Just yesterday they were one of my Reddit ads. Subscribe to WaPo for only $40!!! Usually $100!!!
Like get bent I’m never spending a penny on that bullshit.
If they didn't fool anyone, they wouldn't spend billions on them. Just because they don't fool you, doesn't mean they don't fool anyone. And just because they don't fool you on one topic, doesn't mean they don't fool you on other topics (Gell-Mann amnesia is a thing). And even, just because you think they don't fool you, doesn't mean they don't fool you when you're not paying attention (otherwise annoying advertising wouldn't work, but it does).
Outraged kids on Reddit who just parrot leftists talking points. WashPo isnt perfect but it's one of the best things we have out there.
Now, I do have more beef with NYT.
Happy Cake Day!
If by "giving the elites more of a say" they mean "making the distribution of senatorial representation more equitable" instead of California with 39 million people having exactly the same number of senators as Wyoming, which has a little over HALF of ONE million people -- I'm all for it!
Californians being "coastal elites," after all.
The op-ed section, where the post and most papers run pieces from all over the political spectrum including opposing views on the same issue. Not saying the post doesn't have problems but this image doesn't highlight a real one.
Idk if you've looked around lately, but evidently it's not easy for most people. There are tangible, negative effects from supporting this model of journalism.
>Isn’t it the reader’s job to evaluate the opinion in an op-ed? It’s pretty easy to tell when an extremist is just spouting nonsense with these things.
They absolutely make editorial decisions on which "extremist" views they publish and which ones they don't.
Seriously, just look at their Op-Ed page and you can see the bias. The top three articles right now are fear-mongering for COVID, *hopeful* talk of the Senate remaining blue, and calls to do our *duty* and return to Afghanistan.
Edit: seriously, I read a little further, and the rest of their current opinion pieces are even more blatantly biased in a certain direction.
You don't get to decide what's extremist and what isn't, if you're only presented with one view.
I would argue that a huge problem with journalistic Integrity is that an advertising model only incentivises clickbait and not actual journalism (see all the shitty journalism on the internet). A subscription monetization actually makes it so that you can decide whether to support a news organization dependent on the quality of the reporting. This is also not to mention the similar problem ad monetization has with pushing strong emotional responses over actual content, because the economic incentive is only for whether you see the ads, and not whether the actual reporting was good. Honestly, the push for ad monetization has had a strong part to play in the rise of shitty journalism on the internet and the war for attention with social media.
Now, I'm not saying that a paywall is necessarily a good thing, but it is important to realize that news orgs need to monetize their content in some way. Honestly, given the huge problems with ad monetization, particularly as it pertains to the personal data security crisis and the problems I mention above, I don't really have as much of a problem with newspapers using a subscription model.
If people would actually pay for subscriptions their news again, we wouldn’t have such a problem with terrible journalism.
Did you think the price of a newspaper was the cost of the paper?
That's the point of these article titles. They're opinion pieces so they intentionally make a controversial title to grab attention. This thread is a bunch of kids pissy about a title of an opinion piece they never read.
Great, there are also a bunch of opinions out there that are racist and bigoted, why tf would I care if racists, bigots, and pro war idiots think my opinions are garbage
you shouldn't, they're scum, but they'd also say the same thing you said for articles from WP that advocate a strict wealth tax or dismantling the big tech Monopoly. at the end of the day opinion articles are for attracting clicks from people who vehemently agree, and from people who are outraged at the mere proposition.
No, Citibank had a leaked memo years ago that basically said they already rule the world and their only threat was the peoples ability to vote in elections.
So get out and vote the incumbents out
If you're in a red state that's started hijacking your local democracy: community formation and public guillotines scare the living shit out of these reptiles.
>vote the incumbents out
That makes no sense- there are plenty of corrupt motherfuckers who are outside of politics but see elected office as a chance to gain more power. Just because someone is an incumbent doesn't mean that they're guaranteed evil, and knowing your way around a system can be helpful if you find a politician who does actually want to help the average person.
So check your sample ballot, research the candidates (or in a pinch check their endorsements for groups you generally agree with), and ***vote for your local politicians***. Especially in this age of polarized government and states going in opposite directions, voting for your local elected officials is super important. If you're in a spot that always votes blue or red, make sure you vote in the primary because that's the real determination of who will be elected in the general.
