https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1314383851700006913unnamednewbie13 wrote:
lmao
what exactly is trump's problem with just declaiming against white supremacist vehicle slaughters and armed kidnappers?
this is sheerly odious.
what exactly is trump's problem with just declaiming against white supremacist vehicle slaughters and armed kidnappers?
this is sheerly odious.
Larssen wouldn't like this feed, it said 'yikes."
I think white people in America can be a little bit sensitive about being called racists. It's been especially drilled in late decades that it's practically a slur. The conservative brain has a hard time parsing the fact that you can be an impoverished white person down on your luck and still maybe (unintentionally) benefit from not being a black man with the extra burden that entails. Naturally this would extend to Trump and his base.
Giving people a scapegoat to outlet their frustrations into seems like an effective tactic.
I think white people in America can be a little bit sensitive about being called racists. It's been especially drilled in late decades that it's practically a slur. The conservative brain has a hard time parsing the fact that you can be an impoverished white person down on your luck and still maybe (unintentionally) benefit from not being a black man with the extra burden that entails. Naturally this would extend to Trump and his base.
Giving people a scapegoat to outlet their frustrations into seems like an effective tactic.
imagine if an islamic terror cell had been apprehended whilst making plans to abduct a senator or whatever.
imagine if that news had broken and the president said: 'yes, but the problem too is antifa, it's joe biden's people, it's the Left ... a lottt of problems'.
people would find it absolute fucking sheer insanity.
is the problem 'antifa'? has there been any major terror plots uncovered with revolutionary anarchists behind it?
imagine if that news had broken and the president said: 'yes, but the problem too is antifa, it's joe biden's people, it's the Left ... a lottt of problems'.
people would find it absolute fucking sheer insanity.
is the problem 'antifa'? has there been any major terror plots uncovered with revolutionary anarchists behind it?
People do think the current state of things is insane. In this hypothetical, Trump's people would still go along with him lumping Islamic terrorists in with a BLM marcher walking down the sidewalk for a few blocks with a sign. People are already convinced that it's a marxist revolution or something.
I think telling an impoverished white person down on his or her luck that he or she is still a beneficiary of white privilege is not something that will be received particularly well. It's probably also not very true, them being impoverished and all.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think white people in America can be a little bit sensitive about being called racists. It's been especially drilled in late decades that it's practically a slur. The conservative brain has a hard time parsing the fact that you can be an impoverished white person down on your luck and still maybe (unintentionally) benefit from not being a black man with the extra burden that entails. Naturally this would extend to Trump and his base.
But that is something entirely different from domestic white supremacist terror groups. That goes beyond notions of hidden privilege and casual racism into full blown ethnonationalism the likes of which would make dilbert jealous.
Last edited by Larssen (2020-10-09 11:43:32)
I thought you might point that out. No I agree, it's a hard sell, and a situation Republicans have capitalized on. I don't think Reagan ended the fairness doctrine to benefit progressives or because he trusted the media to present balanced opinions unregulated.
But it's still an issue. Even if a poor white man can't afford milk on the regular, if they don't look like some tweaker hobo people probably won't call the cops on some innocuous activity of theirs as often, or cross the street to avoid them, or otherwise assume the worst. Obviously oversimplified, but it's a generalized point I'm driving at.
Even if a white person isn't an active practicing racist, they do in some ways benefit from that national attitude. I don't think people should be made to feel guilty about something they have no control over, but they can at least be expected to acknowledge the problem, be able to discuss it without getting flustered, and help us all blunder on.
"Racism is over, nobody's racist anymore!" is not an argument so much as it is putting the issue on the back burner and sticking their head in the sand.
But it's still an issue. Even if a poor white man can't afford milk on the regular, if they don't look like some tweaker hobo people probably won't call the cops on some innocuous activity of theirs as often, or cross the street to avoid them, or otherwise assume the worst. Obviously oversimplified, but it's a generalized point I'm driving at.
Even if a white person isn't an active practicing racist, they do in some ways benefit from that national attitude. I don't think people should be made to feel guilty about something they have no control over, but they can at least be expected to acknowledge the problem, be able to discuss it without getting flustered, and help us all blunder on.
"Racism is over, nobody's racist anymore!" is not an argument so much as it is putting the issue on the back burner and sticking their head in the sand.
