Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

Looking for answers

⁨1775⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/c6da9596-8027-4127-9463-c22481eb5bf7.jpeg

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Peaceful protests were meant to be a compromise to warn that something worse was coming. Black Panthers. Weather Underground. IRA and Sinn Fein.

    Effective peaceful movements had potentially violent components. The more radical elements disappeared and peaceful protests became useless.

    Unions were a compromise. Before unions, you’d drag the factory owner into his front lawn and exact justice.

    source
    • random_character_a@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I think this guy hit the nail in the head.

      Peaceful protest only works if politicians and financial elite has fear and/or respect towards the commond man/woman. Too much elitisms strips away the respect, too many years of peaceful protests takes away the fear. Sometimes ivory towers need to come down, but violence has a tendency to spread and spiral out of control. It’s a balance trick.

      source
    • JayDee@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Nelson Mandela was released on the terms that he would preach peaceful protest, as the movement he had formerly been leading was a serious threat to the South African Government.

      Reverend Martin Luther King Jr was a proponent of peaceful protest, though it could be argued he was losing faith in it near the end when he was assassinated. right after his death, the Holy Week Uprisings occurred, which saw immediate action from the federal government to pass the Civil Rights Act.

      At the same time, acts of violence lie on a spectrum, and I think there is a fair amount of conversation to be had about what degree of violence and what type of violence are most effective.

      source
      • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Martin Luther King Jr was able to succeed with his peaceful protests because the threat of Malcolm X was looming directly over his shoulder. One requires the other. Either of them alone would not have made nearly the progress they did.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Yeah, Mandela failed, there is nothing like a peaceful protest in SA.

        source
    • Odd_so_Star_so_Odd@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yea only under the threat of violence has power ever changed hands.

      source
      • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Also: we’ve got where we are under threat of violence. Charlottesville and Jan 6 in the USA, the recent gammon riots in the UK, everything Putin does, etc, etc. The Authoritarians have weaponised both peace and violence against us.

        source
    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      MLK was only successful because Malcom X was the alternative, and the powers that be knew it.

      source
  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The people saying “Violence isn’t the answer” are the people who don’t want to see anything change

    source
    • LegoBrickOnFire@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Allow me an argument by Doctor Who: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJP9o4BEziI

      You can use violence, but when does it end, and what makes you think you are going to end up better off?

      source
      • shiftymccool@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You can use words, but when does it end, and what makes you think you are going to end up better off?

        source
      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Violence ends when non-violent reforms are able to succeed. The real value of violence is that it makes the non-violent option palatable to the political center.

        source
      • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The doctor was against violence as a principle but he famously uses tons of violence (I guess in the form of trickery) but as a last resort.

        House: “fear me, I’ve killed hundreds of time lords”

        The Doctor: “fear me, I’ve killed all of them”

        source
      • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The problem here is that the war already started but just one side is really fighting it.

        I would be in favour of not starting it too, but it’s too late now.

        source
  • PineRune@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    “Violence is not the answer” says country that won its place in the world through violence.

    source
    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The USA would still be a colony of Britain if it wasn’t for a violent revolution.

      source
      • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The USA would still be a native american land if millions of people had not been wiped out by Europeans

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        No it wouldn’t

        source
    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The historical record says that if violence isn’t working, you’re just not using enough of it.

      source
  • Tattorack@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There are PLENTY of examples where violence wasn’t the answer. Those moments made gradual changes that didn’t have epic struggles with heroic figureheads, so they’re boring, they’re not obvious, and nobody talks about them.

    There are a lot more examples in history where violence was used as a tool to oppress, threaten, conquer, destroy, or completely wipe out, by great and powerful entities.

    Violence is sometimes the answer, if used by cool heads on specific targets with plans on what to do afterwards.

    source
    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The problem with the fetishization of non-violence is that it ignores that most transformative non-violent social movements have occurred concurrently with violent co-movements. Ghandi preached non-violence, but at the same time, violent Hindu radicals were running around slitting the throats of every British official they could get their hands on. MLK preached non-violence, but the Black Panthers were waiting in the wings, offering a much more unpleasant option if MLK failed.

      Violent social movements have very real tangible value, but their value isn’t in the violence itself. We’re not going to change the health insurance system through pure violence, no matter how many CEOs lay dead on the streets of Manhattan.

