I didn't say it wasn't well-intentioned. It just makes it more difficult to get neutral-viewpoint news, which for a few of us matters more than whether we agree with everything we read.
I don't really think they are retaliating. I think they are just going after liberal clicks in the same way that Fox chases conservative clicks. It's a shame, that's all, because most "news" organizations are moving towards this entertainment model in order to stay viable.
Sort of. This might get the feds off the hook (though not without economic implications), but it does nothing for state and local government pensions that are unfunded or underfunded. And it still puts the onus on future generations - they are the ones who pay by devaluing their currency. The moral thing to do is devalue our own currency right now instead.
And your statements speak nothing to your own bias?
Of course I'm biased. And in this case, I have a strong preference for news sources which at least make an attempt to be neutral.
The current group leading the GOP are not working in the majority of Americans favor,
That's an opinion, based on an analysis. I agree with you (though I would expand it to Democrats as well), but I'd like to read analysis on the editorial page. Analysis has value, but so does plain reporting of fact.
Face it, pay for play politics has broken our political system beyond recognition and the greed storm that has infected our governors is most swampy right under the GOP tent and donors. You did see the NRA was stuffing tons of money into the election supporting Trump that came straight from Russia right? What did the supreme court think would happen when they made unlimited anonymous donations freedom of speech? How can we expect anything other than treasonous grifter politicians when we define their job as grifters forced into manipulation by the highest bidder?
I agree with almost all of that, though I think you are denial about how much corporate and union money has corrupted the Democrats as well. But this is still all opinion, not really fit for the "news" page.
No, they do more than that. They have figured out that Trump gets them clicks, so the front page is Trump every single day. They run headlines which use adjectives that imply a judgement. They intermix editorial headlines - almost universally critical of Trump - with news headlines - though they aren't as bad as CNN. Basically, they wear their bias against him on their sleeve because it gets them clicks. They still stick to the facts, but the style in which they present those facts is important.
That's not true. Sure, the facts tend to make Trump look terrible - but avoiding the use of adjectives which express opinion is the very least you can do.
Nothing - it's not for you or any other thinking person. It's meant for the same people who use the other insanely popular "self-destructing" message apps. They undoubtedly know it is stupid, but ultimately they need to compete with stupid.
The accounting before was wrong, now it is right. The transition time of 10 years is, IMHO, overly traumatic - but they really aren't in very good shape because they have taken on massive obligations without funding them for decades. Maybe the Republican motivations are dark and evil, but whatever their motivation in the end we will be better for the change.
And eventually, every other department in government is going to need to go through the same trauma. The accounting rules have been a fraud for a very long time, and it's going to suck for all of us while we work out the balance of how much to raise taxes vs how much to screw people who were promised benefits by people no longer in a position to keep those promises.
I don't expect them to be unbiased - that's a human impossibility. What I do expect is that they try to be as unbiased as they can. The recent change (and by no means is this historically unprecedented) is that they have recognized that being biased drives revenue and so they don't even try anymore. It makes it very hard for a person who desires dry information to get it. Reuters and the AP seem to still try, and I try to randomize my sources a bit via Google News. But for the most part the reputable news sources have lined up against Trump (and Republicans in general), and I refuse to stoop to sources like Breitbart in a vain attempt to "balance" my news.
The Post is pretty good with facts. They also have a strong anti-Trump bias. Most reasonable people do, but papers are supposed to attempt unbiased reporting. If they are trying, they suck at it.
The criticism that they did it too fast is fair (10 years), but the change was absolutely justified and should be extended to the rest of government. Private companies have not been able to promise unfunded pensions for decades - it's a moral issue that the government is allowed to continue this practice. If you want to promise people future benefits, then actually fund those promises. Otherwise you are simply burdening your children with future obligations, and making no guarantee that they will keep your empty promises in any event. It's a lose for future taxpayers and it's a lose for the employees. The only people who win are the politicians who keep "costs down", and union leaders who can claim empty "wins".
Well, sometimes you just want to describe a person's appearance, and "black" is a lot less presumptive than "African-American". My wife and her whole family are from the Caribbean, and so they would identify as "Caribbean-American". Safer to just say "black" when you mean a person with brown skin. Or "person of color" if you want PC points. I generally describe complexion because my eyes have been opened to how descriptive "dark skinned" vs "light skinned" can be within the black community. There's a lot more nuance than just black and white.