I think it would be more conducive to a healthy discussion if racism as a human trait is highlighted and discussed before throwing around charged terms like white privilege. I acknowledge that it does have a specific significance in the american context, but over time it seems to have become a rather toxic choice of words. In line with white guilt, white fragility etc. Over time an entire narrative has been constructed geared towards singling out and highlighting racist behaviour perpetrated by one subset of the population. While of course academically sensible considering the power balance/dynamics within US society, the effects of the legacy of slavery, I feel politically that narrative has become a source of resentment/anger on the right side in politics.
As for people behaving rationally and discussing these issues without getting flustered, people are much less inclined to do so if their own lives are a mess to begin with.
As for people behaving rationally and discussing these issues without getting flustered, people are much less inclined to do so if their own lives are a mess to begin with.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3984
It's possible that most poor whites like other poor races aren't too bright to begin with. I think even if we removed racism from their vote calculus they would still end up voting republican because Republicans are good at appealing to people who watch NFL and don't college
Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2020-10-09 12:15:02)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3984
NYT has a good article about talk radio since Newbie is showing his age and seems hung up on that.
radio was also instrumental in inculcating fascism in the 1930s and 40s, too. there must be something about this medium where having your dear leader's voice piped right into your kitchen or car bubble makes you feel all warm and appealed-to.
white privilege exists regardless of economic standing. hence why a bunch of blue-collar rednecks can storm capitol buildings but a group of economically equal black people would be shot the fuck down and throw in jail. same principle applies with applying for jobs, being given access to elite institutions, etc. it's not solely about wealth, although of course that is the biggest facilitator of 'opportunity'.Larssen wrote:
I think telling an impoverished white person down on his or her luck that he or she is still a beneficiary of white privilege is not something that will be received particularly well. It's probably also not very true, them being impoverished and all.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think white people in America can be a little bit sensitive about being called racists. It's been especially drilled in late decades that it's practically a slur. The conservative brain has a hard time parsing the fact that you can be an impoverished white person down on your luck and still maybe (unintentionally) benefit from not being a black man with the extra burden that entails. Naturally this would extend to Trump and his base.
But that is something entirely different from domestic white supremacist terror groups. That goes beyond notions of hidden privilege and casual racism into full blown ethnonationalism the likes of which would make dilbert jealous.
it's not the easiest thing to admit but, yes, even a white underclass in a society will have some intrinsic privileges that a minority or outsider group don't have. there are institutional biases and underlying assumptions beneath all of this -- even when said underclass are treated in contempt, too.
of course anyone who harangues innocent poor white folk and accuses them of 'white privilege' is probably a fucking idiot. they are the least of the minorities problems in most cases. unless, of course, they belong to extremist militias who want to kidnap governors.
look at this sheriff's comments here.
https://twitter.com/rossjonesWXYZ/statu … 5815004160
could you actually imagine BLM protestors being given the same benefits by the local sheriff if they wanted to kidnap someone for a political stunt?
Last edited by uziq (2020-10-09 12:36:11)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3984
I was sympathetic to the sheriff when he said "they deserve a fair hearing" because don't we all? But he really should have just cut the thing off there instead of quoting the law about citizen's arrest. Especially about their governor.uziq wrote:
white privilege exists regardless of economic standing. hence why a bunch of blue-collar rednecks can storm capitol buildings but a group of economically equal black people would be shot the fuck down and throw in jail. same principle applies with applying for jobs, being given access to elite institutions, etc. it's not solely about wealth, although of course that is the biggest facilitator of 'opportunity'.Larssen wrote:
I think telling an impoverished white person down on his or her luck that he or she is still a beneficiary of white privilege is not something that will be received particularly well. It's probably also not very true, them being impoverished and all.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think white people in America can be a little bit sensitive about being called racists. It's been especially drilled in late decades that it's practically a slur. The conservative brain has a hard time parsing the fact that you can be an impoverished white person down on your luck and still maybe (unintentionally) benefit from not being a black man with the extra burden that entails. Naturally this would extend to Trump and his base.
