New book technology

[Orpheus]

What really is obvious is how much Americans hate each now. But, what is surprising is that considering how many guns there are in the USA that it hasn't erupted into political violence...yet. Will it devolve into Wiemar Republic style political street fights and body counts? Any opinion from someone in the US of A?

I think that if you think "Americans" as a group hate each other, you are probably spending too much time reading Breitbart and comment threads generally.

Certainly there are lots of people on both sides with very strong opinions, and the extremes of both parties would happily kick each others' heads in given the chance. However, those extremes, precisely because they are extreme, attract news coverage wildly out of proportion to their actual numbers. There's a lot of money to be made by feeding people's anger, and a lot of people in and outside the US who see divisions as personally advantageous. Some of those people have temporarily achieved a fair amount of power in the US government.

But Weimar street violence? A second civil war? Nah. We're going through a rough patch, but we'll be fine.

Katherine

Actually I was reading the NYT comment threads. (One thing I notice is that if someone makes a racist remark on Breitbart they are accused of being leftists trying to give the right wing a bad name. But if someone makes a racist remark on the NYT everyone agrees with them.)

I hope you are right. And, I plan to take a long break after the Kavanaugh vote.

But what about antifa riots in various locations and people killed and injured? What about the abysmal state of "Free Speech" in US universities where even left wing comics refuse to perform? What about left wing bureaucrats sabotaging government machinery? What about Democrat leaders urging their followers to seriously harass their opponents? (Cases like Ms Sanders and Mr Cruz being denied service and chased out of restaurants? What about the republican baseball team being attacked and one of them seriously injured? What about the very vocal call to "resist" and to resist BAMN - By Any Means Necessary?

I lived in the USA for more than 20 years and have never seen such division before. But I will definitely take your advice and stop reading the news for a while and give things time to happen. Now I have to find a new form of procrastination.

[Orpheus]

Did he call himself a "fascist?" You did. That is what I was referring to. Sorry for not making that clear.

As for the "Alt-right" label I think, and I may be wrong, the reason the are distancing themselves, if that is true, is because the "alt-right" is too all encompassing and some rather unsavory characters were lumped in.

Some unsavory characters chose to self-identify as the "alt-right."

When people carry Nazi banners and chant Nazi slogans, I don't think it's "name-calling" to identify them as fascists. To avoid being "lumped in" with such people, one can start by not giving them a platform.

Katherine

I disagree.

[Orpheus]

Certainly there are lots of people on both sides with very strong opinions, and the extremes of both parties would happily kick each others' heads in given the chance. However, those extremes, precisely because they are extreme, attract news coverage wildly out of proportion to their actual numbers. There's a lot of money to be made by feeding people's anger, and a lot of people in and outside the US who see divisions as personally advantageous. Some of those people have temporarily achieved a fair amount of power in the US government.

But Weimar street violence? A second civil war? Nah. We're going through a rough patch, but we'll be fine.

Katherine

You might want to read Glubb's short essay Fate of Empires https://www.webcitation.org/6a8z7Lvfj?u ... /glubb.pdf

to see where the USA is going, the same place every other empire went. It is only a matter of time. kālaḥ kalayatām aham -- among subduers I am time-- Bhagavad-gita 10.30

"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder." Toynbee.

"Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." Toynbee

Glubb in his essay estimated that an Empire lasted for about 10 generations 250 years. I would not hold that as etched in stone as there are variations. But, it is interesting to note that 2026 will be the USA's 250th year. And all in is not well.

And of course it is only later historians who write the death certificates. While people who are going through it are not aware. The Romans in 250 AD thought their empire would last forever but didn't realize it was already in serious decline and some would say was in such disarray that it had already fallen. Though the official date of the fall of Rome in the West is not for 150 years later with the end of the last Caesar.

[kewms]

But what about antifa riots in various locations and people killed and injured? What about the abysmal state of "Free Speech" in US universities where even left wing comics refuse to perform? What about left wing bureaucrats sabotaging government machinery? What about Democrat leaders urging their followers to seriously harass their opponents? (Cases like Ms Sanders and Mr Cruz being denied service and chased out of restaurants? What about the republican baseball team being attacked and one of them seriously injured? What about the very vocal call to "resist" and to resist BAMN - By Any Means Necessary?

Sources for these claims other than Breitbart?

