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

[AnakinFlair]

Something something declaration of war

Russian fighter jet forces down US drone over Black Sea

I'm curious as to what the damage was of the Russian aircraft (I assume it was a MIG) that hit the drone.

Part of me thinks they should rig the drones to explode on contact in the air. On the other hand, the Russians can keep ramming the drones, and we can keep sending them up. Sooner or later, the Russian pilots will do something to severely damage their aircraft and crash, while the drone pilot can just get up and grab a cup of coffee.

[SquirrelMan]

Mitch McConnell Headed to Inpatient Rehab After Concussion

McConnell’s office said his doctors discovered over the weekend that he had also suffered a “minor rib fracture” after he tripped and fell at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Washington on Wednesday evening.

“Leader McConnell’s concussion recovery is proceeding well and the Leader was discharged from the hospital today,” McConnell spokesman David Popp said in a statement. “At the advice of his physician, the next step will be a period of physical therapy at an inpatient rehabilitation facility before he returns home.”

The office did not give any additional detail on his condition or say how long McConnell will be out. Concussions can be serious injuries and take time for recovery, and even a single incident of concussion can limit a person’s abilities as they recover.

[Kirby101]

The Wall Street Journal's news department is respected, though does have a conservative/business class slant. The Editorial Page, where this garbage came from, is a hive of right wing idiots that only blind members of the GOP give any credence to.

[Username taken]

The Wall Street Journal's news department is respected, though does have a conservative/business class slant. The Editorial Page, where this garbage came from, is a hive of right wing idiots that only blind members of the GOP give any credence to.

I see.

I didn't know they printed the sort of garbage Andy Kessler put out recently.

[Username taken]

Is the Wall Street Journal still a respected newspaper? To be, they've been a conservative rag for years now.

I actually didn't realize how hard they'd gone.

A number of popular economic papers are right-leaning (although they haven't swung hard-right like some others and still remain relatively centered) but WSJ has really raised a lot of eyebrows with Kessler's article. It's stunning how he completely ignored the obvious reasons for the bank failure and instantly pivoted to "diVeRsITy" as what killed SVB.

This stuff really hurts my brain because I've worked in the corporate sector for over 20 years and I can say categorically these companies (at least where I worked) are ABSOLUTELY NOT run by woke people.

[Adam Allen]

That's a fair question.

It is a low bar to consider that someone may be telling the truth. It doesn't require certainty.

From what I've read so far, the detractors have yet to prove that she isn't telling the truth. This is a question that may take some time to settle, and frankly if we don't get further evidence in the next few months, it would suggest the source is making stuff up.

How can someone prove she isn't telling the truth?

As far as it goes, I don't know anything about Singal, and don't think I have expressed any argument against him at all.

[Tendrin]

How can someone prove she isn't telling the truth?

As far as it goes, I don't know anything about Singal, and don't think I have expressed any argument against him at all.

Weird how all of a sudden the burden of proof is on everyone but the accuser.

[CaptainEurope]

Konrad Adenauer was an effective chancellor until his resignation at age 87.

Just putting that out there.

Biden issues executive order to expand background checks for gun purchases

WASHINGTON, March 14 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday issued an executive order aimed at expanding background checks for gun purchases to bring down mass shootings in the country.

Biden also asked Congress to take additional action to reduce gun violence and urged the Federal Trade Commission to issue a public report analyzing how gun manufacturers market firearms to minors, according to the order released by the White House

[worstblogever]

I'm adding the "Wall Street Journal" to the list of folks that should have known better. They published an article that SVBs collapse could be attributed to them being "distracted" by diversity demands.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/wall-s...on-valley-bank

This is from the Wall Street Journal:



The Daily Beast then said this:

Needless to say, the WSJ is getting a ton of criticism from people because of how insane and insidious their article was.

I'm legit surprised a "respected" outlet like the WSJ can even publish this sort of nonsense but again this is EXACTLY how extreme right-wing talking points enter the mainstream and shape opinions. Interestingly, this is why people started going "woke" in the first place, to identify this sort of rhetoric and ideology and call it out as much as possible.

Is the Wall Street Journal still a respected newspaper? To be, they've been a conservative rag for years now.

