DavesWorld's recent activity
-
Comment on Governor Gavin Newsom orders homeless sweeps throughout California in ~life
-
Comment on Has sexual content invaded too much of the internet? in ~tech
DavesWorld LinkThat is a choice parents make. If they dislike what happens if they do that, they can not do it. Of course, they'd have to more closely monitor their children, and a non-zero percentage of parents...Society has reached a point where we hand off internet-connected devices to children at a very young age
That is a choice parents make. If they dislike what happens if they do that, they can not do it. Of course, they'd have to more closely monitor their children, and a non-zero percentage of parents often prefer to largely ignore their children most of the time.
Your entire post seems to basically resolve down to wanting government (and businesses) to censor and restrict legal content. Here, "adult" content, sexual content, and of course pornographic content.
Such content is either legal, or not. If it's legal, what's the problem? That kids can stumble across it? As children (usually teenagers and pre-teens) enter puberty and their hormones begin encouraging them to notice and consider sexuality, they seek out sources of sexuality. This is not new, and has been happening since there were humans who entered puberty. Well before the invention of computers.
This desire for sexuality doesn't lessen as children become adults, obviously. Driving adult markets to seek out adults with money to spend on adult content.
Governments throughout history have used the excuse of "protecting the children" to engage in all sorts of oppressive and abusive action. American history is littered with governments from local to federal who used such excuses to savage and brutalize marginalized and vulnerable communities. That's what happens when you give people power; they use it, and some will abuse it.
Right now, Congress is trying to pass the latest in a series of "child protective laws". One of the results will be to eliminate anonymity on the internet, since they want to require online service providers to prevent children from being able to access "adult" content.
Putting aside how incredibly problematic (and prone to abuse) the definition of "adult" content can be (reference MAGA and other Conservative classifications of LGB or Reproductive Health groups and activities as "adult" as a very easy and current example), to do what the proposed law demands means you won't be allowed to move around online without being validated with both the sites and your ISP. Legally validated. Verified.
Sure, right now, your ISP knows who owns the account, but that has no bearing on who might be using the account. And sure, lots of people have verified themselves to all sorts of online entities, but that's voluntary.
What if I don't want to be 100% identified online? I just can't click on certain sites, can't engage with certain content? That's a First Amendment violation, it restricts my ability to engage with speech as well as restricts those speaking that speech I wish to engage with.
To comply with the law, they'd have to know it's me at that computer. So I'd have to be verified in some way, which means there would have to be records. The ISP would have to database all of my online activities. Which makes that information available to the government since they're who demanded (legally required under threat of force) the ISP maintain such records.
Putting aside how incredibly problematic, how grave of a privacy violation such action would be, just the "adult content" aspects are bad enough. What happens if Texas or Utah or Iowa decides human reproductive health information is "adult content"? Which they pretty much have already. But right now, they can't go after, say, Wikipedia for hosting encyclopedic information on the body, on sexuality, on all sorts of "adult" subjects. Even though they're already going after libraries for shelving books on those subjects.
With the proposed law, backed by the sentiment you seem to be projecting, those regressive states would be able to declare open war against adults and sexuality. They'd be able to not just require that any website or other online entity comply with the law, but they'd be able to use the Power of the State to go after those sites. That adds costs, and opens them up to legal action. Including criminal action; reference places like New York City in the 70s, for example, where adult bookstores and adult movie theaters would often be raided and clerks (not just owners, basic employees working the registers there) would be arrested.
The power that law will give to bad faith actors in government is tremendous. It could literally be read to be enforceable against, say, a forum. Like this one. What if someone shows up wanting advice on a sexual topic? Presto, adult content is now happening. Same for any forum, comment section, and certainly website.
Some teenager wants to open a forum thread somewhere, or (gasp) even start a website to offer a community where other sexually curious people like him or herself could electronically gather to talk and learn ... now they have to figure out how to "stay legal." Which means they have to have the money buy or build a system to verify IDs well enough to meet the legal requirement.
And of course, by doing it, they have to prove that to the state. What happens when a local attorney general investigates a site, finds out it's operated by someone in that district, and uses the law to demand records? They look further, and however the legal stuff plays out, now that kid has been outed to his or her parents. Opening that child, who was just trying to learn and perhaps find other like minded children, to punishment, abuse, and worse if the parents disagree with the child's interests or choices. It could even open the child to criminal action by that abusive AG.
Those records out each and every visitor or user of the site. Now they're building lists of people who do things, or engage with things, certain people in government might decide are unwanted. You're a swinger, into BDSM, gay, poly, or any of dozens upon dozens of other examples? Presto, you're on a list because they required you put yourself on it, and can target you.
The law is a violation of the First Amendment on so many levels. Of course, that won't matter because we don't have rule of law anymore. But the principle still stands.
Parents who want to protect their children need to protect their children. Themselves. Don't hand over phones, don't hand over laptops, don't hand over computers. Monitor use. If the parent cares so much that their precious snowflake might encounter (gasp) adult oriented content online, then that parent has the authority (societal as well as legal) to manage their children to prevent such an occurrence.
Penalizing the adult population, opening them up to dangerous legal and criminal prosecution actions (and worse), simply because some parents can't be bothered to manage their own child, is an abuse of the government's power. A violation of the trust society places in government. It's unreasonable.
Especially when you consider how widely varied the world's view of sexuality is, and how different cultures around the world engage (or don't) with sexuality and the human body.
Maybe people should live and let live more, and meddle in the morality of others less. Living and let living includes the right to manage how one's children live; that's part of the rights and responsibilities of being a parent. Offloading those responsibilities off on society is incredibly problematic.
-
Comment on Joe Biden decision surprised most US TV news networks: How CBS, MSNBC and more scrambled to cover bombshell in ~tv
DavesWorld Link ParentPeople, the public, like to think of "the media" as this adversarial truth seeking establishment. That media is waging this honorable, determined cold war against government and leadership,...- Exemplary
People, the public, like to think of "the media" as this adversarial truth seeking establishment. That media is waging this honorable, determined cold war against government and leadership, against businesses and important figures, against all the bad things and bad people, to Find Truth and Inform The People.
Which isn't at all how it works.
Mainstream media values "access" and "privilege" more than truth or information. Politically, this means the reporters basically play ball. All the time. They don't make waves, they don't upset sources, they don't rock the vote or upset the key figures.
You see movies, where some reporter is determined to find the truth and share it, against heavy opposition trying to silence those inconvenient truths. That doesn't happen in reality. Sure, "the media" will run with some embarrassing story, but only collectively. They all use each other as cover.
"Well, we have to lead with this story and talk about it, even though it makes you and your candidate look like a complete fool, because they are too." That's what a reporter, or more likely the newsroom director, will tell the candidate's or senator's, governor's, president's, mayor's, whomever's, representative when they call trying to quash a story.
Once something's somehow broken wide (these days often by an insider leaking it to social media), only then the gloves can come off and it's now officially a story. Until then, it's nudge-nudge, wink-wink, what have you done for me lately? Access and Privilege is a strong motivator to keep reporters toeing the line the way their subjects want it toed.
Politicians, their campaigns, their parties, dangle A&P constantly at the media. If a reporter or a media outlet pisses a principal off, that media source is frozen out. The candidate (and their campaign, party) stops taking calls, stops answering questions, doesn't give quotes, and won't give them exclusives or background briefings or off-the-record comments or anything else. No more "here's what's about to happen, so you can be the first" or "tomorrow X will happen so prep for it now." Complete cold shoulder.
And the media, or at the very least their corporate masters, don't want that. Why? It makes their process (being a media source) harder, meaning more expensive.
Beat work, aka being a reporter, can be expensive. In time and resources. Look at any media character in most movies and shows, and what do they depict? The reporter tirelessly pounding the streets, working the phones. Dropping in on buddies and contacts, conducting interviews, digging through libraries and archives for old documents, running down facts and figuring out how they puzzle piece together, and so on. You know, working.
That work takes time. Which costs money since the reporter is on their media source's payroll, and further is probably racking up expenses like phone bills, archive fees, travel and lodging, and so on.