The death and serious injuries in Charlottesville were attributable to white supremacists. People who were there credit antifa with saving lives. Similarly, a serious injury here in the Seattle area occurred when a right winger shot an unarmed protestor. (In both cases, criminal charges have been filed against individuals, which is how their affiliations are known.)

The "free speech crisis" in US universities is largely manufactured by right-wing provocateurs: they come to campuses, encourage large numbers of (sometimes armed) supporters to come with them, say outrageous things, and point to the entirely predictable (and legal) protests that result as proof that they are being "silenced." And then right-wing commentators are *paid* by major media outlets to talk about how oppressed they are.

Protests directed at elected officials are rather a different matter than widespread harassment of one's "opponents," don't you think?

The attack on the baseball team was universally condemned by people on both sides of the aisle. Sadly, attacks by right-leaning terrorists get much less attention, though they are far more common. (Source: https://qz.com/1355874/terrorism-is-sur ... xtremists/)

Katherine

[Orpheus]

But what about antifa riots in various locations and people killed and injured? What about the abysmal state of "Free Speech" in US universities where even left wing comics refuse to perform? What about left wing bureaucrats sabotaging government machinery? What about Democrat leaders urging their followers to seriously harass their opponents? (Cases like Ms Sanders and Mr Cruz being denied service and chased out of restaurants? What about the republican baseball team being attacked and one of them seriously injured? What about the very vocal call to "resist" and to resist BAMN - By Any Means Necessary?

Sources for these claims other than Breitbart?

The death and serious injuries in Charlottesville were attributable to white supremacists. People who were there credit antifa with saving lives. Similarly, a serious injury here in the Seattle area occurred when a right winger shot an unarmed protestor. (In both cases, criminal charges have been filed against individuals, which is how their affiliations are known.)

The "free speech crisis" in US universities is largely manufactured by right-wing provocateurs: they come to campuses, encourage large numbers of (sometimes armed) supporters to come with them, say outrageous things, and point to the entirely predictable (and legal) protests that result as proof that they are being "silenced." And then right-wing commentators are *paid* by major media outlets to talk about how oppressed they are.

Protests directed at elected officials are rather a different matter than widespread harassment of one's "opponents," don't you think?

The attack on the baseball team was universally condemned by people on both sides of the aisle. Sadly, attacks by right-leaning terrorists get much less attention, though they are far more common. (Source: https://qz.com/1355874/terrorism-is-sur ... xtremists/)

Katherine

None of my sources are from Breitbart but rather all from left of center media. If you recall our whole little discussion started from my interest in finding neutral, unbiased sources of news. I wrote:

Is he more fake than say the BBC or CNN? I would actually like to find a source for neutral, factual news. I want to stay away from rabid wingnuts. Some say that the WSJ is the best but that is behind a paywall. I recently stumbled on the South China Morning Post which was a pleasant surprise and an interesting source for Asian news.

Antifa riots in Berkley widely reported in all the press including WAPO which is left of center

http://tinyurl.com/ycr7laom

And here http://tinyurl.com/ya8yhq8l a wide variety of sources detail the violent activities of antifa. I obviously have not checked them all, just providing a reference. Some may be better than others.

Free Speech crisis in American universities is widely published and brought to national attention in The Atlantic a left of center publication with their article The Coddling of the American Mind https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... nd/399356/

It is not the creation of right wing provocateurs but of the university ecosystem as detailed in the article

The Atlantic writes:

A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue http://tinyurl.com/p56tqqs). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.

Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher are not right wing provocateurs.

Attacking elected officials with their families in a restaurant is okay with you? And Ms Sarah Huckabee Sanders is not even an elected official but just a spokes person. Are you saying that it is okay to abuse and harass women if they are not democrats? Its not misogyny if they are Republicans?

And plenty of news coverage of attacks on ordinary people just because they wore a MAGA hat. Here is one from Yahoo which is also left of center http://tinyurl.com/ycr9oext

And here is a bunch more from a variety of sources http://tinyurl.com/yamadwt7 I obviously have not checked them all, just providing a reference. Some may be better than others.

As for the Quartz article it only adds proof that civil unrest is on the rise in the USA not decreasing. It was not my intention to imply that it is only coming from one direction. By definition civil war requires more than one party. "Civil war" may be too strong a term for the current level of violence but it is certainly a cultural war going on. To see how this is symptomatic of the decline of the society see Glubb's Fate of Empires http://tinyurl.com/yc7jgja8

And I remind you that I am not an American, and I have no party affiliation and do not vote. I am observing what is going on from the perspective of cycles in world history. In modern times conservatives are the counter culture.