      On the other hand, non-violent social movements rarely succeed either. Even the most modest, centrist, and conciliatory of reforms are derided as extreme or “Communist.” Look at Obamacare, a reform designed from the ground up to NOT disrupt the profits of the insurance or healthcare industries. This was a modest market-based reform that was originally a Republican reform plan. The right spent a decade going nuts calling it the second coming of Mao. And they still oppose it to this day. In the end it tinkered around the edges, but it was hardly transformative change.

      The real value of violence is that it makes modest peaceful reforms much more palatable. The civil rights amendments and acts passed in the 1960s and 1970s would have never passed if there were only peaceful movements behind them. They amended the damn constitution! That took people on both sides of the aisle saying, “damn, we really need to change some things. This is getting out of hand.”

      And that kind of broad bipartisan consensus that reform was needed was only possible because of the threat of violence. Violent radicals like the Black Panthers made MLK palatable to middle America. Without them, MLK would have just been another radical socialist to be demonized. And even then, they still killed him anyway.

      The real value of violent social movements is that they make non-violent social movements possible. In fact, without violence, non-violent social movements rarely succeed. You need BOTH violence and non-violence if you want to make substantial change to the system. The violence puts the fear of God into the placid middle classes and wealthy corporate interests. This allows the non-violent reformers to show up with a solution to the problem that allows these centrist factions to feel that they’re not giving in to the violent radicals. Violence and non-violence are two sides of the same coin. And they are both essential.

      source
      • rowanthorpe@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It seems the technique you’re describing is a kind of societal “good cop, bad cop”. Similar scenario to an interrogation too (trying to get information from someone who does not want to share the information) because in this case the challenge is “how to get people to share the capacity for self-determination, quality of living, and dignity when they clearly prefer to hoard it, even to the detriment of others”.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Thanks, that’s got me thinking

        source
      • 1985MustangCobra@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        apart of me still holds out that we don’t need this type of system to push progress, taking america for example, this will not go well and many lives will be lost as there will be “both sides” and they will stay divided. The propaganda machine from Eurasia as worked. There plans are moving quite well, and i for one, will not play into that hand.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • uis@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        “If you will not listen to us, you will have to talk with THEM”.

        source
    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Non-violence is often and most effectively a direct threat of imminent violence.

      Or as a promise for the cessation of ongoing violence.

      source
    • bluewing@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Violence is always a valid answer. It’s just not always the best answer. The problem with violence is it’s been proven time and time again to be impossible to control and hold to a limited use since there are no cool heads at that point. Nor do specific targets exist-- just collateral damage.

      And no successful revolutionary has ever had a sound plan for after the victory beyond “I want the power now.” And they can either hold the power or not. But the idea of “for the good of the people” gets put to the side pretty quickly.

      source
    • bigFab@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Source?

      source
      • Tattorack@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        History.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • uis@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      with plans on what to do afterwards.

      True. You always need a plan what to do after success.

      source
  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There are entire Game Theory textbooks dedicated to grappling with the question of when and how one engages in violence. Because broadly speaking, violence is bad. The destructive social forces inhibit socio-economic development, degrade global quality of life, propagate disease, and cause catastrophic shortfalls of critical goods and services.

    Whether you’re working at the micro-scale of domestic abuse or the macro-scale of the bombing of Hiroshima, you’re talking about a gross net negative for everyone involved.

    But if a detente is one-sided, or a violent actor is free to act uninhibited, there are huge immediate rewards for looting and pillaging your neighbors, pressing ganging people into forced labor, and seizing neighboring property at gunpoint.

    source
    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I really like your comment. Gave me lots to think about. I don’t have much to say in return, other than that, and that your comment is really well written. I don’t find many comments on here that are a pleasure to read; most long ones are incoherent rambling, or canned talking points.

      Thanks for providing something for my brain to chew on and making it palatable.

      source
    • OmegaLemmy@discuss.online ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Very wise, you should reincarnate as a 2nd century Chinese warlord

      source
      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        China’s a great example of the Peace Dividend in action. You get a generation or two of peace and the country explodes with riches - both physical infrastructure and flowering culture.

        Then warlords start poaching the wealth of the nation and the country plunges down into poverty, famine, and epidemic, immolating decades of social process.

        source
    • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The US is a successful country and has almost always been at war.

      Britain at its peak was holding 10s of countries at gunpoint.

      Violence works best if you are much much stronger than the other party.

      source
      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The US is a successful country and has almost always been at war.