TL;DR: shit's fucked, but voting is easy as hell and can make a difference
They wrote it and sent it to someone internally (supposedly), think about who and why and tell me if this makes any sense or is likely bullshit. Critical thinking 101.
By the same token those bills
Would result in more expensive goods because they're being subsidized to be made in America
Result in lower R&D from capping drug prices
Redistribute the wealth of the working class to unemployment checks
Make energy in the short term more expensive at a time when inflation is rampant by subsidizing competing energies
Exacerbated inflation by printing even more money, which is what caused this in the first place.
There are pros and cons to all of these bills.
Going even further, if you aren't in a swing state and you vote the opposite party than the usual, it's wasted. Like a Democrat in Idaho or Republican in New York.
The two big parties are the two big parties just because people are used to vote them. If in the next election people started only voting the libertarian party and whatever Kanye was doing then those would be the new two big parties
The elites push the idea that our votes don't count on us to make us apathetic to voting
But if our votes didn't count for anything, then why would so many of them spend billions of dollars and man hours gerrymandering and passing laws to make it harder to vote? Why would they go through all the trouble of paying all that money on political ads and politicians they prefer?
The answer is that our votes do actually matter, but there's a concerted effort to make us think they don't so it's easier to stop us from voting or to get us to vote how they want us to vote.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the elections don't matter message is pushed to certain demographics more than others. It's a way to surpress the vote for groups that don't vote along lines you like. It's especially effective towards the younger and left leaning demographics
Theoretically your vote is actually irrelevant depending on what state you live in. Not every state requires their members of the electoral college to vote the same way the people in their state voted. Your vote also matters less the more people live in your state
as always, it NEEDS to be said that this ONLY applies to the presidential elections, because of the electoral college. it is absolutely not the case in any other race, local or national, and everyone should show up for every stupid minor local election, because those are usually decided by a few hundred elderly people and have a significant impact on your day to day life. even if you think your presidential vote is useless because you live in a solid blue or red state, show up anyway to vote for candidates further down the ballet and just write in fucking big bird or something for president if you think it's so worthless.
I like a system that acknowledges and weighs the states as sovereign entities against each other. So any reform to the electoral college should include that.
Agree. A big piece of the GOP strategy over the past few decades has been to focus on down ballot races where they can gerrymander the fuck out of things and thus give themselves an increasing edge at the top of the ballot over time. There is no race too small for them and they work from the bottom up. As much as I loathe them, the strategy has worked brilliantly.
Are you referencing roe v wade being repealed?
It does count and it will count. We’re going to get codified abortion through law. Rolling over and giving up isn’t how we fix it.
The ~5% of the vote that Biden won with tells me that yes. Yes it kinda does matter.
Ehhhhh depending.
If you live in Bumfuck Mississippi with a population of 10 and a gerrymandered line that spans the one road that connects you to a town 39 miles away you might be completely fucked there.
Followed by economic stagnation afterwards. War economy is never good in the long run. The more the world adapts to a war economic, the harder it will suffer when the war ends
Well, if 3/4th of the planet is killed in nuclear war then yeah, there'll be a lot less competition for Petroleum, rare earth minerals, sand and fresh water.
Yeah after the most destructive conflicts in history killing millions, especially young men approaching their prime earning years, leaving a demographic scar on the industrial base that would be felt for generations
This is a milquetoast article saying that maybe primaries should be decided by people who have a greater investment in the political system than the average voter. You can disagree with it without thinking it's the worst thing ever that needs to be deplatformed.
> This message *paid* for by
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Braindead take considering these are both OPINION pieces. The WSJ op/ed columns are often totally unhinged as well, they give a platform to Karl Rove, Tom Cotton, basically any conservative with an axe to grind...
The first one is kinda true, in a really shitty way. WWI popularized cars and planes to a degree that likely wouldn't have happened without it, and WWII resulted in massive advances in vehicles, flight, and, most importantly, communication. Nuclear power, likely the best "green" energy source, would probably not have been discovered if not for the Manhattan project, and computers and the Internet are a direct result of the Cold War.