Much, much cheaper to just call the campaign's press agent, and get a quote. Never mind that quote will, of course, be designed to only say exactly what the campaign wants said, in the way the campaign wants it said. Cheap and easy carries the day. And if they don't say what it says how it should be said, they're frozen out. Can't have that.
Used to be, every reporter was a reporter. Even with TV news involved, the lion's share of news happened at the newspaper level. Locally. Even national news originated locally, which is why papers like the New York Times and Washington Post became elevated to where they eventually did; they were ground zero in Important Cities where Big Shots Did Stuff.
Then politicians began to realize image mattered more than substance. So did media. Especially TV news. Broadcasts began to realize that who audiences wanted "reporting" the news (aka, reading it out to them on TV screens) wasn't a tireless hardcore reporter, but someone good on TV.
Now that's not necessarily wrong or bad, so long as the content that talking head reads is generated by actual reporters. But there's no real news anymore. It takes reporters to do reporting, and that's unnecessary expense that's been cut. Newsrooms have been slashed, reporters fired.
They all just lean on A&P, on frictionless and effortless social media, for their "news". They see a tweet drop, and call the campaign or the company's press office. Brief phone call, maybe some emails are traded, and then they've got "a story" they run with. No verification, no pushback, no cross-checking, no investigation, no second or third sources.
Now, my understanding is even though Biden was apparently being leaned on hard behind the scenes to withdraw, he was keeping his own council. There are quotes scattered around where mere minutes before (and I think even minutes after) Biden's tweet, campaign staffers were working the phone lists contacting Big Donors asking for campaign donations. So even "his own people" didn't know.
But actual newswork would have revealed most of what presumably led to Biden then deciding to announce his resignation from the race. Now that there's a story to chase, a bunch of mainstream media has been calling around to various Bigwigs on the Democratic side and finding out a lot of closed door meetings were happening. Quiet conversations, back room conversations, behind the curtain conversations.
That's the kind of thing most ordinary people just assume reporters are doing all the damn time. But they're not. They wait for the call. Or wait for a feeding frenzy.
Either way, none of the "reporters" were closely monitoring the DNC and Democrats in the weeks leading up to Biden's announcement. If they had been, they probably would have stood a chance to start putting pieces together. As random examples, perhaps Pelosi and other senior Democrats were meeting with Biden a lot more after the debate than they were before. Perhaps Biden Campaign staffers, or other people known to be close to Biden, were voicing concerns and having meetings about "what if". Perhaps big donors were declining to continue donating.
That last one is apparently only now coming out. Which just underscores my point. What the fuck are "reporters" doing if they're not chasing that kind of thing?
Yesterday I followed some recommendation chains through and ended up on a NYTimes podcast about the aftermath of Biden's announcement. The podcaster had someone who's a member of Biden's "donor council", whatever they called it. A group of rich people who regularly donate, and help solicit and coordinate donations, to Biden's campaign. One of the things they covered on the podcast really pissed me off, in so many ways.
The donor talked about how, in the past few weeks, donors were increasingly becoming angry and upset with Biden, and withdrawing financial support. The donor took the position that this, more than anything else, convinced Biden to withdraw. In plain words, rich people didn't support him anymore, so of course he had no choice but to withdraw.
Now, Biden withdrawing needed to happen. It needed to have happened more than a year ago, for him to have said in a more orderly fashion "find a 2024 candidate because it won't be me" but that's neither here nor there at this point. But that donor pointing out how much leverage money had over the decision, more than politics, more than the realities of the country and where it'll be headed if Project2025 is allowed to begin happening, really pisses me off. Even though it's not a surprise, that he was so comfortable discussing how much outside influence money (his money) had over the process, it's still angering for that in itself, along with the fact that it works that way in the first place.
And it also underscores my point here; that media is lazy as hell and doesn't seem to do anything we'd consider reporting. They could've been talking to donors. Political donors are often open donors. Sure backroom bullshit happens, but a lot of it does happen above board and openly. The names are known, people know who's giving money, when, and how much. Did any reporters start working the phones checking with the donors as part of a proper investigation to determine if Biden was or wasn't planning on withdrawing?
Nope, because that would be work. And work is expensive. They just did what they always do these days. They called the handful of "senior figures" inside the campaigns and politicians' offices, and took those quotes as the sum total of their "reporting". Those "sources" are used to fill out 35-40 minute chunks of content per hour (gotta have room for commercials obviously) where they just blather mindlessly without actual information to fill the time.
Which is why media was "blindsided". Along with how Biden staffers were calling for donations even after the tweet, various media sources had been in phone conversation with senior Biden staffers even minutes before the tweet. Communications directors, senior aides, the usual insider sources; who didn't know because Biden hadn't told them. So they were telling their media contacts "no, President Biden is committed to the election and saving the country from the scourge of Trump" only to minutes later see that tweet scroll up on their phones the same as everyone else.
None of the media were doing their jobs. They were, instead, playing the modern media game where you don't piss principals off so they keep letting you take at bats. T-ball at bats, swinging against a wiffle ball. Because if a media source goes "hard hitting" and "digs deep" then they have to do that all the time, every time, and that's just too much bother. They'd rather just trade some phone calls and then have an intern stretch a non answer, a nothing burger statement, into some empty bullet points a talking head will use to fill an empty segment for TV where they just say nothing in many more words in between commercials.
Media isn't news anymore. It's entertainment. It's like sports for all intents and purposes. "Live" every day, so you feel like you have to keep tuning in. Which drives their ratings, and they keep selling ad time to advertisers whose checks always clear.
And we wonder how we've ended up on the brink of national chaos and violent historic events. Guess it's a mystery. We'll never know. Anyway, after these messages we'll discuss how surprised we all were at Biden's withdrawal from the race and ask the question why didn't he tell all of us 48 hours before you plebeians in the general public learned of it.
-
Comment on US President Joe Biden reportedly more open to calls for him to step aside as candidate in ~news
DavesWorld Link ParentIt wouldn't be a "disaster." The objection, and the position the Democrat elite take, is an open convention would be uncontrolled. Unpredictable. Rather than being something they (the core...It wouldn't be a "disaster."
The objection, and the position the Democrat elite take, is an open convention would be uncontrolled. Unpredictable. Rather than being something they (the core strategists of the DNC) had planned and prepared and managed and handled. Something that was fully in their grasp at every single moment and step along the way.
Every single objection to letting the voters (either general or the DNC voters) pick a replacement basically boils down to that lack of control at some point. The elites apparently would rather see Trump win than fix a disaster of the DNC's making.
Even if one grants the concern of the DNC elite, it's still their fault! They had four years to prep other candidates. Four years to lay groundwork and introduce them to the nation, four years to ensure one of the two national political parties of America had other candidates who would be (internally as well as in the eyes of the public) ready and welcome to step in.
And they didn't. They failed. Quite spectacularly.
330+ million people in the country. Even if you take out all the non-natural citizens, you still have literally hundreds of millions of potential candidates that could've been identified and briefed and introduced to the public, standing by. But now, here we are, a double handful of weeks before an election that's likely going to determine the course of the country for the next several decades, and they're like "oh no, what do we do?"
At some point, you have to wonder if they're fucking up on purpose. If it's part of the plan, to leave everyone so without options, pushed right to the edge of disaster. If it's not purposeful, then it's negligent or inept.
But any scenario where they truly mean well, truly did attempt to "give their all and do their best", and ended up in this position where they're scrambling to figure out the damn ticket ... I would love to hear the truth that explains it's not purposeful, negligent, or inept. That's a story worthy of a movie.
-
Comment on A summer Covid-19 wave in ~health
DavesWorld Link ParentThey don't have a handle on Long Covid, last I heard/checked. They don't quite know why some have it and some just have "regular" Covid that can clear up and then you're back to totally normal....largely been defanged
They don't have a handle on Long Covid, last I heard/checked. They don't quite know why some have it and some just have "regular" Covid that can clear up and then you're back to totally normal. They don't know how to cure it, or even really alleviate the worst of the symptoms. And Long Covid has some pretty alarming effects.
Anyone who thinks either Covid or Long Covid "is no big deal" probably has never had shortness of breath, persistently. Which isn't even the totality of the symptoms that'll affect a victim.
