Edit: actually you've been breaking the site guidelines so consistently with this account that we've banned it. Would you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with?
Trial and due process are tools that are unavailable to most victims. In most cases, the only way to deliver justice and protect others from harm is to speak out.
And if you think victims should be silenced by a system that has been designed from the ground up to work against them, then you are part of the problem.
Alec was not executed by proxy. He killed himself after his pattern of abuse was revealed to the world. He did not deserve to die, but trial and due process were never an option.
Though I can't speak for regulators and auditors, you have to keep in mind that 99% of journalists are just hired guns who's sights are specified ahead of time.
Since no one with power had their sights on Wirecard, nothing happened - it's not unexpected.
Same here to some degree. Those who wield actual power will never be criticized or exposed, which means that journalists are inherently useless or closer to being a corpse.
Daphne Caruana Galizia, Tim Pool, Andy Ngo are some who are constantly attacked both verbally and physically and thus I have bit more faith in them than I do for others "journalists".
Bonner basically owns and runs Scandinavia and parts of mainland Europe, you’re going up against a few countries. It’s hard, I wish you luck.
Side note: Bonnier, apart from being a media empire they can destroy your life in seconds also has a schtick where they got a few companies pretending to be startups, like the example you just posted now. Some get acquired others get started by them.
Is that strictly a bad thing? Ok, we've got industry that makes non-educational games (I'm thinking the headshooting type, truly non-boring stuff). But there is small-ish money in that market, it's just retail after all! The same industry will happily jump onto a wagon containing some REAL part of the education budget.
Create some captivating productions, spend real money, because I don't get that assumption that education deserves only cheap boring educational "games" of today.
That's a political program - deep cut of the less effective part of 19-century structures. Kids generally like learning, parents know that, and they see how bad schools are now, so political gains are waiting right there.
They don't really own countries though, it's just a multinational media company. I don't find it very surprising that you use your mother company to increase your media presence, that seems like the right move to me?
Toca Boca was part of their venture arm [0] until 2016. They invest in companies with growth potential. Sometimes those companies are early stage companies, sometimes they're a bit older.
I like Zero Hedge because of the "Reverse Gell Mann Amnesia".
Without going into details, things I know, subjects I'm in an expert in, areas I've lived in and systems I've experienced is reported accurately by Zero Hedge, while government media and government subsidized press reports inaccuracies, blatant lies, outdated information and common ol' misconception.
Because of this I support and read Zero Hedge and I advice people to take this into account - all of them lie, the secret is finding what they lie about and what they don't care about.
I guess my question—knowing very little about ZeroHedge, and never having visited it—is, did they also "cover" a whole bunch of things that turned out to be false?
If what they do is talk about all the things that might be coming, then it's likely they will have some pretty good hits. The coronavirus trajectory was certainly much more predictable than you would have guessed from the way the US, in particular, handled and reported on it, so the fact that they were able to get out ahead of that just means they weren't believing everyone else's groupthink.
That can have value, but it doesn't mean they're immune from bad predictions...
There's a lot of money to be made in "anti-racism" and "gender-science", especially in tax-heavy countries. No one ever dares to question it, and it's "good" causes that could use some of the workers income.
I'll be contrarian and recommend Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" instead.
On the contrary, there's not a lot of money to be made, and people constantly question it.
Would-be spoilers get educated about their own unrealized bias, racism continues to be a huge problem in this country, activists are vindicated and the world moves on.
I found this book review [1] to be spot-on with my reading of the DiAngelo book, and this is also where I learned of the above estimate from the Washington Post.
> As a business journalist, however, I’ve chronicled the slow progress people of color have made in the corporate world, even as companies spend, by one measure, more than $8 billion a year on diversity initiatives.
i don't think we're at the diversity training incorporated stage yet, so while there may be a lot of money to be made and more to come currently I assume what is being made is a lot of very comfortable livings.
That said while I haven't read the DiAngelo book the scenario I imagine for situations like this is generally not someone waking up and saying I will write something to get some money out of these people but rather I will write something about this situation, later getting offers of more and more money and then behaviorism takes control of the journey.
It is difficult to get someone to change what they're doing once they start getting paid for doing it.
This is of course all separate from whether I might agree with the book if I read it. I can still agree 100% with someone and think that their perspective is constrained by how they have begun to profit from it.
Nitpick: the $11B is US domestic ticket sales only. The US film industry is much bigger than US domestic ticket sales, however. (International ticket sales, cable licensing, etc.)