That a bank collapses because the board had a few minorities and women on the board is an extreme right-wing position.

Not to mention a bigoted one considering the entire suggestion is somehow based on a belief that white people are always more qualified for these positions than minorities.

Just because it's a popular right-wing talking point doesn't make it less bigoted. The US right has drifted into racism and bigotry so their repeating these talking points isn't surprising, it's an "economic" magazine printing stupid articles like Andy Kessler's that's really surprising.

It's owned by Rupert Murdoch and his failson.

That's all that needs to be said for how it could publish something so racist, inaccurate, and willfully dishonest.

[aja_christopher]

Are there enough "replacement theory" assholes to make up the difference in statistics?

Again you ignore what is being said to you while simultaneously handwaving the fact that Nazis are marching in the streets and echoing the very same right-wing talking points that you are promoting on this forum.

If you are going to address what I say then address all of it -- even if the comment wasn't directly addressed to you, that's no excuse for pretending as if:

1) many people including myself haven't already pointed out that many conservatives don't have enough empathy to get "depressed" about injustice, especially when they often are the ones inflicting it on others

2) Nazis marching in American streets is something to be glossed over as if it's simply standard, acceptable right-wing behavior

3) Republicans aren't the main impediment to providing everyone in this nation -- including "depressed liberals" -- with adequate health care to address said issues.

Regardless, it is a good question -- how many "replacement theory assholes" are there in the Republican party?

Given Tucker Carson's popularity in said circles the answer is obviously more than you are willing to admit.

-----




"Fox News host Tucker Carlson falsely claimed he was unfamiliar with the racist and antisemitic "great replacement theory" cited by the mass shooter in Buffalo, New York."

"You’ve heard a lot about the ‘great replacement theory’ recently," Carlson said on his primetime show May 17. "It is everywhere in the last two days, and we are still not sure exactly what it is."

Carlson’s critics and viewers would have been right to think twice about his feigned ignorance.

Carlson has promoted the core principles behind "great replacement theory" hundreds of times — including on his May 17 program."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...-great-replac/

Edit: You could have easily just searched for this information yourself -- again, this is why I say it's a waste of time doing for you what you clearly can do for yourself but choose not to for obvious reasons.

-----

"Two-Thirds of Republicans Believe Great Replacement Theory, New Poll Shows"

"A new poll shows that two-thirds of Republicans believe in a conspiracy theory similar to one that inspired the Buffalo shooter."

"Two-thirds of Republicans surveyed agreed with a core belief of the “great replacement” conspiracy theory that holds that Democrats are importing immigrants to replace “more conservative white voters,” according to a newly released survey. Of Republicans surveyed, 68 percent said they believed that the recent shift in U.S. demographics is “not a natural change but has been motivated by progressive and liberal leaders actively trying to leverage political power by replacing more conservative white voters.” That includes 38 percent who strongly agreed with the statement, with 30 percent of Republicans saying they somewhat agreed."

"Nearly 7 in 10 Republicans surveyed agree to at least some extent that demographic changes in the United States are deliberately driven by liberal and progressive politicians attempting to gain political power by “replacing more conservative white voters.” Across the political spectrum, we found substantial support for threatening or acting violently against perceived political opponents...."

https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3va...nt-theory-poll

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...acement-theory

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/10992...olitical-right

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ry-republicans

https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...n-immigration/

https://news.yahoo.com/hed-poll-61-o...090004062.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ts/7461913001/

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/...rd-right-ideas

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ent-arguments/

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midt...6988ed591e7ed9

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/...cians-14131215

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ooter-1354054/

https://www.axios.com/2021/09/29/whi...ound-among-gop

[Mister Mets]

That a bank collapses because the board had a few minorities and women on the board is an extreme right-wing position.

Not to mention a bigoted one considering the entire suggestion is somehow based on a belief that white people are always more qualified for these positions than minorities.

Just because it's a popular right-wing talking point doesn't make it less bigoted. The US right has drifted into racism and bigotry so their repeating these talking points isn't surprising, it's an "economic" magazine printing stupid articles like Andy Kessler's that's really surprising.

By definition, popular points can be very wrong, but they're not extreme.

