I'm really arguing that Bollea might've preferred to settle if not for Thiel's meddling.
I'm arguing that Bollea might have been forced to settle due to uncertainty or cost without Thiel's meddling, despite having the legally stronger case. That is not a decision on the merits. Theil has nothing to do with the facts or merits of the case, that is why the case is not "his". If anything he supported justice in the sense that a case was decided on the merits rather than one side running out of money first. That his motives were impure does not change this fact.
All you can really argue is that Thiel allowed Bollea to have good representation and make a good case and see things to the end.
I would argue that Thiel's patronage altered the proceedings of the case, turning down settlements and dragging out the trial as long as possible to bleed Gawker dry.
Not really. Gawker was bankrupted by the judgement not the case. And aren't you really arguing that without Thiel Gawker could have bled Bollea dry and forced him to settle, not letting the case be denied on its merits? Theil allowed to care to proceed, neither side bled dry, and a verdict based on the merits rendered.
As were yours for the 8 years you cried yourself to sleep with Obama in office. Hey remember when Fox News said Obama was going to invade Texas and take everyoneâ(TM)s guns? What ever happen with that? Fake news I guess
To be fair, Thiel was paying for it, so it was kind of his.
Not really. The case was decided on the actions of Gawker and Bollea, decided on the merits of the case. Thiel's funding does not change the underlying facts. That's why the case is Bollea's. All you can really argue is that Thiel allowed Bollea to have good representation and make a good case and see things to the end.
Having an agenda, shopping around looking for a person to make your case upon, that happens all the time. Environmental activists do it, civil rights activist do it,... but the case is always the selected person's, not the organization that funds it.
You have to actually make a monorail do something for which there is no alternative transportation.
I'm in the minority and found the monorail useful. Stay at cheap casino on strip and take monorail to the casino on strip you really want to be at. Especially in summer where walking isn't much of an option.:-)
Actually your car is tracked at any time its on any road. Police cars, bail bondsman, car repo, debt collectors, etc have cameras scanning the license plates of all cars they drive near to. The later private individuals will actually cruise up and down the isles at malls, walmart, sport stadiums, etc. They will get hits on people who have warrants or owe money just through luck. They feed this data into a private subscription only database. If someone, public or private, is looking for you they may know some of the common places your car can be found.
I'm only referring to the most basic level, that first part of the "handshake" where the phone broadcasts to all "is anyone there?". Last enforcement could listen to that to determine proximity to their various antennas. That signal will be pretty hard to argue as being private. If that is logged and law enforcement arrests a person and has their cell phone they can examine logs to determine where that cell phone has been.
Yes and no. If the location is only record by the cell company, no it is not public. However if law enforcement adds antennas to CCTV and other government equipment, then location may be public. Your cell phone is broadcasting a signal via radio. Law enforcement may be able to passively listen and log, not emulate a cell phone tower, but just listen to broadcast radio signals. The matchmaking signals between equipment, not the conversation between people?
It's part of the mainstream of historical thought, not an inattention to history. Fascism included nationalism and capitalism. It often included the traditional religion. It was normally racist. These are primarily right-wing things. National Socialism, in particular, was hard right wing. The left is more socialist, as opposed to capitalist, It tends to be classist, as opposed to racist and/or nationalist. It tends to be anti-religion.
I'm getting real tired of this intellectually dishonest attempt to make right-wing politics look better at the expense of history.
The intellectual dishonestly is attempting to portray fascism as a "right-wing" thing. It is of both wings. Fascism attacks groups that are deemed "outsiders" to their respective right- or left-wing leadership. One may emphasize race in their propaganda, one may emphasize religion, 2 sides of the same coin. At its core fascism promotes an idealized model of behavior and culture, deviate and you are at risk. Its also not necessarily "normal" for fascism to be racist, well at least to the nazi degree. In some cases of fascism adoption of and compliance to the idealized model of behavior makes one a "good citizen" regardless of racial background. Again, to attempt to label fascism as a creature purely of the right or left is folly. Fascism is opportunistic, it adapts to the culture it is grafting itself upon. If that culture has a strong element of bigotry it will leverage that, but if the culture has more of an egalitarian streak it will accommodate that. Whatever is necessary to get to the idealized nationalistic authoritarian goal.
Actually, the reasons are more like attention to history and objective consideration.
No, both of those lead to the understanding that fascism can not be simply plotted on the one dimensional left/right political line. Its just not that simple, the left/right line a flawed overly simplistic model. Fascism adopts elements from the left and right in a quite opportunistic way. Fascism sees both liberalism and conservatism as failures, they believed communism would fail, they believed they came up with an alternative to all the preceding. They were authoritarian and nationalistic, combined with a bit of militaristic, and any idea politically left or right could be a useful tool of the moment if it furthered control by the state.
