Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Consistency Alert (Score 1) 1430

The Founders felt so strongly that each state have an equal vote in the Senate independent of the population of the state that the ONLY thing that can't be amended in the Constitution with approval of ¾ of the states

Actually, the one thing all the founders agreed on was that the structure of the electoral college was not ideal, but acceptable. The southern states put forward the Virginia plan, which would have given representation based on population. Northern states put forward the New Jersey plan, which would have given the same number of representatives to each state regardless of population. They settled for the Connecticut Compromise which resulted in our bicameral legislature and the electoral college as it's formed today.

Comment Re:So (Score 1) 1430

It's kind of funny that you seem to think the rural states could survive today without the urban states. If Illinois and New York formed their own country while the other 48 states split off, the two state union might survive. The 48 state union would not. New York by itself could probably form a functioning city state. No modern country today can prosper without a strong financial center.

Comment Re:Electoral college does reflect the popular vote (Score 1) 1430

Hillary Clinton won 300 counties while Trump won 5000. If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities while the rest of the nation is completely ignored, well, you're an idiot.

Those 300 counties represent 51 percent of the voters while the 5000 counties represent 49 percent. That handful of cities is the majority of Americans. So, on behalf of most American's let me just say, you're an idiot.

Comment Re:Standing. (Score 1) 99

I don't agree that she should have no standing, just no more standing than any other citizen. As I understand it that's the difference between res publicae and res communes. Res communes is for the enjoyment of all. Res publicae is owned by all the citizens. The image is property of the public. Any citizen should have standing when a private entity claims ownership of the public's property.

Comment Re: What an empty life (Score 1) 736

Although your examples may not be valid it is true that there are and were false posts targeted at both sides, just more targeted at conservative readers. And it's not just false information, it's misleading information.

Here's an example targeted at liberals today: The Secret Service is opening an office in Trump Towers because Trump's family won't be living at the White House. This implies that it's the Secret Service is doing something unusual and that Trump is misusing government resources. It's not true. Typically Presidents will have a home away from the White House. George H. W. Bush went to Kennibunkport. IIRC Clinton went to the Hamptons. George W. Bush had his farm in Texas. In each case the Secret Service had to do whatever it is they do to keep the President and his family safe. If anything Trump Tower is probably easier to secure because of it's location.

But anyway this isn't a pissing contest. We aren't blaming the right, we're recognizing that people are being manipulated. These posts need to be stopped whether they're targeted at liberal or conservative voters.

Comment Re:WaPo? (Score 1) 272

I forgot to mention. I don't mind when commentators advocate for conservative positions. In fact I think it's critically important that they do. I do however mind when someone like Rush Limbaugh takes no responsibility for telling the truth. He has been confronted time and again for making false statements. His answer is that he's an entertainer and not a reporter.

Also, people on the left don't describe themselves as socialist or communist because they are not either. They shy away from the liberal label because it has come to imply a more radical position than most on the left hold. The fact is that the most radical left wing politician today is to the right of the most conservative Republicans of the 1970's. How many people remember when Republicans were voting for welfare and public housing? When is the last time you heard a Democrat argue for welfare? Bernie Sander's is the first politician in 25 years to openly support socialism. Did you see the party rally around him? No, the Blue Dog Democrats smashed him like a bug.

Comment Re:WaPo? (Score 1) 272

Truth is not absolute.

Scenario: Dad asks child if mom gave permission to have a friend over. Child says yes, but doesn't tell dad that mom changed her mind after the child got in trouble. Did the child tell the truth?

This is exactly the type of manipulation that Fox News uses all day every day. Just look at the scrolling news alerts. How many are questions that imply an answer?

Comment Re:A little boost (Score 1) 272

When a statement is propagated that is demonstrably false it should be possible to challenge it. That isn't possible with today's social media. If I challenge the truthfulness of a post only a small number of people will see it. That is an important difference between a publisher and a commenter on social media. If the Washington Post publishes something that's demonstrably untrue it can be challenged.

I do think it's important to find a solution that allows people to continue speaking freely. I may disagree with my right-wing friends but I don't want to silence them. Here's the solution I've been mulling over specifically for Facebook. Facebook is the only social media site I use so I can't suggest how this could work for other sites.

It should be possible for readers to flag a post as being untruthful. If enough readers challenge the post, Facebook could add a notice to all the threads it got forwarded to. Challenges could be counter-challenged as well. If that happens another notice would be added. If an accountable publisher writes about the post, a link can be included as well. Once people recognize that other people have questioned the authenticity of a claim they can decide for themselves whether it's true.

Comment Re:WaPo? (Score 3, Insightful) 272

I've long thought it interesting just how much the American right learned from Soviet propaganda techniques. I mean, the Heritage Foundations "Accuracy in Media" group was responsible for promoting the myth of "the liberal media". It was a blatant propaganda campaign that was at one time available to read on their website. And then we have Fox's "fair and balanced" news. They took that straight out of the Communist play book. The Soviet Union named their propaganda newspaper Truth.

Slashdot Top Deals

Things are not as simple as they seems at first. - Edward Thorp

Working...