The fact that you're retreating to the semantics of the word narrative and ignoring all surrounding words is a dead giveaway that your blinders are growing longer.
Well, that should be enough to convince you that I shouldn't be in charge of what claims people get to make on YouTube.
Anyway, it kind of sounds like Manafort is involved in a conspiracy of some sort to cover up wrongdoing by the Russians. But it just feels like weasel wording. It sounds bad but I'm not sure what it really means. Is the implication that the Russians did Trump the favor of the social media campaign, and Manafort is doing them the favor of helping them cover it up? That's the quid pro quo? I don't want to give anyone the benefit of the doubt here, I want to hear the point.
This is a really interesting piece. I've been wanting to rage against illiteracy lately but I'm not too active in public discourse (even this).
That said, I don't think it's some secret key to improving humanity. I think this because literacy is ultimately a luxury, even in modernity. The literate may be able to form more nuanced opinions, but that matters less if they can't increase literacy consistently across populations.
There's an irony here that assumes deep literacy is productive and essential but doesn't use it to explain the proposed lack of deep literacy itself.
> The literate may be able to form more nuanced opinions, but that matters less if they can't increase literacy consistently across populations.
I'm not sure I agree. It would be preferable for everyone to have the quality of deep literacy, but it still seems like a worthwhile thing to pursue even if not everybody can get there. I can see why it would matter less, but not how that fact would negate the argument itself.
The Kissinger quote about 1/3rd of the way into the article talked about how, even people responsible for making strategic decisions had (what the author of this article would call) deep literacy issues that hurt their ability to make holistic decisions. This seems like a good example of how there's value in encouraging deep literacy, even if not everybody masters it.
I would say the ability to think critically, coupled with a good literacy foundation, is more important than just literacy.
I know many will say literacy is the building block to critical thinking, or something along those lines, but I don't know, I've now known many, many examples that don't support the idea.
I can’t imagine people trying to bring back a “golden age” of white supremacy are ignorant of the past.
I think there is a solid point made by the GP about what literacy is needed for. To me the end game is not to have a randomly erudite population, but well adjusted people. Literacy is only a small part of that.
The author also says this, but also basically claims literacy hasn't improved humanity. So you repeated him without adding anything (in fact subtracting much), and I repeated myself. If anything, we've either supported my point or demonstrated your lack of deep literacy.
It's unclear whether they were simply made aware of different projections through the show or if they thought Gall-Peters was the ultimate solution, as you assumed.
The problem with this line of thinking is that a state is not a person is not a company is not an x. (Let's put aside any tangential Citizens United rebuttal.)
Or more simply, why is California one of the wealthiest economies? Is it because a typical California resident is one of the wealthiest people (on certain scales I wouldn't be surprised if this were actually true)? Or are there several subsets of people who are very wealthy due to California's unusually successful industries with global reach (I can think of two obvious giants.)? And how large are these subsets? If we answer all of these questions, we should answer your original question or at least come close.
Edit: Changed "every California resident" to "a typical"
I've been over these stats 4 times and reread the parent comment and its post but still have no clue how one is supposed to tie to the other.
I think the point I'm having difficulty with is the thin majorities in the study. Does the study say much? Or did pew do a study and publish its research just because...well...that's what it does?
1) didn't try to win the popular vote i.e. specifically did not court the votes of certain people
2) In order to run as a populist i.e. shore up votes from his base
3) because the Electoral College system supports just such a strategy, such that winning 51% of a few states while only getting 45% of the vote
Well, other than his entire campaign, the clearest evidence I can give is this in the face of actual polling numbers indicating that #1 and #2 had come to pass in the summer of 2016, the campaign's advertising dollars focused almost exclusively on the Obama states he ended up flipping.
A fairer statement might be its a red herring to criticize any campaign for not getting the popular vote when that's not the game they are playing to win.
But you're right -- he might never have actually gotten a popular vote.
I think you're right about the outrage that the electoral college gets, but not its actual faults.
To be sure, it's silly to oppose the electoral college due to personal political leanings. But arguably, the president wouldn't wield so much power were she more representatively elected.
I guess my objection is just that there's a clear feedback loop in power structures, and better representation is one of many avenues available to slow that.
It's not obvious that deleting the electoral college would cause US presidential elections to have more representative results.
Firstly, US presidential election results are largely determined by turnout and switching from an electoral college to a single, winner-take-all bloc wouldn't change that underlying reality.
Secondly, even if you accept that "most votes wins" produces representative election results, it turns out that there are all kinds of wacky situations that can emerge in seemingly simple voting systems based on that idea.
Finally, there's a very strong argument to be made that "most votes wins" results in significant minorites being perenially underrepresented, increasingly ignored, and then ultimately disenfranchised.
Literally your entire comment is based on the assumption that I advocated "a single, winner-take-all-bloc." Elementary reading comprehension in all its scarcity reveals that I never said that.
I'm hungover and posted a non-sequitur response to your comment which - as you pointed out - was largely responding to my own imagination. A mental lapse on my part. My bad.
There's a sad irony in the fact that in reminding me to assume good faith you actually did the opposite - assumed I was attacking you rather than having just made a mistake. And now you're rudely suggesting that I lack elementary reading comprehension. Maybe in my current state, sure. Not generally.
Sadly, "burden of proof" has never gained traction despite its essential nature.
I really wish I were intelligent enough to systematize it, but billions of dollars have so far failed to establish procedures for sound reasoning. Or maybe just make those procedures commonplace.
I think laws are extremely far-reaching. Imagine you're a group of like-minded people in power in the world's most powerful country right now. What's to stop you from dismantling a company?
Or in other terms, do you think that laws are slower than the cost of innovation? You're right to quote "innovation" here, because it seems nebulous. But the only reason it seems so is because it is difficult. To "innovate" independently of national boundaries, a company must have infrastructure, talent, and capital (at the least) that can pick up and move.
I'm aware of capital mobility, but at some point "the buck stops." In the case of innovation, real results need to come from real people. You can't business and finance it away to some remote island.
Edit: Changed something like "imagine you're a group of GOP officials" to "imagine you're a group of like-minded people in power in the world's most powerful country right now." My thoughts aren't meant to be political, so interpret the latter however.