But that is something entirely different from domestic white supremacist terror groups. That goes beyond notions of hidden privilege and casual racism into full blown ethnonationalism the likes of which would make dilbert jealous.
it's not the easiest thing to admit but, yes, even a white underclass in a society will have some intrinsic privileges that a minority or outsider group don't have. there are institutional biases and underlying assumptions beneath all of this -- even when said underclass are treated in contempt, too.
of course anyone who harangues innocent poor white folk and accuses them of 'white privilege' is probably a fucking idiot. they are the least of the minorities problems in most cases. unless, of course, they belong to extremist militias who want to kidnap governors.
look at this sheriff's comments here.
https://twitter.com/rossjonesWXYZ/statu … 5815004160
@larssen White privilege, white guilt, etc. were helped to be made into bad words in part by conservative counter-spin as a part of the "liberals hate you" package. Of course screaming "racist" into the cardboard box where a white street person lives isn't going to do much good, and is probably aiming a bit off the mark.
@macbeth Remembering talk radio from the 90s (and observing its effects on older family during and since) makes you ancient, sure. I'm practically burnzz over here. Anyway, radio's just a part of the larger propaganda effort. But a part that shouldn't be disregarded. A lot of working class dads had the stuff playing in the background on their commute with their brain half-disengaged and I think open to suggestion. Those hosts were slick, and knew how to woo their audience. Same thing with running youtube garbage in the background on your work laptop. I bring it up not because I'm hung up about it but because I keep encountering people who wonder where the angry conservatives are coming from these days. It's a baseline from where I first began to notice the shift.
Hopefully at some point in the future we can stop seeing stories like this every other day, or several times per:
Jonathan Price offered handshake, asked officer if he was 'doing good,' affidavit shows
https://www.foxnews.com/us/jonathan-pri … -affidavit
@macbeth Remembering talk radio from the 90s (and observing its effects on older family during and since) makes you ancient, sure. I'm practically burnzz over here. Anyway, radio's just a part of the larger propaganda effort. But a part that shouldn't be disregarded. A lot of working class dads had the stuff playing in the background on their commute with their brain half-disengaged and I think open to suggestion. Those hosts were slick, and knew how to woo their audience. Same thing with running youtube garbage in the background on your work laptop. I bring it up not because I'm hung up about it but because I keep encountering people who wonder where the angry conservatives are coming from these days. It's a baseline from where I first began to notice the shift.
Hopefully at some point in the future we can stop seeing stories like this every other day, or several times per:
Jonathan Price offered handshake, asked officer if he was 'doing good,' affidavit shows
https://www.foxnews.com/us/jonathan-pri … -affidavit
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3984
Do you think there is any liberal parallel?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
@macbeth Remembering talk radio from the 90s (and observing its effects on older family during and since) makes you ancient, sure. I'm practically burnzz over here. Anyway, radio's just a part of the larger propaganda effort. But a part that shouldn't be disregarded. A lot of working class dads had the stuff playing in the background on their commute with their brain half-disengaged and I think open to suggestion. Those hosts were slick, and knew how to woo their audience. Same thing with running youtube garbage in the background on your work laptop. I bring it up not because I'm hung up about it but because I keep encountering people who wonder where the angry conservatives are coming from these days. It's a baseline from where I first began to notice the shift.
bill maher annoys me. does he count?
For radio? Social media, I guess. Internet chat rooms before myspace was even a thing. About as far from the right as I remember radio was KIRO out of Seattle, who I think were fairly centrist in between traffic reports. Maybe the Mexican station was calling for revolution though, I never did master Spanish.
Conservative radio took great pride in that they had no "liberal competition."
e: Has Bill Maher developed a cult personality? I don't watch much of him.
Conservative radio took great pride in that they had no "liberal competition."
e: Has Bill Maher developed a cult personality? I don't watch much of him.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3984
I meant do you think there is a social liberal media establishment on platforms other than radio that you just don't notice because it appeals to you? I am sympathetic to the idea that NYC/LA media groups do promote a certain worldview representative of the people who live in those areas.
Sure. Do you think disgruntled old white men often listen to liberal social media to form their opinions?
Anonymous racist uncle #3724: "Look at this TYT clip I found! These guys are so convincing!" Seems implausible.
Anonymous racist uncle #3724: "Look at this TYT clip I found! These guys are so convincing!" Seems implausible.