It's scary. When you try to breathe ... and can't. When you try to catch your breath, and struggle every time, and don't always catch it. When walking from one end of the hallway/house to the other leaves you fatigued and tired, when the thought of "I'll park, and walk across the parking lot, and go shopping" leaves you wondering just how the hell you'll pull that mammoth feat off.
So sure, Covid doesn't appear to be quite as dangerous as it once was, and a pretty high percentage of (vaccinated) people who catch it recover rather than die, but I have no interest in catching it and then finding out it's gonna stick around. For years/life. That sounds like something I very much don't want.
But that's just me. So I wear the mask. N95. Still. Every time. Don't touch my face, keep sanitizer with me and in my car and use it every time I leave a store or other uncontrolled environment.
Knock on wood, so far so good for me. Gonna keep listening to the cold hard logic of medical procedure. To facts. Real data. Hard proof. Not feelings, not opinions, and certainly not political bullshit.
It's no big deal to wear it.
-
Comment on Russo Bros in talks to direct next two Avengers film in ~movies
DavesWorld LinkOh my Gosh, I just can't take it. Especially as it keeps being repeated. Friendly reminder follows. Russos. Not Russo's....Oh my Gosh, I just can't take it. Especially as it keeps being repeated. Friendly reminder follows.
Russos. Not Russo's.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/what-happens-to-names-when-we-make-them-plural-or-possessive
Names are proper nouns, which become plurals the same way that other nouns do: add the letter -s for most names (“the Johnsons,” “the Websters”) or add -es if the name ends in s or z (“the Joneses,” “the Martinezes”). To show possession using an apostrophe, add ’s for individuals (“Smith’s car”) and just the apostrophe after the s for plurals (“the Smiths’ car,” “the Martinezes’ dog”).
Anthony Russo, Joseph Russo. Collectively, the Russo Brothers. Plural, the Russos. Singular possessively, the Russo's. Plural possessively, the Russos'.
"The Russos attended the premiere." Plural. Meaning: the two brothers attended an event.
"The Russo's car broke down." Possessive. Meaning: a car associated with a Russo had a mechanical difficulty.
"The Russos' car broke down." Plural possessive. Meaning: a car collectively associated to more than one Russo had a mechanical difficulty.
We have such a lovely forum here, with lots of people who know how to communicate and write correctly. It's so refreshing. Let's not encourage the Reddit slide into incoherence please, where the posts just become increasingly incorrect over the simplest conventions of English.
-
Comment on We need to rethink exercise – The workout paradox in ~health
DavesWorld LinkThis video is pretty ridiculous. I think they're trying to say "if you want to lose weight, the most efficient and likely way to achieve that is ingesting fewer calories." More on that in a...This video is pretty ridiculous.
I think they're trying to say "if you want to lose weight, the most efficient and likely way to achieve that is ingesting fewer calories." More on that in a moment. What they seem to be saying instead though, is "as you push your body with high activity levels, it will gradually adjust in ways that result in fewer calories being burned, meaning you'll find you lose less weight even though you're still at the same activity level."
I'm not aware of any serious, reviewed, accepted research that disputes the two universal facts about human weight. Namely, (1) calories in and (2) calories out primarily dictate your weight. The bottom line of ingesting calories means they get used by the body, and if in excess are stored for future use. Activity uses energy, either freshly ingested or stored from past ingestion. The way to lose weight is to eat less and be more active; in tandem.
Of course the body has evolved to maintain itself. It's called homeostasis, and that seems to be what they're dancing around in their "you can't work out to lose weight" crap.
Which is why I consider the video so ridiculous. You could have someone who decides to maintain a harshly restricted diet as a weight loss plan. As their sole change in pursuit of that goal.
The body, as it detects a persistent caloric deficit, will attempt to stave off starvation by lowering energy output in all sorts of ways. Lowering the calorie level required to maintain your weight, your body. This is a natural reflex, a result of an evolutionary process that saw sometimes humans would not have enough food.
Rather than dying within the first few missed meals, evolution created bodies that can store energy (fat, muscle, etc...) and bodies that can manage how much energy might be used both from moment to moment (e.g., the famous flight-or-flight reflex versus moments when you're just chilling casually) and from day to day (such as when your starvation responses kick in and try to make do with fewer incoming daily calories.)
The bottom line is modern humans and modern human society are at odds with the evolution that created humans and the society humans have created for themselves. We're designed by evolution to have a chance to survive across a wide range of conditions, including those where there's not enough food. Lack of water will kill us in days, typically three. Lack of food though, can take a lot longer.
You won't enjoy it, but most humans can skip meals for weeks without dying. They'll be very unhappy, very low energy, and the longer it goes on the more likely it is they could have any number of conditions and problems and bodily failures occur as a result, but it is biologically possible to survive periods measured in weeks where you have no food.
Because of those lean times evolution learned might happen to humans sometimes, we evolved cravings to seek out calorically dense foods (such as fat) to encourage us to support our bodies. Similar cravings often surface when you have nutrient deficiencies; you'll sometimes find you start wanting "weird" or "specific" foods if you're low on certain nutrients.
Most of those evolutionary impulses aren't needed by humans living in a modern society. We have agriculture and industrialization now. Food is wildly abundant and doesn't require the same kind of effort to obtain compared to our hunter-gatherer origins. We have bodies that evolved to support an organism that would usually spend four to eight very active hours a day, every day, gathering and consuming calories just to make it to the next day where it all starts over again.
Now we mostly live in societies where food is just available (economics as a separate discussion) and we rarely have to be active at all to obtain and consume it.
The economics of food production and sale encourages food suppliers to focus on foods that are often calorie dense. If humans craved rice cakes that are ten calories each and two or three would fill your stomach all the way up so you feel sated, that's what food suppliers would push. Instead, because we crave fats and sugars, out of profit motive (yea capitalism!) suppliers focus on foods that feed those cravings.
That fucks us today, when you just pop down to the store and buy a box of cookies that is half or two thirds of your daily required calorie count. A box you'll eat as a snack, in a day where you probably have another snack at some point, plus two or three whole meals, and further might be drinking not zero-calorie water but beverages that across the the entire day could add up to most of your needed calories just by themselves. All while you sit at a desk or on your couch twelve to fourteen hours a day, each day, week after week.
All of this is basically known. Has been known for a long, long time. People are just horrible at self-discipline. Even if they hate it, most people know why they're fat; we all eat too much and aren't active enough. Bottom line, period. That's just the truth.
So this video is just annoying. I'm not sure what their point is. Because my takeaway was them saying "exercise won't help you lose weight" which is just wrong. It will. It'll just happen on a curve as your body adjusts to a new paradigm you'd be creating as you established a higher activity level as your daily norm.
But if that's your goal, losing weight and becoming more healthy, the best way is to pay much more attention to your activity and your diet. Which most of us very much don't want to do. Especially the diet part.
For a lot of people, especially poor people who can't afford expertly crafted food with carefully calibrated ingredients alongside a full and rich life full of distracting and fulfilling activities (all of which cost lots of money), those basic biological dopamine hits that come from cramming a sugary fatty snack into their mouth is often one of the only joys they might get on a daily basis. When you have someone who's working ten hours a day (at a desk) but not being paid enough to go out and live some as a distraction, going through Twinkies and Cake and fatty hamburgers is the distraction. Is the life.
So while it's correct to say people usually lack self-discipline, it's not entirely their fault. A lot of people don't have much of a chance when you consider the societies they live in, the habits of those societies, and how those societies do or don't encourage them to manage their diet and activity.
Basically this video is shit. But they rolled it out because that's what they do; make videos to garner clicks to get paid from advertisers and sponsors. What do they care if it's wrong? That actually helps them. A "bad video" gets shared as people rise up in outrage. Then the channel gets to post another video explaining it, and another still where they might "try again" and present some other alternative. Each of which garners more clicks and more advertising and more payment.
Just like food suppliers, they have no incentive to care about you or what their product might do to you. So long as you're paying (clicking, same thing) they're content to roll with it.
