seeing CNN and "progressive" in the same context befuddles me - these guys are center-right in almost every sense. I guess that's just where the Overton window is nowadays
They put CNN, and Democracy Now! , in the *same bucket*. that is insane. NYT opinion also has Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Bret Stephens for chrissakes, David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, I dont know how they can put NYT opinion in "left" without putting it in "right" as well.
As far as CNN's audience, certainly they would be slightly left because right leaning viewers are sucked into the FOX news vortex.
is any of this "far left"? absolutely not. if you dont see "abolish the police and all prisons" and "forgive all student debt", you aren't looking at far left content.
> NYT opinion also has Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Bret Stephens for chrissakes, David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, I dont know how they can put NYT opinion in "left" without putting it in "right" as well.
Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, and David Brooks are the NYT's token "palatable to liberals" conservatives, meant to keep their opinion pages from being a complete echo chamber. They are in no way a justification for placing the NYT opinion section on the "right," just like Alan Colmes didn't put Fox News on the left.
> Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, and David Brooks are the NYT's token "palatable to liberals" conservatives, meant to keep their opinion pages from being a complete echo chamber.
What is that based on? Can you provide evidence? The evidence so far says otherwise; dismissing it with a characterization doesn't change the facts.
IMHO, it covers a wide range, from Douthat (certainly not palatable to liberals) to Brooks, more centrist. Bret Stephens was the WSJ editorial page editor before coming to the NYT, and you will see almost zero non-right opinion on the WSJ (seriously, find one opinion piece that supports Democrats and post it here).
> What is that based on? Can you provide evidence? The evidence so far says otherwise; dismissing it with a characterization doesn't change the facts.
The contention was that they make the NYT editorial page somehow "right wing," which is obviously false to anyone who actually reads it. It's clearly left wing, and if it feels to you like it isn't, you might be one of those people who is so far to the left that everything else is to your right.
IIRC, all three that I listed are Never Trumpers. Douthat is probably the least palatable to liberals, but he's often pretty indirect and soft in his columns (compare to the more liberal columnists, who can regularly put out red meat for liberals). The impression I get is he's also probably the least capitalist of the bunch. IIRC, Stephens openly voted for Biden and is strongly for gun control. Like you mentioned, Brooks is quite centrist, probably to the point of being a moderate Democrat. I'd be extremely surprised if he hadn't voted for Biden. For conservatives, they're all fairly moderate with at least some prominent heterodoxy, and I don't think anyone right-of-center would get hired as an NYT columnist without those qualities.
IMHO, the tension created by their positions makes them far more interesting than most opinion columnists. Columnists that are on friendly ground (e.g. conservatives on WSJ opinion pages, liberals at the NYT) are usually just boring and predicable (especially the WSJ).
> The contention was that they make the NYT editorial page somehow "right wing," which is obviously false to anyone who actually reads it. It's clearly left wing, and if it feels to you like it isn't, you might be one of those people who is so far to the left that everything else is to your right.
I don't recall that contention, but certainly the NYT opinion pages aren't right wing. However, you dismissing anyone who disagrees without as having a distorted, extreme perspective isn't evidence - other than evidence of your perspective.
I think the NYT's opinion page is diverse, but feel free to support your claim: Count up the columnists and their positions.
> Douthat is probably the least palatable to liberals, but he's often pretty indirect and soft in his columns (compare to the more liberal columnists, who can regularly put out red meat for liberals).
I think this characterization of Douthat is way off. Douthat is direct and puts out absurd BS 'red meat'. I think he puts out more brazen BS than any other columnist I've read there, but I seldom read any opinion pieces. And note I say 'brazen' BS; there's plenty more that is just less brazen. The opinion pages are an embarassment of deceit and manipulation to the NYT and other publications; the deceit, from all parties, is obvious if you are informed. I can predict what many will write based on the political navigation: e.g., for Stephens, 'how do I attack Dems without supporting Trump or sounding irrational?'
It is just a little bit disingenuous to demand people not take demands at their face, plain English value, and instead to somehow infer that something less extreme is meant.