Well, in my social circle we have one friend like yourself who was raised Muslim and wants nothing to do with Islam. We have another who has stuck with it, even though she married an American (he "converted" so he could marry her) and drinks alcohol and whatnot. Some Muslims would say she's not a good Muslim. Meh - most of my friends wouldn't make very good Christians, either. My point is, you can't just write the whole thing off as evil - there are perfectly reasonable people who still count themselves as Muslims.
Is religion something you do, or something you are?
Well, it's certainly not race - which is what we were talking about.
Some countries and cultures have indeed chosen to make religion a protected class, and it is easy to see why. Hell, the US protects it in the Constitution. To a large extent, religion is cultural so it has some logic to it. But yes, since in a free country there is some element of choice involved, it's a much fuzzier area than race. Personally, I'd argue that there isn't as much real choice as you imply. Often a choice to openly abandon one's religion is inseparable from abandoning one's family. Religions have no problems judging other kind of believers (or non-believers) so I don't have any problem judging them right back. But in my country, discrimination is (usually) illegal and so I don't do that. Not just because it is illegal, but because pragmatically it makes sense if your goal is a civil society.
Ditto politics
Some people do indeed wrap their identity around their politics. I think this is even less defensible than religion, even as I recognize that some of the more extreme will encounter similar problems with their families and friends. But in general, no, I don't think a political belief is deserving of any special protection. Some states and countries disagree and make it a protected class for employment. Again, I can understand the pragmatic reasoning for this.
behaviour, say sexual, or "gender", or ethnicity
Sexual preference and "gender" identity are probably innate, so they would line right up with birth gender or race in terms of "choice". Ethnicity and race are very closely related, though an ethnicity can definitely have racial divides of its own. I don't see a big difference here.
Ah, ok, so I can legitimately say that Muslims are evil, so long as I qualify it by saying that it's not because they are Arabs?
Even if I didn't write what I did above, you can't expect a single moral principle to apply to all situations. It might be a really shitty idea to say that Muslims are evil even if it's not covered by the principle of judging people by what they do rather than what they are.
I honestly don't know where you got that idea. What, exactly, led you to believe that I would exempt an Islamic person from this?
You, however, seem to be treating Islam in one giant lump. I suspect you don't actually hang out with any Muslims. There, now I've made an assumption about you.
Your logic escapes me. She clearly recognized race as a legitimate classifier, and then used deception to mislead people. People were judging her actions. Within the US, white people in general do not usually feel enough pressure to adopt "white" as their identity... the closest you find is people who identify with the nation that their ancestors originated from... Irish-American, Italian-American, etc. Even then, you can't generally make assumptions that this is the case - you could try to bond with a redhead over your common Irish ancestry, only to find out that their identity is wrapped up in their Jewish heritage or their Scottish ancestry or their Magic the Gathering clan.
Just to be clear, you're leaving room for "fat people hate" because people aren't born fat.
Yes, well, life is not black and white, is it? We don't need to come up with one single rule that prevents all nasty human behavior... I can think of plenty of other reasons not to hate on fat people without resorting to "don't judge anyone ever".
Personally, i don't think harassment is acceptable of anyone...even if they're a-holes.
Before you said "I don't understand why it's fine to judge someone" and "we can discriminate and harass them legally". I'm obviously not talking about harassment, but judging and discrimination are important life skills. You probably wouldn't want to hire someone who smells bad, which is judging and then discrimination. But you sure as shit shouldn't be harassing them.
I wouldn't have a major problem with it if I could understand the purpose, and if they would stop removing features.
I don't understand the purpose of a phone-friendly gmail web page when they have gmail apps everywhere.
One example of a removed feature is when they revamped the Google Voice webpage, they removed quite a few things - but most notably for me was the ability to email voicemail messages... this was useful to me because our home phone uses Google Voice and I could send my wife's messages to her.
In general, the information content is far lower with the redesign. Good for phones, where I don't use it. Bad for desktops/laptops with high-res monitors.
It's because one thing is something someone DOES and the other is something someone IS. Judging people for what they do is fine, IMHO. Judging someone because the universe gave them brown skin is silly and counter-productive unless you are evaluating their sun protection. Judging someone because they have an ancestor from the banks of the Rhine is silly unless you are evaluating them for colon cancer.
Another way to view it is in terms of classical rights: you should be free to associate with whomever you wish. Forcing a racial identity onto someone interferes with the right to free association, as they no longer choose their identity but instead have it forced upon them.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say it wasn't well-intentioned. It just makes it more difficult to get neutral-viewpoint news, which for a few of us matters more than whether we agree with everything we read.
I'm a registered Democrat, dipshit.
Though to be fair I've also registered Republican, depending on where I live. I like to have an actual vote in the primaries.