-
Comment on Jack Black ends Tenacious D tour after bandmate’s Donald Trump shooting comment in ~misc
DavesWorld Link ParentYou can't have rule of law when there is no rule of law. America has been twisted into vast, abusive, oppressive, violent corruption. Citizens who were gerrymandered into irrelevance, who lost...You can't have rule of law when there is no rule of law. America has been twisted into vast, abusive, oppressive, violent corruption.
Citizens who were gerrymandered into irrelevance, who lost their ability to meaningfully affect who gets elected in their states, sued. The case went to the Supreme Court. The state and its (MAGA) politicians stood up in open court and said "we didn't draw the maps to discriminate against minorities, we drew them to ensure our party wins elections."
And The Court ruled that's legal. Just as they ruled the President is now a King, and Federal agencies have no power unless Congress specifically and explicitly spelled out the rule that agency is enforcing.
The process by which "rule of law" comes about has been perverted, held hostage, and squeezed until it has no shape and holds no weight. There's no law when the laws are fungible on the whim of Dear Leader. There's no law when We The People have no meaningful say in those laws.
We're in the early stages of a historical moment that is going to result in wholesale realignment of society on the North American continent, and people continue to insist we're not. Continue to assume MAGA and the Heritage Foundation and Trump are kidding, that they won't really do any of the things they've openly stated they're going to do, they want to do, they're ready to do.
When someone tells you they're going to kill you, it is illogical to base your actions on the assumption they're kidding. Particularly when they've said it repeatedly, written it down, published it, confirmed it, and waved it proudly about while repeatedly expressing fervent desire to carry it out.
Am I happy about where we are? No. Does it suck? Yes. Is it going to result in many, many, many people dying one way or another? Yup.
That's what happens when you're stuck in a chapter of history that'll be on the test.
-
Comment on Jack Black ends Tenacious D tour after bandmate’s Donald Trump shooting comment in ~misc
DavesWorld LinkThis is the world we live in now. Where one side of the political spectrum can openly advocate for violence, violation of basic human rights, and other gross injustices without consequence, and...- Exemplary
This is the world we live in now. Where one side of the political spectrum can openly advocate for violence, violation of basic human rights, and other gross injustices without consequence, and everyone else is canceled for daring to say the quiet part out loud. Further, apparently forced to apologize.
How many times has Trump, how many times have other prominent flaming conservatives, called for outright violence. For murder and assault? How many times have they "nudge nudge wink wink" endorsed violence against the many outgroups they target?
Kyle Gass says one thing, that it's quite obvious a not-zero and not-infinitesimal portion of the planet (certainly of America) is thinking, and suddenly it's "we're very sorry, we'll cancel our tour, we'd never advocate for anything violent."
You call a spade a spade. You shoot straight and speak truth to assholes because an increasing number of people are flat out sick of "when they go low we go high."
That's a really sweet sentiment in an uplifting movie of rising to overcome bullying and foul play. In the real world, it's why evil prevails and good is curb stomped over, and over, and over, and over.
Play the game being played. They do.
-
Comment on A wife’s revenge from beyond the grave in ~life
DavesWorld LinkA leavening factor in lynch mobs, in the act of a community deciding to go after one of its own, was they usually knew that person. Personally. The target they'd chosen, for whatever reason,...- Exemplary
A leavening factor in lynch mobs, in the act of a community deciding to go after one of its own, was they usually knew that person. Personally. The target they'd chosen, for whatever reason, wasn't a stranger. It was Jim who runs the farm over there, or Jill, who operates the coffee shop.
Social media has completely removed that leavening factor. Now you can lynch strangers. And further, do it from the comfort of your own home. You get to feel "engaged" and "involved", you can "seek justice" and "right wrongs" all without lifting your ass off the couch.
If Jim from the farm had transgressed, had committed social crimes so onerous that the community (his community) decided to ostracize him, they arrived at that decision collectively. Amongst people they knew, about a person they know. Personally. They'd weigh that. It'd go into the mix with the rest of whatever Jim might or might not have done. People would verify, would push back. Perhaps not always, but sometimes. Because they're all in a community, and know each other, or know people who know the principals in whatever scandal was being considered.
That doesn't exist online. Everyone's a stranger. They don't see people as actual human beings. They see them as imaginary constructs similar to actors. After all, these "people" just appear on their phones and computer monitors, like cast members in a "reality" show. Not as real people, like someone they see in the coffee shop or sit across from in a meeting.
And they all want the dopamine hit of engagement. Of "doing something."
I despite "content creators" because this is one of the things they do. It's one of the types of "content" they create. They want engagement, and for more than just the momentary dopamine hit of being involved. They want monetary egagement too. Engagement with a creator is often financially rewarded by the platforms that host the posts and videos. And those who own accounts that count millions of unique views on a weekly basis are often further rewarded by the marketing industry with sponsorships and product tie-ins and so on.
So you have bored people looking for engagement, for a cause; and "creators" financially incentivized to provide that engagement.
Reporters, actual real reporters, with training and ethics and everything, understand accountability and evidence. The article I just read, for example; the reporter tracked down well more than a dozen actual people. Who were actually involved in this whole mess. Asked them questions, got their take on the situation, interviewed them, challenged them at least a little in some places.
And then reported what they said. Reported what the court record or some other document said. Not a transitory "post", but actual documents that were prepared formally, with an eye towards honesty and accuracy. Certainly anything submitted to a court is going to be more trustworthy than a transitory "post" on social media.
What did the "content creator" do? Barely more than his equally lazy audience. He had some videos and posts (all accessible from his computer), and he edited and linked them into his own vlogging stuff where he flogged the mob, and dialed up the engagement by picking a side and demonizing the other.
At no point did he verify, investigate, or consider. He just ran with what he had. And he didn't even do it journalistically.
All the mainstream media sources that piled into this mess, that pile into any situation, you'll notice if you pay attention they don't say "I think X happened" or "I feel Y should happen." Instead, they quote people. They attribute statements and positions to someone who holds it.
A reporter, an actual real reporter, is a neutral observer. Which is something you rarely encounter these days. Much less consider. In fact, a lot of people seem to consider it some sort of fantasy construct; who could be "neutral?"
The power of the internet is everyone's online, and it only takes "everyone" deciding to point themselves at you for you to then have a platform. Used to be, you had to get past a gatekeeper to have a platform. Now, if you go viral, presto you have a platform to millions of people. You can be anyone, with zero knowledge of legality or ethics or morality or anything else, and command the attention of millions; simply because you're funny or cute or engaging.
But neutrality was, and could be again, an essential part of our news process. The tictoker took a position, and pushed it. Based on those easily accessible posts he got from the mom in this case. He didn't investigate the other side or do anything approaching "reporting." He simply found what he knew would qualify as content for "his audience" and threw it out there to rake in views, which let him rake in payment. And while doing so, made sure to frame everything as "I think X" and "we should do Y."
He openly stated he felt "we" should punish Allen.
That's lynching. Just because they didn't have a rope to string him up doesn't change the fact. They destroyed his life. Literally. We live in a capitalistic society. The store doesn't give you food just because you're hungry. The doctor doesn't treat your wound because you're injured. The landlord (or bank) doesn't rent (or sell) to you simply because you're homeless.
Everyone wants money or they tell you to take a hike. And this guy, Allen, can't make any anymore because the tiktocker dragged his name through the mud so badly that within seventy-two hours of the whole tiktok driven "scandal" breaking wide across the mediascape, Allen's firm said "get the fuck away from us" to Allen. For fear of the mess damaging their business, their ability to make money.
And Allen can't get hired anywhere else. Why? Because social media. That's the whole reason. Allen could start suing everyone who refuses to hire him, or even prepare a court verified "case" of material that proves he's not a monster, but they'd all have the same defense and same reasons for not hiring him.
He's still guilty according to social media. People troll for those dopamine hits of "righteous fury" all the time. And he's still getting death threats and "fuck off" emails and all that even now. Search him and what pops up? All of this stuff. Clients, customers of clients, they can find all that. They can learn of it and connect it to a guy who works at their lawyer's law firm, and start "asking questions."
No court is going to require even a law firm (or any employer) to have to fight a constant battle to defend an employee. To have to constantly defend to a client or customer of a client or even the wide world why they employ Allen (or any "problematic" person as so deemed by social media".