Defund doesn't mean zero. Defund means -10%, -20%, -50%. I think many police departments could certainly use a haircut. When you get stopped and 6 cops show up, it's because they have nothing to do.
EDIT: Wow, I didn't think a rational person would think defund meant completely getting rid of police. There are plenty of examples of where defund doesn't mean 100%. During the Reagan administration, the federal government greatly defunded state colleges and universities. Politicians talk about defunding medicare. People talk about defunding the military. To get states to adopt the minimum drinking age of 21, they threatened to defund highway federal highway funding. None of these are 100% removal of funding.
I do not understand the attachment to the slogan "Defund the Police". If a slogan requires a much longer explanation essentially explaining "what we really mean is", then it isn't a good slogan. Especially considering there are better word choices such as "Demilitarize the Police".
Ultimately, 'defund' - to most people - doesn't mean reform. Insisting that the vernacular is incorrect is just fighting an uphill battle.
It' probably because "Reallocate and reduce police funding to other resources," isn't as catchy. But yes, I agree, "defund the police," is obviously too vague and means different things to different people. That's the problem with most political slogans like, "Make America Great Again," "Build Back Better," "We Are the 99%," "Black Lives Matter," "Back The Blue," etc. Not really sure what any of those really mean.
Black Lives Matter is absolutely clear and means what it says. When cops roll up and just gun down a 14 year old kid playing with a toy gun based on a whim and "I know I wont get in trouble so who cares" in their heads, that's an organization that does not value Black Lives. It could not be more clear, people just choose to look away.
> By Mariame Kaba (Ms. Kaba is an organizer against criminalization.)
> ...I’ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years. Regardless of your view on police power — whether you want to get rid of the police or simply to make them less violent — here’s an immediate demand we can all make: Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half. Fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people. The idea is gaining traction in Minneapolis, Dallas, Los Angeles and other cities.
> ...People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation. What would the country look like if it had billions of extra dollars to spend on housing, food and education for all? This change in society wouldn’t happen immediately, but the protests show that many people are ready to embrace a different vision of safety and justice.
That was published a couple weeks after George Floyd's death.
In the sense that outside the United States by and large it is center-right. What is considered ‘left’ in the United States is often times a right leaning view in other countries. The politics of the U.S. have shifted very much to the right over the last 50 years in the U.S. Consider that it was Nixon who approached China, established the EPA and wanted to solve the healthcare issue in the U.S. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system and Regan believed the tax on labor should be less than the tax on capital.
"
AllSides was founded in 2012 by John Gable, a former Republican political aide turned Silicon Valley manager working at Netscape, and Scott McDonald, a software developer.[7][1][8][9] AllSides uses a "multi-partisan" methodology first developed by conservative professor Timothy Groseclose and his collaborator Jeffrey Milyo.[10]"
Founded by Republicans and using methodologies developed by conservatives to arrive at the outrageous conclusion that the NYT and CNN are "left of liberal". No bias there of course
For me, personally, the nonstop rotation of defense lobbyists and uncritical parroting of anything put out by the Pentagon makes CNN appear pretty right wing to me. Especially since it’s a bunch of intelligence community apparatchiks doing the parroting.
Everything else they report comes from PR NewsWire, and to me that union of corporate power and media also seems very right wing
I think CNN is definitely allied with the Democratic Party. Both parties are hawks when it serves their interest, so not having intelligence propaganda showing wouldn't be an option.
For those that downvoted him, many of the CNN "war contributors" have ties with the defense industry that are not disclosed, and those are all pro-war/intervention.
EDIT: I just noticed but I think it's funny that the WaPo has an article showing that the defense industry has infiltrated our news organizations in the lifestyle section. It's almost as if the editors are trying to hide the fact. I would think it would be a front page thing. Pretty significant assault on the democratic process, particularly on a subject as immense as war.