This is more or less obvious given that the top 10 grossing movies in 2019 took in ~ $13B in global ticket sales and < $2B of that went to non-US studios. (Also nuts is the percentages of 2019 global ticket sales attributable to the Avengers franchise and Disney.)
In 2017 US film industry revenues were ~$43B according to
The executive coaching industry is $16B/year. (And the film industry is in the hundreds of billions. That's just ticket sales, which are a tiny fraction of revenue.)
Damore worked at Google, i.e. in the Bay Area. The Bay Area has a certain political bent (left), and running counter to it has real consequences.
But other places in the country have a different political bent (right). Chick-fil-A's anti-LGBT stance actually increased its sales (for a time, anyway). [1]
You can see this effect play out similarly when Trump says something that rankles the Twitters of Silicon Valley and New York, but which gets him even bigger approval ratings in the red states. All this to say - your points might feel like activism in the Bay Area, but that doesn't make the above poster's claim that it's mainstream conservative discourse false.
Well-off white women from elite colleges run the diversity-and-sensitivity racket like the 17th-century Dutch ran the tulip racket, like the De Beers cartel used to run diamonds. They’re is getting paid.
And for some strange reason, for equal-rights activists it is abad thing to make a living and earn money fighting for these rights. The usual argument is always "they are paid to further an agenda", indirectly undermining the message, the messanger and the issue at hand.
This doesn't seem to aplly for the otherside. People like Alex Jones make a load of money representing the opposite opinion. For him, making money all of a sudden isn#t a problem anymore.
No. It's perfectly fine (and even amazing) to make a living from a cause that is important to you.
But it's disingenuous to believe that activists 1) will not see what "obsess" them everywhere (that's a common psychological bias) and 2) will not try to make their cause as important as they can by inflating the numbers.
I'm skeptical of any American "Libertarian" especially when it comes to race. Sowell is a class-reductionist, which would make him a terrible pick for this topic.
Class reductionism is basically saying that disparities that appear to be due to race, gender, orientation, etc. are really just economic differences, so if you can "fix" the economic bit the rest just solves itself.
The term is, somewhat ironically, often applied in a reductionist manner.
Robin DiAngelo explicitly said "Biologically, race isn't real. But socially, race is a very real set of socialized worldviews shaped by segregation and superficial anatomical features. The white experience of both the majority and systemically powerful is one which normalizes a rejection of the existence of our own bias and enables us to ignore the existence of radically different lived experiences."
A bias towards normalizing whiteness and being blissfully ignorant of the lived experience of others is being blamed, not genetics.
So it's not really about race, then, but about politics all along? I think you'd agree with Sowell a lot more than you imagine in that case!
Sowell has the advantage of being black, which makes his view closer to home than the vast majority of anti-racism activists, who seem to frequently be white people telling other white people what black people find offensive (see: comments on the GitHub master/main discussions).
Sowell also ends up on the receiving end of genuine racism, at least according to his own claims, in particular racism of the form "why are you conservative and telling black people to solve your own problems when you're black?", as if being black actually requires him to be on the left, or makes him some sort of race traitor if he isn't.
Relax, I was contrarian in contrast to the parent, why bring your political baggage into the mix?
I doubt your definition of "right leaning libertarian", belongs to someone who adheres to pragmatism, meritocracy, multiracialism and Asian values or communitarianism, right?
That is my point. People were having a discussion with content and you dropped into a stock political response.
Leave your baggage out of it with your claim that people espouse anti-racism for the money, your shots at high tax countries and your need to link to political dogma.
I get that it's free karma on HN, but it lowers the quality of the discussion.
lol are you kidding me? If "anti-racism" was actually accepted, then we would have much less racism. If gender-science were actually accepted, then we would have less discrimination against trans folks.
Not discussing the content, but you picked a 3 minute clip out of a 36 minute long videos as if the clip was pre-made to discredit him, I understand certain people fear a black man with a contrarian point of view as it disturbs their senses, but this is a bit too much.
I didn't even watch the clip, but if a THREE MINUTE clip is discrediting, you're either discredited on your ideas or catastrophically bad at presenting them in the format.
Right, and nothing can be ever taken out of context or edited to fit a narrative in this day and age?
Seriously, I have to argue that context is a thing?
Nothing about his political denial of science is out of context. If the video was 30 min of him denying climate change or 3, that doesn't change anything.
