[untitled]
4 comments
We are losing consensus on what political terms mean.
'Far Right' has always been associated with 'white is right' racial supremacy, but now it seems expanded to also include anyone who is critical of cultural progressivism or perhaps uncomfortable with the pace and degree of cultural change.
'Far Right' has always been associated with 'white is right' racial supremacy, but now it seems expanded to also include anyone who is critical of cultural progressivism or perhaps uncomfortable with the pace and degree of cultural change.
Far-right as defined by The Atlantic:
>Musk’s pet ideological issues: that the mainstream media is ethically bankrupt, that social media and most elite institutions are biased and colluding with the government.
Let's see what the Far-left Jacobin mag has to say about The Atlantic's credibility:
>Jeffrey Goldberg, who has admitted taking part in — and covering up — brutal beatings as a former guard in a detention camp for Palestinian political prisoners, has matured from such physical violence into the armchair variety, always safer for the perpetrator. As a New Yorker writer, he peddled, with very thin evidence, the now-discredited connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, which Bush used to make the case for war with Iraq. Now, Goldberg is the top editor at the Atlantic...
https://jacobin.com/2020/01/iraq-war-iran-media-bret-stephen...
Perhaps this is why Musk might have those "pet ideological" issues. It doesn't seem out of place for The Atlantic to smear him for these objections.
>Musk’s pet ideological issues: that the mainstream media is ethically bankrupt, that social media and most elite institutions are biased and colluding with the government.
Let's see what the Far-left Jacobin mag has to say about The Atlantic's credibility:
>Jeffrey Goldberg, who has admitted taking part in — and covering up — brutal beatings as a former guard in a detention camp for Palestinian political prisoners, has matured from such physical violence into the armchair variety, always safer for the perpetrator. As a New Yorker writer, he peddled, with very thin evidence, the now-discredited connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, which Bush used to make the case for war with Iraq. Now, Goldberg is the top editor at the Atlantic...
https://jacobin.com/2020/01/iraq-war-iran-media-bret-stephen...
Perhaps this is why Musk might have those "pet ideological" issues. It doesn't seem out of place for The Atlantic to smear him for these objections.
I think it's clear that mainstream media have biases and follow often ill-set incentives.
But it's also clear that Musk has been "trolling" (if one wants to go with an optimistic interpretation) by posting, reposting or otherwise associating with people that are known to peddle lies and conspiracy theories. These people are also considered "right" on the political spectrum in the US, but this has nothing to do with Dems or Republicans.
And I believe that Musk knows that these people are full of shit, and as described in the article, only does this to further his personal gains. Which is very sad, but then again, he probably didn't become the richest person on Earth by not trying to gain a personal advantage at every turn.
But it's also clear that Musk has been "trolling" (if one wants to go with an optimistic interpretation) by posting, reposting or otherwise associating with people that are known to peddle lies and conspiracy theories. These people are also considered "right" on the political spectrum in the US, but this has nothing to do with Dems or Republicans.
And I believe that Musk knows that these people are full of shit, and as described in the article, only does this to further his personal gains. Which is very sad, but then again, he probably didn't become the richest person on Earth by not trying to gain a personal advantage at every turn.
Why is this even permitted to stay up on HN? It's blatant partisan pandering.
Would calling someone a far left activist on HN be a slur?
Would calling someone a far left activist on HN be a slur?
Have you read the article? The headline, as always, is a bit reduced and catchy, but I think the article makes some interesting points while staying fact-based and sober.
The debate against lockdowns and vaccine mandate was shut down and apparently with the help of the US government. That is unacceptable, even anti constitutional and in no way it makes one far-right. In fact, in Europe activists against lockdowns and vaccine mandated were coming from the left.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33951797