All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Iron Maiden]

Well, there may be some fireworks now....Judge holds Donald Trump in contempt for failing to turn over documents to NY Attorney General Leticia James

A New York judge on Monday held former President Donald Trump in contempt, and fined him $10,000 per day, for failing to comply with a subpoena requiring he turn over documents to investigators conducting a sprawling financial fraud probe for New York Attorney General Letitia James.

"Mr. Trump, I know you take your business seriously, and I take mine seriously, I hereby hold you in civil contempt and fine you $10,000 a day," said New York Supreme Court judge Arthur Engoron. The judge's written order will be filed tomorrow.

Trump attorney Alina Habba said after the hearing that they plan to appeal.

I can recall many articles over the years in various publications how the Trump organizations either raises or lowers the values of various properties depending on what he is trying to accomplish and has mostly gotten away with it. Let's see if this one goes anywhere. Two prosecutors on the case resigned back in February when the newly elected New York District Attorney Alvin Braggs decided not to pursue the investigation started by previous D.A Cyrus Vance.

[TheKryptonMan]

Some reports coming in stating Musk and Twitter have reached a deal. Waiting on mainstream confirmation.

As long as Trump is not back on Twitter then it doesn't matter.
If the same standards continue then we're ok.
If Musk allows anyone to say whatever they want, lies , conspiracies and etc. don't need Twitter anymore.

[TheKryptonMan]

Well, there may be some fireworks now....Judge holds Donald Trump in contempt for failing to turn over documents to NY Attorney General Leticia James



I can recall many articles over the years in various publications how the Trump organizations either raises or lowers the values of various properties depending on what he is trying to accomplish and has mostly gotten away with it. Let's see if this one goes anywhere. Two prosecutors on the case resigned back in February when the newly elected New York District Attorney Alvin Braggs decided not to pursue the investigation started by previous D.A Cyrus Vance.

Trump should be Indicted for his crimes against America and the world .

[achilles]

Looks like Twitter will accept Musk's offer today. Wondering why? Well, the consensus is that they'd get their asses sued off if they didn't, and they'd likely lose. DeSantis already threatened a lawsuit, (Florida is a large institutional investor, and thus qualfies), and many others would likely follow. Musk's price would be a premium, and is evidently the only offer for Twitter. So it's probably a done deal.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I think a lot of people are worried Musk will allow ANYTHING to happen and let lies , conspiracies etc to thrive on there. I'm glad I don't have Twitter for whats ahead as Musk sells how he's about freedom etc.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

As long as Trump is not back on Twitter then it doesn't matter.
If the same standards continue then we're ok.
If Musk allows anyone to say whatever they want, lies , conspiracies and etc. don't need Twitter anymore.

The prevalent fear is that Musk will reinstate Trump, if that happens, his cultists, QAnon loons and right wing troublemakers will certainly follow and everything on Twitter will go back to the hellscape it had been when Caramel Caligula was a member. You can book that.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Wasn't that long ago that Musk was a hero. What happened?

[BeastieRunner]

Wasn't that long ago that Musk was a hero. What happened?

He was a hero!?

News to me ...

[JB]

Wasn't that long ago that Musk was a hero. What happened?

I don't know but now Twitter belongs to him. We live in the Twilight Zone.

After he showed proof of financing over the weekend, the board had no choice as they have a fiduciary responsibility to do what's right for shareholders. Musk is saying he'll be adding new features, open source algorithm, and he's vowed to defeat spam bots, "authenticating all humans."
Twitter is now private. Wow.

[numberthirty]

I don't know but now Twitter belongs to him. We live in the Twilight Zone.

After he showed proof of financing over the weekend, the board had no choice as they have a fiduciary responsibility to do what's right for shareholders. Musk is saying he'll be adding new features, open source algorithm, and he's vowed to defeat spam bots, "authenticating all humans."
Twitter is now private. Wow.

Just remember...

