Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (213938)	10/7/2021 3:12:56 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By CentralParkRanger Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 355557

It was the only relevant, objective information available. So, his comments quoted in the articles I read are, what, fake news? He clearly is disappointed that his work product has been corrupted by liberals, and he is not happy about that. Indeed. I easily picked up on that without viewing the video, as I mentioned. He came off as a Truther. Of course he's disappointed. That doesn't somehow make him objective. As to Brumer, I remember his posts from 20 years back, ten years back, and he was far too extreme RIGHT for me most of the time. I remember him, too, although not clearly differentiated from his cohort after all these years. I talked to a number of extreme right people back then, back when people from varying perspectives could have reasonable debates. On what basis do you think he has flipped? And I have not heard him sound other than what I recognize as conservative. There is a difference between conservative and Trumper, you know. A huge difference. I realize that differentiation and categorization are not your strong suits so I figured that worth mentioning. Anyone who could support what Biden is doing is off the rails leftist. There's support and then there's support. You know that old saw about the enemy of your enemy being your friend. That's support of a kind. I imagine that a lot of people support Biden that way. A lot of people supported Trump that way, too, at least at first. Until he sucked their guts out and turned them into sycophants, that is. Support is a nuanced thing.

To: i-node who wrote (213938)	10/7/2021 7:47:25 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 355557

I didn't flip. I am distressed that many, if not most conservatives once viewed Trump as beyond the pale. But one by one they've mostly flipped. I didn't. Look at Nikki Haley, Lindsey Graham as examples. They once had a healthy contempt for Trump but they lowered themselves and became Trump worshippers.

To: i-node who wrote (213938)	10/9/2021 4:25:27 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 355557

So, I finally got around to watching your video. I found it interesting and I'm glad I did. I came away with two basic messages, neither of which contrasted with my own assessment. You made it sound like he in I would be largely in disagreement. The first message was summarized by the host about half way through, just as I read it. Sanger is disappointed by how the project evolved. He wanted it to be a one-stop shop where one could go to find out about an issue, all the perspectives in one place so one could form his own conclusion. He annoyed me by saying that there is not just one version of the facts, which is not, by definition, true. What he meant, it seems, was that there is a variety of perspectives/opinions on many things. The host summed it up as two different products calling it the encyclopedia of fact vs the encyclopedia of opinion. I would not have framed it just that way but that was my take as well on what Sanger was saying--that he didn't want a definitive source but rather a more comprehensive and collaborative source from many angles. from which the reader could draw. And in doing so, Wiki's use of secondary sources. That Sanger would prefer the latter, however, doesn't invalidate the former. There are just two different ideas of what Wiki should be and it didn't end up going Sanger's way. Sanger consistently supported the legitimacy of Wiki as establishment soundness. He only took issue with its downplaying of non-establishment alternatives such as Eastern medicine and fundamentalist Christianity. The other message was about voices on social media as well as Wiki. He disagreed with the notion of the government stepping in to guarantee freedom of speech on private, corporate platforms because that's government censorship, which would be worse than what we have now. He thought that the solution would be found in greater decentralization.