It's easier for them to just cut their losses and hire some other candidate. Someone without social media baggage. So the time keeps ticking and Allen keeps not having an income, all because some "content creator" needed content to fuel his own desire for money (and power; lots of people really get off on the knowledge that they can say something and then legions of fans/followers go forth and do it.)
All because some jackass "content creator" found "content" and threw it up online to benefit himself. Not to report it, not to investigate or verify it, but to profit from it. He wielded the power of his effortless platform to destroy a life. And he's not the only one. Lots of people run around online trying to destroy people all the time. For all the reasons you can imagine, and more besides. Many of those people have an audience who will often join any bandwagon that forms.
They all revel in the lynching. Chasing the dopamine dragon, shooting the validation of the mob straight into their veins. Sitting back on the couch with a dreamy smile on their face, as they tap tap tap on their phone and glory in "we did it!" with the rest of the mob.
And while they look for the next person to destroy. Thump thump thump on their arm, looking for a vein. Ahhhh, there's that validation. Fuck that guy. Yeah, that guy. The one the content creator on my screen is demonizing. Yeah, fuck him. Fuck him good. Oooohh, feels good to be so right about what an asshole that guy is.
Bliss.
-
Comment on US judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald Trump (gifted link) in ~news
DavesWorld Link ParentBecause they are. That's what happens when everyone in all the process, in all the departments, in all the everything, stops acting in good faith. When they all start looking for the angle, the...Because they are.
That's what happens when everyone in all the process, in all the departments, in all the everything, stops acting in good faith. When they all start looking for the angle, the edge, the line, the secret sauce that allows them and theirs to succeed, especially if while doing so they also stomp hard on The Other for a twofer.
But remember, it's fine. We're not in trouble. The country is just going to happily submit to authoritarianism, and everyone will comply when boots start kicking in doors and hauling people out. And it's clearly alarmism to point it out.
Apparently you have to wait until the boot has shattered the doorjam before it's okay to point out they've gone too far. Up until then, you're just being dramatic.
-
Comment on Library asks users to verify that books actually exist before making a loan request because AI invents book titles in ~tech
DavesWorld Link ParentPeople keep trying to use current LLMs and AI portals as if the technology is in its final mature form. It isn't yet. Right now, an LLM is just a piece of sophisticated software that can assemble...People keep trying to use current LLMs and AI portals as if the technology is in its final mature form. It isn't yet.
Right now, an LLM is just a piece of sophisticated software that can assemble words into coherent order. So coherent that it can do it in reverse and form pretty good guesses as to what a human "means" when that human gives it text input. The LLM can then formulate a coherent response.
That's not the same thing as the LLM having actual, fully accurate, detailed, trustworthy ability to comb through the bulk of human knowledge (aka, the Internet) and "know" what bits and pieces are relevant.
You ask a physics professor about physics, and she'll have relevant things to say. When you ask specific questions, and continue dialing down by degrees of detail, she'll still be able to stay relevant and on-point with her answers. She knows physics.
The LLM just knows how to sound like a human. That's not the same thing as having a human brain to use on the information (databases).
That physics professor, should she be unskilled or otherwise lack aptitude with human communication, could tell an LLM what to say and the LLM could come up with ways for her to say it. And with some of the other AI technologies, even proceed to verbally say it in almost any voice desired. So she could "hide" behind the tech and use it to communicate, and then it would pretty much do what most people seem to think AI/LLM tech can do without the human in the loop.
But without her, the tech is still all form and surface-only function. The form, that surface flash, is the technological advancement. The form is very impressive. A problem that was thought to be unsolvable has been solved, that of enabling a computer to use language on a human level. But the technology only sounds like Spock or Data; it isn't Spock or Data yet, much less the Enterprise's library computer.
Yet.
Patience. If people would RTFM more often, and be aware of limitations and restrictions, the rest of us wouldn't have to put up with this parade of "I tried to get new tech to do something new tech doesn't do yet and it couldn't; new tech suxxxxxx!!!!" articles that continue to roll out.
Trying to play gotcha when the tech currently isn't intended to get that thing yet.
-
Comment on It seems to me that movie studios, production and distribution companies are to blame for the decrease in attendance in movie theatres in ~movies
DavesWorld LinkPreach and represent! Studio greed has definitely pushed theaters into a corner. The theaters aren't completely blameless; they let it happen. They've signed the contracts over the years, let the...Preach and represent!
Studio greed has definitely pushed theaters into a corner. The theaters aren't completely blameless; they let it happen. They've signed the contracts over the years, let the deal between themselves and distributors (which are really just the studios for all intents and purposes) continually worsen until we're at the point where a theater often gets less than a buck per seat for a first-run showing of a first-run movie.
I don't really think that, if the deal was still 50-50, or some flat fee for the print and another flat fee per seat (rather than only getting to keep a few percentage points of the ticket price with the rest going to the studios), the main problems many former moviegoers have wouldn't be problems. The theaters would just be making more money is all.
The issues with theaters are they don't manage and maintain the moviegoing experience. Ushers, for example. That's what ushers were basically for. To monitor an auditorium. They (used to) exist for a reason.
Theaters decided they didn't want to pay for ushers. How much does it cost to maintain the usher? Two hours per movie, so basically two tickets more or less covers their wage. Or it did before theaters signed all the ticket revenue over to studios. Sure we can quibble pedantically over benefit cost loads, but what is that; another couple of tickets? Four, maybe five per theater showing, to pay for the usher? Or one person buying a jumbo popcorn/soda combo?
Theaters decided they'd rather keep that money. They cost cut.
And the thing about cost cutting is ... you might cut something that was a cost for a reason. By might I mean usually. You usually cut something that wasn't extraneous, but was rather integral. MBAs ignore that though.
Just as safety regulations are written in blood, business expenses are usually there to facilitate the profit. They're rarely something that can be lost without impacting profits. And certainly not if you only cut and don't restructure to cover the loss, to deal with the new process that's left after the cut.
An efficiency would be "have one usher continually walk between auditoriums to monitor the audience and deal with issues." A cut is "no more usher." One might impact the experience some, but still leave the process in place to do what it does for the movie experience that encourages movie customers to remain customers. The other just eliminates the process entirely, leaving us where we are now with customers no longer being customers.
MBAs don't see it that way though. They look at X amount of dollars in hourly operating costs and think "we don't need all that. If I cut some of it, I might get promoted."
So the theatrical experience has worsened over time as it's become more and more of a hands off thing. Stripping more and more from it while assuming (hoping) customers will just keep paying.
Now that enough customers have stopped paying, the industry is starting to freak out. But they're not going to admit they've gone too far and should add back some expense to encourage the revenue to return. They're not going to add employees, train them better, promote a better work environment to encourage more involved and invested employees, set non-disruption policies (which require invested employees to implement/enforce), or anything else like that.
No, they'll just sit for phone interviews with bored "journalists" for Variety and Deadline and whoever else lamenting the loss of customers. "Why doesn't anyone go to the movies anymore?"
They won't actually ask that question. Asking it would mean you then consider it. Think about it. Investigate it. Try to fix it.
Oh no. It's just a quote for the article. They say it, then go back to their C-suite activities of not fixing or maintaining the revenue stream that supports that C-suite. And, entirely incidentally, the business. What do the executives care though? They'll just springboard over to another C-suite soon anyway.
Modern business, capitalism, is like the Mongol hordes. Assault an asset, strip it clean, move on leaving ruin in your wake.
Fortunately lots of people like movies. And lots of people want to make movies. Studios aren't the only source of them. New sources (the tech companies right now) are stepping into the game, cranking out films. So movie lovers aren't in particular danger of not having movies.
Theaters are in danger of having no more moviegoers though. Maybe they should do something about that?
Naaaaahhhh.
-
Comment on It seems to me that movie studios, production and distribution companies are to blame for the decrease in attendance in movie theatres in ~movies
DavesWorld Link ParentIf I go to a movie, I want to watch the movie. So "calling for a theater worker" to deal with a situation (audience, technical, or otherwise) means I'm ... wait for it ... missing my movie! Plus,...If I go to a movie, I want to watch the movie. So "calling for a theater worker" to deal with a situation (audience, technical, or otherwise) means I'm ... wait for it ... missing my movie!