In addition, the writer of the editorial was clear to note the speculation may be in error, writing "I’m not saying 12 white men would have avoided this mess, but the company may have been distracted by diversity demands.” They weren't saying this is for sure the reason the bank collapsed, or that white people are always more qualified than minorities.

How can someone prove she isn't telling the truth?

As far as it goes, I don't know anything about Singal, and don't think I have expressed any argument against him at all.

The main way to prove she's not telling the truth would be to demonstrate that she's saying things that are untrue, to contrast her claims with documentation.

This isn't always possible. She may make vague claims that are hard to disprove (if two doctors say that her descriptions do not match their patients, she can claim she's talking about someone else) especially since most of the information is confidential. If no one comes forward to corroborate her claims, that would imply she's lying.

Singal's relevant to the discussion, because he broke the story, so some of the questions are about his ethics. Some of the posts on this thread suggested that we should dismiss the story because he's unreliable. You quoted me as referring to "a claim that an article is false" which would suggest that the author matters.

Weird how all of a sudden the burden of proof is on everyone but the accuser.

The specific question was why someone would think she might be telling the truth. That's a different standard.

[Username taken]

By definition, popular points can be very wrong, but they're not extreme.

In addition, the writer of the editorial was clear to note the speculation may be in error, writing "I’m not saying 12 white men would have avoided this mess, but the company may have been distracted by diversity demands.” They weren't saying this is for sure the reason the bank collapsed, or that white people are always more qualified than minorities.

I don't understand what you're saying.

The comment "if it were 12 white men" was immediately negated by his own words.

SVB notes that besides 91 percent of their board being independent and 45 percent women, they also have ‘1 Black,’ ‘1 LGBTQ+,’ and ‘2 Veterans.’ I’m not saying 12 white men would have avoided this mess, but the company may have been distracted by diversity demands.”

What Kessler wrote was pretty easy to understand. He implied that the bank's failure could be due to a distraction because of the "diversity demands". The only reason he's saying this was because the board of the bank was "diverse" (which is silly because the bigger banks are more diverse than SVB). He literally checked the composition of the bank's board and made no reference to their qualifications or experience, all he took away from the mess was the "diversity" of the board.

A popular talking point can be extreme. Extremism isn't only looking at how ubiquitous a talking point is but its possible impact. Case in point, banning gay marriage was a popular talking point but it was also quite extreme.

[useridgoeshere]

In addition, the writer of the editorial was clear to note the speculation may be in error, writing "I’m not saying 12 white men would have avoided this mess, but the company may have been distracted by diversity demands.” They weren't saying this is for sure the reason the bank collapsed, or that white people are always more qualified than minorities.

Oh my god, he is exactly saying that having diversity on the board is the cause. By hypothesizing, he’s parroting the Murdoch media party line then pathetically covers himself with the most transparent qualification possible. I’m surprised he didn’t use Trump’s “people are saying”. Meanwhile, SVB’s CEO and CFO, the positions most responsible for this are white men. Yeah, 12 more of them would’ve really helped.

[aja_christopher]

Oh my god, he is exactly saying that having diversity on the board is the cause. By hypothesizing, he’s parroting the Murdoch media party line then pathetically covers himself with the most transparent qualification possible. I’m surprised he didn’t use Trump’s “people are saying”. Meanwhile, SVB’s CEO and CFO, the positions most responsible for this are white men. Yeah, 12 more of them would’ve really helped.

It's a cover story for the Republican party's regulatory failures -- both under Trump and in general.

"Blame the minorities" -- via racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, misogyny, xenophobia, etc -- is their primary strategy at this point.

Doesn't matter if to them if it's a lie or if it causes harm to said communities -- it only matters whether it wins them votes.

[Mister Mets]

I don't understand what you're saying.

The comment "if it were 12 white men" was immediately negated by his own words.



What Kessler wrote was pretty easy to understand. He implied that the bank's failure could be due to a distraction because of the "diversity demands". The only reason he's saying this was because the board of the bank was "diverse" (which is silly because the bigger banks are more diverse than SVB). He literally checked the composition of the bank's board and made no reference to their qualifications or experience, all he took away from the mess was the "diversity" of the board.

