mAEStro-paNDa

> and he stopped it.

Assume what you want, but that claim is just false. He also defended it for years even after it was ruled unconstitutional.

Stop and frisk is only the tip of the iceberg, by the way.

Stop & frisk.

> What a fascinating choice between two New York billionaires.

Sounds more like a lack of choice.

> Are many looking to read what the Waltons say?

Have you ever been inside a Business College?

This is an important point. One could argue, and some have, that the center of US political discourse is actually firmly right of center, especially when compared to European nations for example.

It was rebranded "public relations", as noted in the referenced documentary. A central figure in the film is Edward Bernays, who was referred to as "the father of public relations".

It's insane to me how quick some folks are to dismiss what they deem "bullshit degrees".

It's our culture that has turned education into some kind of "investment" in future job prospects. To put it simply, education was never intended to be that way, nor should it. It's as if studying the arts is some kind of luxury for those who are already financially well-off.

Education is supposed to be about learning just for the sake of learning, which benefits all of us. If there is not a place for people from certain fields of study, that's a failure of our economy and priorities. Yet it seems that too many have just accepted the current reality as "just the way things are".

Can you provide examples?

> Myself and others will step up and defend that right to any who attempt to take it.

I want to hone in on this particular statement you made for some clarification. Are you referring to violence here? If the state or law enforcement are involved, what's the response?

Just trying to get an idea of what "defend that right" is supposed to mean here, since I hear it an awful lot in regards to this specific topic.

I don't fully agree with the comment you're replying to in that Manufacturing Consent has nothing to do with those movements.

However, I completely disagree with your statements that:

>The mechanism is exactly the same.

>People don’t just wake up and change their minds. These opinions are filtered down to them.

People do in fact change their minds, for various reasons. These mechanisms are not the same because of power. Large institutions in the media that have lots of reach and authority act as gatekeepers to what is or isn't discussed. This idea that movements are propelled from sympathizers who are popular or have authority just misses how movements form and grow to begin with.

Yes they start out small, but they aren't cleared by the media or any figure before they grow. Movements grow with pressure through direct action to a point where the media cannot ignore it anymore. It is a challenge for every movement that exists.

I'm talking about NAFTA and other trade deals like it. You referenced automation as taking jobs from Americans, when in reality trade deals arguably had much more of a role in doing that. I misread the second point, but I'm not sure what VAT has to do with anything here.

Why not ban all advertising? Isn't that the discussion we should be having?

If we're going to accept that advertising is an ever-existing industry in our lives, then shouldn't the conversation be not about what kinds of advertising we should ban, but media awareness in general?

Bans should be reserved for the most egregious, such as products that kill (tobacco) or explicit incitements to violence, for example.

> including automation taking away jobs from Americans

What about the explicit intentional policy?

> along with regulatory capture that has allow bad policy and ability to pay $0 in taxes like Amazon

Don't you mean the lack of?