camelite

It's closer to 50/50 as to who takes your preferred media outlet's word for it that any given individual is a sexist jackass.

"the silent majority of the defeated"

That's great writing.

Of course he doesn't. His existence invalidates it.

The commenter you are responding to is positing the hidden mandate of the Fed is to inflate asset prices on behalf of the already wealthy. So to say the feds stated mandate is contrary to that is to say nothing.

Nonsense. Money isn't getting into people's pockets because the political will isn't there. If it was an influential Bloc screaming for assistance, they would get it, and the details would be worked out later. Where there's a will there's a way, and where there's no will there are a bunch of phony excuses.

I get the pandemic being priced in now, but surely that implies a pas point in time in the past when the pricing in happened? Ie at some point or over some period, somebody looks at the looming global pandemic and goes "fuck! Sell everything!"

> There is no smallest positive infinitesimal either.

There is in the surreal and hyperreal number systems. I got that from skimming wikipedia though....

It's proof by contradiction. He's responding to somebody saying that Bezos is not a monster (because) he is just responding to market forces. But if you follow that logic, neither is a contract killer. But a contract killer is a monster. So, by contradiction, Bezos is not acquitted just because he is responding to market forces.

seems like a More Women In Tech group, despite not being explicit. homepage is 26-3 images of women vs men, when an accurate representation would be something like 8-2 in "favor" of men.

Well this isn't the ebola epidemic of 2014 now is it? Rules that apply to countries with extremely deficient medical systs don't apply to the richest country in the world.

Nevermind the supposed sources, op's sarcastic criticisms of the WHO are all entirely on point.

You don't see me claiming that the global death rate is 10% though, do you?

Firstly, the German study analysed one small particularly hard hit town, so how you are extrapolating this to "people" in general is puzzling.

Secondly, there is a very wide range of reported fatality rates, with myriad factors known and unknown, so why you've chosen the lowest one globally (which, by the by, has always been an outlier and in any case is edging up past 1%) as the "actual" rate is, again, puzzling.

Finally, you are making a giant but unfortunately common logical error in using these already questionable death counts to make the case for an overreaction without attending to the obvious fact that without this "overreaction" every town, village and city on Earth would be Bergamo, where army lorries are conscripted to transport the dead from overwhelmed mortuaries, or worse.

Do better friendo.

I'm an English teacher. Sign me up too?

> There's not a lot of papers saying nice things about a mafia oligarchy state unless they've been paid to do so

There was one, called "The Economist in the year X" for all X such that whichever combination of oligarchs, mafia and security services are in power happen to be friendly to Western business interests.

> The economist has firmly located itself in an economic and socially liberal policy position

They are the voice of Empire and always have been.

http://exiledonline.com/exile-classic-the-economist-the-worl...

It was written in 1945. People didn't need to be reminded that the left can be intolerant too, and that the principle of intolerable intolerance you are so keen to apply to the right applies more to your behaviour, because you want to drive the them from civil society, than to the right, because they are merely defending their right to keep their job without apologising for or hiding their opinions.

It's really bizarre the lengths to which the author goes to weave the "criticism by outsiders" motif into a critique which ostensibly targets a born-and-bred Appalacian. Three full introductory paragraphs about the guy who says “The thing I like about Appalachians is that they don’t need much to be happy. They’re content with making $24,000 year. They’re not showing off...” A massive full-screen width "When outsiders tell the story" Two long paragraphs introducing Vance without mentioning where he's from. A criticism of the Netflix adaption as "filmmakers from elsewhere will put[ting] their visual stamp on the region." 2 long paragraphs complaining about outsiders defining its territorial extent. 2 paragraphs explaining how politicians and outside media represent it. It goes on to promote it's own take on the region, unsurprisingly dominated by artists, activists and academics. But the force and worth of Vance's take would be ZERO if he was an outsider. They don't, of course, lie at any point about Vance's background, but it's a flagrantly dishonest critique nonetheless.