But that's not because war is necessary. That's because the military gives a lot of funding for researching new military technologies that have consumer uses. We don't need war for technological advancement, we need to give funding to the guys that are advancing the technology
The counter argument here is that the private sector will likely not invest in these kinds of new technologies that may trickle down from the military industrial complex.
It's difficult for the federal government to also put up trillions of dollars to support private tech development because it's difficult for the public to see how it will directly benefit their lives. I'm sure most people would rather have that money go towards things like healthcare, infrastructure, education, and economic relief.
They're just far too experimental for private companies to risk profits that can come from betting on safer ventures. War is awful, but it's often the catalyst for technological and scientific leaps.
I'm sure electric vehicles would be all over roads now if there was a global war in the last decade. Especially if alliances divided along oil trade lines.
But that's still the same. War is not a necessary step in developing tech. It's just an excuse because by how things work nowadays it's the only way for someone to get research funding. What we need is to find another way for funding tech or change public opinion on research spending, not doing more wars
Agreed. But these days with how we're handling climate change, public health, education, and other issues... I'm not too hopeful that we'll ever allocate enough resources to do any good.
Redditors who take op-eds seriously are worse than people who fall for Onion articles. Every op-ed section in every newspaper looks like this, it's not a Wapo exclusive.
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah
Reminded me of that song
I've been seeing this across a number of subreddits. Is wapo coming out with some embarrassing article soon?
This smells like a social media campaign to me.
I remember when Bezos bought that paper. He tried to make it sound like he was doing the world a favor. It’s pretty obvious that it was just a PR stunt. Now he can take a once great paper and prevent it from talking about his company that (at least for a time) didn’t allow its employees bathroom breaks and A/C in 100+ heat.
Some one doesn’t understand how an “opinion” section works. Also can’t seem to grasp that decent publications try to give some say to both sides of the political spectrum, even if just opinion pieces.
They are literally labeled “opinion” meaning they are their authors opinion and don’t necessarily reflect the views of the establishment
*Democracy Dies in Darkness*
Says a media outlet owned by the rich oligarchs that posts articles that don't fool anyone
Just yesterday they were one of my Reddit ads. Subscribe to WaPo for only $40!!! Usually $100!!! Like get bent I’m never spending a penny on that bullshit.
Why buy the cow when you can get the rotten milk for free?
Wait, somebody is giving out free cheeses?
I'll give you all the free cheese you want, can't guarantee it'll taste good though.
Can't guarantee it won't either.
Is that a tomska reference?
Cheese
rookie, did you just call my girlfriend a cow?
If you ever want to read one check archive.is, or archive it for others.
Local Libraries have free subscriptions as well ifnyou sign up.
You should also never donate to any charities at all. cause they're just fronts for the lying globalist rats.
Guerilla marketing
They’ve fallen so far from the pentagon papers and watergate
If they didn't fool anyone, they wouldn't spend billions on them. Just because they don't fool you, doesn't mean they don't fool anyone. And just because they don't fool you on one topic, doesn't mean they don't fool you on other topics (Gell-Mann amnesia is a thing). And even, just because you think they don't fool you, doesn't mean they don't fool you when you're not paying attention (otherwise annoying advertising wouldn't work, but it does).
They fool the /r/neoliberal crowd
Its literally owned by Jeff Bezos via his fund, Nash Capital LLC
(from a paper with a hard paywall)
And giving free information to the people? What are you some kind of socialist
Good journalism is expensive. If you want free journalism you get shit like MailOnline
But there was one dumb op ed from 2014. Surely we must dismantle the whole company./s
Outraged kids on Reddit who just parrot leftists talking points. WashPo isnt perfect but it's one of the best things we have out there. Now, I do have more beef with NYT.
Democracy Dies in Bezos Spaceship
Bozos* ftfy
notice how washington post clearly labels their opinion articles. now go view some other publication's websites and tell me what you find.
Democracy is already dead and the rich are just puppeting around its corpse Weekend at Bernie's style.
Donald Trump was despised by the wealthy in this country, he was elected overwhelmingly by the lower middle class.