Point taken and I get it, but I feel that the angle more or less ignores social standings within a group, which is something that I've always found problematic. Perhaps it's more prevalent in Europe than the US, but in general people from rural poor towns with strange accents are by and large looked down upon by the real in-power group. I know several friends who consciously changed their accents & apperance during university attendance because they distinctly felt being treated or seen as dumber by crowd that grew up in political & economic hubs. Not to mention rural populations are structurally disadvantaged in many ways - lower income, worse schools, fewer social services, little intellectual or entrepeneurial activity to speak of etc. Comparable issues to any disadvantaged area.uziq wrote:
white privilege exists regardless of economic standing. hence why a bunch of blue-collar rednecks can storm capitol buildings but a group of economically equal black people would be shot the fuck down and throw in jail. same principle applies with applying for jobs, being given access to elite institutions, etc. it's not solely about wealth, although of course that is the biggest facilitator of 'opportunity'.Larssen wrote:
I think telling an impoverished white person down on his or her luck that he or she is still a beneficiary of white privilege is not something that will be received particularly well. It's probably also not very true, them being impoverished and all.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think white people in America can be a little bit sensitive about being called racists. It's been especially drilled in late decades that it's practically a slur. The conservative brain has a hard time parsing the fact that you can be an impoverished white person down on your luck and still maybe (unintentionally) benefit from not being a black man with the extra burden that entails. Naturally this would extend to Trump and his base.
But that is something entirely different from domestic white supremacist terror groups. That goes beyond notions of hidden privilege and casual racism into full blown ethnonationalism the likes of which would make dilbert jealous.
it's not the easiest thing to admit but, yes, even a white underclass in a society will have some intrinsic privileges that a minority or outsider group don't have. there are institutional biases and underlying assumptions beneath all of this -- even when said underclass are treated in contempt, too.
of course anyone who harangues innocent poor white folk and accuses them of 'white privilege' is probably a fucking idiot. they are the least of the minorities problems in most cases. unless, of course, they belong to extremist militias who want to kidnap governors.
look at this sheriff's comments here.
https://twitter.com/rossjonesWXYZ/statu … 5815004160
could you actually imagine BLM protestors being given the same benefits by the local sheriff if they wanted to kidnap someone for a political stunt?
Of course you can change an accent and not race, but it's a small example of how discrimination and exclusion are layered issues across multiple 'identifiers'. Someone can be white, yet be very far away from the white privilege usually associated with economic & political power or an easier life in general. I'm also of the opinion that as wealth inequality increases today, so will the dynamics of privilege/power. A wealthy immigrant family in an affluent part of the country will have plenty opportunity and probably be largely insulated from the structural racism issues others of 'their community' face on a daily basis. All the more so because the top layer of society seems far more concerned/progressive with diversity in its ranks.
ehm, well, you hit the nail on the head ... white people can 'code switch', change their accents, get elocution lessons, dress better, move to a better neighbourhood, take that promotion ... people cannot change race and will forever run up against structural racism and assumptions.
people being looked down upon for being provincial is certainly nothing new. hitler was laughed out of town by the german elite, particularly hindenburg, for being an austrian yokel with a bad accent and coarse mannerisms, some mere gefreiter from the army, etc. that's just straight-up snobbery and classism. yes, it affects people 'left behind' from the metropolitan elite: this has been a dynamic since the industrial revolution, pretty much.
but read back in the racism thread a few pages. there i linked widespread instances of black and asian QCs, that is, the top and most senior barristers in the entire UK legal system, who continually have been mistaken for criminals in court rooms. these people have attained top-tier educations, succeeded in every way, climbed the ranks of an extremely elitist and snobby profession; learned the accent, worn the clothes, dispensed with the duties ... and they are still frequently, every day, assumed to be the lowest-of-the-low, literally criminal, by members of the public.
continually fearing arrest, being stopped and searched, having to state your 'anglicised' or 'native-sounding' middle name on job applications instead of your given birth-name, etc. there is definitely white privilege. it's nice that you've shared your heartfelt story of growing up in the countryside and all, that's all very heartwrenching, but, as i said, you have to admit white privilege 'even if it's difficult' for you.
people being looked down upon for being provincial is certainly nothing new. hitler was laughed out of town by the german elite, particularly hindenburg, for being an austrian yokel with a bad accent and coarse mannerisms, some mere gefreiter from the army, etc. that's just straight-up snobbery and classism. yes, it affects people 'left behind' from the metropolitan elite: this has been a dynamic since the industrial revolution, pretty much.