Plus, theater employees (at least in America) are minimum wage, which means not only are they not paid enough to care beyond the bare minimum, but their work environment (from how they're treated by their supervisors/boss, to their (lack of) benefits, their work loads, everything) is equally harsh and not at all calculated to encourage them to go more than the bare minimum.
So they have no interest in having to go into an auditorium, while the movie's running, and square off with an audience member over some claim by another audience member of disruption.
The kind of people who go to a movie and then do anything but watch the movie quietly are rarely the kind of people who are gracious and apologetic when called out for their disruptive behavior.
People would rather be angry, than wrong or humiliated. Anger is a defense mechanism for their sense of self. They'll dial the anger up, embrace it, lean into it, use it, all to avoid having to feel (or focus on feeling) like they have in fact fucked up and committed a faux pas.
So if someone (employee or patron) leans over to someone screwing around on their phone, talking to their fellows, or whatever it is they're doing that's disruptive, they do not respond with "gosh, oh my, I'm so sorry, I had no idea, I'll shape up immediately and cease my disruption." No, oh no. What usually happens instead is "how fucking dare you, why not mind your own damn business, where do you get off, leave me the hell alone, I bought a ticket same as you and can do whatever I want."
If I have to go to the theater and then get up and fetch a disinterested employee to try and police basic civility, I'm just not going to the theater. All I want is for the audience to sit quietly and watch the movie. That's it. Seems simple, an easy ask, nothing extraordinary. Just sit and watch. No phones, no talking, quiet and non-disruptive.
That's too much to ask for, or expect, apparently. The norm is to fuck around and be disruptive. Phone out in a dark room, taking calls, snapping pictures, live streaming. Cutting up with seatmates, carrying on conversations, telling jokes, narrating the movie, and so much more that's anything but sitting quietly and watching.
Pass. I have options that don't involve paying twenty bucks to have my movie experience ruined.
Theaters could stay involved and aware of their business and business model. They could monitor their customers, follow trends, anticipate and resolve problems, continually improve the viewing experience that they're offering for a price. Or, they could do what they've been doing; which is jack up prices, cut staff, and wonder "why don't people go to the movies anymore?"
They continue to choose option B.
-
Comment on What happened to user interfaces? in ~tech
DavesWorld Link ParentCouldn't agree more. Speaking as a user, I have long since gone past the point where it's very annoying to need to deal with every Johnny-come-lately designer's desire to reinvent and "put their...infinitely more usable. I'd say that's an acceptable tradeoff
Couldn't agree more.
Speaking as a user, I have long since gone past the point where it's very annoying to need to deal with every Johnny-come-lately designer's desire to reinvent and "put their stamp" on each UI. There's something to be said for standardization, as well as functionality.
I'm reminded of DVDs and specifically DVD menus. Back in the day, a handful of DVD designers got it in their heads to be "cute and clever" with the menu interfaces.
Now, on its surface, that kind of thing is okay. As long as the menus come right up without delay, and work when you navigate and push buttons without delay. Not all of them did.
The one that's always stuck in my mind was the Terminator 2 disc. That designer, whose name has long since been lost from my mind, decided to do some "clever and cute" things. He did similar stuff with other DVDs he worked on, but the T2 disc is the one that I particularly remember.
One of his notions was you had to "explore" the interface. He hid content on the disc behind his programmed exploration paths. And, mind you, nothing on the interface told or encouraged you to start randomly poking buttons and trying to scroll the on-screen cursor in strange ways.
There was some sequence of buttons you had to push to enable you to then be eligible to input the date of Judgement Day (082997) that would abruptly open up a new menu option. The only thing that was visually indicated was when you'd completed that entire sequence, and the hidden option finally appeared.
Prior to that, you had to be lucky, or have read up online from someone else who'd figured it out. And this was when the internet was small. I've always just assumed some friends of his were shown the "secret", and it spread like degrees of Bacon until someone put it on a forum, and other forums repeated it, and eventually it became "somewhat known" amongst enthusiasts. But random ordinary users? No chance.
Only if you did that stuff could you watch the director's cut version that came on the disc. And you had to do it ... every ... single ... time you loaded the disc into the player. Had friends over and wanted to see it? Hang on while I find my notes, and puzzle through ... ooops hit the wrong thing at the wrong time, gotta start over. Hang on though guys, I'll get it.
I just don't feel "creativity" should be a key quality of an interface. Any interface. Web browser, software, hardware, vehicle controls, light switches, device controls, anything. An interface should be clear, obvious, and responsive. If all those are covered, sure amuse yourself and the consumer with colors and logos and even a little art in the blank space if there is any. But before that, someone shouldn't have to "figure out" how to use it, or fight with it to use it..
Though, as a comedic aside, Kahn in Wrath of Kahn after Kirk remotely lowers Reliant's shields, scanning frantically across the controls that aren't labeled ... very occasionally dense interface design can save the day. "Override! Where's the override?"
-
Comment on A handful of US grocery stores now have ammo vending machines in ~news
DavesWorld Link ParentThey're either legal products, or they're not. If they're legal, and any applicable laws concerning their sale and transfer are being followed, what is the objection? The only obvious objection...The fact that they sold guns and ammo at Wal-Mart was already bonkers.
They're either legal products, or they're not. If they're legal, and any applicable laws concerning their sale and transfer are being followed, what is the objection?
The only obvious objection would be "weapons should be illegal." There, the 2nd Amendment disagrees with such an objection. So do a lot of law abiding citizens across the country.
A country, I'll remind, that -- no hyperbole -- is on the verge of civil war. If the Democrats' fucking up of everything they're supposed to be doing as "our protectors against the scourge of evil conservatives" continues all the way through the election, and Trump and his Project 2025 adherents assume power ... the 2nd Amendment is going to come into play as exactly what it was designed as.
The final option against a tyrannical and oppressive government.
And before anyone wants to be all high and mighty about "the unmatched US military slaughtering any opposition," first I would direct that person to a brief examination of places like Afghanistan (amongst others). Where citizenry that lacked $800 Billion defense budgets successfully fought back against the vaunted US Military for years. Years where the military wanted total physical control, but couldn't achieve it.
Resistance movements throughout history are usually outgunned and overmatched. But, somehow, they don't all fail. Some of them succeed, and change occurs. Guess it's a question up for debate should it come to revolution after all.
And second, the military isn't a monolith. Just because the political offices are usurped by regressive authoritarian dictators eager to arrest and execute anyone they decide isn't on their side has no bearing on each and every soldier, sailor, and marine. All of whom are individuals, not robots. Even the 18yro ones.
Some of them won't be on board with supporting a regressive authoritarian dictatorship. Some of them will be officers, or senior NCOs; leaders amongst their fellow military members. Some of the units won't obey orders to fire into US crowds, to bomb US cities, to arrest US citizens.
Civil war is never not messy. Brutal, violent, the stuff of nightmares. But when the choice is submit to a dictator or fight, some people are gonna fight.
Thankfully our Founders, who'd just gotten done revolting against another oppressive government, realized creating a society where citizens are treated like helpless sheep existing only to be culled wasn't a great idea. They tried to make some provisions that enabled the new nation's citizens to have options should another oppressive government arise.
Like we're far too close to having happen now.
-
Comment on Spotify is no longer just a streaming app, it’s a social network in ~tech
DavesWorld LinkMaybe I'm just old, but I've had a personal mp3 playlist pretty much since mp3s hit the consumer level. I used to have to cut my collection down to carry it with me, back when SD cards were small...Maybe I'm just old, but I've had a personal mp3 playlist pretty much since mp3s hit the consumer level. I used to have to cut my collection down to carry it with me, back when SD cards were small and memory was precious. But now, I mean hell, I have nearly twenty movies on my phone just in case I get stuck somewhere and decide I want one of them.
The mp3 collection mostly doesn't even register honestly. My phone is my mobile library device for all intents and purposes, keeping me happy when I'm away from my servers.
