wemptronics
No bio...
User ID: 95
wemptronics
15d ago
Are we looking at the same chart?
Thank you. Yes, my eyes misinterpreted the blue hues on the YouGov page when I checked your comment this morning.
wemptronics
15d ago
overtaking the Tories
I was under a mistaken impression that was not only possible, but likely, and that they had already achieved something like similar polling after the long crash Tory crashout. In reality they've still only achieved a threatening trend nationally, albeit with plenty of hope, uncertainty, and some some convincing local performances-- yes?
I now realize I started to type too soon. This is a response to what I thought you wrote for a moment, but didn't really write. Posting anyway.
The UK right is pretty clearly willing to accept the left's electoral victory. Their reasoning, which is in my view correct, is that a left victory will result in very bad policies, which will in turn discredit the left further and rebound in their favor.
Does the UK right imagine themselves as patiently waiting, playing politics while the electorate learns the correct lessons? They don't give off an appearance of being that serious or prepared to me.
I know these polls are volatile -- more like (dis)approval polls of the current boss than anything else -- but stakes are potentially very high. "Treat all migrants as if they are citizens", enfranchise all residents with the right to vote, and accepting "responsibility for the climate emergency and support the people forced to move" are all things that would freak me out. If I read them on an official party platform and saw that party gain steam I'd think it's time to get serious about winning power. Among the numerous plans to stamp out out the last vestiges of industry and productivity there's also the casual pledges to do things like implement all "the reforms proposed" in a 2000 page report. This appears like a 15 year old legacy talking point, but it could also be the most popular pathway to smuggle in more media control.
I do not know too much about UK politics. There may be many good reasons to suspect the Greens will remain marginalized in politics and won't rub off on their failing Labour brethren-- at least not in consequential ways. If there's even a few reasons to take the rise of the Greens seriously, then the prospect of not-racist vote coalescing to empower the pack as many lefty gambits into platform, choose later party, even in limited form, that would scare the hell out of me. Expanding the franchise is already happening in a way that will favor whichever flavor of leftwardly one prefers. I wouldn't want to play chicken with any of this. Not unless I had immense trust in the system. That such a system would apply appropriate constraints until the voters are educated enough to reveal secret weapon Prime Minister Curtis Yarvin.
Is there really no recourse for this?
That depends. How much spare time do you have right now? One of the many structural problems Wikipedia has is their reliable sources policy. The way they've written it places all scholars and academics as the highest authorities for claims. Paper beats rock, decolonial cultural studies or not. The good news for you is that doesn't seem to be a serious issue on this article, as the 400 citations are mostly news sources which can be defeated with other news sources or, possibly, the same ones with a more neutral interpretation.
Your main problem is going to be that this is a protected article. Each change you want to propose is required to be a sentence for sentence replacement. After you submit it to the talk page, a person -- one who has decided this is what they want to do on Wikipedia -- will swoop in, read it for a few seconds, and say yes or no. That's another structural problem in Wikipedia: the people who choose to participate. Most likely you will need to claw, yell about policy, request other editors give a second opinion, re-submit a different version, and generally escalate it until you get your sentence replaced. You can then repeat this process to do the next sentence or small paragraph. So I ask again, how much spare time do you have?
Khamenei's article doesn't seem too bad by Wikipedia standards of bias, but it's there. Tracing Woodgrains wrote a good critique Mao's article last year to highlight its atrociously soft framing. I agree that when compared to Trump it's absurd, although that goes for a lot of articles on Wikipedia. I haven't checked,* but I'm going to go out on a limb to say that there's more Trump-related articles than any other president or living world leader. I suspect the great 20th century dictators have him beat, though I'm not very confident.
- "Stalin" is in 200 article titles, "Hitler" in 400 titles, and "Trump" is in 900. Not a great metric as many of those are family members or other famous Trump monikers, however there's tons of pseudonyms of Donald Trump, social media use by Donald Trump, and everything else people wanted to put in one article or another but were told no.