but read back in the racism thread a few pages. there i linked widespread instances of black and asian QCs, that is, the top and most senior barristers in the entire UK legal system, who continually have been mistaken for criminals in court rooms. these people have attained top-tier educations, succeeded in every way, climbed the ranks of an extremely elitist and snobby profession; learned the accent, worn the clothes, dispensed with the duties ... and they are still frequently, every day, assumed to be the lowest-of-the-low, literally criminal, by members of the public.
continually fearing arrest, being stopped and searched, having to state your 'anglicised' or 'native-sounding' middle name on job applications instead of your given birth-name, etc. there is definitely white privilege. it's nice that you've shared your heartfelt story of growing up in the countryside and all, that's all very heartwrenching, but, as i said, you have to admit white privilege 'even if it's difficult' for you.
Last edited by uziq (2020-10-09 14:21:46)
Perhaps I should frame it differently. As you know I was the recipient of a rather snobby upbringing so 'sadly' I can't truly claim the rural identity despite living in a small town. Besides I wasn't attempting to talk about myself.
In every society across the planet there are various identifiers of exclusion and privilege. Religion, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, family, gender, sexuality, wealth, race, rural vs urban - you name it. Each of these markers can become a prominent facet in (social) conflict and often you'll find there's multiple. None of them however are governed by totally seperate social processes. There's no unique dynamics that necessitate developing a completely seperate analytical lens. In fact, to extend it to what I'm familiar with, if you study civil wars for example that would be rather counterproductive. Then we'd fall in the trap of speaking about 'ethnic conflict' and 'religious conflict' as totally seperate problems and accept at face value the BS historical grievances people conjure rather than simply analysing 'conflict' and the recurrent ways in which groups systematically exclude, alienate, stereotype, discriminate one another and ultimately start engaging in violence.
This is not to deny the existence or relevance of race, but to say that each of these facets and the experience of being discriminated because of them can be and often is very comparable. Yet we've put race/ethnicity on a pedestal above all, and choose to sweep aside the others. The fact that we explicitly speak so often about white privilege these days and keep insisting that if someone were of a minority background they'd have it worse, kinda trivialises and belittles hardships and discriminations many other people face in their daily lives because of their own perhaps unique identities.
As to your example I sympathise with the barristers that are misidentified as their clients by lowly court officers and receptionists, but isn't this really a minor inconvenience to them? Evidently they still attained top-tier educations and succeeded in every way gaining the acceptance of the real powers that be. I'll agree that it is a perception problem that ought to be rectified (and no doubt will be as the public becomes more accustomed to seeing wealthy/succesful immigrants), but I don't put it in the same ballpark as people who still live in the ghettoes and forgotten shitty small towns that will have no opportunities whatsoever and aren't motivated to go anywhere in life. As a comparison I'm sure the kids of those asian and black QCs will do just fine compared to those who grow up in the aformentioned places born to poor parents who didn't get top-tier education.
In every society across the planet there are various identifiers of exclusion and privilege. Religion, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, family, gender, sexuality, wealth, race, rural vs urban - you name it. Each of these markers can become a prominent facet in (social) conflict and often you'll find there's multiple. None of them however are governed by totally seperate social processes. There's no unique dynamics that necessitate developing a completely seperate analytical lens. In fact, to extend it to what I'm familiar with, if you study civil wars for example that would be rather counterproductive. Then we'd fall in the trap of speaking about 'ethnic conflict' and 'religious conflict' as totally seperate problems and accept at face value the BS historical grievances people conjure rather than simply analysing 'conflict' and the recurrent ways in which groups systematically exclude, alienate, stereotype, discriminate one another and ultimately start engaging in violence.
This is not to deny the existence or relevance of race, but to say that each of these facets and the experience of being discriminated because of them can be and often is very comparable. Yet we've put race/ethnicity on a pedestal above all, and choose to sweep aside the others. The fact that we explicitly speak so often about white privilege these days and keep insisting that if someone were of a minority background they'd have it worse, kinda trivialises and belittles hardships and discriminations many other people face in their daily lives because of their own perhaps unique identities.