If the other commenter here is correct about Morganstown being only kind of half-Appalacian, as opposed to their claim of hailing from the heart of Appalacia, that really just puts the cherry on top.

There are plenty of issues the WashPo, Atlantic & NYTimes are absolute garbage on.

> Yes, which is why the salaries for such positions are often so high.

The demonstrable lack of financial repercussions for failure, which you are arguing is justified in some cases, belie this causal relationship. I'd echo Taleb and sat that if an elite class is to be healthy, incompetence must swiftly and summarily result in expulsion.

> If you start blacklisting every single C-level that was ever involved in a controversy, the only choices you're going to have for your board of directors are going to be people that have very limited experience making executive decisions, and the usual explanations proffered by the "we hate management" crowd - of nepotism, insiderism, back-scratcher-ism - are more likely valid.

If we revert from "involved in a controversy" back to "has demonstrated extreme incompetence", your argument carries less weight. We can at least say that the inexperienced new guys haven't been tested and found wanting. The

> These nations can't simply commit a bunch of crimes, get rich, change the rules, then expect to be protected from past actions.

They do it all the time. When will the Chinese Communist Party pay for the famine which killed 2-6% of the population (lower bound is based on official government figures)? Probably never is when.

> The basis of the theory of trade, frankly the whole point of trading at all, is that some people can make or get stuff more cheaply than other people, and that by "trading" those items with people who need them for stuff we want we all win.

If your base assumptions are wrong you can be very wrong in very consequential ways for a very long time. Economic specialisation as an inherently positive process is in fact a higly dubious propostion[0].

> The more specialised a country is, the higher its welfare will be, and specialisation via free trade will promote growth in all countries... It is a beautiful story. Unfortunately, disinterested empirical research by data scientists strongly suggests that it is in fact a fantasy: the wealthiest countries are not the most specialised economies, but the most diversified.

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318021429_Trade_and...

> You can add those quantifiers if you want, but jlawson's argument is still an obvious double standard.

Add? Put them back where you took them from, rather. You can claim that until the cows come home and it will still be true that jlawson hasn't accused you of violence.

> Maybe we could get together and talk about it over a nice frosty milkshake?

Cute, but no deal.

> Speaking of talking it out, I'm curious how you found this thread. Given it's age and moderation status I doubt it's organically.

The article was on the front page when I clicked it. You last comment was about three hours old when I commented.

> And that's why you're simultaneously arguing that speech cannot be violence but also arguing that it is a violence

No matter how many times you elide the modifiers before the word violence (before, "a call to", now "movitated by a desire for" or some variant thereof), jlawson's point remains.

It's fiction imo

> If you remove price, it will be something else besides price, such as a lottery, how politically connected you are, or something else.

The main driver of price is not "demand" imagined as how much people willing to pay for a particular house but demand as how much people are capable of paying, which is mediated by access to debt. If access to debt is clamed down on across the board, then prices will fall accross the board. People will still compete on price but as a society a smaller fraction of income will be spent on housing.

Kevin Drum is banging his "It's the lead, stupid" drum on this:

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/03/ecuador-phase...

The only thing approaching an answer to the question you were asked was zerohedges Syria spin. Care to expand on that? My belief is that mainstream us new sources, including the most august, have been guilty of Iraq-level pro-war journalistic mispractice, absolutly hysterical xenophobic jingoism in some cases, in their quest to advance the geopolitical aims of the saudi-israeli-turkey-quatar-us-british-etc coalition. It's not pretty at all. I welcome zh's anti-war activism in principle at least.

Newsguard aren't experts, their results are trash.

I'd had that study in my mental lexicon of "gender bias studies that aren't total bullshit" for a long time until recently. Seemed like a pretty black and white way to isolate gender discrimination. Turns out it - or rather the reporting on it - is also bullshit[1].

[1] https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-g...