        The areas of the US that are most successful are those most insulated from social conflict. Areas that are subjected to state violence through overpolicing or are left to flounder in the face of industrial abuse, mafia violence, or unchecked domestic violence do much worse. Comparing Ferguson, MO to neighboring St. Louis illustrates this dynamic. One neighborhood is alternately brutalized by the city police and left exposed to domestic crime, dragging its socio-economic state into the gutter. The other is judiciously policed and socially supported by state and private largess, resulting in a far healthier and happier population.

        Britain at its peak was holding 10s of countries at gunpoint.

        And those countries suffered immensely. Meanwhile, Britain itself endured pockets of chronic crime and substance abuse specifically in areas that hosted military bases and other enclaves. The country saw an explosion in wealth inequality during its economic peak. Victorian England was a hellhole for the Dickensian proletariat.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Image

    source
  • Rooty@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    “Violence is bad” statements are in the same vein as “stove is hot”. Both are told to children because they cannot properly gauge the consequeces of using it, but are naive and condescending when told to adults.

    source
    • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Violence is bad but sometimes it’s needed.

      source
      • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        A hot stove has it’s uses as well.

        source
  • chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    544-3783500888_1_1

    source
  • Irelephant@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    To quote the onion, violence is never the answer, if you ignore all of human history.

    source
  • gofsckyourself@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There’s a lot of evidence that says that non-violent resistance is more often more effective than violent-based resistance.

    Can’t grab the source info link at the moment, but this video talks about it.

    youtu.be/5Dk3hUNOMVk

    source
    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      non-violent resistance is more often effective

      It’s only ever effective when a credible violent alternative is present.

      No oppressed person in history has ever gotten their rights by appealing to the better nature of their oppressor.

      Civil rights weren’t won when black people asked politely and just moved everyone’s heats at how unjustly they were being treated, when MLK died, he had a 75% disapproval rating, but through repeated demonstrations of power and showing what would happen if their demands weren’t met.

      source
      • gofsckyourself@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You’re jumping the gun and assuming a lot.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Random, generalizing comment:

      The people saying “Violence isn’t the answer” are the people who don’t want to see anything change

      50 upvotes. Comment actually based on real data that happens to show that the original premise is actually wrong: 0 upvotes. Why is Lemmy exactly like Reddit? I thought people coming here were a bit more aware of ideologies etc.

      source
      • Lumisal@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The real data you like is arguing the Nazis were more effectively defeated through non violence.

        source
      • gofsckyourself@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        This whole UHC/Luigi thing has really outlined how dangerously toxic Lemmy is. I mean “dangerous” very literally, too. It should not incite the amount of vitriol I have received because I dared to say “I don’t like killing”.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • damnedfurry@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Lemmy is just slower Reddit. Plenty of ideologues here.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      A few questions for the study:

      1. What’s the data source? If they’re just doing news reports and traditional history that can hide a lot of failed non-violent protests. A non violent protest, especially one against the medias interests, is way less likely to show up in the historical record then a violent insurrection. Only the successful movements like the civil rights movement will get mentioned on the non-violent side whereas every insurrection or riot, successful or not, is captured in the historical record.

      2. What’s the breakdown by method? It seems they’re including strikes in this which has a very high success rate and high occurrence, so much so it could drown out all the failed protests.

      source
      • gofsckyourself@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The book’s methodologies: www.ericachenoweth.com/…/WCRW-Appendix.pdf

        The data set:
        dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=…

        source
    • Enkers@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      1900-2006? This past century has literally been humanity’s most transformative ever, and this chart is just glomming all the data together. We’d need to see trends of how these have changed over time to get a realistic picture.

      source
      • gofsckyourself@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Well, when you only look at that one image alone and not any of the rest of the information and studies that accompany it, I can see why you’d make that hasty judgement.

        Maybe go read more of the vast amounts of information available on it: www.nonviolent-conflict.org/…/civil-resistance/

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    A notable uptick in web queries for “guillotine for sale” is not a DDoS.

    source
    • crawancon@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      just a good ol fashioned foreshadowin’

      source
  • Etterra@discuss.online ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Anyone who believes that violence doesn’t solve anything has clearly never paid attention.

    source
  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Violence is not the answer.

    Violence is more of a question.

    source
    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      And the answer is YES! GET THINE AXES KITH AND KIN! WE GOT A DUMBASS TO GO FUCK UP!

      source
    • enbyecho@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      “Do you want to be next? DO YOU?”

      source
  • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Pacifism is only good for aggressors and cowards

    source
    • gofsckyourself@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Non-violence != Pacifism

      A person can be an advocate for non-violence and not be a pacifist. No need to conflate the two, particularly when people have so much hate and vitriol for any perceived pacifism.

      source
      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Arguably, accepting the necessity of occasional violent protest is more reasonable than giving up pacifism.

        source
  • rumba@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    1. Whenever violence is involved, either both sides are violent, or violence wins.