CJNG is a cartel which was run by a guy called "El Mencho". El Mencho was killed during an operation where Mexican authorities allegedly attempted to arrest him. They failed to arrest anyone, but did end up killing El Mencho and everyone else he was with. Which you might expect, because he doesn't seem like the taken alive type. Some might even say he was a pretty ruthless guy. When he was on the come up -- killing old guys, consolidating territory, and all the other cartel-like things -- he took a hard line against cops and slaughtered them in set piece ambushes on more than one occasion. That's probably harder for the state to forgive than the standard cartel doings, like dumping truck loads of rival bodies in some disputed city. It seems that once the boss man was killed orders went out to cause problems for the state for having the gall to do such a thing, so you have hundreds of roadblocks, burning cars, firefights, and so on.
I'm not sure there was widespread civil unrest? So many fires to put out at once does lead to some unrest. I think the worst of it was in their territory but a cartel needs and has a lot of dudes with guns. They retaliate against the state to remind them what misbehavior leads to. The state responds, brrrrrrrt.* Eventually some new guy takes the crown and it's back to business. Bygones and all that.
wemptronics
29d ago
Sam Kriss
Will check it out but prior note that I had fun reading his Clavicular looksmaxxing post a couple weeks ago.
It is contemptible primarily because there's more than enough video footage that documented the event. This includes the first bomb that the guy threw, as well as the second bomb which was dropped as he made his attempted escape. A variety of footage with different angles was available on X.com 4 hours before this article was first published.
This fact is not mentioned at all in this article. If I was reading the article I would have no idea that any of these events were recorded by a dozen different cameras. I wouldn't know if NYT reporters saw the footage, ignored it, or why they did so. We know the NYT is aware of X for a few reasons, but chief among them is they relay an FBI statement from the platform at the end of this very article.
According to footage I saw, one device was thrown in the direction towards the protestor group, but fell short landing in a barricade. Individual counter-protestors and media at the scene, confused, immediately can be heard asking things like "What was that?" and "Yo this nigga threw a bomb, bro?" The suspect was seen retreating from the crowd of counter-protestors down the sidewalk while police reacted to a smoking, suspicious device on the ground. Police then pursued the suspect down the sidewalk where a second suspicious device was passed between the suspect and a second individual, now identified as Emir Balat and Ibrahim Nikk, before igniting it and dropping on the ground.
There's a lot of ways NYT journalists could incorporate these apparent facts and others from video footage to better inform the public. They can do this without making dubious claims or reporting solely on the questionable veracity of edited (though not all are) video uploads. Journalists are more capable craftsmen than you give them credit for.
The "suspicious device" doesn't bother me. They did not know if it was a real bomb and neither did anyone else. What they have done is used that one uncertainty to apply more extensive ambiguity to the story than it deserves. They've done this in a way where you, experienced reader, will defend them as they deliberately attempt to mislead you with the bare minimum. Then, next week, we'll get slew of articles on on a story that is based on footage which includes "what appears like police brutality" or "a racist Wendy's employee." All the caution and credibility of the Grey Lady can get thrown to the wind when deliberation ends differently.
The device had the appearance of a real bomb. Police reacted to it as if it was a homemade bomb. Stupid photographers ran up to it to snap cool photos of the suspicious device on the ground like they would an unexploded bomb. The suspect can be heard crying "Allahu Akbar!" before throwing this smoky device over the heads of counter-protestors. He threw it over the heads of counter-protestors towards -- in the direction of -- the anti-Islam protestor guy. That's the guy whose protest had generated all this controversy, but the NYT newsroom has not independently confirmed he was the target of the device. Sources inside the NYPD tell the Times these are important facts.
The fact that few, if any, are reported suggest the NYT failed to inform the public by using its own suspicious devices. I would prefer to conveniently get my news dope from a single, esteemed NYT reporter. It's annoying that I can't do this, because they're bad at reporting events such as this. Yes, this is just how news works, but that's more of a condemnation than anything else.
More options
Context Copy link