To believe the fascists were simply right-wingers demonstrates inattention to history and quite selective consideration.
So it is, however it is a blurb written by the Harvard University Press describing the contents of Fritzsche's book. So if not in those exact words he must have expressed the idea that they adopted ideology from both the left and right. To use the logic you offered earlier, shall we accept a description of Fritzsche's work from the Harvard University Press, or from you claiming Fritzsche makes no suggestion that the Nazis used ideas coming from the left?
In British terms, the argument "ooh the Nazis were National *Socialists* and they had collectivist ideas and thus were completely pragmatic and took ideas from the left and the right" would be considered good for a B in your A levels. It wouldn't even get you a 3rd in a degree course at an ex-poly. The scholarly consensus is quite clear that fascism is right wing.
Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster, I have not said the Nazis were socialists. I have said the nazis were fascist and fascism can not be simply plotted on the one dimensional left/right line since it opportunistically pulls ideology from the left and right. When forced to oversimplify and plot on that line many may choose "right" but as your esteemed reference Peter Fritzsche wrote in his book "Germans into Nazis":
"Better than anyone else, the Nazis twisted together ideas from the political Left and Right, crossing nationalism with social reform, anti-Semitism with democracy, fear of the future with hope for a new beginning."
Please continue telling me how my point is of low academic quality when the esteemed academic reference you cited says the same thing.
Fascists adopt ideology from both the political left and right. For example they coopt both the workers and the industrialists
The Nazis used their lying Socialist propaganda and unsustainable (except by conquest) economic policies to appeal to workers. They actually did get cozy with the industrialists. Industrialists typically don't care about politics as long as the government gives them free reign.
However the industrialists did not have free reign. They were under the control of the party machinery. As long as they were making appropriate contributions to the party and the war effort the leash may have been loose but the leash was still there.
Apologies for botching the quote levels, should have been:
You go right ahead and claim superior knowledge, insight and motives for yourself compared to Peter Fritzsche, for example, but I'll take his views over yours until you've published a few books of your own and had them favourably reviewed. Have fun with your primary sources!
Actually Fritzsche agrees with me. From Fritzsche's "Germans into Nazis":
"Better than anyone else, the Nazis twisted together ideas from the political Left and Right, crossing nationalism with social reform, anti-Semitism with democracy, fear of the future with hope for a new beginning."
You go right ahead and claim superior knowledge, insight and motives for yourself compared to Peter Fritzsche, for example, but I'll take his views over yours until you've published a few books of your own and had them favourably reviewed. Have fun with your primary sources!
Actually Fritzsche agrees with me. From Fritzsche's "Germans into Nazis":
"Better than anyone else, the Nazis twisted together ideas from the political Left and Right, crossing nationalism with social reform, anti-Semitism with democracy, fear of the future with hope for a new beginning."
The Nazis and Mussolini/Fascists are right wingers.
Why do so many Americans not understand this?
Well for some it is because they are educated as to the actual definition of fascism. Fascism adopts ideology from both the political left and the political right. For example it will coopt both the workers and the industrialists and bring them both under the control of the state. If you bother to open a history book you will find that Hitler and Mussolini both did so, both labor and industry had their respective party/state offices that they answered to. Fascism is opportunistic, any idea, left or right, that can help the state consolidate power will be embraced long enough to attain that power. Fascism is about authoritarianism and nationalism, not left or right.
The last time this came up, I actually spent a little time reading into the policies of Hitler's Nazi Germany and they were a grab bag of left and right policies... It seemed more like he was just paying enough lip service to any particular ideal in order to consolidate support behind the Nazi party.
And this is an element of the classical definition of fascism.
We've all been repeating lies to ourselves about the rightwing nature of Nazism for the last seven decades
Well, some of you have. The truth is the Nazis were fascists. Fascists adopt ideology from both the political left and right. For example they coopt both the workers and the industrialists, putting both under the control of an authoritarian nationalist state. You can't plot fascism on a left/right political line, the line is a flawed model.
And the rest of the world also noticed that some right wingers have used quite a lot of violence to ensure that black people, women, gay people, Jews, etc are not treated as equals of white men.
So you are going to double-down on your historical ignorance and claim such things are the exclusive domain of the right?
Fascism can not be plotted on a political graph as left or right. It is both, it includes ideas from both in an opportunistic fashion. It coops both the workers and the industrialists, bringing both under the control of the state. An authoritarian nationalistic state, one that views violence as just another tool and not inherently bad.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really arguing that Bollea might've preferred to settle if not for Thiel's meddling.
I'm arguing that Bollea might have been forced to settle due to uncertainty or cost without Thiel's meddling, despite having the legally stronger case. That is not a decision on the merits. Theil has nothing to do with the facts or merits of the case, that is why the case is not "his". If anything he supported justice in the sense that a case was decided on the merits rather than one side running out of money first. That his motives were impure does not change this fact.
