I’ve never read the Parenti book. Thanks for the recommendation.

Pretty heartbreaking about Chomsky and Epstein. But, you’re right about Manufacturing Consent. Actually, Chomsky wasn’t much more than an editor. All of the key concepts and the methodology were Herman’s. Sure, the book wouldn’t have been so popular without Chomsky’s participation, but Herman could have written the book on his own, no question.

That’s cool then. Terrible haircut though.

Who’s the goober in the circle?

Those first few years, the Johnson years, were hopeful times. Circa 1870, things are clearly different. IIRC, middle of the book. It’s been awhile.

Like its title suggests, it delves into the ways in which popular consent is manufactured via the media (at the time - 1988 - mostly print, radio, and television). It’s thoroughly convincing and is that rare type of book that can discuss research without alienating casual readers. Highly recommended.

deleted by creator

It’s a doomsday cult.

I know it’s very, very cliche to mention Manufacturing Consent these days, but anyone who hasn’t read it really should get ahold of a copy and at least read the first 2 or 3 chapters.

Guy is a score-chaser. I wouldn’t be surprised if we got rid of unmanned drones so that he could get the high score for most casualties of war.

Seems to exist all over Lemmy. I’m new around here, migrated from Reddit just a week ago, but this kind of post would get downvoted into nothingness over there. Not for the message, obviously, but for the self-righteous indignation, the name calling, for just being one big spoiled brat temper tantrum. So far, it’s the only thing I miss.

https://shadowlibraries.github.io/ Anna’s Archive is your best bet.

Richardson has an awesome substack. Also, my favorite political commentator at the moment. She does daily news breakdowns on her Youtube.

You should read this: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674013667

And, also this: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674008199

And then look into how elections changed after The Panic of 1873, but also as a result of public outcry over a half-dozen or so scandals during Grant’s presidency (Credit Mobilier, The Whiskey Ring, The Gold Ring, to name a few). “Weary” is an understatement. In reality, a majority of people in the North were done with the whole thing by '75. They wanted to focus on problems at home and were tired of supporting the South.

And I’m not your buddy, pal.

First, fuckity fuck fuck fucking fucking fuck cool guys say fuck a lot fucker fuck.

Yes, absolutely.

I guess I’ll just take your word for it. I just don’t see how it would have been possible with almost the complete absence of a strong and expansive federal government combined with a general commitment on both sides to state’s rights, and the overall war-weariness of Northern voters.

… what the fuck do you think Reconstruction was?

A 10-year military enforcement that was flagging out there towards the end. You’d need to 20 - 30+ years minimum and the creation of a permanent federal admin presence to get to a point where the South’s new way of life could normalize. I could talk about this some more but apparently we just say “yes” around here. My fault for not realizing this was a meme community before I posted. For fun, look into what it took to “reconstruct” Germany and Japan post-WW2.

Yes, absolutely. Sharecropping is not actually great for the economy, and the South would remain economically marginal to the USA for decades afterwards.

No generational occupation, no long-lasting reform. As wasn’t discussed, because what good is conversation, the economics, politics, general belief in state’s rights, Northerner’s exhausted of war, the fact that the 15th Amendment was supported mainly as strategy for securing Republican political dominance in the South, that Northerners didn’t generally favor social integration, all meant what would have been nice to have happened just didn’t.

Yes. The only fucking reason Reconstruction ended in the first fucking place was a deal between the Democrats and Republicans over a disputed election.

This is you confusing what ought to be with what could have been. My question was very simple: given the the circumstances, what more could have be done? Certainly something, but enough to make modern American less of a “cesspool”. Hindsight is fucking 20 fucking fucker 20, fucker fucking fuck shit.

And you believe all of those things were not just possible but could have been sustained? Do you think they could have accomplished all of that without turning the Reconstruction into a generational occupation of the South? And you think it would have been economically viable and that the necessary long-term voter commitment would be there?

“America is a political cesspool because the Confederacy wasn’t punished properly.”

This point simply doesn’t make any sense. What is proper punishment? What punishment did the Union fail to enact that would have saved modern America?

Yes, the South’s, who had the greatest incentive to continue slavery. But, the economy was truly transcontinental. One economy. The North benefitted immensely from slavery.

Do you think the North would opt for a punishment that would amount to falling on their own sword? Could such a punishment be politically tenable?

what.

Human beings “other”. It’s key to understanding our species. So long as hardship can befall a people, those people will find a scapegoat. To this day, Blacks are only 14% of the population.

Capitilism + Humans = Political Cesspool

Punishing the Confederacy, even by wiping them off the face of the planet, would not have changed what America was to become, except by delaying global American hegemony.

Common misconception: that 19th century Union soldiers wore hot pants and crop tops with pink horsetails stuffed in their bussies and fists held high in solidarity with their black brothers and sisters.

In reality, they were all mostly racist, just the ones in the South moreso. Also, their entire economy was based on slave labor.

Capitalism guarantees hardship in boom and bust cycles. Humans are easily made to believe that the weak, outnumbered, and different are the enemy. That the same people who can’t muster up anything like a respectable rebellion are somehow a threat to the most powerful nation in the world.

The moment Africans were trafficked to the North American continent, they were guaranteed to be the forever enemy.

Almost certainly not. All the offshoots from Mozilla’s tech rely first and foremost on Mozilla’s production of the foundational software, which eats up a significant portion of their roughly $500M/yr operational costs. The heavy development cost of modern browsers is why everything is either Chromium or Gecko-based.

That said, Mozilla will be around as long as Chromium continues to dominate the market. Google literally funds Mozilla because it’s cheaper to prop up a competitor than it is to be sued by the government for monopolistic practices (check out 1998 decision against Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows).

I’m not sure Firefox belongs on this list. Google finances Mozilla’s operation to the tune of $420M a year. It’s not for-profit, but it’s also not the same as the others.

Congrats on friends👍🏻

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy? Man it must have changed a lot since I did it in the '00s.