A popular talking point can be extreme. Extremism isn't only looking at how ubiquitous a talking point is but its possible impact. Case in point, banning gay marriage was a popular talking point but it was also quite extreme.

I see where we may be arguing past one another.

I disagreed with the summary which suggested a level of certainty that did not appear to be in the op-ed.

It's inaccurate to summarize his view as "a bank collapses because the board had a few minorities and women on the board" because he treated it as a possibility worth exploring (and someone can certainly disagree with that point) but not as a certainty. The new description "He implied that the bank's failure could be due to a distraction because of the "diversity demands" recognizes that.

If someone calls views "extreme right-wing" that tends to suggest that these views are extreme for the right. Things that were once popular could be extreme in a modern context, although it's a cheap shot to blame modern politicians for outdated views generations ago. A popular policy may be extreme in terms of consequences (IE- the popularity of lobotomies doesn't prevent it from being an extreme option) although extreme isn't used as a qualifier for left-wing or right-wing in those cases.

Again you ignore what is being said to you while simultaneously handwaving the fact that Nazis are marching in the streets and echoing the very same right-wing talking points that you are promoting on this forum.

If you are going to address what I say then address all of it -- even if the comment wasn't directly addressed to you, that's no excuse for pretending as if:

1) many people including myself haven't already pointed out that many conservatives don't have enough empathy to get "depressed" about injustice, especially when they often are the ones inflicting it on others

2) Nazis marching in American streets is something to be glossed over as if it's simply standard, acceptable right-wing behavior

3) Republicans aren't the main impediment to providing everyone in this nation -- including "depressed liberals" -- with adequate health care to address said issues.

Regardless, it is a good question -- how many "replacement theory assholes" are there in the Republican party?

Given Tucker Carson's popularity in said circles the answer is obviously more than you are willing to admit.

-----




"Fox News host Tucker Carlson falsely claimed he was unfamiliar with the racist and antisemitic "great replacement theory" cited by the mass shooter in Buffalo, New York."

"You’ve heard a lot about the ‘great replacement theory’ recently," Carlson said on his primetime show May 17. "It is everywhere in the last two days, and we are still not sure exactly what it is."

Carlson’s critics and viewers would have been right to think twice about his feigned ignorance.

Carlson has promoted the core principles behind "great replacement theory" hundreds of times — including on his May 17 program."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...-great-replac/

Edit: You could have easily just searched for this information yourself -- again, this is why I say it's a waste of time doing for you what you clearly can do for yourself but choose not to for obvious reasons.

-----

"Two-Thirds of Republicans Believe Great Replacement Theory, New Poll Shows"

"A new poll shows that two-thirds of Republicans believe in a conspiracy theory similar to one that inspired the Buffalo shooter."

"Two-thirds of Republicans surveyed agreed with a core belief of the “great replacement” conspiracy theory that holds that Democrats are importing immigrants to replace “more conservative white voters,” according to a newly released survey. Of Republicans surveyed, 68 percent said they believed that the recent shift in U.S. demographics is “not a natural change but has been motivated by progressive and liberal leaders actively trying to leverage political power by replacing more conservative white voters.” That includes 38 percent who strongly agreed with the statement, with 30 percent of Republicans saying they somewhat agreed."

"Nearly 7 in 10 Republicans surveyed agree to at least some extent that demographic changes in the United States are deliberately driven by liberal and progressive politicians attempting to gain political power by “replacing more conservative white voters.” Across the political spectrum, we found substantial support for threatening or acting violently against perceived political opponents...."

https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3va...nt-theory-poll

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...acement-theory

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/10992...olitical-right

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ry-republicans

https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...n-immigration/

https://news.yahoo.com/hed-poll-61-o...090004062.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ts/7461913001/

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/...rd-right-ideas

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ent-arguments/

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midt...6988ed591e7ed9

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/...cians-14131215

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ooter-1354054/

https://www.axios.com/2021/09/29/whi...ound-among-gop

I think we've got some category creep if the buffalo shooter's belief that it is best to accelerate a race war to bring about white victory is conflated with a suspicion that Democrats will think immigrants are more likely to support their policies.