So I guess what I'm saying is I just do not understand this need to offload everything onto a monthly subscription. Wouldn't it be more empowering to have your music, you know, with you?
-
Comment on James Carville: Joe Biden won’t win. Democrats need a plan. Here’s one. (gifted link) in ~misc
DavesWorld Link ParentIt's not mysterious. Rich people own the media. Don't take my word for it, don't assume I'm memeing; look it up. The wealthy have stepped in over the least two decades and bought up all the...- Exemplary
It's not mysterious.
Rich people own the media. Don't take my word for it, don't assume I'm memeing; look it up.
The wealthy have stepped in over the least two decades and bought up all the newspapers, all the networks. Radio, TV, cable, podcasts, all of it. You have to look to find an indie news source. And, if you find one that is indie and is doing well, you've probably found one a wealthy person (or wealth management fund, or venture capital firm, or investment brokerage, or something similar) is actively attempting to buy.
All of capitalism works this way. Why build a brand? What a waste of time and money. Just buy one someone else built. They probably built it to be bought, like a farmer raising a crop. They just raised a nice fresh from the farm brand, rather than a crop of wheat or beans.
Even with COVID, Trump turned out to be pretty lucrative for wealth and the wealthy. He wasn't doing it to help them, of course. He was doing it to help himself, and perhaps toss a few bones at people who were actively kissing his ass to his face. But when he did those things, allllllllllllll the rich motherfuckers made out better.
They want more of that. So ideology aside (though, I would strongly argue wealth is an ideology when you enter billionaire stratus), it directly supports their interests to see Trump reelected.
Further, a shoe-in election doesn't help ratings or engagement. So even if we assume some (or perhaps even most) media sources actually aren't actively trying to prop up Trump and see him into office a second time, they are trying what media always tries.
To play up controversy.
That's what gets people hot and bothered, gets them clicking and tuning in and calling their friends and sending out tweets and sharing links and generally driving traffic to all those media sources. They don't benefit from a calm, even, drama-free anything. Not an election, not a pandemic, not even life.
Their numbers, and thus their income, thrives off "oh shit tune in or else" mentality. Trump gets people tuning in.
It's like that old line about Howard Stern back in the 80s, when corporate bigwigs were absolutely astounded at how this guy (Stern, who they all hated because he wasn't corporate and wouldn't play the corporate game the way they wanted) was so damned popular. They'd run research and polling to try to figure it out and the answer enraged them.
Why would people tune into Stern? Or Trump? Answer most commonly given: "I want to hear what he'll say next." And people who despised Stern were many times more likely to keep listening than Stern fans.
That's what Trump does for media. Professional politicians have learned to try and tamp down and screen off and eliminate drama. Any kind of drama. They don't all succeed at it, and some of them are determined to keep some very grisly and offensive skeletons deeply buried, but the professional politics goal is to run a clean, boring everything. Clean boring image, clean boring campaign, clean boring life.
Drama creates clicks. Media wants clicks. Trump drives drama, and thus drives clicks. Clicks drives ads, and ads drive revenue.
So even the most wholesome, unpolitical, patriotic, kind and caring media bigwigs still unconsciously want Trump involved in the process. Ratings are higher whenever he's awake and Doing Something. Because, especially if you hate him, you just won't believe what he says next. You'll have to hear it. You'll see a headline and be like "no fucking way" and click, and read or listen or watch, and have to admit "fuck, he really did say that bullshit. Holy hell we're all screwed."
Most of us did that all the way through his damn presidency. I can't even begin to count how many times I saw a link or a headline or a story and thought "bullshit, there's no way ... oh shit, he really did." Over and over and over, he just said and did the most ridiculous stuff. Illegal stuff. Immoral stuff. Openly greedy and selfish stuff.
That he got away with all of it, that he's not in jail, is unfortunately a separate discussion. He should be in jail, he shouldn't be getting away with any of it. But, surprise, Democrats and governments aren't doing their jobs, and Trump is still walking around free to continue spinning bullshit.
But back to media. Most of the media bigwigs aren't nice and wholesome and caring people. They're all wealthy, or sucking up to wealth which is how they got appointed into key managing positions in these wealth-owned media companies in the first place. Which doesn't even touch on the wealthy media owners and media managers who are determined to push their personal ideologies as far and fast as they can (Fox, etc).
Greed is what's destroying America. Here, it's multiple layers of greed. Rich people who don't feel they're rich enough, hungry people of modest success eager to find a fastlane they can climb the ladders on and become not just modest but wildly successful, marketing people eager to pay for engagement which drives the greed of capitalistic media who value money not "The Fourth Estate", and garden variety power hungry scumbags who want power simply because it's power.
All of these people are either backing Trump, not obstructing him, not dealing with him, or not rallying the masses to demonize him. They all want him involved because of their greed.
And even if some of them screw up, if some of them want him around but to not actually win ... if they screw it up and manage to help him to win a second time, oh well. That's what they'll say. All they really did then was guarantee four more years of doomscrolling and "no way ... shit he really did say/do that" clicks from all of America and a good chunk of the rest of the world.
Some of those media managers would probably get fricking promoted for helping Trump win. "Good job Jenkins, ratings have been down since 2020, but now the gravy will flow again. Hope you got your spoon, because we're about to eat good."
-
Comment on What are the most effective ways to help get Joe Biden re-elected in the US? in ~misc
DavesWorld Link ParentYou know, it occurs to me Biden truly could take one for the country. Not the team, the country. This, who I'm told is a licensed lawyer, seems to break down the ridiculously partisan,...You know, it occurs to me Biden truly could take one for the country. Not the team, the country.
This, who I'm told is a licensed lawyer, seems to break down the ridiculously partisan, unconstitutional, and dangerous "Presidential Immunity" decision pretty well. Much more thoroughly than a lot of other sources have, certainly moreso than any news ones I looked at.
Why the "mainstream news" isn't spreading an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the decision is another discussion.
The most critical factor with this bullshit SCOTUS opinion seems to be "if the President determines it to be in pursuit of his official duties." If a President does determine that, then under the ruling the President is immune. Further, the President already has pardon power.
There's an old maxim. Never hand someone a loaded gun unless you're absolutely certain where that someone will point and shoot it. SCOTUS just handed the President a loaded gun and said "fire away." They did this, of course, assuming a MAGA President would use it.
One of the greatest flaws of the modern Democratic party is they refuse to play the game actually being played. They insist on handicapping themselves at every turn. Why is another discussion, but the facts over the past several decades are simple; the Republicans twist and lie and steal and cheat and even force everything to get their way, no matter how dirty or underhanded or evil.
The Democrats just stand on the sidelines wagging their fingers, saying "you can't do that." When what they actually mean is "you shouldn't do that." Shouldn't and can't are two entirely different things. Can't is only enforced by consensus or power. Power here means force, whether that's physical or violent or legislative or societal or anything else that forces the can't to be the only available outcome.
If someone wants to kill you, and you kill them first, now they can't kill you. Asking them to not kill you only works if they decide "gosh, you're right, I won't kill you, what was I thinking?" If you want them not to kill you, and they're entirely intent on killing you, then you have to stop them or they will, in fact, attempt to do as they've decided. And kill you. Wagging your finger at them does nothing.
Now, Trump is far from the only authoritarian threat in America. To America. Project 2025 is actually considerably more dangerous than Trump, and a whole bunch of asshats are determined to push it through. But the RNC establishment and the rest of the asshats, which have been largely taken over by MAGA, seem to be mostly setting up to use Trump as the lever to push P25 into implementation. Why is also another discussion.
But when you consider the situation in America between now and March2025, Trump is the most immediate danger. Because he's arrogant, narcissistic, unintelligent, and corrupt enough to shoot whatever guns anyone lets him have just as much as he wants. We saw this in his 2016 term. If MAGA and the RNC slide into the slots a Trump administration will fill, they'll start putting guns in his hand based on P25 and odds are Trump is going to shoot most of them.
What happens if Trump wins in November? He doesn't take office until January. The inept and finger wagging Democrats would normally, based on their irritatingly ineffective and pathetic history, just wag their fingers some more. Giving interviews and trying to convince their "Republican colleagues" to embrace civility, sanity, and "the good of the nation" as those Republicans ready themselves to assume power.