I don't really think they are retaliating. I think they are just going after liberal clicks in the same way that Fox chases conservative clicks. It's a shame, that's all, because most "news" organizations are moving towards this entertainment model in order to stay viable.
can create money ex nihilo
Sort of. This might get the feds off the hook (though not without economic implications), but it does nothing for state and local government pensions that are unfunded or underfunded. And it still puts the onus on future generations - they are the ones who pay by devaluing their currency. The moral thing to do is devalue our own currency right now instead.
Agreed, but "retaliation" doesn't belong in a respectable newspaper's "news" section.
And your statements speak nothing to your own bias?
Of course I'm biased. And in this case, I have a strong preference for news sources which at least make an attempt to be neutral.
The current group leading the GOP are not working in the majority of Americans favor,
That's an opinion, based on an analysis. I agree with you (though I would expand it to Democrats as well), but I'd like to read analysis on the editorial page. Analysis has value, but so does plain reporting of fact.
Face it, pay for play politics has broken our political system beyond recognition and the greed storm that has infected our governors is most swampy right under the GOP tent and donors. You did see the NRA was stuffing tons of money into the election supporting Trump that came straight from Russia right? What did the supreme court think would happen when they made unlimited anonymous donations freedom of speech? How can we expect anything other than treasonous grifter politicians when we define their job as grifters forced into manipulation by the highest bidder?
I agree with almost all of that, though I think you are denial about how much corporate and union money has corrupted the Democrats as well. But this is still all opinion, not really fit for the "news" page.
No, they do more than that. They have figured out that Trump gets them clicks, so the front page is Trump every single day. They run headlines which use adjectives that imply a judgement. They intermix editorial headlines - almost universally critical of Trump - with news headlines - though they aren't as bad as CNN. Basically, they wear their bias against him on their sleeve because it gets them clicks. They still stick to the facts, but the style in which they present those facts is important.
That's not true. Sure, the facts tend to make Trump look terrible - but avoiding the use of adjectives which express opinion is the very least you can do.
Are you saying that ironically?
Nothing - it's not for you or any other thinking person. It's meant for the same people who use the other insanely popular "self-destructing" message apps. They undoubtedly know it is stupid, but ultimately they need to compete with stupid.
The accounting before was wrong, now it is right. The transition time of 10 years is, IMHO, overly traumatic - but they really aren't in very good shape because they have taken on massive obligations without funding them for decades. Maybe the Republican motivations are dark and evil, but whatever their motivation in the end we will be better for the change.
And eventually, every other department in government is going to need to go through the same trauma. The accounting rules have been a fraud for a very long time, and it's going to suck for all of us while we work out the balance of how much to raise taxes vs how much to screw people who were promised benefits by people no longer in a position to keep those promises.
I don't expect them to be unbiased - that's a human impossibility. What I do expect is that they try to be as unbiased as they can. The recent change (and by no means is this historically unprecedented) is that they have recognized that being biased drives revenue and so they don't even try anymore. It makes it very hard for a person who desires dry information to get it. Reuters and the AP seem to still try, and I try to randomize my sources a bit via Google News. But for the most part the reputable news sources have lined up against Trump (and Republicans in general), and I refuse to stoop to sources like Breitbart in a vain attempt to "balance" my news.
The Post is pretty good with facts. They also have a strong anti-Trump bias. Most reasonable people do, but papers are supposed to attempt unbiased reporting. If they are trying, they suck at it.
The criticism that they did it too fast is fair (10 years), but the change was absolutely justified and should be extended to the rest of government. Private companies have not been able to promise unfunded pensions for decades - it's a moral issue that the government is allowed to continue this practice. If you want to promise people future benefits, then actually fund those promises. Otherwise you are simply burdening your children with future obligations, and making no guarantee that they will keep your empty promises in any event. It's a lose for future taxpayers and it's a lose for the employees. The only people who win are the politicians who keep "costs down", and union leaders who can claim empty "wins".
Well, sometimes you just want to describe a person's appearance, and "black" is a lot less presumptive than "African-American". My wife and her whole family are from the Caribbean, and so they would identify as "Caribbean-American". Safer to just say "black" when you mean a person with brown skin. Or "person of color" if you want PC points. I generally describe complexion because my eyes have been opened to how descriptive "dark skinned" vs "light skinned" can be within the black community. There's a lot more nuance than just black and white.