All you can really argue is that Thiel allowed Bollea to have good representation and make a good case and see things to the end.
I would argue that Thiel's patronage altered the proceedings of the case, turning down settlements and dragging out the trial as long as possible to bleed Gawker dry.
Not really. Gawker was bankrupted by the judgement not the case. And aren't you really arguing that without Thiel Gawker could have bled Bollea dry and forced him to settle, not letting the case be denied on its merits? Theil allowed to care to proceed, neither side bled dry, and a verdict based on the merits rendered.
As were yours for the 8 years you cried yourself to sleep with Obama in office. Hey remember when Fox News said Obama was going to invade Texas and take everyoneâ(TM)s guns? What ever happen with that? Fake news I guess
He forgot he had golf that weekend.
To be fair, Thiel was paying for it, so it was kind of his.
Not really. The case was decided on the actions of Gawker and Bollea, decided on the merits of the case. Thiel's funding does not change the underlying facts. That's why the case is Bollea's. All you can really argue is that Thiel allowed Bollea to have good representation and make a good case and see things to the end.
... but the case is always the selected person's, not the organization that funds it.
Having an agenda, shopping around looking for a person to make your case upon, that happens all the time. Environmental activists do it, civil rights activist do it,
You have to actually make a monorail do something for which there is no alternative transportation.
I'm in the minority and found the monorail useful. Stay at cheap casino on strip and take monorail to the casino on strip you really want to be at. Especially in summer where walking isn't much of an option. :-)
Actually your car is tracked at any time its on any road. Police cars, bail bondsman, car repo, debt collectors, etc have cameras scanning the license plates of all cars they drive near to. The later private individuals will actually cruise up and down the isles at malls, walmart, sport stadiums, etc. They will get hits on people who have warrants or owe money just through luck. They feed this data into a private subscription only database. If someone, public or private, is looking for you they may know some of the common places your car can be found.
I'm only referring to the most basic level, that first part of the "handshake" where the phone broadcasts to all "is anyone there?". Last enforcement could listen to that to determine proximity to their various antennas. That signal will be pretty hard to argue as being private. If that is logged and law enforcement arrests a person and has their cell phone they can examine logs to determine where that cell phone has been.
This is not public information
Yes and no. If the location is only record by the cell company, no it is not public. However if law enforcement adds antennas to CCTV and other government equipment, then location may be public. Your cell phone is broadcasting a signal via radio. Law enforcement may be able to passively listen and log, not emulate a cell phone tower, but just listen to broadcast radio signals. The matchmaking signals between equipment, not the conversation between people?
Every time I start a new VM on Amazon EC2. Since you're paying by a second now, boot time matters if you're launching hundreds of instances.
If boot time is not a trivial inconsequential amount of time, you are doing VMs wrong.
It's part of the mainstream of historical thought, not an inattention to history. Fascism included nationalism and capitalism. It often included the traditional religion. It was normally racist. These are primarily right-wing things. National Socialism, in particular, was hard right wing. The left is more socialist, as opposed to capitalist, It tends to be classist, as opposed to racist and/or nationalist. It tends to be anti-religion.
I'm getting real tired of this intellectually dishonest attempt to make right-wing politics look better at the expense of history.
The intellectual dishonestly is attempting to portray fascism as a "right-wing" thing. It is of both wings. Fascism attacks groups that are deemed "outsiders" to their respective right- or left-wing leadership. One may emphasize race in their propaganda, one may emphasize religion, 2 sides of the same coin. At its core fascism promotes an idealized model of behavior and culture, deviate and you are at risk. Its also not necessarily "normal" for fascism to be racist, well at least to the nazi degree. In some cases of fascism adoption of and compliance to the idealized model of behavior makes one a "good citizen" regardless of racial background. Again, to attempt to label fascism as a creature purely of the right or left is folly. Fascism is opportunistic, it adapts to the culture it is grafting itself upon. If that culture has a strong element of bigotry it will leverage that, but if the culture has more of an egalitarian streak it will accommodate that. Whatever is necessary to get to the idealized nationalistic authoritarian goal.
Boots faster ... ok, how often do we reboot linux ? :-)
Actually, the reasons are more like attention to history and objective consideration.
No, both of those lead to the understanding that fascism can not be simply plotted on the one dimensional left/right political line. Its just not that simple, the left/right line a flawed overly simplistic model. Fascism adopts elements from the left and right in a quite opportunistic way. Fascism sees both liberalism and conservatism as failures, they believed communism would fail, they believed they came up with an alternative to all the preceding. They were authoritarian and nationalistic, combined with a bit of militaristic, and any idea politically left or right could be a useful tool of the moment if it furthered control by the state.
