I had multiple involuntary physical reactions to that sentence.

You win.

Yes but if we can’t spell divide I’m not sure I’d hold out hope for nuanced or accurate political commentary.

I think a lot of the responses you’re getting (and their upvotes) are pretty good reflections of the problem you’re addressing.

I imagine the user base is a bit more diverse than the comments etc let on. It is just exhausting to even try to explain a conservative perspective viewpoint t here so I think a lot of folks just keep their heads down on anything political.

While a lot of folks have zero interest in venturing outside of their ideological comfort zones, I wonder if there sre enough of us that we could make some /community work. There were a few on reddit that were private or super tightly moderated that were pretty interesting for stuff like that…

The link isn’t working for me but this doesn’t seem lile a particularly impressive critique of Nate Silver… Him having a reasonable take that was that he’s a fine pick that doesn’t add a bunch (like say, gasp voters outside the base) and that there were likely better picks doesn’t seem to support this “he’s overly political sciency.”

This reads like “I dislike the argument so he’s a bad pundit!” Even though, in the end, Waltz didn’t seem to move the needle and actually became an attack target for the Right for his statements on carrying weapons in war etc.

I’d suggest re-reading the actual article and thinking about what in particular you dislike.

Edit: though if you think a tweet suggesting a three country trade that ends with “France is always into weird shit like that, the UK too” isn’t obviously a joke, I don’t know how much utility there is to this conversation.

Can you share an example? You can’t seriously be talking about his three country trade for Greenland which is pretty clearly a joke. (Though, there would be a delightful irony in missing the joke in a complaint about someone else taking things too literally.)

Edit: lol, wait are people downvoting because I committed the sin of asking for an example or I understood that a tweet about a threeway country trade that might be possible because “France is always into weird shit like that, the UK too” was a joke? Seriously?

Ahaha, well put.

It’s not wildly different, or not enough to distract from the meaning, especially when dealing with the general populace.

A pollster typically works for one firm conducting the actual polls, the aggregators are paying attention to how those pollsters work and aggregating them.

So sure, he’s a polling aggregator, does this significantly change the meaning of the comment?

This post is what happens when you can’t handle the concept that others would disagree with you.

(Someone sat down and decided that one of the most accurate pollsters in America today is a dumbie.)

I didn’t say it was justified because of politicians, just that it wasn’t a crazy position.

I have no idea how this validates or invalidates the Economist. I get that you think this is some sort of gotchya but it’s pretty darned weak.

Stillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll waiting for your critique of the Gaza coverage. (I know, silly to ask, it’s never going to come.)

Have a pleasant new years.

America committed genocide in the internment camps?

Christ, I have way better things to do than fight over definitions with someone with too much time on their hands.

… Though, I will say I have no idea why you’d want to take that position. As you’re on the side that’s trying to extinguish a culture (the Russian Ukranians in Odessa, which again, is what the article is about. Just read the dang thing.)

Have a good New Years eve!

Are you high?

Just read the comment thread, pay attention to usernames.

No idea where you’re getting genocide from my comments.

None of the above? Are you getting confused between comment threads?

You said:

I’m saying that when your country is invaded, worrying about respecting the people who’s culture is the same as the invader’s is a great way to get a bunch of fifth columnists. And I’m not sure why you’re not aware of that. Similarly, despite the many British people of German heritage, in 1939, their “unique British-German culture” was not relevant and was not respected and should not have been.

Which I pointed out was the same logic behind Japanese internment camps.

Everything else had been about the article, including speaking Russian in Odessa. I think you’re arguing genocide on another thread?

That’s a chunk of what the article is about. That’s one of the main things…

What do you think the article is about?

I’d strongly suggest actually reading the article.

To be clear, you think Japanese Americans shouldn’t have been allowed to speak Japanese anymore?

How long should this have persisted?

I can reach back to literally today with their Gaza coverage.

… Proceeds to not do so at all.

So, no actual complaints about the Gaza coverage then?

It’s okay to admit that you just assumed you’d dislike the coverage and haven’t actually read it.

So, no actual complaints about the Gaza coverage then?

Edit: You might also actually read some of their articles about invading Iraq.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/02/20/why-war-would-be-justified

This was the rationale behind America’s Japanese internment camps, which in my opinion, weren’t great.

What have you disliked about their gaza coverage?

And yes, for an American decision, I used American politicians. It’d be pretty silly to do otherwise “Oh my God, a majority of politicians did not to protect the right to abortion in America, bizzare!” Lol.

Edit: I’d also point out I am neither British not American. Unsure why this matters but it seems to be a thing for you?

If you have to reach two decades back and your gotchya is a choice that most mainstream newspapers and politicians backed, well, I think that says more about your pre determined beliefs on the Economist than it does about the paper but to each their own?

(And of course, if you have a better media bias checker, you might suggest it to the mods at c/politics as it’s the one they use.)