Well, in my social circle we have one friend like yourself who was raised Muslim and wants nothing to do with Islam. We have another who has stuck with it, even though she married an American (he "converted" so he could marry her) and drinks alcohol and whatnot. Some Muslims would say she's not a good Muslim. Meh - most of my friends wouldn't make very good Christians, either. My point is, you can't just write the whole thing off as evil - there are perfectly reasonable people who still count themselves as Muslims.
Yeah, that's why I made the disclaimer about not agreeing that Chinese is a "race".
Is religion something you do, or something you are?
Well, it's certainly not race - which is what we were talking about.
Some countries and cultures have indeed chosen to make religion a protected class, and it is easy to see why. Hell, the US protects it in the Constitution. To a large extent, religion is cultural so it has some logic to it. But yes, since in a free country there is some element of choice involved, it's a much fuzzier area than race. Personally, I'd argue that there isn't as much real choice as you imply. Often a choice to openly abandon one's religion is inseparable from abandoning one's family. Religions have no problems judging other kind of believers (or non-believers) so I don't have any problem judging them right back. But in my country, discrimination is (usually) illegal and so I don't do that. Not just because it is illegal, but because pragmatically it makes sense if your goal is a civil society.
Ditto politics
Some people do indeed wrap their identity around their politics. I think this is even less defensible than religion, even as I recognize that some of the more extreme will encounter similar problems with their families and friends. But in general, no, I don't think a political belief is deserving of any special protection. Some states and countries disagree and make it a protected class for employment. Again, I can understand the pragmatic reasoning for this.
behaviour, say sexual, or "gender", or ethnicity
Sexual preference and "gender" identity are probably innate, so they would line right up with birth gender or race in terms of "choice". Ethnicity and race are very closely related, though an ethnicity can definitely have racial divides of its own. I don't see a big difference here.
Ah, ok, so I can legitimately say that Muslims are evil, so long as I qualify it by saying that it's not because they are Arabs?
Even if I didn't write what I did above, you can't expect a single moral principle to apply to all situations. It might be a really shitty idea to say that Muslims are evil even if it's not covered by the principle of judging people by what they do rather than what they are.
I honestly don't know where you got that idea. What, exactly, led you to believe that I would exempt an Islamic person from this?
You, however, seem to be treating Islam in one giant lump. I suspect you don't actually hang out with any Muslims. There, now I've made an assumption about you.
Your logic escapes me. She clearly recognized race as a legitimate classifier, and then used deception to mislead people. People were judging her actions. Within the US, white people in general do not usually feel enough pressure to adopt "white" as their identity... the closest you find is people who identify with the nation that their ancestors originated from... Irish-American, Italian-American, etc. Even then, you can't generally make assumptions that this is the case - you could try to bond with a redhead over your common Irish ancestry, only to find out that their identity is wrapped up in their Jewish heritage or their Scottish ancestry or their Magic the Gathering clan.
What stronger coalition in the Pacific would you want beyond S. Korea/Japan/Australia/Taiwan?
Just to be clear, you're leaving room for "fat people hate" because people aren't born fat.
Yes, well, life is not black and white, is it? We don't need to come up with one single rule that prevents all nasty human behavior... I can think of plenty of other reasons not to hate on fat people without resorting to "don't judge anyone ever".
Personally, i don't think harassment is acceptable of anyone...even if they're a-holes.
Before you said "I don't understand why it's fine to judge someone" and "we can discriminate and harass them legally". I'm obviously not talking about harassment, but judging and discrimination are important life skills. You probably wouldn't want to hire someone who smells bad, which is judging and then discrimination. But you sure as shit shouldn't be harassing them.
Found out about it because of your comment. Looks like an unholy mess... I'll have to play with it.
I wouldn't have a major problem with it if I could understand the purpose, and if they would stop removing features.
I don't understand the purpose of a phone-friendly gmail web page when they have gmail apps everywhere.
One example of a removed feature is when they revamped the Google Voice webpage, they removed quite a few things - but most notably for me was the ability to email voicemail messages... this was useful to me because our home phone uses Google Voice and I could send my wife's messages to her.
In general, the information content is far lower with the redesign. Good for phones, where I don't use it. Bad for desktops/laptops with high-res monitors.
It's because one thing is something someone DOES and the other is something someone IS. Judging people for what they do is fine, IMHO. Judging someone because the universe gave them brown skin is silly and counter-productive unless you are evaluating their sun protection. Judging someone because they have an ancestor from the banks of the Rhine is silly unless you are evaluating them for colon cancer.
Another way to view it is in terms of classical rights: you should be free to associate with whomever you wish. Forcing a racial identity onto someone interferes with the right to free association, as they no longer choose their identity but instead have it forced upon them.