To believe the fascists were simply right-wingers demonstrates inattention to history and quite selective consideration.
Nationalism is also found in both left and right.
So it is, however it is a blurb written by the Harvard University Press describing the contents of Fritzsche's book. So if not in those exact words he must have expressed the idea that they adopted ideology from both the left and right. To use the logic you offered earlier, shall we accept a description of Fritzsche's work from the Harvard University Press, or from you claiming Fritzsche makes no suggestion that the Nazis used ideas coming from the left?
In British terms, the argument "ooh the Nazis were National *Socialists* and they had collectivist ideas and thus were completely pragmatic and took ideas from the left and the right" would be considered good for a B in your A levels. It wouldn't even get you a 3rd in a degree course at an ex-poly. The scholarly consensus is quite clear that fascism is right wing.
Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster, I have not said the Nazis were socialists. I have said the nazis were fascist and fascism can not be simply plotted on the one dimensional left/right line since it opportunistically pulls ideology from the left and right. When forced to oversimplify and plot on that line many may choose "right" but as your esteemed reference Peter Fritzsche wrote in his book "Germans into Nazis":
"Better than anyone else, the Nazis twisted together ideas from the political Left and Right, crossing nationalism with social reform, anti-Semitism with democracy, fear of the future with hope for a new beginning."
Please continue telling me how my point is of low academic quality when the esteemed academic reference you cited says the same thing.
The Nazis used their lying Socialist propaganda and unsustainable (except by conquest) economic policies to appeal to workers. They actually did get cozy with the industrialists. Industrialists typically don't care about politics as long as the government gives them free reign.
However the industrialists did not have free reign. They were under the control of the party machinery. As long as they were making appropriate contributions to the party and the war effort the leash may have been loose but the leash was still there.
Parochialism, cognitive dissonance and terrible education -- especially history.
You are actually describing why some think fascism is politically "right wing". See https://slashdot.org/comments.....
You go right ahead and claim superior knowledge, insight and motives for yourself compared to Peter Fritzsche, for example, but I'll take his views over yours until you've published a few books of your own and had them favourably reviewed. Have fun with your primary sources!
Actually Fritzsche agrees with me. From Fritzsche's "Germans into Nazis":
"Better than anyone else, the Nazis twisted together ideas from the political Left and Right, crossing nationalism with social reform, anti-Semitism with democracy, fear of the future with hope for a new beginning."
You go right ahead and claim superior knowledge, insight and motives for yourself compared to Peter Fritzsche, for example, but I'll take his views over yours until you've published a few books of your own and had them favourably reviewed. Have fun with your primary sources!
Actually Fritzsche agrees with me. From Fritzsche's "Germans into Nazis":
"Better than anyone else, the Nazis twisted together ideas from the political Left and Right, crossing nationalism with social reform, anti-Semitism with democracy, fear of the future with hope for a new beginning."
Parochialism, cognitive dissonance and terrible education -- especially history.
You are actually describing why some think fascism is politically "right". See other response to parent.
The Nazis and Mussolini/Fascists are right wingers. Why do so many Americans not understand this?
Well for some it is because they are educated as to the actual definition of fascism. Fascism adopts ideology from both the political left and the political right. For example it will coopt both the workers and the industrialists and bring them both under the control of the state. If you bother to open a history book you will find that Hitler and Mussolini both did so, both labor and industry had their respective party/state offices that they answered to. Fascism is opportunistic, any idea, left or right, that can help the state consolidate power will be embraced long enough to attain that power. Fascism is about authoritarianism and nationalism, not left or right.
The last time this came up, I actually spent a little time reading into the policies of Hitler's Nazi Germany and they were a grab bag of left and right policies ... It seemed more like he was just paying enough lip service to any particular ideal in order to consolidate support behind the Nazi party.
And this is an element of the classical definition of fascism.
We've all been repeating lies to ourselves about the rightwing nature of Nazism for the last seven decades
Well, some of you have. The truth is the Nazis were fascists. Fascists adopt ideology from both the political left and right. For example they coopt both the workers and the industrialists, putting both under the control of an authoritarian nationalist state. You can't plot fascism on a left/right political line, the line is a flawed model.
And the rest of the world also noticed that some right wingers have used quite a lot of violence to ensure that black people, women, gay people, Jews, etc are not treated as equals of white men.
So you are going to double-down on your historical ignorance and claim such things are the exclusive domain of the right?
The summary links to same page that you nearly linked to.
Well using google logic that adds credibility to the page. :-)
Fascism can not be plotted on a political graph as left or right. It is both, it includes ideas from both in an opportunistic fashion. It coops both the workers and the industrialists, bringing both under the control of the state. An authoritarian nationalistic state, one that views violence as just another tool and not inherently bad.