So come January 20th, we'd all have front row seats to find out if the MAGAs are, in fact, ready to fire the gun they've named P25. And if Trump will fire the guns he's named "lock them up." And a bunch of other guns they've all presented and published and proclaimed. Utilizing the cover the corrupt SCOTUS has given them to do so.
Why wait? Other than if you agree with them, approve of who and what those guns will destroying, the only conceivable reason to wait would be because you think they're kidding or something. That they're not serious. "Well, they wouldn't really dismantle the nation and turn it into an authoritarian hellscape. They're not that insane."
There's hardly anything in P25 that wouldn't push the nation into either Civil War or a regressive Christian Nationalist dictatorship. Turn the country into Iran just with an $800 billion dollar military and a trillions-of-dollars GDP. Finger wagging won't stop them from doing that.
So Biden should determine, under the new powers SCOTUS has given him, that Trump and anyone else who's declared they're willing to imprison or execute American citizens are a Clear and Present Danger to the nation and its citizens.
Of course it'd be very civilized and formal to have some lawyers go through P25 first. Pick out the most egregious clauses and plans, and write both them and their unconstitutionality up. Pin them to the authors of those clauses, and identify the most prominent people who've been wandering around waving them proudly while proclaiming how eager they are to implement them.
Call it a warrant if you like, but it's really just a bit of I and T dotting and crossing. An exercise in civilization, in civilized managing of an existential threat to America, to democracy, to us as a people.
The obvious objection, from people who aren't MAGA, would be "you can't do that." Must we go back through the difference between "can't" and "shouldn't" again?
SCOTUS has determined the President can do that. This is why the SCOTUS decision is so incredibly ridiculous. Illegal. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They literally said, as a matter of law, whatever the President decides is an official act is legal. That only the President can make that decision, and no law can overrule it.
They've handed him a loaded gun and appear to be banking on Biden and the Dems not using it. Counting on (a) winning in November and (b) Biden simply wagging his finger as usual.
Whomever executes the warrants Biden signs should be granted a pardon, "just in case." They were carrying out Presidential orders, but let's be certain they're largely shielded from having done so.
To be clear, I am not advocating rounding up every MAGA, or even every MAGA politician. I am, however, advocating rounding out the P25 authors, the loudest and most dictatorship minded proponents, and Trump himself. Biden can determine what's done with them (and it would be illegal for anyone short of POTUS to suggest some of the most extreme sentences), but at a minimum prison and a trial under a military court seems appropriate.
That's what you do with seditious traitors. And, further, SCOTUS has determined no court can question the President's orders.
Under the old laws and Constitutional interpretation, any President doing anything like this would be a whole historical court case. A messy one. A case that would likely threaten an outright Constitutional Crisis of supreme chaos. But, thanks to SCOTUS, none of that matters. The sum total of the court case would be as follows:
"Your honor, these documents (the warrants) outline how POTUS has determined these individuals were and are dangerous to the nation, and he authorized their (whatever actions were taken or are being taken)." As soon as the court received confirmation that POTUS did in fact authorize them, case dismissed. SCOTUS said so.
So the targets of the warrant, Trump and the P25 authors and everyone else, couldn't even appeal. There's nothing to appeal, nothing to litigate. SCOTUS gave the President carte blanche.
Or is the entire plan to wait until after the swearing in ceremony on 20 Jan to find out Trump and the P25 proponents weren't kidding? To just wait until a MAGA squad starts shooting their way into courtrooms and even Congress rounding up people Trump has determined need rounding up?
And however it shakes out, Biden will have demonstrated the insanity SCOTUS just signed off on. Since people are usually very bad at thinking things all the way through, perhaps a demonstration might push some sanity, legality, and Constitutionality back into the process. Before we end up shooting at each other for real.
-
Comment on What can be done about the Supreme Court of the United States? in ~misc
DavesWorld Link ParentI categorically disagree that increasing the court's size would be a "nuclear option." It's an exercise of the Legislative branch of its Constitutional powers to balance and manage the triangle of...I categorically disagree that increasing the court's size would be a "nuclear option." It's an exercise of the Legislative branch of its Constitutional powers to balance and manage the triangle of power it shares with the Executive and Judicial branches of our government.
The Nuclear Option, should SCOTUS decisions that are patently absurd (as several of those just released are) continue to appear, would be for various states to either entirely withdraw from the Union, or emphatically state they will no longer follow the "law" as interpreted by the blatantly corrupt SCOTUS.
That's a nuclear option. I could name examples that might actually, real-world, trigger that option, but the list would be long. An easy one would be Trump taking office again and immediately doing exactly what he's spent the past several years stating he very earnestly wants to do. Or doing what the MAGAs have outlined they want to do with their published plans and intentions.
Arrest his detractors. Including judges and others who've pursued him via the legal system.
SCOTUS just made it effectively impossible -- or, at the most charitable and good-faith reading of their ruling, highly difficult while being totally dependent on the judge to have good faith and truly be on the side of the nation and democracy -- to claim anything the President decides to do is illegal or unconstitutional. Trump could start signing orders and, under that SCOTUS ruling, not even an emergency hearing could injoin the action.
So what if Trump does start detaining people simply because he feels like it. What if he starts executing them? What if he starts deporting them, even natural citizens. Pissed Trump off? Well now he just signed an order that you're to be arrested, processed, stripped of citizenship.
And before anyone wants to start picking apart those examples with claims of "but the President doesn't have that power", again SCOTUS just ruled the President can do whatever he decides he can get away with. Power comes at the barrel of a gun. Violence. All it takes is loyalists willing to carry out his orders and presto, it happens.
Further, Congress might very well be on Trump's side if enough MAGAs get elected. So they could make all sorts of shit "legal." Patently unconstitutional, immoral, outrageously absurd, but "legal."
So what if various states decide enough's enough and they're not going to play those foolish, dangerous games anymore? What if California or the Northeast, for example, say "we're out, we're closing our borders physically, fuck off with your fascist bullshit?"
Well, as Liberals and Northerners love to point out, usually with tremendous glee, it's been previously ruled under United States law that states actually don't have the right to withdraw from the United States. So any states pulling out of the authoritarian hellscape Trump or Project 2025 or the MAGAs run amuck might be creating ... those states would be violating a legal precedent set more than a century and a half ago.
What happens then?
This is the kind of crap all these extremists are pushing the country to. Where something like this is not out of the realm of possibility. Where we very well may see states refusing to participate and violence being called up to bring them to heel.
They packed the court as step one. Now that it's been packed, they have literal legal cover to ram all sorts of things through.
Expanding it and ramming through some good faith justices is absolutely not a nuclear option. It's a civilized move that might, maybe, inject some sanity back into the process. Restore the rule of law, remove authoritarianism from the execution and pursuit of law.
Who are most of the cities and counties going to utilize to conduct any sweep, any action they direct at a homeless person or homeless community? Cops. What will a non-zero number of those cops do? Assault, brutalize, and in some cases cripple or kill those homeless persons.
If Gavin's order directed California municipalities to make social and case workers available, directed those trained individuals and agencies to be the first, second, even third points of contact in this "removal" of homeless communities maybe there'd be some level of non-evil morality involved.
But no, all because our society is content to use people up and throw them away, some folks who are already getting the shit end of the stick will end up injured or dead. Simply due to how people don't like being reminded of how uncaring and indifferent so many of us are to the fact that some folks are allowed to be treated as subhuman simply due to poverty.
ps: The fact that some homeless individuals have mental or addiction issues doesn't change the math here. Some folks do have real and serious issues, unrelated to only poverty, that lead to their homelessness, and that sometimes further cause them to resist "help" that might or might not be available. That's a complicating issue with poverty that leads to homelessness, but doesn't change that people are going to die as cops are let off the leash to go do the dirty, do what even Gavin with his heartless order refuses to openly admit he wants done.
Thanks SCOTUS! Nice to know it's legal to execute people simply for not being good cogs in the capitalist machinery. Remain calm citizens, this is normal and will all be over as soon as everyone stops resisting. Comply, comply.