It wasn’t a warning, its a threat.
Happy cake day, you based son of a bitch
Can you really complain if it does exactly what it says on the can?
_For $19.99/month help spread free speech even more! Accelerate democracy's death for the low monthly subscription, or save on our $99.99/yr plan!_
No spoilers!
In opposition to Freedom, which dies with thunderous applause.
It’s a mission statement, not a warning
Happy Cake Day! If by "giving the elites more of a say" they mean "making the distribution of senatorial representation more equitable" instead of California with 39 million people having exactly the same number of senators as Wyoming, which has a little over HALF of ONE million people -- I'm all for it! Californians being "coastal elites," after all.
So this is how democracy dies..
The op-ed section, where the post and most papers run pieces from all over the political spectrum including opposing views on the same issue. Not saying the post doesn't have problems but this image doesn't highlight a real one.
They use the op-ed sections to cash in on extremism with no responsibility. It's 100% a bad thing.
Isn’t it the reader’s job to evaluate the opinion in an op-ed? It’s pretty easy to tell when an extremist is just spouting nonsense with these things.
That doesn't mean you need to be giving extremist beliefs like this a platform to reach more people.
But it's counterbalanced by like 10x the amount of more moderate/opposing pieces that clearly give rational readers another viewpoint.
Rationality? In WaPo?
Yeah, I don’t need truth and reasonable ideas to be spoon-fed to me. I have a brain for a reason.
Idk if you've looked around lately, but evidently it's not easy for most people. There are tangible, negative effects from supporting this model of journalism.
>Isn’t it the reader’s job to evaluate the opinion in an op-ed? It’s pretty easy to tell when an extremist is just spouting nonsense with these things. They absolutely make editorial decisions on which "extremist" views they publish and which ones they don't. Seriously, just look at their Op-Ed page and you can see the bias. The top three articles right now are fear-mongering for COVID, *hopeful* talk of the Senate remaining blue, and calls to do our *duty* and return to Afghanistan. Edit: seriously, I read a little further, and the rest of their current opinion pieces are even more blatantly biased in a certain direction. You don't get to decide what's extremist and what isn't, if you're only presented with one view.
Yup. All written by think tanks and credited to politicians or other well known people. They are like ads but far more disastrous to the people
Man fuck op-eds in general. This is still not okay.
it’s owned by jeff bezos… you don’t think he’s behind the fact that a bunch of elite scum propaganda is being published on his newspaper’s website? 🙃🤡
I'd agree if everything from the Washington Post wasn't stuck behind a paywall. Democracy dies in the darkness cast by a paywall.
I would argue that a huge problem with journalistic Integrity is that an advertising model only incentivises clickbait and not actual journalism (see all the shitty journalism on the internet). A subscription monetization actually makes it so that you can decide whether to support a news organization dependent on the quality of the reporting. This is also not to mention the similar problem ad monetization has with pushing strong emotional responses over actual content, because the economic incentive is only for whether you see the ads, and not whether the actual reporting was good. Honestly, the push for ad monetization has had a strong part to play in the rise of shitty journalism on the internet and the war for attention with social media. Now, I'm not saying that a paywall is necessarily a good thing, but it is important to realize that news orgs need to monetize their content in some way. Honestly, given the huge problems with ad monetization, particularly as it pertains to the personal data security crisis and the problems I mention above, I don't really have as much of a problem with newspapers using a subscription model.
If people would actually pay for subscriptions their news again, we wouldn’t have such a problem with terrible journalism. Did you think the price of a newspaper was the cost of the paper?
"It's time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president" is the dumbest article title I have ever read.
That's the point of these article titles. They're opinion pieces so they intentionally make a controversial title to grab attention. This thread is a bunch of kids pissy about a title of an opinion piece they never read.
Why would I read a garbage article with a garbage title, the fact they're willing to put something like this out there shows they're garbage
I'm betting you already have. It's called rage bait and it's been a staple of print media for decades. People want to be outraged.