    2. When neither side is violent, violence is not the answer.

    3. Now both sides look at #1 and ponder if the other side is ready to be violent.

    source
    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
      [deleted]
      source
      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It’s murder for profit, don’t dilute the term genocide. The last thing we need is people calling everything genocide and making the literal genocide in Gaza seem more normal.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Donkter@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        As many people say, the horror of the Nazis wasn’t just that they killed so many people, but that they industrialized it, turned it into an inhuman factory process like they were mass-producing shoes.

        In a similar way we have modern corporations that have brought neo liberal styles to the idea of murder. Instead of the industrial style of the Nazis, this style serves to alienate the murder from the murderer, putting a price tag on deaths and profiting from the lives they’re destroying all veiled by the size of these companies and the corporate double-speak that places all the lives they have control over into their sterile profit-centered game they play.

        source
    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension

      a political policy wherein violent struggle is encouraged rather than suppressed. The purpose is to create a general feeling of insecurity in the population and make people seek security in a strong government.

      🤔

      source
  • DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The answer is violence, but to advocate for peace in principle.

    source
    • Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Peace and principle… or else

      source
  • uzay@infosec.pub ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The answer is obviously codifying the position of power that violence granted you in a set of laws, hoping they won’t be challenged by further violence

    source
  • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s a double edged sword, because people who you don’t agree with will resort to violence as well. Like the Taliban.

    source
  • BackBreaker909@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Everyone knows violence isn’t the answer…its the question. And the answer is yes!

    source
  • lugal@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Further reading: How Nonviolence Protects the State

    I haven’t read it yet but I read another book by that author

    source
  • 1985MustangCobra@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I thought we were supposed to learn from history and NOT repeat it.

    source
    • ignotum@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Learn from history and do it better this time

      source
      • 1985MustangCobra@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        yeah, and although sometimes violence is required sometimes, its best we avoid that.

        source
  • Hudomi@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Violence is not the answer. It is the question, and the answer is YES

    source
  • ynthrepic@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It really isn’t though. It’s always two steps forward three steps back. Anything good that arises out of the destruction, always comes at an immense cost, and usually corrupts the revolutionary leaders who made it happen.

    Is there any violent revolution in history for which genuine peace followed in the immediate aftermath?

    source
    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Is there any violent revolution in history for which genuine peace followed in the immediate aftermath?

      Most of them, depending on your definition of immediate.

      source
      • ynthrepic@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        A few weeks to months following the rebellion. Maybe a year at most.

        It’s different if the rebellion does not itself topple the structures of government. I’m talking about violent coups specifically I suppose, not a bit of violent protesting that motivates an existing government to act.

        source
    • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Maybe look into how we ended up with 8-hour workdays and weekends… Hint: it was not through peaceful, polite negotiations with the ruling class…

      source
      • ynthrepic@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Okay, but I’m talking about violent coups really. Not just not-so-peaceful protests.

        Even so, it seems violence didn’t help the Union movement all that much either. I’m no expert though of course.

        source
  • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    History nerd here, can confirm.

    source
  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Predictably, people are arguing if violence can be an answer. But the best rule of thumb is “speak softly, but carry a big stick”. If peaceful demonstration and diplomacy ran its course, then violence is the only path forward. I mean, the abolition of slavery in the United States could never be done by peaceful means (unlike what UK had done) so war was the only way.

    source
  • Im_old@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If brute force doesn’t work, you’re not doing it enough

    source
    • maniclucky@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Maxim 6: If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

      source
  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Violence leads to counter-violence.

    The only thing that will change something is to put meaning into the world.

    source
  • ivanafterall@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    My A Beka Book history book says God destined America to succeed, so I think you guys might be overreacting.

    source
  • LiamTheBox@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Oh yes

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution?wprov=sfl…

    source
  • Odd_so_Star_so_Odd@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    For sane news, that covers important domestic and international news on a daily basis, look at PBS Newshour on YouTube. Privately funded (I think mostly, maybe in full, by named donors). Sane. Journalistic. Thoughtful.

    Abandon the legacy billionaire media, but don’t abandon journalism.

    source
-> View More Comments