties using those terms, they don't really mean anything when any given thing had been the status quo at some point in history.
I think that most conservatives don't look to some distant point in the past, but the status quo now, or perhaps some time earlier in their lifetime. If you view all over your examples through this lens, the ambiguity is resolved.
If you look at conservative views and values, they are more consistent through time than liberal views. I think the data presented a few parent threads up clearly supports this view.
I'm not saying there is a moral high ground in being more resistant to change or less resistant to change, but in my mind, it is clearly part of political reality we live in, and a valuable lens to understand the current political divide.
If you don't agree with this view, what alternative do you propose? Are conservative and progressive values and interests random? What values inform the positions they take and how they change over time?
> I think that most conservatives don't look to some distant point in the past, but the status quo now, or perhaps some time earlier in their lifetime. If you view all over your examples through this lens, the ambiguity is resolved.
Is it? So a 45 year old Democrat is a "conservative" for opposing abortion restrictions because Roe v. Wade was decided before they were born? Or would become one later in life as people born before the decision die out, just from the passage of time and no change in policy? Someone who wants to cut federal spending is a "liberal" because it has been this high a percentage of GDP as long as anyone currently alive can remember?
> If you don't agree with this view, what alternative do you propose? Are conservative and progressive values and interests random? What values inform the positions they take and how they change over time?
The terms themselves aren't very useful because they're poorly defined. Trade tariffs are an ancient idea that have been enacted and repealed more than once in living memory. Liberal or conservative? I'm not sure it even makes sense to ask the question. It's more like populist vs. globalist.
The one dimensional axis only comes about as a result of the two party system. So what you're really asking is where the positions of Democrats vs. Republicans come from, and then the answer is a lot more obvious. They're political coalitions.
Ask yourself what abortion has to do with minimum wage. Basically nothing, right? You can try to come up with some kind of justification, like maybe having fewer people competing for jobs would lead to higher wages. But then you would expect the pro-abortion party to be the anti-immigration party. Oops.
It's not a coherent philosophy. It's a patchwork coalition that yields enough support to have a majority in the legislature about half of the time.
They change when the math changes. For example, some combination of the falling cost of renewable energy and worldwide efforts to fight climate change are probably about to devastate the oil industry, a major Republican constituency. They're not just going to resign themselves to a permanent minority, they're going to find some way to get back to 50%.
That means either stealing some constituency from the Democrats or taking one of theirs off the table. They're in a decent position right now to take out the teachers unions through school choice programs, for example.
Then the Democrats have to decide whether to let them or fight. If they let them, their platform changes. They don't have to be subservient to the teachers unions anymore, which could have knock on effects for other positions they couldn't previously take because the unions didn't like them. In a lot of ways that helps them, and all it costs them is the votes they won't need if the Republicans simultaneously lose the oil industry.
If they fight there, the Republicans are forced to take some other constituency instead. Maybe they push harder with the economic populism that won them the rust belt in 2016, and take it from the Democrats permanently. That could be worse for Democrats than dissolving the teachers unions; those are some important swing states. The Democrats would then have to find a way to win them back or win some other states instead.
So one thing changes and you get a chain reaction that reshapes the positions of both of the parties. It's not ideology, it's pragmatism.
I see your claim that all political parties seek change, and agree with it. Political parties are inherently a mechanism for enacting change (or denying it)
My claims, formulated more specifically are as follows:
1) I think the trend in the figure you presented with a smaller shift in median republican views shift less than median democrat views from 1994-2017 is realistic.
I think you agree.
2) I think the slower shift in mean republican views is because individual republicans are slower to change their social views.
2A) I think republicans are slower to change their views because. This is associated with respect for "authority" "traditionalism" in the framework of moral foundations theory [1]
2A1) I think there are real differences in the average moral values of republicans and democrats. Neither group is homogeneous, but on average, individuals gravitate towards one party or another based on the moral framework they view the world through. I agree this is a two way feedback, were party affiliation and media consumption can also shift ones moral framework.
> Is that graph set to keep the republican median constant and the rest relative from there?
Nope. You can see the Republican line move to the left in 1999 and 2004 before moving back to about where it started.
Remember that during the Clinton administration the Democrats were pretty ambivalent about gay marriage, signed the 1994 crime bill, nobody in office would have been willing to call themselves a socialist/communist etc.
Now try to think of some issues where modern mainstream Republicans are significantly to the right of Reagan or Bush Senior.
and more importantly... reader shows obvious bias against Walmart... I wonder if he works for Target?
(Lesson: Random idiots on the idiot yelling at each other about who can't be trusted pushing "conspiracy theories" about "The Wallsmart" pushing polls and people who don't believe the polls and etc etc etc. Yes... I'm one of those random idiots.)
Manufacturing Consent is a book that had a big impact on how I perceive media, and I think it's wise to examine who's saying something and what their motives are, but I don't totally understand what you're saying. What's their motive here? I can't see a link between the narrative that people distrust media and their pr work for a bunch of gross corporations.
Well mostly, although corporate power is not a single entity or a unified bloc. And independent media does exist, just without the reach of the large operators.
I love the series but I think this is an astute observation...though I have trouble articulating why I agree with this. I wonder if the world constricts or if its possibiilties just narrow (as they necessarily must) as the story plays out?
I don't agree with it, but I can perhaps see that as you go through the story, more about the setting and "universe" of the novel is explained and revealed and so it means that your imagination cannot invent as many possibilities for "why things are as they are."
When you start reading the book it could be anywhere and anywhen and you have no idea about the wider universe and setting and inevitably possibilities start to shrink as you read and come to understand the bigger picture.
right exactly, that's what I was trying to say. The constriction happens mainly in the imagination rather than in the writing. That's the theory at least.
Nice to see something about Gene Wolfe here. I'm a big fan. I just finished re-reading The 5th Head of Cerberus and have been eyeing The Book of the New Sun series on my shelf. Probably time for a re-read of that soon.
If I may put on my pedantic hat for a second: the article writes of the world of the New Sun tetrology: "The sun is so old that it is dying." I thought it was pretty well establish that the sun was dying of unnatural causes--possibly an artificially created black hole.
Regarding the "worm" in the Sun being a black hole, I don't think the Prophet's description in Dr Talos's play (Claw, ch. XXIV) leaves much doubt: "Yet even you must know that cancer eats the heart of the old sun. At its center, matter falls in upon itelf, as though there were a pit without bottom, whose top surrounds it." He also says of it: "We know it to be far more, for it is a discontinuity in our universe, a rent in its fabric bound by no law we know. From it nothing comes - all enters in, nought escapes."
I seriously doubt a bunch of first-year cadets with a looming calculus exam sat around in their dorms thinking "what would Trump do?". Yours is one several comments here expressing this sentiment, and aside from what it says about your capacity for independent thought, it illustrates an inability--all too pervasive these days--to conceive of any issue in non-trumpian terms.
Trump has set a precedent for what is acceptable behavior of public servants and the lasting damage will take decades to undo. He pardoned someone convicted of war crimes. He's convinced hundreds of sitting governors, represetnatives, and senators to openly object to and instill distrust in the integrity of elections. He's publicly questioned and disparaged the integrity of nearly every government institution from the military to intelligence agencies to the IRS.
So, yes, we're viewing this in Trumpian terms because there's a very clear link to eroding trust in government institutions.