What do you mean by “almost every sense?” In say Germany, abortion is illegal after the first trimester, riots are stopped by police, I can get Christian classes for my kids in a public school, and the government doesn’t make eligibility for benefits dependent on people’s skin color. CNN is to the left of Germany on each of those issues.
Eh, the German government will pay for abortions in first trimester, rape/abuse, or an important danger to mother's mental/physical health, or if the fetus is disabled (Yay Nazis?).
Germany allows nudity, sex work, and prostitution; bans Nazi imagery; and has socialized medicine.
> Eh, the German government will pay for abortions in first trimester, rape/abuse, or an important danger to mother's mental/physical health, or if the fetus is disabled (Yay Nazis?).
The Mississippi law that supposedly violates Roe also allows abortions after 15 weeks in case of danger to the mother’s health and fetal abnormalities. And unlike in Germany, there is no mandatory counseling or waiting period. The Mississippi law is more similar to the German law than different—certainly much closer to each other than to Roe, which requires legalized elective abortions for two months after nearly all other developed countries ban the practice.
I’ll certainly grant you that, when it comes to the government paying for things, CNN is definitely in the center. But that’s just one of many issues.
I'm convinced that whenever people feel the need to say a news source is right, left, or center, they're usually trying to redefine "the center". The way that someone classifies a news source politically is almost always a perfect indicator of their politics
I am used to Cuba, Venezuela, Kerala as examples of places where far-left ideologies can be found. CNN has a materialist capitalist free-market POV as far as I can tell but since it became the missing child network with Nancy Grace I stopped ever watching it because its annoying, not because its far left.
Besides your comment being some broad generalization, it fails to assert the reality of the 'world' and in its place takes a group of progressive first world countries which align with liberal politics.
The world includes such places as India, Pakistan, Africa and China, oh my, where liberal ideology is a far cry from what you are describing
or...from the perspective that much of Europe views it. American politics is bunk, bought and sold by corporations that think of nothing but profit, by design. literally a country where bribery is legal and encouraged
Is one on the "radical left" if they think LGBTQ people should be able to get married, that the non-religious / non-Christians should have equal rights? This is a serious question, not a troll. I ask it because the "conservative" party in the US explicitly is against such things in their platform documents.
It's rather strange to me that it is so hard for the term "radical left" to be defined in any sort of objective way, often it seems no definition is available at all which makes discussions about the topics hard to have.
LGBTQ people can get married federally, and there is no serious effort to reverse that. It is disingenuous to use marriage rights as a litmus test because whether one morally supports it is irrelevant under the law.
>Is one on the "radical left" if they think LGBTQ people should be able to get married, that the non-religious / non-Christians should have equal rights?
Globally, supporting marriage equality puts you in the minority, both in terms of # of countries as well as per capita. [0] Personally I think it's an obvious right, but that doesn't make it popular.
> Is one on the "radical left" if they think LGBTQ people should be able to get married, that the non-religious / non-Christians should have equal rights? This is a serious question, not a troll.
No, that is not “radically far left.”
In 2019, according to Pew Research, 44% of “Republicans and Republican leaners” supported same-sex marriage.
As for your question about equal rights for “non-religious / non-Christians”, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Can you elaborate?
> I ask it because the "conservative" party in the US explicitly is against such things in their platform documents.
I assume you’re referring to the Republican Party platform document? It’s quite large; can you identify the portions you’re specifically referring to?
P18 in the PDF (p11 as per the included numbering) condemns and calls for the reversal of both US vs Windsor & Obergefell v Hodges as well as calls for marriage to be between one man and one women only.
P 19/12 calls for special rights to worship "God" which is the Christian god in this context, it doesn't call for the same rights for other religious beliefs. It all calls out for special rights to display the Ten Commandments but not other religious artifacts / documents.
Polling doesn’t seem to suggest that the positions you’ve represented are held by moderates, so no, I wouldn’t label opposition to them as “radically far left”.
I’d suggest this recent piece as a very cogent breakdown of the lost ascendancy of the religious right in conservative politics:
How about letting men takeover woman's sports?