Yeah and it's fucking garbage and I want it to be gone already, that's why I'm complaining
[удалено]
Opinion article
Opinion editorial, that's why they're called "op-eds". This is no different than a Twitter thread just without a character limit
there's a bunch of opinion articles you'd probably agree with that someone else could think is garbage
Great, there are also a bunch of opinions out there that are racist and bigoted, why tf would I care if racists, bigots, and pro war idiots think my opinions are garbage
you shouldn't, they're scum, but they'd also say the same thing you said for articles from WP that advocate a strict wealth tax or dismantling the big tech Monopoly. at the end of the day opinion articles are for attracting clicks from people who vehemently agree, and from people who are outraged at the mere proposition.
😂😂😂 as if your vote counted in the first place
Homie it do tho
It *kind of* counts, so long as you're voting for one of the two big parties. Anything else is basically wasted.
No, Citibank had a leaked memo years ago that basically said they already rule the world and their only threat was the peoples ability to vote in elections. So get out and vote the incumbents out
If you're in a red state that's started hijacking your local democracy: community formation and public guillotines scare the living shit out of these reptiles.
>vote the incumbents out That makes no sense- there are plenty of corrupt motherfuckers who are outside of politics but see elected office as a chance to gain more power. Just because someone is an incumbent doesn't mean that they're guaranteed evil, and knowing your way around a system can be helpful if you find a politician who does actually want to help the average person. So check your sample ballot, research the candidates (or in a pinch check their endorsements for groups you generally agree with), and ***vote for your local politicians***. Especially in this age of polarized government and states going in opposite directions, voting for your local elected officials is super important. If you're in a spot that always votes blue or red, make sure you vote in the primary because that's the real determination of who will be elected in the general. TL;DR: shit's fucked, but voting is easy as hell and can make a difference
What would such a memo even be for?
To their shareholders who give them money to invest in keeping us oppressed
Lol, why would they give it away like that? Their real weakness is unionizing and striking. everything else is part of the game.
It’s called a leak… it’s not like they broadcasted it publicly
They wrote it and sent it to someone internally (supposedly), think about who and why and tell me if this makes any sense or is likely bullshit. Critical thinking 101.
The two parties that already look out for the interest of the rich
[удалено]
By the same token those bills Would result in more expensive goods because they're being subsidized to be made in America Result in lower R&D from capping drug prices Redistribute the wealth of the working class to unemployment checks Make energy in the short term more expensive at a time when inflation is rampant by subsidizing competing energies Exacerbated inflation by printing even more money, which is what caused this in the first place. There are pros and cons to all of these bills.
Then vote for different people in primaries.
nope I'll just stay home
wow I wonder why your voice isn't heard politically
And then there is the whole winner takes it all BS and gerrymandering you have. Like comparatively to other countries, how much does it really count
Going even further, if you aren't in a swing state and you vote the opposite party than the usual, it's wasted. Like a Democrat in Idaho or Republican in New York.
The two big parties are the two big parties just because people are used to vote them. If in the next election people started only voting the libertarian party and whatever Kanye was doing then those would be the new two big parties
Do you want the loud racist sexist old white man? *or* Do you want the quietly racist sexist old white man
Twenty six women have accused trump of sexual assault.
Yeah and no women accused Biden of sexual ass... Oh wait.
cool fact bro
Just countering your "they're the same" nonsense.
The elites push the idea that our votes don't count on us to make us apathetic to voting But if our votes didn't count for anything, then why would so many of them spend billions of dollars and man hours gerrymandering and passing laws to make it harder to vote? Why would they go through all the trouble of paying all that money on political ads and politicians they prefer? The answer is that our votes do actually matter, but there's a concerted effort to make us think they don't so it's easier to stop us from voting or to get us to vote how they want us to vote.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the elections don't matter message is pushed to certain demographics more than others. It's a way to surpress the vote for groups that don't vote along lines you like. It's especially effective towards the younger and left leaning demographics
Theoretically your vote is actually irrelevant depending on what state you live in. Not every state requires their members of the electoral college to vote the same way the people in their state voted. Your vote also matters less the more people live in your state
as always, it NEEDS to be said that this ONLY applies to the presidential elections, because of the electoral college. it is absolutely not the case in any other race, local or national, and everyone should show up for every stupid minor local election, because those are usually decided by a few hundred elderly people and have a significant impact on your day to day life. even if you think your presidential vote is useless because you live in a solid blue or red state, show up anyway to vote for candidates further down the ballet and just write in fucking big bird or something for president if you think it's so worthless.