"We are a free market economy, and folks should be able to participate..."

[Mister Mets]

Jonathan Haidt had a piece on the Alantic on social media's effects on culture.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-babel/629369/

There was a lot of focus on the left and the right, but one point on parenting gets to the subtext of some culture war fights now.

Childhood has become more tightly circumscribed in recent generations––with less opportunity for free, unstructured play; less unsupervised time outside; more time online. Whatever else the effects of these shifts, they have likely impeded the development of abilities needed for effective self-governance for many young adults. Unsupervised free play is nature’s way of teaching young mammals the skills they’ll need as adults, which for humans include the ability to cooperate, make and enforce rules, compromise, adjudicate conflicts, and accept defeat. A brilliant 2015 essay by the economist Steven Horwitz argued that free play prepares children for the “art of association” that Alexis de Tocqueville said was the key to the vibrancy of American democracy; he also argued that its loss posed “a serious threat to liberal societies.” A generation prevented from learning these social skills, Horwitz warned, would habitually appeal to authorities to resolve disputes and would suffer from a “coarsening of social interaction” that would “create a world of more conflict and violence.”

And while social media has eroded the art of association throughout society, it may be leaving its deepest and most enduring marks on adolescents. A surge in rates of anxiety, depression, and self-harm among American teens began suddenly in the early 2010s. (The same thing happened to Canadian and British teens, at the same time.) The cause is not known, but the timing points to social media as a substantial contributor—the surge began just as the large majority of American teens became daily users of the major platforms. Correlational and experimental studies back up the connection to depression and anxiety, as do reports from young people themselves, and from Facebook’s own research, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Depression makes people less likely to want to engage with new people, ideas, and experiences. Anxiety makes new things seem more threatening. As these conditions have risen and as the lessons on nuanced social behavior learned through free play have been delayed, tolerance for diverse viewpoints and the ability to work out disputes have diminished among many young people.

This gets to two facets.

In general, parents are controlling children too much.

Children are growing up into young adults who don't know how to manage basic conflict.

Haidt considers potential solutions to this question, and to the harm social media causes children, although there will likely be pushback.

The most important change we can make to reduce the damaging effects of social media on children is to delay entry until they have passed through puberty. Congress should update the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which unwisely set the age of so-called internet adulthood (the age at which companies can collect personal information from children without parental consent) at 13 back in 1998, while making little provision for effective enforcement. The age should be raised to at least 16, and companies should be held responsible for enforcing it.

The whole piece is worth checking out.

[Immortal Weapon]

Elon purchase of Twitter is official and he's going to make it private. Thank you meme man.

[Mister Mets]

What is unreasonable about teaching children to respect those different than them? I had He-Man doing it when I was 3 and Mr Rogers doing it until he died (not to mention Sesame Street and hundreds of other Childrens shows). The only reason I can see to oppose this is highly unreasonable: A desire to prevent children from knowing about the existence of LGBT in a misguided attempt to prevent them from coming out as such. Ordinarily reasonable people can hold many unreasonable beliefs and stances, as has been shown in many households in arguments about Trump over the past several years.

There isn't much of a controversy about a generic message of respecting differences. The main question is the age at which kids should be told about specific differences. In most cases, we don't think kindergarteners should all be told about the life expectancy of people with sickle-cell anemia.

Considering how often members of the GoP congressional leadership has disparaged people with legitimate concerns and received no consequences from voters or colleagues, I do not understand your curiosity here. It's a case of Dog Bites Man at this point.

First, it does seem that people here and in the media are happy to call out GOP leadership. But if you guys think it's fine for either party's leadership to wrongly disparage people, that argument should be made explicitly. I want to understand where people are coming from.

One of the arguments is that the GOP is so much worse that it's important for people who disagree with Democrats and the left to support them. Anyone making that argument does insist that Democrats be held to a high standard.

I can agree with this, but considering the above I think I might disagree with your definition of reasonable from time to time.