As to your example I sympathise with the barristers that are misidentified as their clients by lowly court officers and receptionists, but isn't this really a minor inconvenience to them? Evidently they still attained top-tier educations and succeeded in every way gaining the acceptance of the real powers that be. I'll agree that it is a perception problem that ought to be rectified (and no doubt will be as the public becomes more accustomed to seeing wealthy/succesful immigrants), but I don't put it in the same ballpark as people who still live in the ghettoes and forgotten shitty small towns that will have no opportunities whatsoever and aren't motivated to go anywhere in life. As a comparison I'm sure the kids of those asian and black QCs will do just fine compared to those who grow up in the aformentioned places born to poor parents who didn't get top-tier education.
Last edited by Larssen (2020-10-09 15:09:29)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3984
It's a huge deal in the narrative of racism in our countries for two reasons.Larssen wrote:
As to your example I sympathise with the barristers that are misidentified as their clients by lowly court officers and receptionists, but isn't this really a minor inconvenience to them?
First those barristers are examples of minorities who did everything right when it comes to education and behavior. They obviously absorbed white cultural traits and behavior enough to do well in those spaces. So the fact that they don't receive recognition and cultural respect for their hard work is significant especially when people complain minorities being lazy/stupid/criminals etc. If the people who "played the game" correctly still aren't getting the respect they deserve then why should anyone else bother or want to work the system and play the game at all?
Secondly, well educated and hard-working minorities are the ones white college kids are most going to come into contact with. A well educated minority work colleague might be the only person of a certain race a lot of white and especially upper income ones even know. Seeing those people get mistreated is going to distort the perception of racial issues of whites to the same degree as a mugging might. So while it might be true that the ghetto is a hell hole best fixed by rockets filled with coronavirus, "one of the good ones" getting harassed at work isn't going to help towards convincing on the fence white people that "racism is over".
Points well argued and taken. I'd like state that approaching the topic through these sorts of anecdotes is much more useful than engaging in a terminology driven discussion that emphasises abstractions that can be interpreted as rather accusatory.
GH wrote:
“Think of white privilege as an unearned, almost randomly assigned head start,” explains Mikki Kendall, author of Hood Feminism. “It doesn't guarantee that you're going to win the race. It just means that you get to start a few feet further forward. White privilege doesn't mean you don't have any hurdles, it just means you have fewer of them.” 1
Unless they're old and gray and in the way, white people can generally expect to not be, for example, unexpectedly brutalized or murdered by police at a traffic stop. To say nothing if they're some beloved, pillar-of-the-community Übermensch city worker.MNT wrote:
White people in the United States have protection from racial stress. Engaging in conversations about racism may trigger a range of defensive actions, feelings, and behaviors, such as anger, fear, and silence.
Although white fragility is not racism, it may contribute to racism by dismissing white domination and racial conditioning. By developing racial stamina, white people can better address racism and strive to become anti-racist. 2
You'd think that a group of people so in love with things like social toughness, and picking yourself up by the bootstraps, and not "softening" language with euphemisms wouldn't be rendered into a blubbering state by being told bluntly that the there is still a race issue in the United States, and that recognizing that there is a problem is one of the steps to repairing it. It's mind-boggling to me the sheer number of hardened conservatives driven to apoplexy because they think they're being called names. Like, harden the *#& up.
Finding a different way to convey white fragility sounds like … political correctness … run amok …
article link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opin … mpism.htmlSuperJail Warden wrote:
NYT has a good article about talk radio since Newbie is showing his age and seems hung up on that.
book from article: The Radio Right: How a Band of Broadcasters Took on the Federal Government and Built the Modern Conservative Movement Hardcover – June 16, 2020
ShOwInG mY AgE
Also, the guy writes on a libertarian website. One of his bits:
American was founded upon the immodest proposition that the best response to bad speech is more speech. It is a fundamentally democratic proposition, one that is as appropriate for the digital age as it was for the 1780s.
https://www.libertarianism.org/building … e-internet
I'm not convinced that content regulation for balanced viewpoints is fundamentally a bad idea, but I don't know how exactly we could return to it. The cat's been out of the bag for a long time, and internet content is a prickly matter. Would a hypothetical fairness doctrine 2.0 have some sort of viewership threshhold where someone like a youtuber or an alt-right reddit troll is required to write or hire a writer for contrasting content, or would that be passed up to youtube and reddit?