|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Great article that at least once managed to find a breadcrumb but immediately follows it up with the wrong conclusion.
Correct is, that men talk too little and that masculinity has to be reconsidered and or redefined.
Otherwise it stays toxic and hurts both men and everyone else.
Apart from that it's a very honest display of how he thinks men are truly void of any control and are powerless against their own dick. While my gf does indeed sometimes drives me crazy, I cannot imagine how the fuck we go from there to mass harassment as a natural progression that is unavoidable. That's rather nuts and false. And everyone subscribing to that idea must have close to zero empathy and even less self control.
The author's description of men is among the most pathetic I've ever read.
Great find and a truly interesting opinion piece.
Rather sad. Although I'm curious how old the author is and whether age might play a role here. Maybe those damn millennials mightn't buy diamonds but actually treat each other with respect moreso than older generations.
|
On November 27 2017 08:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2017 08:13 warding wrote:
The winning state does not lose revenue by providing tax breaks to companies moving in - in which case they'd actually gain tax revenue from vat and indirect sources. Chicago offering them to Amazon is the rational course of action. The problem should be addressed by thefederal government by outlawing incentives to specific companies - the EU tries to do this even if imperfectly. No qualms about corruption? Some citizens fund their social services through a state income tax, others fund the corporation that employs them through taxes levied on their pay, and nobody's tax burden changes?
Are you talking about the scheme of sending employee IRS revenue back to Amazon? That's not different from a subsidy on employee wages or simply a tax break on labor taxation altogether. I'm guessing they do it that way because it's administratively easier to do. I mean, it's obviously bad to reward one company over others, but I don't think that this specific type of winner-picking policy is more nefarious than the average.
|
NYT and Chicago, clearly they are this bad because they are Republican dominated.
Or maybe, just maybe, both parties are puppets for their major donors and primarily serve as a buffer/explainer for shit policy like the Amazon thing or Net Neutrality, as if it's not an Obama nominee who bought the seat and is now trying to kill it.
|
The reporting is good, but the editorial section is a fucking nightmare.
|
On November 27 2017 09:53 Plansix wrote:
The reporting is good, but the editorial section is a fucking nightmare.
That's a curious point to pick from the rest, but I'd imagine the editorial staff isn't completely hands-off the reporting either.
|
On November 27 2017 10:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2017 09:53 Plansix wrote:
The reporting is good, but the editorial section is a fucking nightmare. That's a curious point to pick from the rest, but I'd imagine the editorial staff isn't completely hands-off the reporting either.
Like all papers, they are two separate staffs with different leadership.
|
On November 27 2017 10:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2017 10:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2017 09:53 Plansix wrote:
The reporting is good, but the editorial section is a fucking nightmare. That's a curious point to pick from the rest, but I'd imagine the editorial staff isn't completely hands-off the reporting either. Like all papers, they are two separate staffs with different leadership.
I always thought editorial boards represented the institutional opinion of the paper, which I would presume affected the reporting of said newspaper, but maybe I'm missing something? EDIT: Still a weird tangent btw.
|
On November 27 2017 10:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2017 10:17 Plansix wrote:On November 27 2017 10:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2017 09:53 Plansix wrote:
The reporting is good, but the editorial section is a fucking nightmare. That's a curious point to pick from the rest, but I'd imagine the editorial staff isn't completely hands-off the reporting either. Like all papers, they are two separate staffs with different leadership. I always thought editorial boards represented the institutional opinion of the paper, which I would presume affected the reporting of said newspaper, but maybe I'm missing something? EDIT: Still a weird tangent btw.
The exact opposite, they are traditionally separate and conflict. I know the Post's news room has a long standing grievance with their editorial section. The editorial staff has no input into the news section.
|
On November 27 2017 10:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2017 10:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2017 10:17 Plansix wrote:On November 27 2017 10:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 27 2017 09:53 Plansix wrote:
The reporting is good, but the editorial section is a fucking nightmare. That's a curious point to pick from the rest, but I'd imagine the editorial staff isn't completely hands-off the reporting either. Like all papers, they are two separate staffs with different leadership. I always thought editorial boards represented the institutional opinion of the paper, which I would presume affected the reporting of said newspaper, but maybe I'm missing something? EDIT: Still a weird tangent btw. The exact opposite, they are traditionally separate and conflict. I know the Post's news room has a long standing grievance with their editorial section.
The Wiki needs an update.
I guess it varies from paper to paper as far as how far away the editorial board is from the news room in opinion. It's not often that the editorial board endorses a candidate then the news staff eviscerates them.