Fair. And those instances are worth exploring.

What you said:


I think it's fair to call that FAR more. If you haven't looked at the numbers I wouldn't call it a widely known feature when being asked for proof. I would also appreciate a study about US youth as that's what we've been discussing like the study brought up earlier as opposed to this one from the UK which has nothing to do with US Society or any policy we have or 'fads' students might have here. I would prefer the ACHA study which you've been quoting for a while now if possible, but I understand the difficulty in finding it as I have had some issue myself.

There are two separate concepts.
"There is a significant increase in females identifying as trans, rather than males."
"Young females transition at a rate FAR more than young males."
I can show evidence for #1, which is a well-documented phenomenon. I haven't argued #2.
The increase in females identifying as trans is what I was looking at.
It used to be that there were significantly more out trans men than trans women; it's possible for there to still be more trans women transitioning, even if there is an increase in trans men. It'd be like there would still be a big scientific question if there was an increase in men developing breast cancer, even if women still more likely to develop it.

The fact of an increase is still widely known and not controversial. I wonder if one reason for disagreements on this topic is that I'm familiar with information many of you aren't aware of.

You might personally clarify it as such, but when asked you brought up this specific goalpost so it is not something you had to agree with. I also don't think many people with the power to enact policy clarify it similarly when told that influences the decisions in most schools, do you?

I think we've got a lot of people arguing past one another on CRT, which hinders communication.

I met the goalpost in that given the sheer amount of professional training and material, pretty much every teacher receives some material at some point influenced by CRT, so most teachers are influenced by CRT. There are separate questions about the degree to which it occurs, or whether it's a bad thing.

While I may agree that not believing in evolution shouldn't prevent one from graduating, I do believe that such a thing shows that their faith would interfere with the ability to govern without forcing their beliefs on others. The evidence of that is shown every time Evolution comes up in the legislature to say nothing of Abortion or LGBT issues. Separation of Church and State exists to ensure that the first amendment gives freedom to all religions as opposed to those which are most popular.

In general, I don't think we should have the power to say that someone's incorrect beliefs mean they can't graduate from a standard education program. There may be some edge cases (IE- antivaxxers should not be pharmacists.)

This is something difficult to adjudicate and prone to abuse. Who would get to determine which views are obviously incorrect, where do they get their authority and who would be able to make sure they're doing their job correctly?

[achilles]

I don't know but now Twitter belongs to him. We live in the Twilight Zone.

After he showed proof of financing over the weekend, the board had no choice as they have a fiduciary responsibility to do what's right for shareholders. Musk is saying he'll be adding new features, open source algorithm, and he's vowed to defeat spam bots, "authenticating all humans."
Twitter is now private. Wow.

Well, technically, it's not private yet. He still needs regulatory approval, (likely to get it since there are no anti-trust issues, though the SEC might take a quick look. Then he has to actually buy all that stock. So it will take some time. As for me, I've sensibly never signed up for Twitter, as I find social media has too much potential for me to waste time, (even more than here), so I don't care what Twitter does.

[JB]

Just remember...

"We are a free market economy, and folks should be able to participate..."

That $200 penalty is beyond ridiculous. That's not even a slap on the wrist.

Well, technically, it's not private yet. He still needs regulatory approval, (likely to get it since there are no anti-trust issues, though the SEC might take a quick look. Then he has to actually buy all that stock. So it will take some time. As for me, I've sensibly never signed up for Twitter, as I find social media has too much potential for me to waste time, (even more than here), so I don't care what Twitter does.

Yeah I don't really see any major roadblocks getting in his way especially with Morgan Stanley (and others) putting forth the funding package. I honestly didn't think the board would sit down with him so quickly but after the package was announced, shareholders were pressuring the board and I can't say I blame them. I saw that trading was halted around 3PM eastern.

I myself left Twitter after the 2016 election and I'm glad I did. It can be highly addictive.