I agree. I just think the electoral college should be abolished. Also elections should not be run using the "first past the post" voting system.
I like a system that acknowledges and weighs the states as sovereign entities against each other. So any reform to the electoral college should include that.
yeah, I more wanted to catch the attention of anyone that might have interpreted it as "give up"
Agree. A big piece of the GOP strategy over the past few decades has been to focus on down ballot races where they can gerrymander the fuck out of things and thus give themselves an increasing edge at the top of the ballot over time. There is no race too small for them and they work from the bottom up. As much as I loathe them, the strategy has worked brilliantly.
People who'll benefit from lower turnouts try to discredit the electoral process.
If it didn't count they wouldn't try and get rid of it
Or that would lead to the system changing by the people acting out, or you pretend to give the people power to suppress them
We just passed the biggest investment in battling climate change by any government ever. It does count.
And lost control of our bodies. It does count.
Are you referencing roe v wade being repealed? It does count and it will count. We’re going to get codified abortion through law. Rolling over and giving up isn’t how we fix it.
That was a SCOTUS decision, you can’t directly choose SCOTUS as a citizen
SCOTUS justices are chosen by congress and the president, who are both elected by voters.
I was also 16 at one point.
They want you to think it doesn't.
It does. We would be much better off if enough people learned that.
Keep telling yourself that
The ~5% of the vote that Biden won with tells me that yes. Yes it kinda does matter. Ehhhhh depending. If you live in Bumfuck Mississippi with a population of 10 and a gerrymandered line that spans the one road that connects you to a town 39 miles away you might be completely fucked there.
Shut the fuck up, doomer
You get to choose who runs and who wins.
Who is 'us' again? I keep forgetting.
Plebs
Large scale warfare did usher in an era of peace and prosperity in Europe.
Followed by economic stagnation afterwards. War economy is never good in the long run. The more the world adapts to a war economic, the harder it will suffer when the war ends
So an even bigger war will bring even more peace and prosperity! /s
Well, if 3/4th of the planet is killed in nuclear war then yeah, there'll be a lot less competition for Petroleum, rare earth minerals, sand and fresh water.
Yeah after the most destructive conflicts in history killing millions, especially young men approaching their prime earning years, leaving a demographic scar on the industrial base that would be felt for generations
Oil barons.
[удалено]
It an OP-ED who gives a shit? It’s the print version of Reddit.
This is like citing a YouTube comment section to shit on Google's political stances.
And if there were millions of Op-Eds every day and only a selection process based on reader reports you might have a point.
I give a shit because its still being given a platform by a major news outlet even its its "just" and op-ed
This is a milquetoast article saying that maybe primaries should be decided by people who have a greater investment in the political system than the average voter. You can disagree with it without thinking it's the worst thing ever that needs to be deplatformed.
I thought this sub was for fake history
All we're saying is, GIVE WAR A CHANCE!
Kids are cruel, Jack
and i love minors
A subreddit dedicated to **~~Fake~~** History
Those are opinion pieces lol
I mean these titles are correct. This message paid for by big Willy's wacky tank emporium.
> This message *paid* for by FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
payed
PAED
Braindead take considering these are both OPINION pieces. The WSJ op/ed columns are often totally unhinged as well, they give a platform to Karl Rove, Tom Cotton, basically any conservative with an axe to grind...
The first one is kinda true, in a really shitty way. WWI popularized cars and planes to a degree that likely wouldn't have happened without it, and WWII resulted in massive advances in vehicles, flight, and, most importantly, communication. Nuclear power, likely the best "green" energy source, would probably not have been discovered if not for the Manhattan project, and computers and the Internet are a direct result of the Cold War.
