The short version is that it was about the transfer of power from hereditary nobility to a different elite consisting of wealthy merchants and “gentlemen” farmers. This transfer was already happening anyway throughout the British Empire, the Americans just wanted to speed it up and codify it.

I don’t think Lemmy is ready to hear that kind of thing.

True, but not for the reasons that most people think.

Ok, the fact that you honestly believe this is how legitimate newsrooms work is both deeply disheartening and an indication of how little the average person knows about the news business.

Editors decide what gets published, not the editorial board which is an entirely different and unrelated body that traditionally has zero contact with the content side of things. In the business we say that there is a “firewall” between the editorial board and actual news content. The NYT or WaPo would have mass resignations of their reporters if either of their editorial boards tried to influence content.

Ownership is a bit different and obviously --as we know from the Murdoch empire-- can influence content, but in traditional operations they’ve always been very hands-off. It’s a fact, for example, that Jeff Bezos doesn’t care what the WaPo publishes and has no interest in it beyond as a business concern.

Editors do have control over content, but overwhelmingly they are concerned with doing a good job and furthering their careers and professional reputations. You’re completely misunderstanding the incentive structure in mainstream news media. Outside of the extremist advocacy journalism ecosystems --mostly but not only on the far right-- no one has any incentive to push an agenda and risk ruining their career by getting something important wrong.

Unfortunately advocacy journalism is very much a legitimate type of journalism, just ask Glen Greenwald, who I fuckin’ hate.

It’s more of a cause or a movement than an organization. I guess I don’t know why that should be difficult to understand.

Oh so now you are arguing that deadheads were an organization too? Really? In what universe?

Infamous is the word you’re looking for.

Yeah that’s bullshit. There isn’t some secret cabal that’s in charge of US journalism anymore than there is in the UK. What really happens is that because the old news-media business models have been utterly destroyed by the Internet, there’s a giant and never-ending competition for audience and everyone knows that sensationalism sells.

You have a similar problem in the UK but it’s not as pronounced because the BBC is government funded and even though it’s far from perfect, it does set a kind of baseline. Your other big news organizations are just as bad as in the US though. Your tabloids are actually a lot worse than ours, which is saying something.

While I understand what you are getting at, for the record that’s not what linguistics is about at all.

You obviously know nothing about linguistics.

I believe you are the one who is confused and making unwarranted assumptions here.

I don’t know how it is for you, but when I look back at 24-year-old me, I am not impressed. I guess what I’m saying is that there are a lot of us who definitely don’t have their shit together when they’re 24. They say your prefrontal cortex isn’t fully developed until 25 at the earliest, but I feel like it was closer to 30 for me. Granted, I’m kind of a dummy anyway, so this probably doesn’t apply to everyone.

This is basic cat stuff. “Oh, smell good! Must investigate! Do want or no? Not sure, is hot, but definite smell good! Maybe want?”

There’s a bit of a learning curve, but just be cautious at first and you’ll figure it out. It’s not rocket science. Also don’t use dull blades as that’s an easy way to cut yourself. Fortunately they’re dirt cheap.

Congratulations on writing the most pompous, pretentious and condescending pile of shit that anyone is likely to see all week. Get over yourself.

This is how the tankies roll; they want to define the terms of the argument however they want and then expect the rest of us to go along with it.

Sometimes but not always. There’s more to it in international law. That said, I realize that in arguing caution before leveling accusations of genocide, I am in the minority in this instance. My take is based on what I’ve read of expert legal opinion on the subject and not on my own evaluation of the IDF’s moral position.

The long and short of it is that there are matters of intent that have to be shown in order to have a case for genocide. Thus far, regardless of how we think about the IDF vis war-crimes, I have yet to see a convincing argument for genocide on a legal basis.

You may say that this is a distinction without a difference, and while I’m sympathetic to that idea, I still think it’s worthwhile to maintain these sharp legal definitions.

I think a lot of people are in denial about who and what Hamas is.

You don’t understand basic game theory.