[Orpheus]

I found a source for vetting news outlets https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Now if we could be certain they had no bias.

[Hugh]

I found a source for vetting news outlets https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Now if we could be certain they had no bias.

Show me a news outlet that claims to have no bias and I will show you a liar. There's no such thing. Even if you were to depend for your news on your trusted nextdoor neighbour briefing you over the garden fence, the ordering of his or her news items and the prominence that he or she gives to each one would betray the way that they think about them - and therefore their biases. There will be biases that coincide with your biases and therefore seem bias-free, but there are no single news outlets that have no bias.

(I write as someone who spent a career in journalism, and who at one point took more than 20 national and international newspapers a day. When I first placed my order with the newsagent, he thought that all his Christmases had come at once. I took so many newspapers to try to ensure not only that I received the best available coverage of individual stories, but also that I absorbed the widest range of views. But I'm certain that I still showed bias. )

I should perhaps add that this is not a prescription for anybody to read 20-plus newspapers a day (other than those like me for whom it is or was a professional necessity). Just consume your news media intelligently; be conscious of potential biases; discount them. And educate your children in the risks the world contains.

[kewms]

I'm not going to argue about the situation in my own country with someone whose view of it is based on comment threads.

Katherine

[Orpheus]

I'm not going to argue about the situation in my own country with someone whose view of it is based on comment threads.

Katherine

You asked me to provide sources other that Breitbart. (I suppose you were implying something.)

Sources for these claims other than Breitbart?

I provided all pedigreed Left wing sources. Now you respond like this.

I lived in the USA for 23 years.

I lived in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Manhattan, Boston, panhandle of West Virginia, Columbus OH, Dallas, Oklahoma, central Michigan, Los Angeles, Laguna Beach, San Diego, Gainesville, Miami, and Western North Carolina.

I took a 7 month, 17,000 mile road trip in a new car covering 35 states. During those 23 years I have seen more of the USA than most Americans. And, my clients are primarily Americans.

I still maintain a US address.

And I notice that plenty of people are willing to form opinions of other countries only from reading their own media and not the media of that country.

[Orpheus]

I found a source for vetting news outlets https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Now if we could be certain they had no bias.

Show me a news outlet that claims to have no bias and I will show you a liar. There's no such thing. Even if you were to depend for your news on your trusted nextdoor neighbour briefing you over the garden fence, the ordering of his or her news items and the prominence that he or she gives to each one would betray the way that they think about them - and therefore their biases. There will be biases that coincide with your biases and therefore seem bias-free, but there are no single news outlets that have no bias.

(I write as someone who spent a career in journalism, and who at one point took more than 20 national and international newspapers a day. When I first placed my order with the newsagent, he thought that all his Christmases had come at once. I took so many newspapers to try to ensure not only that I received the best available coverage of individual stories, but also that I absorbed the widest range of views. But I'm certain that I still showed bias. )

I should perhaps add that this is not a prescription for anybody to read 20-plus newspapers a day (other than those like me for whom it is or was a professional necessity). Just consume your news media intelligently; be conscious of potential biases; discount them. And educate your children in the risks the world contains.

Exactly correct.

[Orpheus]

I found a source for vetting news outlets https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Now if we could be certain they had no bias.

"It is not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes." Stalin

[matsgz]

You have to search for methods to get behind the paywall for free.

I.e. you have to find ways to steal the fruits of the labour of WSJ:s writers, editors and publishers...

And you claim that NYT leans to the left?

[Orpheus]

You have to search for methods to get behind the paywall for free.

I.e. you have to find ways to steal the fruits of the labour of WSJ:s writers, editors and publishers...

And you claim that NYT leans to the left?

First of all just to be clear I don't read WSJ because it is behind a paywall, but just mentioned in passing that some people do that. And, second of all yours is a non sequitor having no relationship to the leanings of the NYT.

[Orpheus]

... but I still wish the forum had more cat emojis

Steve Bannon loves cats ... well, I think it's cats. It definitely ends in ...ats

I don't know if Steve loves cats but according to Ling's biography of him the Prophet Mohamed definitely loved cats and was known to keep kittens in the pockets of his robes and play with them.

[Lewis-H]

I don't think of it as a new book technology. These can be called as E-comics.
Regards,
Lewis