Forcing people to pretend that men are woman or one of 86 other things.
Reparations is now a thing?
Forcing people promote things they don't believe in.
Grooming 5 year olds with deep sexual content.
Schools taking away basic rights of parents.
Or the last few years where random government agencies can just make up whatever rules they want to fully control peoples lives.
Constantly attacking anyone that disagrees on any topic.
It’s telling that when the favored side has protests fraught with arson, destruction, violence, and even multiple deaths, it’s “mostly peaceful” and “the vast majority didn’t commit crimes”.
Whereas when a single act of violence occurs on the disfavored side, that’s used to paint the entire protest as violent, and indeed, the entire disfavored political demographic as irredeemable.
"Far left" in America is "center right" in a sane country.
Card-carrying communists sit in the parliaments of some Western democracies. Yet they somehow still get on as democracies, without many of the problems that plague the USA like wars of resource appropriation, rampant racism, and school shootings.
Since you are talking about western democracies, I assume you are referring to Europe? In which case, I'm sorry but what? Racism is as much of a problem in europe, if not more. The difference is that it's not really seen as an issue in Europe, and is swept under the rug.
The mainstream rhetoric around North Africans, Africans and Roma people in europe would be totally unacceptable in the US and make the American right look downright tolerant in comparison. Remember, "blood and soil" political parties such as the FN in france that literally advocated for kicking back north Africans and openly calls for discrimination against Muslims can get up to 40% of the vote. Prejudice against the Roma people is so insanely prevalent and violent too that it's just disturbing. So much so that it would be worthy of an entire thread on its own.
The difference is that American issues get worldwide coverage and tons of internal debates. That's not the case in europe, especially on the internet where there's a weird complex of inferiority that pushes people to reflexively downplay or deny local issues whenever they get brought up.
As for resource appropriation, I guess the Libyan war never happened? And maybe you should look up what Francafrique is. Neocolonialism is still a very European hobby.
Yes exactly. The US is also at the forefront of Western discussion about colonial repartitions (yes the British Crown still owns the biggest diamond in the world, the Kohinoor, from India) and discussions on sexual minorities.
The only context where GP's sentiment makes sense is a purely economic one. Left economic parties, like social democrats and communists, do a lot worse in the US than in Europe. But this Europe good, US bad meme by folks who identify as progressive is an incredibly shallow reading of politics and history.
Sorry to slow down the AMERICA BAD train, but this seems pretty naive. These are incredibly complex, long running issues, and comparing the US with much smaller and less diverse countries is pretty pointless.
Every country falls somewhere on the political spectrum, implying that they are all insane because the aren't Sweden or something is revealing some heavy bias.
Definitely not on social issues, the vast majority of Europe consider American left wing identity politics batshit insane just like your christian fundamentalists.
From economic side probably yes, but that's not straightforward either. Conservatives in Eastern Europe often hold power by generous social programs and benefits while liberals want to cut it down.
I’m a (non-American) outsider unfamiliar with either of those, but a quick reading leads me to believe that your description is so reductionist as to be intentionally misleading. There’s more nuance to it than “attempts to overturn civil rights”.
Just my opinion.
Also, it’s not clear from the links (or I missed it) but are you calling these “Democratic” initiatives because they were the official position of the Democratic Party or simply because they are occurred in mostly left leaning states?
> There’s more nuance to it than “attempts to overturn civil rights”.
These are repealing civil rights laws in order to recreate government bigotry. Factually, that is what they do.
You can feel that institutionalizing racism is a good idea — the “nuance” you say I’m omitting — but that doesn’t change that these are attempts to repeal civil rights laws which ban discrimination on the basis of protected class.
> are you calling these “Democratic” initiatives because they were the official position of the Democratic Party
Yes — re-creating institutionalized racism is part of the Democrat party platform, using euphemisms like “equity”.