I suppose on paper we're to believe newspapers have two different groups chosen independently of each others motives yet housed in the same operation. It seems sensible that Rupert Murdoch ensures his editorial staffs' opinions don't reflect those of the institution and don't color the news reporting. Or if they do, it's only him and not other billionaire media moguls.
|
Speaking of NYT columnists.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Bummer to hear that from a columnist I actually think is pretty good.
|
He is a member of the editorial staff. He does not report the news. And supporting Trump now and voting for him in 2016 are pretty different thing at this point.
|
If you support Trump you're able to look past a pretty absurd amount of grifting by the president of the US. That used to be something everyone pretended to agree was unacceptable. Based on that alone, I could see the rationale for the argument, but Blow is just waking up to all sorts of stuff so this is an expected place for him to visit.
EDIT: P6 mentions an understated point. Voting Trump and still supporting him today are substantially different positions (despite the degree of overlap).
|
On November 27 2017 11:05 Plansix wrote:
He is a member of the editorial staff. He does not report the news. And supporting Trump now and voting for him in 2016 are pretty different thing at this point.
Is it? His base seems to be quite loyal
|
On November 27 2017 11:40 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2017 11:05 Plansix wrote:
He is a member of the editorial staff. He does not report the news. And supporting Trump now and voting for him in 2016 are pretty different thing at this point. Is it? His base seems to be quite loyal
It's not the base but the fringe Trump voter that's the target of this. r/trumpgret exists for a reason.
|
On November 27 2017 11:40 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2017 11:05 Plansix wrote:
He is a member of the editorial staff. He does not report the news. And supporting Trump now and voting for him in 2016 are pretty different thing at this point. Is it? His base seems to be quite loyal
When people voted for him they had the luxury of not knowing without a doubt (not restricted by being reasonable) he was grifting, now you have to actively deny indisputable reality if you want to attempt to maintain the idea that you find grifting off the presidency unacceptable.
That's one example of the difference, but you could draw similar parallels with other examples.
|
On November 27 2017 11:05 LegalLord wrote:
Bummer to hear that from a columnist I actually think is pretty good.
I don't think there's anything wrong with his statement. Its not a binary statement where if you don't support Trump, you support the Democratic Party. You can still support, say, Mike Pence or choose some other conservative politician.
At this point, you're dumber than a sack of bricks if you STILL support Trump. We're talking about a man who clearly understands little about the world, who barely does his job, is obsessed with the media instead of America, doesn't give a shit about the people he specifically campaigned for, is flipflopping around what he campaigned for and is busy trying enrich himself and his family through the most powerful office in the world.
If you look at all of this and still think "fake news", there's nothing to talk to you about because you're living in a different reality. He's an utter legislative failure whose only achievement is getting a SC appointed, despite having majorities in both the house and senate. Which wasn't even his success but rather McConnell pulling the strings. You can't even say that he's like Jimmy Carter either because Trump is objectively a terrible person.
On November 27 2017 11:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2017 11:40 CorsairHero wrote:On November 27 2017 11:05 Plansix wrote:
He is a member of the editorial staff. He does not report the news. And supporting Trump now and voting for him in 2016 are pretty different thing at this point. Is it? His base seems to be quite loyal When people voted for him they had the luxury of not knowing without a doubt (not restricted by being reasonable) he was grifting, now you have to actively deny indisputable reality if you want to attempt to maintain the idea that you find grifting off the presidency unacceptable. That's one example of the difference, but you could draw similar parallels with other examples.
The one benefit of Trump is that more Americans are actually second thinking politics and their political system. Its actually kind of amusing to see several political commentators, particularly on the conservative side since the Republican Party is in power, going through an existential crisis.
|
Time has been bought by Meredith corp with the backing of the Koch brothers
www.reuters.com
(Reuters) - U.S. media company Meredith Corp said on Sunday it will buy Time Inc, the publisher of People, Sports Illustrated and Fortune magazines, in a $1.84 billion all-cash deal backed by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.
|
It is the destiny of all legacy media to one day be patrons of some billionaires. At least Bezos has his head screwed on straight.
|
On November 27 2017 11:40 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2017 11:05 Plansix wrote:
He is a member of the editorial staff. He does not report the news. And supporting Trump now and voting for him in 2016 are pretty different thing at this point. Is it? His base seems to be quite loyal
Next year, people that sometimes supported Trump this year will be understandable, but are obviously a pretty different thing at that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
