• Activity
  • Votes
  • Comments
  • New
  • All activity
  • Showing only topics with the tag "politics". Back to normal view
    1. Should we use a megathread for US election news as we get closer to Nov 3?

      I was thinking about how much the quantity of election news is likely to increase as we get closer to Nov 3. And more specifically the likelihood that this election will not be clear cut, will be...

      I was thinking about how much the quantity of election news is likely to increase as we get closer to Nov 3. And more specifically the likelihood that this election will not be clear cut, will be contested, lawsuits filed, etc in the days and weeks after Nov 3.

      With that in mind, do we want to proactively put up a weekly (maybe daily for the actual week of) megathread to consolidate some of it?

      18 votes
    2. Trump/Biden 2020 Presidential Debate #1 Discussion Thread

      This will be a noisy thread. Please use the ignore feature if you do not want to see it in your feed. Watch on YouTube Other viewing options Debate starts ~10 minutes from the time of this...

      This will be a noisy thread. Please use the ignore feature if you do not want to see it in your feed.


      Watch on YouTube
      Other viewing options

      Debate starts ~10 minutes from the time of this posting.


      Info from The Washington Post:

      Location: Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. (This was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Notre Dame. Notre Dame withdrew, saying the fact that it would have to limit student attendance and volunteer opportunities because of the pandemic erased the reason to host a debate at the university.)

      Moderator: Chris Wallace, anchor of “Fox News Sunday”

      Details: The debate will be 90 minutes long and have no commercial breaks. There will be no opening statements. Wallace will dive right in with the first question to Trump. It will be divided into six 15-minute segments that Wallace has chosen. They are:

      1. the Trump and Biden records
      2. the Supreme Court
      3. the coronavirus pandemic
      4. the economy
      5. race and violence in cities
      6. the integrity of the election
      56 votes
    3. Can anyone help me narrow down the definition of "gaslighting" to better make sense of it as a concept?

      I read the Wikipedia article about "gaslighting" and know it comes from a 1944 film of the same name in which an abusive husband gradually dims the gaslights at home – while denying doing so – to...

      I read the Wikipedia article about "gaslighting" and know it comes from a 1944 film of the same name in which an abusive husband gradually dims the gaslights at home – while denying doing so – to drive his wife mad.

      Yet whenever I see the term used (which happens a lot, lately) I can't make the connection. It seems people use it for the simple act of lying or denying something, which to me is mostly just... lying, not "gaslighting". Any kind of stupid, misguided act is getting the sinister "gaslighting" stamp as if it some 5d chess move when it simply looks like incompetence. The core principle of it seems to revolve around having a plan to psychologically manipulate someone but I mostly don't see the plan nor the actual goal. If anything untruthful you say about an important topic is "gaslighting", then the term doesn't seem to have a lot of value on its own. Wikipedia actually mentions "unconscious" gaslighting which seems to contradict its purpose of actually wanting to manipulate someone.

      So, given its popularity, I'm curious if there might be a (succinct) definition of the term that helps me understand it properly? Do you think it's just a trendy term to throw at politicians doing shit you don't like? Am I missing an important detail?

      17 votes
    4. Why don't we just ban the buying, selling, and merging of companies?

      With the ever-growing stream of acquisitions and mergers, it got me thinking: Why do we permit companies to do this? What would the harm be in banning this practice? If a company is becomes...

      With the ever-growing stream of acquisitions and mergers, it got me thinking: Why do we permit companies to do this?

      What would the harm be in banning this practice? If a company is becomes insolvent, release all of it's IP to the public domain, dissolve all patents/trademarks, and sell off physical assets to pay debtors (first of which should be former employees IMO, but that's a separate discussion).

      Edit: I think my original intention of the post to kick off some interesting discussion has worked. Thank you to all current and future posters!

      16 votes