Can I just say how absurd it would be to reduce music, art, cooking, literature, sexuality, religions, or fashion down to a simplified one-dimensional spectrum, so maybe we should think twice about doing this with politics, which is equally complex and nuanced as any of those other fields of human endeavor. To do so is to invite confusion, and synthetic arguments not about policy, but terminology.
no, a state where the police/government has a monopoly on violence is the dystopia. and we already live in it. giving citizens a way to speak up about potential abuses is in no way harmful
> a state where the police/government has a monopoly on violence is the dystopia
“State“ or “government“ is just whoever, taken together, has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a particular (usually geographically bounded) context.
I agree that the definition is problematic, though commonly accepted. The argument for goes back to Hobbes, and thus is in one sense foundational to western democracies.
But it runs into problems when you look at the other aspect of western democracies, which is that power resides in the people and is only conditional granted to authority figures (i.e the "king" rules by consent of the governed, not by divine right). Thus the people have the ultimate right to legitimate violence.
Also remembering that Hobbes was arguing for a king, not an elected representative...
While it resembles Hobbes description of the Leviathan, and is in some sense a product of it, the definition is more directly product of fairly modern political science seeking to systematically define it's scope of analysis and the things it is addressing in ways that don't apply only to a narrow cultural and historical context than it does to Hobbes’ normative arguments.
> Thus the people have the ultimate right to legitimate violence.
That it makes a genuinely democratic state also one in which the state or government is the people is more a feature than a bug of the definition. (Though whether actual modern Western regimes are genuinely democratic is a question for which analysis of particular states has frequently suggested a negative answer.)
That argument might come from Hobbes but it wasn't his definition of a government either. Absolute authority as he saw it was simply a requirement for effective government.
Boxers have something of a monopoly on legitimate violence in the context of a boxing ring, but that doesn't make them a government.
I'm currently working on implementing this same sort of platform at an FI. Most of these vendors have the same exact product, give or take a few key features (like visual programming with Dataiku, cloud/on-prem hosting, etc.).
The biggest thing that I've seen that is missing from almost all of them is a robust data ingestion and transformation engine. THAT'S what I'm interested in seeing.
Actually, I use both but my production models are in Clojure.
I often end up implementing minor things myself using lower level abstractions (e.g., Linear Regressions or PCA with whitening using Matrix libraries) and I check the results and/or try new things using scikit-learn.
So in general, I'd say I do the programming (outputing intermediate CSVs, tests, web service, thread handling, UI, ...) in Clojure(Script), and try other approaches (e.g., other models/parameters/...) in Python.
I'm quite happy with this pipeline but probably to some extent because I really love to understand how things work and nothing pushes you to learn as much as a missing function in your ML library :-)
I have previously built such a tool for retail sales forecasting (based on previous sales). The stack used R + Rshiny (web app). Method FB's `prophet` as it seemed faster and more accounting of holidays and other variations.
Author may want to implement a labelling method for users for a days to maybe train the discriminator a little bit better. Would be a cool human-in-the-loop exercise.
I was surprised to see that the easiest way to figure out if a face was real was by looking at the background. The face generator seems to be terrible at everything but faces. There are often strange visual artifacts and clipping issues, and the face generator never seems to put another person in the background of the picture.
I read this as "which France is real" and was slightly disappointed when I wasn't able to test my incomplete knowledge of European geography against a neural net.
ML generates some rather bad artifacts. Just look for those.
Even in this[1] difficult comparison you can see the non-human repeating skin patterns on the right and the awkward teeth contour. Also hair-on-skin often looks wet and with unnatural bends.
When comparing wrinkly people then it gets a little harder.
That one is super hard when looking only at the face.
Look at the clothes and necklace. The clothes are different on left and right sides of her face - the moment you see it you can't unsee it and it's obviously wrong.
After yesterday's 10 minutes of watching those fake faces this test was super simple for me, I did like 25 without mistakes which kinda shows the fake generation has a long way to know to fool good eyes.
You can pretty reliably guess correctly if you look for ghosting/blurring/chromatic aberration along sharp edges, e.g. around the eyes, on the chin, and in hair. ML hasn't quite mastered the fine details yet
