StopTheTechies

Sure, but that doesn't mean I lost my brain in the progress. Most of the bad people in society certainly aren't criminals.

TBH, Condé Nast can only be blamed for a small part of Pitchfork's fall. They've always been wildly inconsistent in their ratings and beholden to a few darling artists, and none of the acquisitions have improved this. Over time they've lost mostly to influencers.

> They present how the world is improving in an irrefutable way but media and politicians would only focus on the negative

People are allowed to have their own opinions about what to value in the world. The idea of "irrefutable proof" the world has improved is completely asinine and counter productive... at best, and at worse just straight marketing for the ruling class.

This seems to conflate the idea of a nation (ie a people) with that of a country or state, which I find pretty odd. Many countries are composed of many constituent nations, many of which will cross state borders.

I mean if being politically energizing is all you care about, just court folks scared of immigration.

Of course if you actually want to not make the world worse you need to argue for a better world. Liberals seem literally and generally incapable of this basic task.

The oddness of referring to the "slave trade" is the height of the "Atlantic Slave Trade" far predated the peak of slavery in the US and contributed directly far more to the Caribbean and Brazil than to the rest of the Americas. US chattel slavery, particularly the form that exploded post cotton-gin, was a system of directly controlling the reproductive capacity of enslaved black and native Americans.

> Why in the world would they delete that data vs just putting it on mute/ignore/etc?

If you're serious it's because having a fig leaf is useful to reduce risk in controversial business practices, especially if the vast majority of people don't take advantage of it.

I don't believe any of this is true—it certainly smells a lot like Cold War propaganda from the 50s. I don't believe we currently have anywhere near the nukes produced to have this happen even if we tried to perfectly cover the surface of the earth with nuclear explosions. To block out the sun we'd need something more like the volcanic winter of 536, continually erupting.

Nuclear war is bad, but it's certainly not "end life on earth" bad, or even "end humanity" bad by itself, just "deeply fracture humanity and probably enter a new era of civilization" bad.

Ok—you seemed to have missed the main point. If people react to xyz, it doesn't matter if xyz is actually occurring. In fact the only thing that matters is peoples' reactions.

Yes, this is exactly what I mean—media distribution is inherently a losing war against the internet.

Do you have a peer-reviewed source? I should have specified before-hand. If we're referring to "science" in any meaningful sense, of course.