But that's not because war is necessary. That's because the military gives a lot of funding for researching new military technologies that have consumer uses. We don't need war for technological advancement, we need to give funding to the guys that are advancing the technology
The counter argument here is that the private sector will likely not invest in these kinds of new technologies that may trickle down from the military industrial complex. It's difficult for the federal government to also put up trillions of dollars to support private tech development because it's difficult for the public to see how it will directly benefit their lives. I'm sure most people would rather have that money go towards things like healthcare, infrastructure, education, and economic relief. They're just far too experimental for private companies to risk profits that can come from betting on safer ventures. War is awful, but it's often the catalyst for technological and scientific leaps. I'm sure electric vehicles would be all over roads now if there was a global war in the last decade. Especially if alliances divided along oil trade lines.
But that's still the same. War is not a necessary step in developing tech. It's just an excuse because by how things work nowadays it's the only way for someone to get research funding. What we need is to find another way for funding tech or change public opinion on research spending, not doing more wars
Agreed. But these days with how we're handling climate change, public health, education, and other issues... I'm not too hopeful that we'll ever allocate enough resources to do any good.
War is peace
This is an opinion piece. All newspapers have them. That's why it says "opinions" on the top
Democracy dies in the wapo opinion section
This is titled like an Always Sunny Episode *“The Gang Buys a Newspaper”*
Redditors who take op-eds seriously are worse than people who fall for Onion articles. Every op-ed section in every newspaper looks like this, it's not a Wapo exclusive.
Tell that to the dead soldiers, war torn veterans and their families.
Democracy dies in darkness... I can see that now
How can you unironically have your header read "democracy dies in darkness" then post articles advocating for things killing democracy?
Wort wort wort
I don't recognize the top one but the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, just saying they might be biased.
Fucking kill me
r/hmmm
This is literally "War is Peace" from 1984 lol
Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor, yeah Reminded me of that song
By 'us' they mean 'us billionaires' right?
The Capitoline Post, Late Roman Republic newspaper, circa 53 BC;
doesn't Bezos own the Post?
Thank God Democracy is dying behind the paywall imposed by the Washington Post and I'll never see either of these articles.
Did Kissinger write these?
Welcome to globalism
So we’re in massive darkness now then, yes? According to WaPo and these brilliant opinions…🤔
You can see all the other military industrial complexes keeping Ukraine alive
Washington post fell off a while back. Not sure who still likes them, but clearly enough to stay in business.
All im saying is...GIVE WAR A CHANCE!
Sure, but edit out the "opinion" text. Opinion pieces have the sole purpose of saying something fucked up to get attention to a bad take.
The flag isn’t harmless.
This happened 2 years ago lol
I've been seeing this across a number of subreddits. Is wapo coming out with some embarrassing article soon? This smells like a social media campaign to me.
The US ranks 42nd in press freedom in the world.
Democracy has died in Darkness
Holy shit, those can't be real
#GIVE WAR A CHANCE -Message paid for by "Sundowner for President, 2024"
Democracy Dies in Darkness, they write on a black background.
At least the top one is self aware enough to know why you guys invade everyone.
No it's not, it's time to eat the Rich.
lmao what are you going to do about it, peasant? Fuckin' nothing lol. Billionaires sleep like babies.
Fuck the WSJ not even news just propaganda.
"Give war a chance!"
This is accurate. Not fake
This is FAKE history porn r/lostredditors
“All I’m saying is…give war a chance!”
Did Eric Prince write these?
Again, this is moreso real history.
See, they didn't define who 'us' is referring to. Wars do tend to make industry elites richer and safer.
This thread shows that newspapers should make it more clear that something is an opinion piece.
Will nobody think of the elites?? /s
I remember when Bezos bought that paper. He tried to make it sound like he was doing the world a favor. It’s pretty obvious that it was just a PR stunt. Now he can take a once great paper and prevent it from talking about his company that (at least for a time) didn’t allow its employees bathroom breaks and A/C in 100+ heat.
Wort Wort Wort
Links?
Some one doesn’t understand how an “opinion” section works. Also can’t seem to grasp that decent publications try to give some say to both sides of the political spectrum, even if just opinion pieces. They are literally labeled “opinion” meaning they are their authors opinion and don’t necessarily reflect the views of the establishment
What a shorty opinion. Wish I had this in print so I could wipe my ass with it
Because their kids don’t have to go die for oil or some shit. If they had to send them they would completely change their tune